My last comments on the Laupala cricket variation

Earlier I presented here and at ARN an UPDATE on the Laupala cricket variation. However, at ARN and for a second time Myrmecos (http://alexanderwild.com/) was trying to derail the topic that he himself started. Here, I am going to write my last comments on that issue:

More excerpts of the 2006 article on Laupala demonstrating the resulting fertile offspring or F2:

Matings between L. paranigra and L. kohalensis result in viable and fertile offspring, and the second generation of hybrids (F2) provide a genetic and phenotypic mosaic of parental types

And the comment of the director of the Laupala studies:

"acoustic variants can interbreed and hybridize" [Kerry L. Shaw (broken)]

Then we read in the supplementary material (in DOC) from their Nature article:

"Due to a lack of resolution, the species L. hapapa, L. oahuensis, and L. pacifica were considered a single species..."

That statmenet, together with the one we quoted before [from their 2006 paper(broken)]:

“In close-range encounters, aspects of chemical signaling may be important to mate recognition within species and may further reduce the probability of interbreeding among divergent lineages. The nature and strength of this barrier is yet unknown.”

That's the real deal, compatible organisms producing compatible varieties or well defined lineages within their compatible group!

Let's see which other organism the authors include in their attempt to justify their speculations (Myrmecos, it is not 'the fruit flies', which are the ones that you are trying to sneak in the Laupala topic), my comments in brackets '[ ]':

"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..."

The cichlid fishes are also able to interbreed producing fertile offspring, being just varieties as well (not so different than the human or the dog diversity.) Previously, they wrote that:

"[Laupala] Females prefer pulse rates of their own species, so divergence in male song reduces the chances of interbreeding between species..."

Then, in a separate paragraph they wrote confirming again the speculative nature of their original paper (clucked by Myrmecos at ARN, and clucked also by Nature and by Science, so, don't worry Myrmecos, you are in 'good' evolutionary company):]

"Whether sexual selection has promoted the diversification in song in Laupala remains to be proved [which happened to be wrong according to their most recent study on the 'nearby' L. paranigra and L. kohalensis linked above]"

L. paranigra and L. kohalensis are just two different varieties of cricket, not two different 'species.'

Yesterday, I wrote at ARN to Myrmecos,

You diverted again the topic!

Next is the absurd graphic that we are talking about here, in this post that you yourself started [with such an erroneous title that even Leonard didn't liked it (smile)]:

Here, in red rectangles I have emphasized the three VARIETIES of crickets mentioned by the authors as if being members of distant and different 'species'. First, excerpts from that original and speculatively wrong article published by Nature:

1.

"... speciation on the actively growing and youngest island, Hawaii, seems to be in progress, as diversity in L. cerasina was probably masked by sampling a single population per species. Populations of L. cerasina are acoustically diverse, and more intensive analysis using AFLPs reveals several distinct genetic groups that correspond to acoustic and geographical variations. We conclude that speciation on Hawaii Island is both explosive and ongoing."

My comment: Here they are talking of variation WITHIN Laupala cerasina!!! So, we must correct their inflated claims by declaring that "We conclude that COMPATIBLE VARIATION on Hawaii Island is both explosive and ongoing" [!!!]

2.
Then we read the next:

"L. cerasina and L. kohalensis are, in comparison [to corals], more distantly related. They are hypothesized to be members of different major lineages of Laupala, perhaps diverging as many as 5 million years ago..."

My comment was that 'speciationists' can speculate ('calculating speculations') their multiple and useless times of ‘divergence’ [as in such and completely useless graphic that I criticize here, of which even Science found useful only as an ideological "promo" of its wrongly-focused and biased article on "evo'nactio" (smile), already linked before, with its rebuke], just to find out that such organisms are indeed compatible and producing a vigorous and fertile offspring!

Then, the third and most recent quote:

3.

"...the hypothesis that the premating barrier between L. paranigra and L. kohalensis is maintained by the female’s preference for a conspecific male’s song at close range was not supported by the present study."

My comment: After the failure to demonstrate that the male's song is a factor of 'speciation' (which when properly considered is just variation within compatible organisms), the authors wrote in their most recent paper (already quoted) that it may be rather the animal chemistry what make them choose 'their likes' rather than 'their less-likes'.

Replace this absurd graphic with one portraying the human variation and you will see the absurdity within the complete field of 'speciation' and, by 'natural linkage', you will be able to see the complete absurdity within the biased 'evolutionary' realm, kingdom, dominion or establishment (anything you may want to call it, with the EXCEPTION of calling it 'sound science'.)

And related to what Gould wrote (posted by Leonard), the modern failure to justify any 'speciational' event beyond the realm of compatible organisms may render as well Gould's quote, to better reflect reality (something impossible within the current and 'totalitarian naturalistic' dominion of Darwin's views, in disregard of whatever 'new 'naturalistically' driven labels' may emerge...).

So, insted of what Gould wrote:

"Without geographic isolation, favorable variants will not accumulate in local populations, for breeding with parental forms is a remarkably efficient way to blur and dilute any change that might otherwise become substantial enough to constitute a new species."

Please, replace that end with the next statement and you will have a most accurate picture that even flows more 'naturally' (smile) with Gould's statement on "favorable variants": "...any change that might otherwise become substantial enough to constitute a new VARIETY"

The complete evolutionary field of speciation is biased by the pretense of attempting to justify Darwin’s “origin of species”. Those crickets and the other organisms studied by ‘speciationists’ (finches, cichlids, threespine fishes, etc…) are not diverging ‘species’, but just genetically compatible varieties.

So, the fraud of 'speciation' is its overselling (of such natural variation) as a macroevolutionary ‘proof’, when indeed it is just microevolution in action; hence, compatible variation.

Myrmecos, you haven’t answered to my 01/28/05 question (see above):

If you were a journal editor or a grant provider, are you willing to finance/publish a research paper based only on Intelligent Design premises…?

Evidently, your answer must be a flat NO. However, frequently you are asking for the ‘ID evidence’, for ID research and its results, but it seems that no ID evidence may be allowed by you.

Also, you haven’t answered to the next question:

Can you define your best version of the word ‘speciation’ and why the evolutionary concept of ‘speciation’ is not corrected to mean variation within compatible organisms (which is indeed the resulting evidence)?

In that way, as mturner declared, all the current and published 'evidence' provided by 'speciationists' does not support at all any Darwinian or neo-Darwinan scenario for the "origin of species".

Bottom line is:

How long evolution is going to deliberately and “conveniently” allow for the careless confusion of the fact of variation within compatible organisms with the speculative concept of ‘speciation’?

Can you define your best version of the word ‘speciation’ and why the evolutionary concept of ‘speciation’ is not corrected to mean variation within compatible organisms?

Other links related to this posting:

Chronicles for The Laupala Cricket Variation

From: Chronicles for The Laupala Cricket Variation

The point is that all studies on “speciation” can be easily replaced by the word variation, reducing the evolutionary deusion of ‘the origin of species’ to the facts of variation between compatible organisms.

Concluding: Genetic compatibility and a fertile offspring are the two key factors to identify varieties and to produce new biodiversity.

To go one step further than the current evolutionary ‘tar-pit’ of biology, we need to inject new views. ID offers those needed and renewed views and those new methods for a real revolution in biology.