好笑的基督教

[qwerty0]

果蝇－拟灰果蝇Drosophila pseudoobscura 之二

来自康乃尔大学的证据网页和Observed Instances of Speciation内容类似：

In a series of experiments, del Solar (1966) derived positively and negatively geotactic and phototactic strains of D. pseudoobscura from the same population by running the flies through mazes. Flies from different strains were then introduced into mating chambers (10 males and 10 females from each strain). Matings were recorded. Statistically significant positive assortative mating was found

In a separate series of experiments Dodd (1989) raised eight populations derived from a single population of D. Pseudoobscura on stressful media. Four populations were raised on a starch based medium, the other four were raised on a maltose based medium. The fly populations in both treatments took several months to get established, implying that they were under strong selection. Dodd found some evidence of genetic divergence between flies in the two treatments. He performed mate choice tests among experimental populations. He found statistically significant assortative mating between populations raised on different media, but no assortative mating among populations raised within the same medium regime. He argued that since there was no direct selection for reproductive isolation, the behavioral isolation results from a pleiotropic by-product to adaptation to the two media. Schluter and Nagel (1995) have argued that these results provide experimental support for the hypothesis of parallel speciation.

这些不是科普文章，俺发现它得措辞比Wiki的科普可观了很多：对Hypo的支持

它们引用的论文并没有对基因进行过多的分析，它们也没有宣称得到了完全的生殖隔离，也没有宣称形成了新的物种。本来可以当成“对Hypothese的科学探索过程”，让它在‘科学’的道路上该怎样就怎样。遗憾的是，这些早产儿被提前拎出来当武器使

信息来自相同一篇论文，Wiki -- Drosophila pseudoobscura得到了不同性质的结论：

Allopatric speciation has been induced by reproductive isolation in D. pseudoobscura after only eight generations using different food types, starch and maltose

 

[livmealone]

都是人的智慧。

听见了就信，看见了就跟从，就没有窄门了:blink:

 

[CatLostHerFish]

1. 没有人提到这句话是Sorbonne说的。烧书一事的主语是"The devout"，没有讲是宗教组织，或者个人－－是一个人说，两个人说，还是一万个人说，在什么场合讲

2. 这句话是曾任法国外交部长的 D’Argenson写的，但是找不到原文，遗憾的也不清楚这句话出现在私人书信、历史书、报刊或者其他，也不知道D’Argenson的信息来源

3. Google搜索这句话，发现只有下面三本书引用，引用这句话的context如下：

Buffon: A Life in Natural History: D’Argenson was exaggerating but captured something of the public’s mood when he wrote：“....”

History of paradise: D’Argenson could then write: "......"

Measuring Eternity: The Search for the Beginning of Time: wrote an acquaintance: "......"

这是阿Q通过网上能找到的所有对Buffon烧书的传言的来源。每个人可以自由地根据自己的历史观去解读，就像有些人可以理解为：“For this he was condemned by the Catholic Church in France and his books were burned”

Oh, 我还以为那是书信的一部分。。
疑惑的是如果没有民间传言， D’Argenson作为一个法国外交部长怎么会做出这种空穴来风的评论？
烧书到底有没有历史证据，只有历史学家，或者Buffon的后人知道了。

那Sorbonne干的只是让Buffon签了一个东西。Buffon第二次拒签本身已经很能说明问题了，我这里就不罗嗦了。

 

[CatLostHerFish]

果蝇－拟灰果蝇Drosophila pseudoobscura 之二

来自康乃尔大学的证据网页和Observed Instances of Speciation内容类似：

In a series of experiments, del Solar (1966) derived positively and negatively geotactic and phototactic strains of D. pseudoobscura from the same population by running the flies through mazes. Flies from different strains were then introduced into mating chambers (10 males and 10 females from each strain). Matings were recorded. Statistically significant positive assortative mating was found

In a separate series of experiments Dodd (1989) raised eight populations derived from a single population of D. Pseudoobscura on stressful media. Four populations were raised on a starch based medium, the other four were raised on a maltose based medium. The fly populations in both treatments took several months to get established, implying that they were under strong selection. Dodd found some evidence of genetic divergence between flies in the two treatments. He performed mate choice tests among experimental populations. He found statistically significant assortative mating between populations raised on different media, but no assortative mating among populations raised within the same medium regime. He argued that since there was no direct selection for reproductive isolation, the behavioral isolation results from a pleiotropic by-product to adaptation to the two media. Schluter and Nagel (1995) have argued that these results provide experimental support for the hypothesis of parallel speciation.

