A snapshot of pupfish evolution in action

31

Chris Martin has bred more than 3,000 hybrid fish in his time as a graduate student in evolution and ecology at UC Davis, a pursuit that has helped him create one of the most comprehensive snapshots of natural selection in the wild and demonstrated a key prediction in evolutionary biology. “We can see a surprisingly complex snapshot of natural selection driving the evolution of new specialized species,” said Martin, who with Professor Peter Wainwright published a paper on the topic in the Jan. 11, 2013, issue of the journal Science.


The “adaptive landscape” is very important for evolutionary biology, but rarely measured, Martin said. He’s been fascinated with the concept since high school.

An adaptive landscape takes variable traits in an animal or plant, such as jaw size and shape, spreads them over a surface, and reveals peaks of success (what evolutionary scientists call fitness) where those traits become most effective, or adaptive.

It is a common and powerful idea that influences thinking about evolution. But while the concept is straightforward, it is much harder to map out such a landscape in the wild.

For example, about 50 species of pupfish are found across the Americas. The tiny fish, about an inch or so long, mostly eat algae on rocks and other detritus. Martin has been studying species found only in a few lakes on the island of San Salvador in the Bahamas, where some of the fish have evolved different-shaped jaws that allow them to feed on hard-shelled prey like snails or, in one case, to snatch scales off other fish.

In a paper published in 2011, Martin showed that these San Salvadoran fish are evolving at an explosively faster rate than other pupfish.

Written By: e! Science News
continue to source article at esciencenews.com

31 COMMENTS

  1. In reply to #3 by j61zhang:

    There are no speciation there.

    Surely, if any 2 groups are not interbreeding – whether it’s due to lifestyle or location – then speciation is in progress, even if the 2 groups are, for now, capable of interbreeding with fertile offspring?

    Oh my, there is now an Edit Function – hooray for convergent evolution…. 8-)

  2. In reply to #3 by j61zhang:

    There are no speciation there.

    Speciation is part of natural diversity leading to branching.
    Apart from some polyploids, it is a slow and progressive process, transitioning through varieties, and subspecies, along the path to speciation. Even then there can be hybridisation and back-crossing with low fertility rates!

    Human classification systems, creating distinct “boxes”, have never been a perfect match for the diversity of gene-pools, or the effects of geographical isolation of populations.

  3. In reply to #3 by j61zhang:

    There are no speciation there.

    Because the “adaptive landscape” has remained the same, and does not currently allow for deviation from feeding types for pupfish in this lake due to inter-species competition.

    From the article: “Most of the surviving fish were on an isolated peak adapted to a general style of feeding, with another peak representing fish adapted for eating hard-shelled prey. Competition between the fish had eliminated the fish whose jaws put them in the valleys between those peaks. The scale-eating fish did not survive. “

    Had Chris Martin (somewhat irresponsibly) removed all the generalized feeders from this lake, for example, and then introduced his hybrids, I’d hypothesize that you’d have at least one group of his hybrids evolving into the generalized feeder niche – perhaps even more than one if the adaptive landscape would have allowed this.

  4. In reply to #1 by crookedshoes:

    I love the idea of the “adaptive landscape” and plan to use this concept extensively when speaking TO students and while speaking AT creationists (there is a big difference!!!!)

    I call this speaking WITH vs. speaking AT. Speaking WITH – there is a sharing process of give and take.It bridges two people together. Speaking AT – the speaker separates themselves from person and may assume themselves to be superior or takes a step back from the person they are speaking to. A couple decades ago, I observed this in a women’s spiritual group. One of the four leaders was less liked than the other three. One was adored. I studied the two and noticed that the one who was loved was extremely skilled at pulling in the participants and making them feel appreciated and understood. The other woman told facts and expressed ideas. Since that time, I’d occasionally play an identification game. One time I shared this with a friend in a discussion group about (of all things) a Course of Miracles. I told her about my WITH/AT discovery and we spent the whole time whispering the type of conversation. “with” “at” “at “at” at” “with” Just know that AT conversations rarely if ever creates a climate of understanding and willingness for the person listening fully . TO is not much different either. The conversation can still be one-way. WITH leaves the person feeling understood and connected; they are receptive to what you are saying and will reflect back your generosity. Keep in mind, most conversations are AT conversations, and they can be a waste of time or are less effective at sticking.

