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:
The Laupala Cricket Variation
So, once more, the fraud of evolution is overselling variation within compatible organisms at the price of a mythical ‘speciation‘…
Yesterday, Myrmecos, an Insect Systematist responded at ARN in his original posting with the next words:
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: Continue reading »