这些不是科普文章，俺发现它得措辞比Wiki的科普可观了很多：对Hypo的支持

它们引用的论文并没有对基因进行过多的分析，它们也没有宣称得到了完全的生殖隔离，也没有宣称形成了新的物种。本来可以当成“对Hypothese的科学探索过程”，让它在‘科学’的道路上该怎样就怎样。遗憾的是，这些早产儿被提前拎出来当武器使

信息来自Wiki -- Drosophila pseudoobscura得到了不同性质的结论：

Allopatric speciation has been induced by reproductive isolation in D. pseudoobscura after only eight generations using different food types, starch and maltose

他们在argue的是这可能是parallel speciation而非behavioral isolation。但是对生殖隔离这个结果本身没有异议。

 

[CatLostHerFish]

信息来自Wiki -- Drosophila pseudoobscura得到了不同性质的结论：

Allopatric speciation has been induced by reproductive isolation in D. pseudoobscura after only eight generations using different food types, starch and maltose

看不到原文。看样子这篇文章认为这个实验是Allopatric speciation(异域物种形成)。而非平行物种形成。

 

[qwerty0]

果蝇－拟灰果蝇Drosophila pseudoobscura 之三

OK，这些文章看起来让人理解为“对生殖隔离这个结果本身没有异议” ，它们所引用的论文原文是怎么讲的？

del Solar, E. 1966. Sexual isolation caused by selection for positive and negative phototaxis and geotaxis in Drosophila pseudoobscura. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences

－－as the experiments described in this report show, they differ in inating preference. A slight, but statistically quite significalit, sexual isolation has arisen as a by-product of selection for geo- and phototaxis.

Whether selection for geotaxis and phototaxis always and necessarily produces a change in the sexual behavior, and whether continued selection may carry the sexual divergence anywhere near complete isolation, can only be decided by further experiments

再抄一下论文的Summary：

The sexual behavior has been studied in strains of Drosophila pseudoobscura selected for positive or for negative phototaxis, and for positive or for negative geotaxis. All combinations of these strains show significant preferences for homogamic matings, i.e., an incipient sexual isolation.

也就是说，“sexual isolation is one of the most widespread, and biologically effective isolating mechanisms."，作者的人工选择试验，证明了果蝇“incipient sexual isolation” －－注意，作者并没有宣称“complete”，仅仅是“incipient isolation”，更没有直接宣称任何生殖隔离

 

[qwerty0]

果蝇－拟灰果蝇Drosophila pseudoobscura 之四

再看另外一篇被广泛引用的论文，它就是＃1226的图的来源。Dodd, D. M. B. 1989, Reproductive isolation as a consequence of adaptive divergence in Drosophila melanogaster

一群 D. pseudoobscura果蝇分成4X2组，分别喂麦芽糖和淀粉，经过一段时间后－－

it is shown that the populations have also developed behavioral isolation as a pleiotropic by-product of this adaptive divergence

Significant behavioral isolation between starch-adapted and maltose-adapted populations was observed －－ individuals raised on the starch medium preferred to mate with other starch-fed fruit
flies; likewise flies fed maltose preferred to mate with other maltose-fed individuals

The ethological（动物行为学） isolation was a pleiotropic by-product ofthe adaption of the populations to the two media

Reproductive isolation was not the target of the selection, and there was no a priori reason to believe that adaptation to starch or maltose should have any effect on mating behavior, yet isolation developed