  5. QKat,
    Very insightful!!! And my comment was meant to suggest that I’d be talking WITH (much better choice of words…thank you) certain people about this idea and meanwhile talking AT others (because of their lack of reception — like talking to a wal!). Anyway, your insight is appreciated.

  6. In reply to #4 by CdnMacAtheist:

    Surely, if any 2 groups are not interbreeding – whether it’s due to lifestyle or location – then speciation is in progress, even if the 2 groups are, for now, capable of interbreeding with fertile offspring?Oh my, there is now an Edit Function – hooray for convergent evolution…. 8-) “then speciation is in progress, even if the 2 groups are, for now,”

    This is your imagnation, not a fact. Simillarly, you can hold two groups of people, ones drink tea, the other drink coffee, in progress of speciation.

  7. In reply to #5 by Alan4discussion:

    Speciation is part of natural diversity leading to branching. Apart from some polyploids, it is a slow and progressive process, transitioning through varieties, and subspecies, along the path to speciation. <

    Since polyploids and sexual animals to parthogenesis are only known speciation, they are both instantaneous processes, why cannot speciation of other organism follow the similar mechanism?

  8. In reply to #5 by Alan4discussion:

    Human classification systems, creating distinct “boxes”, have never been a perfect match for the diversity of gene-pools, or the effects of geographical isolation of populations.

    Geographical isolation has evolved into sympatric, parapatric, allopatric, peripatric ones, which means it right in all possible cases, and not fasfisable. By the Popperian definition, the theory is a psuedoscience.

  9. In reply to #6 by Crimbly:

    Because the “adaptive landscape” has remained the same, and does not currently allow for deviation from feeding types for pupfish in this lake due to inter-species competition.From the article: “Most of the surviving fish were on an isolated peak adapted to a general style of feeding, with another peak representing fish adapted for eating hard-shelled prey. Competition between the fish had eliminated the fish whose jaws put them in the valleys between those peaks. The scale-eating fish did not survive. “.

    delete

  10. In reply to #12 by j61zhang:

    In reply to #6 by Crimbly:Because the “adaptive landscape” has remained the same, and does not currently allow for deviation from feeding types for pupfish in this lake due to inter-species competition.From the article: “Most of the surviving fish were on an isolated peak adapted to a general style of feeding, with another peak representing fish adapted for eating hard-shelled prey. Competition between the fish had eliminated the fish whose jaws put them in the valleys between those peaks. The scale-eating fish did not survive. “.

    You use double standard to deal with species. By the BSC, which is accepted by most biologists, a species are a group of individuals who interbreed with reproductive offspring.

    Are fishes eating hard-shelled the same species as ones eating scale at the beginning? If yes, how and when do fishes eating hard-shelled become a different species, even all scale-eating fish are removed? Who orders them to change? Do they change one by one or by a group? Give me a senerio to show it could happen?

  11. In reply to #11 by j61zhang:

    In reply to #5 by Alan4discussion:

    Human classification systems, creating distinct “boxes”, have never been a perfect match for the diversity of gene-pools, or the effects of geographical isolation of populations.

    Geographical isolation has evolved into sympatric, parapatric, allopatric, peripatric ones, which means it right in all possible cases, and not fasfisable.

    It simply means the the conventional definition of species is approximate, and does not fit some cases. There are no rigid lines between species, sub-species and varieties. Such classifications are often matter of opinion, which is why particular authors and studies are quoted in reference materials.

