Another dilemma for evolution: isolated groups of freshwater species
I have been thinking about another non-ID dilemma for evolution: isolated groups of the same species of freshwater organisms -- e.g., species of freshwater fish and freshwater aquatic plants -- naturally occurring in different lakes, rivers, and streams that were never connected to each other. Is this an extreme example of convergent evolution?
Other non-ID criticisms of evolution may be found by clicking on the post label.
.
Other non-ID criticisms of evolution may be found by clicking on the post label.
.
Labels: Non-ID criticisms of evolution
posted by Larry Fafarman | 1/08/2008 12:25:00 AM
23 Comments:
The answer is easy. Transport by non-aquatic means. For example, some fish can survive long periods of time outside of water (e.g. lungfish). Other modes of transport include animals, such as birds and mammals, transporting live fish and plants (or roe and seed).
And that assumes that the assertion that the bodies of water were never connected, nor had intermediary connections. Example of intermediary connection: Pond A is connected to pond B by a stream. The stream is blocked, and pond B connects to pond C via a new stream. Pond B eventually dries up. At no point in time were pond A and pond C connected, yet the original aquatic population of pond A had an entirely aquatic mode of spreading to pond C.
This is really reaching. What proof do you have that these have always been isolated?
Is "dilemma" really the appropriate word here?
jah
Well, here's a "dilemma":
Scenario A: A space alien whose hobby is terrestrial biodiversity (and who also likes to fish) takes pity on some poor lake and stocks it with his favorite trout.
Scenario B: An eagle captures a pregnant female trout. On the way back to its nest, another eagle tries to steal the fish, which falls into the lake.
Which is more likely?
A flood from an incidence of irregular weather might temporarily connect what are usually isolated bodies of water, from a few hours to days, recede, and never happen again, but it is ample time for the aquatic inhabitants to become dispersed to new locations.
Another possibility is the phenomenon of raining animals, primarily consisting of fish and frogs. And yes, this actually does happen.
>>>>> Another possibility is the phenomenon of raining animals, primarily consisting of fish and frogs. <<<<<<
So you are saying that freshwater organisms are scooped up by tornadoes and deposited elsewhere? That is the only reasonable explanation that I have seen here so far. Still, though, there are places where tornadoes are rare. It is hard to believe that the explanations given for weaknesses in evolution theory could account for all situations. Anyway, I think that freshwater organisms, in comparison to other organisms, tend to occur in smaller groups that are relatively isolated from each other, and it seems that this should cause the groups of freshwater organisms to drift apart genetically, but this has apparently not occurred to a very great extent.
Also, the important thing to me is that Darwinism not be taught dogmatically -- students should be encouraged to question it.
Unfortunately for Larry's preconceptions, all of the above (substituting human for space alien) have been observed. What Larry thinks is unreasonable is, as usual, completely unrelated to the reality of the situation.
>>>Anyway, I think that freshwater organisms, in comparison to other organisms, tend to occur in smaller groups that are relatively isolated from each other, and it seems that this should cause the groups of freshwater organisms to drift apart genetically, but this has apparently not occurred to a very great extent.<<<
"think" "seems" "apparently"
All indications that Larry is just pulling "facts" out of thin air. On geological (and thus genetic) timescales, waterways are very unstable. Freshwater species are not as isolated as Larry would like to pretend. And contrary to Larry's belief, freshwater species do tend to have a high degree of genetic diversity between populations. Genetic diversity does not always equate to phenotypic diversity.
> All indications that Larry is just pulling "facts" out of thin air. <
What's new? Larry invents facts, misunderstands his own references, repeats the same discredited arguments, and pretends that the arguments against his position haven't been made.
W. Kevin Vicklund said...
>>>>>> Unfortunately for Larry's preconceptions, all of the above (substituting human for space alien) have been observed. <<<<<<
Wrong. For example, you said,
some fish can survive long periods of time outside of water (e.g. lungfish).
So a species of fish would have to evolve into a lungfish, then evolve back to the original species.
A group of fish species called snakeheads have shown limited ability to travel on land, but it is just for short distances.
Another commenter said,
>>>>> An eagle captures a pregnant female trout. On the way back to its nest, another eagle tries to steal the fish, which falls into the lake. <<<<<<
It is likely to be the same lake or a nearby lake. The possibility of it falling into a lake a great distance away is nil or small.
Another commenter said,
>>>>>> A flood from an incidence of irregular weather might temporarily connect what are usually isolated bodies of water, from a few hours to days, recede, and never happen again, but it is ample time for the aquatic inhabitants to become dispersed to new locations. <<<<<<
Some bodies of water in the mountains would not be affected by flooding.
Some of these scenarios might be correct explanations for a few occurrences of dispersal of freshwater species, but it is hard to believe that they are explanations for all such occurrences.
>>>>> "think" "seems" "apparently" <<<<<<
Well, I am not sure about my statements, so I am expressing uncertainty. There is nothing wrong with that.