The isolation (behavior) observed here developed in complete allopatry

The mechanism of the isolation in this system is as yet unknown

这篇论文的标题是“...获得了生殖隔离”，试验的全部过程都是在分析果蝇的行为－－交配选择。这里的逻辑是，生殖隔离的获得有两种途径：pre-mating（不交配）和Post-mating（交配了不生殖），如果两组果蝇不交配了，它们就得到了生殖隔离－－不过除了标题，论文并没有宣称它们获得了生殖隔离，因为实验结果没有表明它们不会交配－－而是吃淀粉的果蝇Prefer同样吃淀粉的，吃麦芽糖的果蝇Prefer同样吃麦芽糖的（文中列出了这种cross mating的比例）；同样也没有提到两种果蝇交配后会不会生育

这是生殖隔离吗？

 

[cvictor]

果蝇可以在短时间（如一年）培养很多代，这样才可以观察到它们的变异。这个变异的玩意儿，诺亚是没有办法把它放入方舟里的，当然也不是耶稣可以把它出来的。
一个苍蝇，嗡嗡，•••

 

[qwerty0]

果蝇－拟灰果蝇Drosophila pseudoobscura 之五

前面两篇“证据文章”－－康乃尔大学网页与《Observed Instances of Speciation FAQ》的简称：Schluter and Nagel (1995) have argued that these results provide experimental support for the hypothesis of parallel speciation

我们看看Schluter and Nagel的原文是怎么说的。遗憾的是这篇论文没有免费电子版，俺注册个帐号，可以免费看几天，共享一下与Dodd果蝇试验相关的内容：




没错，它将Dodd的试验作为Parallel Speciation的证据，可是同时又指出：获得了一些Premating Isolation，生殖隔离没有完成。

接着讲了Parallel Speciation的四个Criteria，然后－－




显然，这篇论文的作者是否认前面Dodd的试验完成了D.pseudoobscura的生殖隔离，形成了新物种，也承认迄今没有任何unassailable parallel speciation 的例子

 

[qwerty0]

果蝇－拟灰果蝇Drosophila pseudoobscura 之六－finished

补充一下阿Q的逻辑：

• 到目前为止，俺没有假设俺认同或者反对引用这些论文中的任何观点
• 引用这些论文是因为这些论文是那些证据文章的资料来源
• 思路跟俺分析Missing link化石的思路一样－－找出科学界的真实情况
• 对比这些论文的原文与Wiki科普、证据文章，从中可以清楚看到之间一些Wording是如何差之毫厘，失之千里

比如Wiki：Selection for reproductive isolation是这样评价#1233 Dodd的那篇论文的：

“On the other hand, interspecific hybridization barriers can also arise as a result of the adaptive divergence that accompanies allopatric speciation. This mechanism has been experimentally proved by an experiment carried out by Diane Dodd on D. pseudoobscura.”

这是科学教marketing部门的另一个混淆视听的另一个例子

 

[qwerty0]

cvitor兄，关于你最喜欢的人的进化问题，俺看过一点资料，还完全是一头雾水。先共享几篇俺认为值得一看的文章。貌似进化论界争论的焦点是主要由DNA科学家支持的人类单一起源（Y染色体亚当＋线粒体夏娃），以及考古学家支持的多起源

http://club.kdnet.net/dispbbs.asp?page=1&boardid=1&id=8885871
http://www.360doc.com/content/10/1219/14/160073_79473777.shtml
http://club.kdnet.net/dispbbs.asp?page=1&boardid=1&id=6461169
http://www.360doc.com/content/11/0511/10/3122618_115887761.shtml
http://210.73.59.179/CagsMIS/FrontPages/ContentPage.yo?ContentId=99

 

[qwerty0]

果蝇(3)--黑腹果蝇Drosophila melanogaster Sympatric speciation 之一

黑腹果蝇是被研究最多的果蝇，故事多多，先看看同域性物种形成（Sympatric speciation）的例子

Wiki: Speciation#Artificial_speciation:

"The best-documented creations of new species in the laboratory were performed in the late 1980s ... After thirty-five generations, the two groups and their offspring were isolated reproductively because of their strong habitat preferences: they mated only within the areas they preferred, and so did not mate with flies that preferred the other areas"