    By the Popperian definition, the theory is a psuedoscience.

    There is no “theory of species”! – Just an imprecise definition of observed population diversity and divergence. What does not exist cannot be falsified, because the argument is purely semantic and the classifications are human constructs.

    @12 – You use double standard to deal with species. By the BSC, which is accepted by most biologists, a species are a group of individuals who interbreed with reproductive offspring.

    This is a simplistic definition to which there are many exceptions, – particularly where geographical separation, or varying (low) levels of fertility are involved.

  12. In reply to #14 by Alan4discussion:

    In reply to #11 by j61zhang:

    In reply to #5 by Alan4discussion:

    It simply means the the conventional definition of species is approximate, and does not fit some cases. There are no rigid lines between species, sub-species and varieties. Such classifications are often matter of opinion, which is why particular authors and studies are quoted in reference materials.

    Why aren’t there rigid lines between species? Sub-species and varieties are same species with different morphologies, or at different locations. Dogs are most diverse animals, it ranges from 100 IB to 1 IB.
    But they are same species, as they can interbreed with offspring species.

    In my opinion, main-stream Darwinians fail to explain their theory, and play game by changing the definition of
    species.

    We can discuss mechanism of speciation under different definition of species, but you should first admit failure of Darwin’s or Neo-Darwin’s theory, then we can move forward to discuss something else.

  13. In reply to #14 by Alan4discussion:

    There is no “theory of species”! – Just an imprecise definition of observed population diversity and divergence. What does not exist cannot be falsified, because the argument is purely semantic and the classifications are human constructs.

    Geographical isolation is the theory of species, just like Darwin’s natural selection.
    Human constructing something aims to reflect what happen in the world.
    What you say here is as biological species or geographic isolation is human constructs, so it is not real.
    This is a part of my mean, geographic isolation is a human construct, it is totally wrong, and not real, I, based on the Popperian criteria, call it a pseudo-science.

  14. In reply to #16 by j61zhang:

    In reply to #14 by Alan4discussion:

    There is no “theory of species”! – Just an imprecise definition of observed population diversity and divergence. What does not exist cannot be falsified, because the argument is purely semantic and the classifications are human constructs.

    Geographical isolation is the theory of species, just like Darwin’s natural selection.

    No it isn’t! It is a factual observation! Lions and tigers are designated as separate species because they are clearly branching forms of cat evolution in separated geographical locations, even if they can breed to produce fertile offspring in captivity.

    What is in doubt is the construct of human classification. That is: if the degree of genetic separation justifies them being classed as “species”, “sub-species”, or “varieties”, of cat.

    Human constructing something aims to reflect what happen in the world.

    It certainly does, but is often imprecise. Particularly when describing and attempting to classify, a diverse gene-pool, with diversifying, branching, and recombining sub-groups within it.

    What you say here is as biological species or geographic isolation is human constructs, so it is not real.

    Not at all. You have it backwards. The biological diversity is real. The human attempts to put on a “one size fits all” label, is imprecise.
    (It’s a bit like other geographical separations: The Atlantic, Arctic, Antarctic, Indian and Pacific Oceans are real. Precise clear-cut boundaries between them are not! )

    This is a part of my mean, geographic isolation is a human construct, it is totally wrong, and not real,

    This is rubbish! Wild populations of lions and tigers are physically separated on different continents.

    Do tigers fight lions in the wild? – No because they do not inhabit the same continents and would never meet. – wiki.answers.com/Q/Do_tigers_fight_lions_in_the_wild

    ..

    I, based on the Popperian criteria, call it a pseudo-science.

    This shows you have no idea what you are talking about and are just making it up. I have already explained this about semantic definitions and different stages of speciation.

    Why aren’t there rigid lines between species? Sub-species and varieties are same species with different morphologies, or at different locations. Dogs are most diverse animals, it ranges from 100 IB to 1 IB. But they are same species, as they can interbreed with offspring species.