Voice in the Urbanness drivels,
>>>>>>Larry invents facts, misunderstands his own references, repeats the same discredited arguments, and pretends that the arguments against his position haven't been made. <<<<<<<
You dunghill, you can't even wait for me to answer before cluttering up my blog with your boilerplate insults. And my position here is new, so how could arguments against it have already been made? And where have I "invented" facts and "misunderstood" my references?
> So a species of fish would have to evolve into a lungfish, then evolve back to the original species. <
That's not what he said, dunghill. You have just given a perfect example of your misinterpretations.
>>>>>>That's not what he said, dunghill. You have just given a perfect example of your misinterpretations. <<<<<<
So what do you think he said, you stupid fathead? You are always telling me that my interpretations are wrong without telling what you think is the correct interpretation.
< And where have I "invented" facts and "misunderstood" my references? >
BTW, what were your references?
Aside from all the theoretics on what could and could not have happened, do you have any articles or documents on specific instances of this phenomenon occurring Larry, or is just another hypothetical argument?
Anonymous said...
>>>>>> BTW, what were your references? <<<<<<
I didn't have any -- it was just something that struck me out of blue.
>>>>> Aside from all the theoretics on what could and could not have happened, do you have any articles or documents on specific instances of this phenomenon occurring Larry, or is just another hypothetical argument? <<<<<<
Just google "raining animals," "raining fish and frogs," "walking fish," those sorts of things.
As usual, Larry answers a different question than the one being asked. To state it specifically:
Do you have any evidence that the dilemma you invented actually exists? That is, do you have any evidence that there are "isolated groups of the same species of freshwater organisms ... naturally occurring in different lakes, rivers, and streams that were never connected to each other[?]"
>>>Wrong. For example, you said,
some fish can survive long periods of time outside of water (e.g. lungfish).
So a species of fish would have to evolve into a lungfish, then evolve back to the original species.
A group of fish species called snakeheads have shown limited ability to travel on land, but it is just for short distances.<<<
First you say I'm wrong, then provide an example of what I was talking about. I did not claim that they would have to evolve into lungfish and back again. I claimed that there were some that had the capability of living out of water for extended periods of time. One such example is the lungfish. Another such example is the snakehead - in fact, that was the first example I thought of, but wasn't sure other people would get the reference. I suggest you review what the meaning of "wrong" is - you are constantly misusing the word.
>>>>> As usual, Larry answers a different question than the one being asked. <<<<<<
The question was not specific, so I thought that it referred to the most recent topics of discussion.
>>>>>> do you have any evidence that there are "isolated groups of the same species of freshwater organisms ... naturally occurring in different lakes, rivers, and streams that were never connected to each other[?]" <<<<<<
I do know that there are freshwater species that naturally occur over wide ranges of isolated bodies of water, so I was wondering how the species got to those different locations.
If no one asked the question before, I am not likely to find a discussion about it.
>>>>> I did not claim that they would have to evolve into lungfish and back again. I claimed that there were some that had the capability of living out of water for extended periods of time. <<<<<<
But what about all the species of fish that don't have this capability? And the ability to travel over land is limited even in fish that have the capability to survive on land.
Also, what about aquatic plants? How do they travel?
< Also, what about aquatic plants? How do they travel? >
They hitch a ride with the little green men who publish the L.A. Times (which explains why they're green).
Just because they are considered isolated does not mean they were never connected. Ever heard of the term waterways? Bodies of water are rarely completely isolated for more than a few centuries. You are going to need to show true isolation for extended periods of time (ie, tens of thousands of years) for your question to truly pose a dilemma.
>>>>>>Bodies of water are rarely completely isolated for more than a few centuries. <<<<<<
Certainly there must be bodies of water that have been isolated for longer than that. And the ranges of individual freshwater species probably include bodies of water that have been isolated from each other for longer than that. Anyway, it is just something to think about.
You have posted that this is a dilemma, but how is some hypothetical idea a dilemma for science. If this was not hypothetical but actual, and there was evidence that the two groups had always been isolated and the two bodies of water could never have been connected, and that the life form in question could not have been transported, then it would be a dilemma.
Right now it is just, to be generous, a very good point for “ID scientists” to use as a start for research. They should be out there seeking for these life forms that are of the same species but have always been isolated from each other. Its not a dilemma until it is found in reality. But congrads on finding a new way of disproving evolutionary theory, best of luck with the research!
This very question is one that I have
The explanations of "glaciers", "tornadoes", and "raining animals" (Huh???? In all my life, I can't recall one time that I have seen an umbrella or car windshield pelted with a fish) are weak at best. And notice how they are always peppered with qualifiers like "might", "may be", "perhaps", "possibly", and the like. Sorry Darwinists, you need to come up with better answers than THAT.
Let's take, for instance, the Brown Trout. The Brown Trout is normally considered to be native to Europe and Asia, but it is found in landlocked populations far from the oceans, for example in Greece and Estonia. Brown trout has also been caught in the Manistee river system in the State of Michigan.
Please explain to us how tornadoes carried Brown Trout from Europe to Michigan, or vice versa. While you're at it, also please give a synopsis on the history of tornadoes in Greece and England.
Post a Comment
<< Home