证据文章来自康乃尔大学的证据网页和Observed Instances of Speciation：

5.3.5 Sympatric Speciation in Drosophila melanogaster
In a series of papers Rice and Salt presented experimental evidence for the possibility of sympatric speciation ... ... After 25 generations of this mating tests showed reproductive isolation between the two strains. Habitat specialization was also produced. They next repeated the experiment without the penalty against habitat switching. The result was the same -- reproductive isolation was produced. They argued that a switching penalty is not necessary to produce reproductive isolation. Their results, they stated, show the possibility of sympatric speciation.

从这些文章我们得到什么信息？将几组黑腹果蝇放在不同的环境中，经过什么人工选择，经过几代繁殖后，获得了生殖隔离，并且产生了新的物种！！

事实是不是这样？

 

[cvictor]

zt的

黑猩猩属于人科动物吗？

怎么黑猩猩也挤进人科的范畴来了？

自从达尔文创立进化论，提出人类起源于古猿以来，100多年来，对于人类与猿类的分野问题，动物学家们一直是从比较解剖学和古生物学方面进行研究的。通过对人体和猿体大量的解剖比较，他们归纳出人类和黑猩猩、大猩猩、猩猩等猿类在形态解剖方面的不同点和相同点，从而把人类归属于人科，把黑猩猩、大猩猩、猩猩等归属于猩猩科。多数动物学家认为，在现存的各种猿类中，长臂猿和人类的关系最远，其次是猩猩。黑猩猩和大猩猩与人类的亲缘关系较为接近，但比较起来，黑猩猩、大猩猩和猩猩之间的关系要比它们和人类的关系更为接近得多。对于这样的人猿分野理论，100多年来没有受到过怀疑。

然而近年来，随着现代生物学的进展，特别是分子生物学理论和实验的应用，传统的动物分类学面临挑战，自从达尔文时代开始确立起来的灵长目分类系统树受到冲击。正是在这些新的理论、新的实验基础上，主张黑猩猩应该归属于人科动物的学说酝酿诞生了。那么，这一学说有什么依据呢？

25年前分子生物钟理论问世。这一理论认为：两种生物如果起源同一祖先，在这两种生物体内应能找到源于共同祖先的同源分子。因为起源于同一分子，不同物种的同源分子结构上基本相同；又因为不同物种经历了不同的进化历程，同源分子在结构上会发生不同的变异。如果分子结构变异的速率恒定，就可以把这一分子看成一只进化的时钟：每隔若干万年，分子结构变化为一定的百分比。这样，只要比较两个物种同源分子在结构上的差异，同时参考已掌握的化石资料，确定分子钟的“走时”（过多少万年变化百分之一），就可以从分子结构的差异推算出两个物种分化的时间。

美国耶鲁大学鸟类学家、匹堡地自然博物馆馆长查理斯·西伯雷和另一位动物学家阿尔魁斯特一起，对动物进化与DNA分子钟的关系进行了长达10年的研究。通过对数千种动物的DNA分子作近20，000个对照测定，并参照了大量的化石资料，西伯雷得出结论：DNA分子钟的走时约为450万年变化1％。西伯雷和阿尔魁斯特比较了人类、普通黑猩猩、俾格米黑猩猩、大猩猩、猩猩、普通长臂猿、合趾猿，以及五种旧大陆猴类的DNA分子，研究了它们之间的亲缘关系，发现所有猴类的DNA分子与人类、猿类差异很大，说明猴类与人类、猿类的关系较远，这与传统的分类理论一致。而人类和六种猿类中，普通黑猩猩和俾格米黑猩猩DNA分子差异最小，仅为0.7％，根据分子钟走时可推算出，这两种黑猩猩是在大约300万年前由同一祖先分化而来的。其次最为接近的，就是人类和两种黑猩猩了，人类和这两种黑猩猩DNA分子结构差异均为1.9％，由此推算出人类和黑猩猩是在大约700～800万年前由共同的祖先分化出来的。人类和大猩猩的DNA分子结构差异为2.1％，而大猩猩和黑猩猩的DNA分子结构差异却为2.4％，这表明大猩猩和黑猩猩的亲缘关系，还不如人类和黑猩猩亲缘关系来得近！这一结论和传统的人猿分野理论大相径庭。根据上述研究结果，西伯雷指出，无论从遗传特征上还是进化起源上，人类和黑猩猩的关系要比黑猩猩和大猩猩的关系接近，因此以往把人归于一科，把黑猩猩和大猩猩归于另一科的分类方法是不正确的。而且，从DNA分子的差异来看，普通长臂猿和合趾猿的差异远比大猩猩、黑猩猩、人类之间的差异大，可这两种长臂猿历来被归于同一科同一属：长臂猿科长臂猿属。根据这样的分类方法，人类和黑猩猩、大猩猩都应该归属于同一科同一属，应该用人科人属来命名黑猩猩和大猩猩，这样，今天地球上生存着的人科动物就不是一种，而应该有四种：人类、人科人属黑猩猩、人科人属俾格米黑猩猩、人科人属大猩猩。