    Wolves can also breed with dogs, but are recognised as a genetically different species. (See footnote)

    There are only rigid lines between species, when the continuum of divergent evolution has gaps in it which have widened beyond a certain level of infertility, where the populations are geographically remote so are going their separate ways, or where physical differences make intermediate forms non-viable or very uncompetitive.

    Ring species are an example of speciation in action.

    Ring species are a midpoint in the process of speciation. It happens when a species has split into several populations, some of which cannot interbreed, but some of which can breed with two or more populations that cannot breed with each other. Or A can breed with B, B can breed with C, but A cannot breed with C. –
    rationalwiki.org/wiki/Ringspecies

    In the case of gulls they are spread right around the globe.

    rationalwiki.org/wiki/File:Ring_species_seagull
    ▬▬▬▬

    Footnote:

    ▬▬▬▬

    The subdivision of Canidae into “foxes” and “true dogs” may not be in accordance with the actual relations; also the taxonomic classification of several canines is disputed.

    ..

    Currently, the domestic dog is listed as a subspecies of Canis lupus, C. l. familiaris, and the dingo (also considered a domestic dog) as C. l. dingo, provisionally a separate subspecies from C. l. familiaris; the red wolf, eastern Canadian wolf, and Indian wolf are recognized as subspecies.[1] Many sources list the domestic dog as Canis familiaris, but others, including the Smithsonian Institution and the American Society of Mammalogists, more precisely list it as a subspecies of C. l. familiaris; the red wolf, eastern Canadian wolf, and Indian wolf may or may not be separate species; in the past, the dingo has been variously classified as Canis dingo, Canis familiaris dingo and Canis lupus familiaris dingo. – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canidae

    The different dogs are “real”. The human classifications of levels of speciation – (genera, species, sub-species, variety, breed) – vary with opinions and the diversity of collected data!

  15. In reply to #15 by j61zhang:

    In my opinion, main-stream Darwinians fail to explain their theory, and play game by changing the definition of species.

    There are textbooks and libraries explaining Darwinian evolution, for those who wish to be educated in biology or genetics.

    We can discuss mechanism of speciation under different definition of species, but you should first admit failure of Darwin’s or Neo-Darwin’s theory,

    The only failure, is the failure to understand by those who have failed to study.

    then we can move forward to discuss something else.

    Why would we discuss something else in a discussion of experiments in pupfish evolution?

  16. In reply to #9 by j61zhang:

    In reply to #4 by CdnMacAtheist:

    Surely, if any 2 groups are not interbreeding – whether it’s due to lifestyle or location – then speciation is in progress, even if the 2 groups are, for now, capable of interbreeding with fertile offspring?
    “then speciation is in progress, even if the 2 groups are, for now,”

    This is your imagination, not a fact. Similarly, you can hold two groups of people, ones drink tea, the other drink coffee, in progress of speciation.

    If two groups totally stop interbreeding, then all genetic drift, mutation & phenotype changes in the two groups accumulate, driving them on separated paths to become varieties, sub-species, and eventually different species.

    Speciation may take many millions of years. Examples are horses & donkeys, or lions & tigers, which can still make – mostly sterile – offspring.

    If my understanding of evolution by natural selection is just my imagination, give me some evidence of your assertion.

    Your example of the tea & coffee drinkers will lead to speciation, if those lifestyle habits completely prevent inter-breeding over the time needed to where the sub-species’ offspring are all sterile.

  17. In reply to #18 by Alan4discussion:

    There are textbooks and libraries explaining Darwinian evolution, for those who wish to be educated in biology or genetics.

    Textbook? written by you? or other Darwinian? I do not have time to waste?

    I happen to read some textbooks, they all discuss generation of anti- antibiotics bacteria and use it as example to support the Darwin’s theory.

    Please tell where new species is , where “struggle for existence” is?
    These great Darwinists have not basic idea of those concepts in biology.

