On Mon, 08 Jan 1996 14:49:51 -0800 you wrote:
BH>This reminds me of a question I've thought of on occasion. There
>are no known instances of speciation occurring in selective breeding.
>But, suppose speciation did occur. How would we recognize it?
>Breeders normally work with small enough populations that it would be
>very unlikely that a sufficient number of individuals of the new
>species would exist that the breeder would have any chance of
>reproducing them. They would simply seem sterile to him, and he
>would write it off as a failure. So, how do we know speciation has
>never occurred in selective breeding?
AC>But that's the whole point! a new "species" would not survive
>precisely because by definition it cannot interbreed, and therefore
>will not leave progeny. This is why reproductive isolation and
>genetic drift have been invoked as important tools in evolution.
>Without them, there is no hope of producing a new species.
Thanks for this. New species of plants have been bred, but not
animals. One would have thought that if evolution were true
selective breeding should, over time, produce new species. Yet this
has not happened, even among fruitfies. Johnson says:
"What artificial selection actually shows is that there are definite
limits to the amount of variation that even the most highly skilled
breeders can achieve. Breeding of domestic animals has produced no
new species. Darwinists...point with pride to experiments with
laboratory fruitflies. These have not produced anything but
fruitflies, but they have produced changes in a multitude of
characteristics. Plant hybrids have been developed which can breed
with each other, but not with the parent species, and which therefore
meet the accepted standard for new species...Success in dividing a
fruitfly population into two or more separate populations that cannot
interbreed would not constitute evidence that a similar process could
in time produce a fruitfly from a bacterium. If breeders one day did
succeed in producing a group of dogs that can reproduce with each
other but not with other dogs, they would still have made only the
tiniest step towards proving Darwinism's important claims." (Johnson
P.E., "Darwin on Trial", InterVarsity Press: Downers Grove Ill.,
Second Edition, 1993, pp18-20).
Because of this lack of experimental proof, I still am not prepared
to concede that even micro-evolutionary speciation in animals can
occur by 100% Darwinian "blind watchmaker" mechanisms.
God bless.
Stephen
PS: More ellipses above for Thomas! :-)
----------------------------------------------------------------
| Stephen Jones ,--_|\ sjones@iinet.net.au |
| 3 Hawker Ave / Oz \ http://www.iinet.net.au/~sjones/ |
| Warwick 6024 ->*_,--\_/ phone +61 9 448 7439. (These are |
| Perth, Australia v my opinions, not my employer's) |
----------------------------------------------------------------