西伯雷的人猿分野新理论一提出，立刻引起学术界一片哗然。一位英国动物学家说：我一听到这样的说法就害怕。试想，要是带着孩子去动物园，在介绍牌上读到“人科人属黑猩猩”这样的字眼，人们会作何感想呢？不少专家直截了当地反对这一学说，认为光凭DNA分子差异来断定动物之间的亲缘关系，排斥传统的比较解剖学方法，是武断的，不足取的。也有人怀疑西伯雷的DNA分子差异测定是否精确可靠。而更多的科学家，如美国加州大学荻阿蒙德教授等，则愿意本着实事求是的原则，改进和运用分子生物学的方法，把人猿分野的难题搞个水落石出。

总之，围绕着“黑猩猩是否属于人科动物”的难题，学术界激烈的争论还刚刚拉开序幕。

（周立明）

 

[cvictor]

cvitor兄，关于你最喜欢的人的进化问题，俺看过一点资料，还完全是一头雾水。先共享几篇俺认为值得一看的文章。貌似进化论界争论的焦点是主要由DNA科学家支持的人类单一起源（Y染色体亚当＋线粒体夏娃），以及考古学家支持的多起源

http://club.kdnet.net/dispbbs.asp?page=1&boardid=1&id=8885871
http://www.360doc.com/content/10/1219/14/160073_79473777.shtml
http://club.kdnet.net/dispbbs.asp?page=1&boardid=1&id=6461169
http://www.360doc.com/content/11/0511/10/3122618_115887761.shtml
http://210.73.59.179/CagsMIS/FrontPages/ContentPage.yo?ContentId=99

这些内容应该给CH•8看看。有篇著名的'夏娃是存在的'文章说的就是这个事。更可怕的事情是
1，猩猩的血液是可以为人类所用的，如O型，A型，B型，等等。只是因为道德的，还有法律的原因，不敢把猩猩作为人的'血库'。
2，人与猩猩，也有可能造出'猩猩人'，'人猩猩'的杂交种来。如同狮虎兽，虎狮兽。因为道德的，还有法律的原因，不敢。
有的基督徒崇拜耶稣这位'神人'品种，却也只能眼睁睁地看到，在物种的类别里，猩猩是属于'人科'。
回复主题，是可笑还是可怕？

 

[qwerty0]

这些内容应该给CH•8看看。有篇著名的'夏娃是存在的'文章说的就是这个事。更可怕的事情是
1，猩猩的血液是可以为人类所用的，如O型，A型，B型，等等。只是因为道德的，还有法律的原因，不敢把猩猩作为人的'血库'。
2，人与猩猩，也有可能造出'猩猩人'，'人猩猩'的杂交种来。如同狮虎兽，虎狮兽。因为道德的，还有法律的原因，不敢。

俺倒是对这个感兴趣，你说的这两个东西科学家做过试验证明可行了？