    Why would we discuss something else in a discussion of experiments in pupfish evolution?

    The author or you even do not tell what kind definition of species used. I am not interested to play word game.

  18. In reply to #17 by Alan4discussion:

    There is no “theory of species”! – Just an imprecise definition of observed population diversity and divergence. What does not exist cannot be falsified, because the argument is purely semantic and the classifications are human constructs.

    Is Geographical isolation is a theory of speciation, is Darwin’s natural selection a theory of speciation?.

    No it isn’t! It is a factual observation! Lions and tigers are designated as separate species because they are clearly branching forms of cat evolution in separated geographical locations, even if they can breed to produce fertile offspring in captivity.

    Lions and tigers were in separated geographical locations when they were generated in the past.
    They can be generated at anywhere, which is nothing to do with the theory of geographical isolation.

    Mr. Bush was born in USA which is nothing to do with the Pacific Ocean or whether it is Texas or not.

  19. In reply to #19 by CdnMacAtheist:

    If two groups totally stop interbreeding, then all genetic drift, mutation &amp; phenotype changes in the two groups accumulate, driving them on separated paths to become varieties, sub-species, and eventually different species.

    What you said is not a fact, but your theory or imagination.

    Speciation may take many millions of years. Examples are horses &amp; donkeys, or lions &amp; tigers, which can still make – mostly sterile – offspring.

    No, polyploids only take one generation. There are over 500 species in Malawei Lake formed in less than 15,000 years. What you said is not correct. Do not tell me that they are exceptions. There are not cases to support the millions-year-evolution theory.

    Your example of the tea &amp; coffee drinkers will lead to speciation, if those lifestyle habits completely prevent inter-breeding over the time needed to where the sub-species’ offspring are all sterile.

    What you said above is a theory. What I need is a fact to prove it, you just repeat the same thing.

    You really can not differ a fact from a theory, You need a fact to prove the theory, not a dream to prove the theory.

  20. In reply to #17 by Alan4discussion:

    In reply to #16 by j61zhang:

    In reply to #14 by Alan4discussion:

    There is no “theory of species”! – Just an imprecise definition of observed population diversity and divergence. What does not exist cannot be falsified, because the argument is purely semantic and the classifications are human constructs.

    Geographical isolation is the theory of species, just like Darwin’s natural selection.

    No it isn’t! It is a factual observation! Lions and tigers are designated as separate species because they are clearly branching forms of cat evolution in separated geographical locations, even if they can breed to produce fertile offspring in captivity.

    What is in doubt is the construct of human classification. That is: if the degree of genetic separation justifies them being classed as “species”, “sub-species”, or “varieties”, of cat.

    Human constructing something aims to reflect what happen in the world.

    It certainly does, but is often imprecise. Particularly when describing and attempting to classify, a diverse gene-pool, with diversifying, branching, and recombining sub-groups within it.

    What you say here is as biological species or geographic isolation is human constructs, so it is not real.

    Not at all. You have it backwards. The biological diversity is real. The human attempts to put on a “one size fits all” label, is imprecise.

    Biological species concept does not apply to non-sexual organism, such as bacteria, virus, etc.
    Which does not mean it not apply to sexual organisms.

    This is a part of my mean, geographic isolation is a human construct, it is totally wrong, and not real,

    This is rubbish! Wild populations of lions and tigers are physically separated on different continents.

    Do tigers fight lions in the wild? – No because they do not inhabit the same continents and would never meet. – wiki.answers.com/Q/Dotigersfightlionsinthewild

    Why do tigers have to fight lions in the wild? There are many animals living in the same continuents, but not fight each other.

    When we discuss mechanism of species, we should have a common ground what species is. I stick to
    biological one, what is yours?
    When basketball is played, the rule is to use hands, not feet. Definition is like rule of the game.
    However, your guys do not compete in debate, instead of admitting your failure, but change the rule of game.
    Just like a basketball team who can not compete with other teams starts to use feet or mouth, or buttock
    or anything else, with an excuse of exception.

