brain sizes: Einstein's and women's

Bob LeChevalier lojbab at lojban.org
Wed Nov 6 20:49:49 EST 2002


"John Knight" <jwknight at polbox.com> wrote:
>> Yes - bucketloads of evidence. Plants that change their chromosome
>> numbers by doubling up, and then cease to be interfertile with members
>> of what were their species are not uncommon. Nuclear and mitochondrial
>> DNA analysis can easily show the connectedness of related species.
>> Analysis of geographically isolated populations of insects and higher
>> animals (the Hawiian islands are an excellent natural laboratory) can
>> show extremely good evidence for evolution of species and adaptation to
>> different conditions.
>
>Which is NOT "evidence".  It is SPECULATION, piled high and deep, poured on
>all levels, but NONE of *this* is proof of "speciation" or even "evolution".

But it is.  You are just too ignorant to know better.

>> Mutations happen all the time. It is obvious to anyone with a biological
>> education that it is entirely possible for a single mutation to result
>> in huge push towards speciation (the reduction of fertility between
>> members of a species posessing the mutation, and those who do not). Once
>> there is relative isolation, there is more chance for subsequent changes
>> in one or other branch to enhance the separation to the point where true
>> speciation results.
>
>The PROBLEM, of course, is that you have not ONE single fossile, photograph,
>bone, picture, or any other solid visible evidence of ANYTHING that
>represents the cross between two different "species", which is REQUIRED for
>"speciation".  Do you?

Speciation has NOTHING to do with any "cross between two different
'species'".  Such a cross would have nothing to do with evolution, and
might prove that the two species are not really distinct.

That you think that speciation involves crossing two different species
shows that you do not understand what you are babbling about.  But
this is nothing new.

lojbab



More information about the Neur-sci mailing list