The Laupala cricket of Hawaii, picture by Kerry Shaw.
As a species begins to split into two separate species, says Mendelson, “the songs appear to be the first characteristic that changes.”
Here, Mendelson is really talking about a variety splitting into two separate varieties able to interbreed! As she pursues:
“Members of closely related species possess no physiological differences that would prevent them from interbreeding.”
These are just varieties sold as different ‘species’!
The subtitle of that original paper, since the start clearly indicated the speculative nature of it:
Tamra C. Mendelson & Kerry L. Shaw. 2005. Sexual behaviour: Rapid speciation in an arthropod. The likely force behind an explosion of new Hawaiian cricket species is revealed. Nature 433, 375-6 (PDF), and Supplementary Info.
However, even with its speculative nature, Science presented this reference as one of the strong evidences for “evolution in action“. Overstatement corrected by Casey Luskin as Microevolution in Action
In the most recent paper by the same authors, we can read that the speculative likelihood or assumption presented as “factual evidence” by the two major scientific journals (Nature & Science) was completely WRONG:
Mendelson, T.C. and Shaw, K.L. 2006. Close-range acoustic signaling and mate choice in Hawaiian crickets. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology (PDF).
“…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.”
Other critical excerpts can be found at:
So, once more, the fraud of evolution is overselling variation within compatible organisms at the price of a mythical ‘speciation‘…
The term “fraud” would indicate a conscious attempt to deceive. The fact that the authors openly publish their data that cast some doubt on previous speculations suggests the opposite of fraud.
What, then, is the basis for your accusation?
So, Myrmecos is diverting the attention from the biological aspect that he originally and wrongfully entitled (remember, Nature‘s paper was a speculation) as “Rapid speciation: observations match Darwinian theory”
Here is my expanded response.
At ARN I wrote today:
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?
Here, I will expand my response to Myrmecos:
But, are you here more interested in the evolutionary “systematics” of the word “fraud” ? Well, let’s see, my original statement is that:
…the fraud of evolution is overselling variation within compatible organisms at the price of a mythical ‘speciation’
If you bother to read it again correctly, you’ll see that I am not saying that Mendelson or Shaw performed a deliberate fraud. Indeed, I deeply admire the fact that they published the results contrary to the pomposity of your originally posted title and abstract. Even when you initially omitted (involuntarily, I wish) the subtitle, it is there that we are able to detect since the beginning the original fully speculative nature of such Nature‘s paper.
No, you are not alone, the same act of preposterous fanfare was done by Nature and by Science that included it as a one breakthrough of 2005 for their promotional circus called “evolution in action” .
I am here blaming the complete system of the current biological evolutionism for allowing until now, January of 2006, the deliberate and “convenient” confusion of variation with speciation.
Let me explain: I define variation within compatible organisms able to produce a fertile offspring as the difference in phenotype between fertile offspring breeders.
If ‘speciation‘ is no different at all with this fact of variation, then varieties are not different between innumerable organisms misclassified as members of different ‘species‘, then there is no Darwinian “origin of species” (the unguided Darwinian ‘origin‘ of ‘new‘ incompatible species).
Let’s replace in our minds with this word variation all the times that those authors used the word ‘speciation‘ in their most recent (2006) article (of which its full text was linked above), including their references,
Shaw and Mendelson wrote:
“Evolution of the mate recognition system (MRS) can play a central role in animal speciation.”
“Speciation in Laupala is proceeding at an extremely rapid rate, apparently driven by divergence in aspects of the mate recognition system…”
“Because changes in the MRS may directly reduce gene flow among divergent lineages, identifying those aspects of the MRS that reduce the probability of successful courtship and fertilization is central to understanding speciation.”
“Identifying traits that reduce the probability of mating between divergent groups will ultimately elucidate the architecture of behavioral barriers to gene flow and provide critical insight into the evolutionary forces that drive speciation.”
“Laupala, a genus of flightless swordtail crickets endemic to the Hawaiian Islands (Otte D (1994) The crickets of Hawaii: origin, systematics, and evolution. Orthoptera Society/Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia, Philadelphia), exhibits extremely rapid speciation that appears to be driven primarily by divergence in mate recognition behavior (Mendelson TC, Shaw KL (2005) Sexual behaviour: rapid speciation in an arthropod. Nature 433:375–Å“376).”
“Speciation in Laupala is proceeding at an extremely rapid rate (Mendelson and Shaw 2005).”
References used in this paper including the word ‘speciation‘ (to be replaced in your own mind with the word VARIATION):
Butlin RK, Ritchie MG (1994) Behaviour and speciation. In: Slater PJB, Halliday TR (eds) Behaviour and evolution. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 43–Å“78
Mendelson TC, Siegel AM, Shaw KL (2004) Testing geographic pathways of speciation in a recent island radiation. Mol Ecol 13:3787–Å“3796
Mendelson TC, Shaw KL (2005) Sexual behaviour: rapid speciation in an arthropod. Nature 433:375–Å“376 [speculative paper that they self referred four times in their last 2006 publication]
Paterson HEH (1985) The recognition concept of species. In: Vrba, ES (ed) Species and speciation. Transvaal Museum monograph No. 4, Pretoria, pp 21–Å“29
Shaw KL (1996) Sequential radiations and patterns of speciation in the Hawaiian cricket genus Laupala inferred from DNA sequences. Evolution 50:256–Å“266
Shaw KL (2002) Conflict between mitochondrial and nuclear DNA phylogenies of a recent species radiation: what mtDNA reveals and conceals about modes of speciation in Hawaiian crickets. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 99:16122–Å“16127
Shaw KL, Parsons YM (2002) Divergence of mate recognition and its consequences for genetic architectures of speciation. Am Nat 159:S61–Å“S75.
[A posters Appendix]
Concluding, we can say that the current system of biology biased by evolution (biased by Darwin) is committing a deliberate fraud by misrepresenting the real affinities between organisms, and by using to their advantage misclassified organisms, and by using the deceiving word of ‘speciation‘ which indeed can be corrected by variation within compatible, fertile offspring breeders.
The practical benefit of this correction is the opening of the door for a better understanding of biodiversity and the most natural and deliberate production of new varieties by the use of Mendelian Bioengineering, the Intelligent Design applied in nature!