    All we see in the world is exception by some prominent Darwinian word (i.e. instantaneous speciation), nothing else.If you write something here, then claim that you are in process to get Noble prize, I would tell you it your imagination, not a fact.
    Likely, if you see two groups of people, one drinking tea, the other drinking coffee, you claim that they are in a process of speciation, I would also tell you it your imagination, not a fact. You should work hard to find out
    differences between a theory, or imagination and fact, use fact to support your theory or imagination, not use one imagination to support another one.

  21. In terms of ring species, there were at least Ring species19 ones in the past, the list drops to 2-3 now. The end of the ring might not mate. However, before they come together, they might develop many ways to communicate, ways to behavior, different physical characteristics who affect their mating. There are no interpreters between them if one group speaks Mongolia and another groups speaks Spanish.

    In the past herring gull was considered to be a famous ring species. On 2004 Liebera Knijff published a paper to say there are more genetic differences within each group than ones between them. The title is “The herring gull complex is not a ring species”

    Speciation is due to mutation, not behavior. There are wide ranges behaviors among sexual organisms, especially in mating preference. Blacks are much more likely to mate with the blacks, so are the whites, which does not mean that they are different species, or become different species.

  22. In reply to #20 by j61zhang:

    In reply to #18 by Alan4discussion:

    There are textbooks and libraries explaining Darwinian evolution, for those who wish to be educated in biology or genetics.

    Textbook? written by you? or other Darwinian? I do not have time to waste?

    It VERY OBVIOUS that you have not “WASTED” time studying real textbooks written by the expert university biologists and geneticists of the world. This is why you are trolling nonsense, and cannot even recognise when you are talking to real biologists!

    I happen to read some textbooks, they all discuss generation of anti- antibiotics bacteria and use it as example to support the Darwin’s theory.

    Evolution of antibiotic resistant bacteria has been mapped by geneticists. Both the causes of the selection process and the paths they have taken is well known.

    Please tell where new species is , where “struggle for existence” is?

    It is all around you in the living world where organisms, live, die, and evolve a little, every day!

    These great Darwinists have not basic idea of those concepts in biology.

    Ha! ha! ha! This sort of incompetent comment is comical – but sad!

    Why would we discuss something else in a discussion of experiments in pupfish evolution?

    The author or you even do not tell what kind definition of species used.

    Any one competent in biology, knows the botanical and zoological international rules of nomenclature”, which define which classification is being quoted. – wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorcitation

    A species, subspecies, or variety (as I have PREVIOUSLY POINTED OUT), is a group of varied, but closely genetically related individuals or populations, which are defined, and have a name label attached to them, by a specified human system of classification, – usually following the agreed international rules which avoid or reduce confusion as to what is being discussed.

    I am not interested to play word game.

    You have done nothing but contradict well evidenced and established science while playing at bandying words and demonstrating assertions of ignorance, since you started posting!

    This is a site for informed scientific rational discussion.

    If you have some information with supporting evidence, produce it!

  23. In reply to #24 by j61zhang:

    In terms of ring species, there were at least Ring species19 ones in the past, the list drops to 2-3 now.

    This is rubbish! There are thousands of ring and line species.

    Speciation is due to mutation, not behavior.

    Speciation is due to mutations AND SELECTION PRESSURE from the environment and behavioural differences. Once again you produce assertive ignorance of the basics of the subject.

  24. In reply to #22 by j61zhang:

    No, polyploids only take one generation. There are over 500 species in Malawei Lake formed in less than 15,000 years. What you said is not correct. Do not tell me that they are exceptions.

    Polyploids are exceptions because of the change in their chromosome numbers which is not characteristic of speciation in general. Once again this is VERY well known by biologists.

