Researcher: “They mix their machinery to survive or do metabolism, and that’s kind of extraordinary, because we always assumed that each and every organism has its own independent identity and machinery,” said Papoutsakis.
Or so they say. Working on a story about unusual facts about cats, I (O’Leary for News) came across an interesting piece of information from a NOVA documentary: CARLOS DRISCOLL: All domestic cats, up until the last 20 years, have been purely Felis silvesteris. Humans have, very interestingly, now hybridized the domestic cat with a Read More…
At Phys.org: Other hybrids were found between species with over 12 percent pairwise distance in mitochondrial DNA. Pairwise distance is a measurement of differences in pairs of DNA sequences. “This genetic separation is quite astounding, considering that hybrids are rarely reported between species that share more than 2 percent in genetic distance,” Mr Tea said. “Though coral reef fish hybrids are common; they are usually formed by closely-related species.”
New paper poses a serious challenge to the schoolroom Darwin industry. You know, one day, the study of evolution might be interesting, like the study of history. Prying the Darwin lobby and its propaganda loose from positions of power is a necessary first step.
Why was it so easy to assume they were useless junk? And now suddenly they’re Mr. Fixit?
That this is rare is beside the point. It shouldn’t happen if the Darwinian idea of species is clear enough to be a valid science concept.
If we ignore the overall uncertainty.
The long article behind the paywall refers to the “increasingly outdated concept of what constitutes a species,” “just one of dozens of competing definitions.” Increasingly outdated and uncertain, yes. But remember, the Darwin revolution was about—wait for it!—On the Origin of SPECIES.
Wells: The ScienceDaily report, like so much other reporting on evolution, is hype.
One wonders, is it possible that a number of other species of shark could convert to “walking” if they had to? That is, they don’t need to evolve the trait from scratch; they need the circumstances that makes it a useful behavior.
Yes, of course they do. But imagine anyone asking such a question years ago for any purpose except to show that it ain’t so: Stamp OUT Darwin Doubt!! was the permitted approach. But now we read doubt about Darwinian speciation in typical think mags.
But the cichlids were absolutely POSTER fish for natural selection acting on random mutation (Darwinism) to produce new species! If even cichlids can’t do Darwinism reliably, how important a vector in evolution can it be?
In short, the new find suggests that some species don’t really exist; they are just the same type of dino with different horns.
This retired historian of science thinks it might even be okay to question the “biological ‘species’ concept”.
So different sets of genes can result in identical looking birds? This is getting as complicated as the butterflies.