The good ole skeptical zone is a place where opinions and bald declarations pass for science and when you call them on it you are called for spamming. Case in point for opinions and bald declarations passing for science- an evoTARD named rumraket sed:
Common descent is a consequence of isolation of reproducing populations, whether there is natural selection or not.
No evidence just a bald declaration. Nothing testable just a bald declaration based on rumrat's personal belief. But TSZ's evos think it's science. Rumrat is the same imbecile who thinks it takes the right
mutations to doit.
Then Allan Miller chimes in:
Common descent needs no mechanism other than descent and isolation.
More opinion and bald declaration but still no evidence nor a way to test the concept. Again this is what passes for science over on TSZ.
Perhaps voles just didn't get those "right" mutations:
The study focuses on 60 species within the vole genusMicrotus, which has evolved in the last 500,000 to 2 million years. This means voles are evolving 60-100 times faster than the average vertebrate in terms of creating different species. Within the genus (the level of taxonomic classification above species), the number of chromosomes in voles ranges from 17-64. DeWoody said that this is an unusual finding, since species within a single genus often have the same chromosome number.
Among the vole's other bizarre genetic traits:
•In one species, the X chromosome, one of the two sex-determining chromosomes (the other being the Y), contains about 20 percent of the entire genome. Sex chromosomes normally contain much less genetic information.
•In another species, females possess large portions of the Y (male) chromosome.
•In yet another species, males and females have different chromosome numbers, which is uncommon in animals.
A final "counterintuitive oddity" is that despite genetic variation, all voles look alike, said DeWoody's former graduate student and study co-author Deb Triant.
"All voles look very similar, and many species are completely indistinguishable," DeWoody said.
In one particular instance, DeWoody was unable to differentiate between two species even after close examination and analysis of their cranial structure; only genetic tests could reveal the difference.
Nevertheless, voles are perfectly adept at recognizing those of their own species.
"I have seen absolutely no evidence of mating between different species," Triant said. "We don't know how they do this, but scent and behavior probably play a role."
An isolation of reproducing populations with nothing to suggest voles can evolve into something other than voles.
Also these morons think that 29+ evidences for macroevolution
is a scientific case. Yet it isn't as it cannot be validated as a test/ evidence for macroevolution. It is all opinion and the part on nested hierarchies is easily refuted. For example Theobald sez:
As seen from the phylogeny in Figure 1, the predicted pattern of organisms at any given point in time can be described as "groups within groups", otherwise known as anested hierarchy.
And yet figure 1 doesn't show that. It shows parent populations giving rise to extant daughter populations after X number of generations. It allegedly shows which daughter populations came from which parent populations. And the daughter populations, ie groups, are not within the parent populations, ie other groups.
The only known processes that specifically generate unique, nested, hierarchical patterns are branching evolutionary processes.
And yet Linnaean taxonomy, which has nothing to do with a branching evolutionary process, is a nested hierarchy. As a matter of fact Theobald calls on it as if it is what Common Descent expects! The US Army, which also has nothing to do with a branching evolutionary process, is also a nested hierarchy. Methinks Theobald is a clueless dolt who will say anything to try to protect his personal beliefs.
And then, regarding gender, a complete moron sez:
Your thoughts regarding gender are as deep and as relevant as your thoughts regarding biology.
Umm gender and biology go hand in hand. There isn't any science behind transgenderism. None, nada, nothing, zip. It is a mental disorder that should not be enforced and enabled. But being a liberal is also a mental disorder so I can see where liberals would have some feeling of belonging with transgendered people.