    There are not cases to support the millions-year-evolution theory.

    Oh! dear! Not more ignorant Young Earth Creationism which is incompetent at Astronomy, physics, and geology as well as Biology!

  25. In reply to #28 by Alan4discussion:

    In reply to #22 by j61zhang:

    There are not cases to support the millions-year-evolution theory.

    Oh! dear! Not more ignorant Young Earth Creationism which is incompetent at Astronomy, physics, and geology as well as Biology!

    Hi Alan. I’m not spending any more time on this one – too weird for me, and you’re far more qualified. Mac.

  26. In reply to #22 by j61zhang:

    In reply to #19 by CdnMacAtheist:

    If two groups totally stop interbreeding, then all genetic drift, mutation & phenotype changes in the two groups accumulate, driving them on separated paths to become varieties, sub-species, and eventually different species.

    What you said is not a fact, but your theory or imagination.

    Speciation may take many millions of years. Examples are horses & donkeys, or lions & tigers, which can still make – mostly sterile – offspring.

    No, polyploids only take one generation. There are over 500 species in Malawei Lake formed in less than 15,000 years. What you said is not correct. Do not tell me that they are exceptions. There are not cases to support the millions-year-evolution theory.

    I explained why polyploids are exceptionally fast speciation earlier.

    NEITHER OF THESE EXCEPTIONAL EXAMPLES OF RAPID SPECIATION, IN ANYWAY REFUTE THE MORE USUAL SLOWER TIME SCALES OR THE MORE EXTENSIVE GENETIC CHANGES IN SPECIES OVER MILLIONS OF YEARS.

    The Cichlid species sub-species and variations of Lake Malawi are a clear example of a special case of Darwinian evolution in a semi-isolated but extensive and varied habitat.
    It is explained by experts in detail here:-

    pnas.org/content – On the origin of Lake Malawi cichlid species: A population genetic analysis of divergence.

    Abstract

    The cichlid fishes of Lake Malawi are famously diverse. However, phylogenetic and population genetic studies of their history have been difficult because of the great amount of genetic variation that is shared between species. We apply a recently developed method for fitting the “isolation with migration” divergence model to a data set of specially designed compound loci to develop portraits of cichlid species divergence. Outgroup sequences from a cichlid from Lake Tanganyika permit model parameter estimates in units of years and effective population sizes.

    Estimated speciation times range from 1,000 to 17,000 years for species in the genus Tropheops.

    These exceptionally recent dates suggest that Malawi cichlids as a group experience
    ▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬
    a very active and dynamic diversification process.

    Divergence Model and Parameter Estimation. The data for six loci, for pairs of species and populations, were analyzed by using a computer program that estimates the posterior probability density for parameters in the “isolation with migration” (IM) model.

    Your problem is that you do not know what a scientific theory is! thefreedictionary.com/scientific+theory Your earlier comment indicated you did not know what falsifiable testing was either!

    You really can not differ a fact from a theory, You need a fact to prove the theory, not a dream to prove the theory.

    This is a comical psychological projection of your own approach.

    Your statements and contradictions are neither facts nor theories. They are just assertions illustrating ignorance of the science and published peer-reviewed studies.
    I realise that English does not seem to be your first language, but you must learn to read and understand scientific reports, if you are going to comment on scientific topics without making a fool of yourself!

  27. In reply to #29 by CdnMacAtheist:

    Hi Alan. I’m not spending any more time on this one – too weird for me, and you’re far more qualified.

    Mac.

    It’s just looks like a case of throwing in complex side-tracking assertions without understanding, and then contradicting the replies, in the hope that other posters will be “blinded by science”, or bogged down in lengthy off-topic explanations! That does not work when there are biologists participating.

    The assertions may well be coming from some IDiot list of “science cannot answer” topics on some cretinist website, or they could be from a student who has been seeking to learn, but has been picking up confused information by looking at Muppet sites.

Leave a Reply