The Cichlid Variation

Yesterday, I wrote in My last comments on the Laupala cricket variation: "Let's see which other organism the [‘Laupala diversity’] authors include in their attempt to justify their speculations":

"The highest speciation rate [among Laupala] is exceeded only by that of the rapidly speciating African cichlid fish... African cichlid fish exemplify this process,with sister species differing primarily in male coloration, a secondary sexual trait. From this pattern, it has been argued that the spectacular diversification in African cichlid fish is driven by sexual selection..."

"Is this really so? Is it really that cichlids are 'speciating' into different 'species'? NO!. The cichlid fishes are also able to interbreed producing fertile offspring, being just varieties as well (not so different to the human or the dog diversity.)"

Richard B, Hoppe responded at ISCID, to my Intelligent Design to Generate Biodiversity after I asked him why similar organisms interbreeding were being used as ‘examples’ of a non-existent 'speciation':

... Life is finite, and one expends one's time and effort according to some priorities. This particular question, being answerable (with some effort) by he who asked it, is not a top priority for me. I will note that a search on [cichlids speciation] on Google Scholar yields nearly 1,000 hits.”

To him I wrote in response: "Those Cichlids that you mentioned before are just "subspecies", not "new species" which is the presumed [and inflated, I must add] claim for evolutionary 'speciation', which is 'par' to a non-existent 'macroevolution'."

"Being the key and practical factor, the "FERTILE OFFSPRING".

In these cloudy areas, bright color morphs have disappeared and the fish have become similar and dull in appearance through hybridization (Seehausen et al. 1997).

So, cichlids produce viable and vigorous fertile hybrids according to the paper co-authored by the same Ole Seehausen:
Turner GF, Seehausen O, Knight ME, Allender CJ, Robinson RL. How many species of cichlid fishes are there in African lakes? Mol Ecol. 2001 Mar;10(3):793-806 (see its quotes below the picture). In this picture you can see that the 10 different cichlids here portrayed, are not only and erroneously considered as if being members of different 'species', but worst, as if being members of 'different' 'genus', and that without including the fertile interbreeders between Pundamilia x Platytaeniodus (also considered erroneusly as two different 'genus'), as mentioned in the next paragraph. So, here again, there is one true species with limitless varieties, with limitless sub-species.

Quotes from the reference given above the picture (taken from its PDF):

"many taxa... produce viable, fertile hybrids... We have produced intergeneric hybrids of Lake Victoria cichlids (Pundamilia x Platytaeniodus) that have not shown any evidence of loss of viability or fertility up to the 5th generation."

"The evidence is clear for everybody to see, but 'what the heck', RBH don’t have time to go on deeper on this, right? However RBH has more than enough and sufficient time not only to flood all the Internet but also to bash down the related works of Bryan Leonard (sorry but that's not fair)... And all this "in the name of Darwin" and supporting his evolutionary speculations at the macrolevel, right?"

So, RBH took a littke bit of time, just a little, then answering that:

Gee, sure looks like speciation to these folks, and also to these folks.

So, I thanked him for the examples, and then I wrote:

"Again, I don't want to be contentious with you, I just want to study and to leave the evidence for everybody to see."

"The fact of the articles that RBH is linking here is 'subspeciation' or the origin of new varieties, never the origin of 'new species'; for example, from the first link that you present:

"... mbuna will hybridize ... (McElroy, D. M. & Kornfield, I. (1993) Copeia 1993, 933-945)... We cannot rule out a role for hybridization..." [Phylogeny of a rapidly evolving clade: The cichlid fishes of Lake Malawi, East Africa. R. C. Albertson, J. A. Markert, P. D. Danley, and T. D. Kocherdagger PNAS Vol. 96, Issue 9, 5107-5110, April 27, 1999]

"That's precisely the key of my studies to demonstrate that there is genetic compatibility, that the offspring produced is fertile, which will help us in the engineering of new varieties. Again, those cichlids are not different 'species' but different varieties within the same organism."

"And from RBH's second link:

"We first estimated the effective number of genetic factors controlling differences in the cichlid head through a comprehensive morphological assessment of two Lake Malawi cichlid species and their F1 and F2 hybrid progeny."

"If those two morphologically different cichlids are producing F1 and F2 generations, that means that their offspring is fertile, which again indicates their genetic compatibility. Those again, are just varieties within the same organism."

Even if today thousands of varieties of organisms are systematically misclassified as if being of different 'species', or even different 'genus' (like the above example with fertile cichlids produced by Pundamilia x Platytaeniodus in Africa) the future recognition of their reproductive compatibility will resolve such deliberate blindness promoted today by that rampant Darwinism in biological sciences.

To see more cichlid pictures, click here.

Concluding, again: Those Cichlids are "subspecies" but not "new species", which is the false and presumed claim of an evolutionary bankrupt 'speciation' = 'macroevolution'.