Almost certainly. Are you not aware of speciation being caused merely by separation of populations? There are even obvious genetic mechanisms by which this happens–a couple of inversions would likely be sufficient.
A few inversions (which are happening all the time) would be sufficient to leave the progeny missing large chunks of the parental chromosomes. Many would be expected to have occurred over millions of years. That would almost certainly be lethal to the progeny, even if the parents were phenotypically identical to each other in every way.
I asked you to please keep this to one thread. As I said there, this article is not a peer-reviewed science paper in a journal, so your suggestion that I should know just as much about the topic as Dr. Carter is invalid. And I also do not accept your premise that a mistake has been made–only that you are claiming one was made on the Y axis of that figure.
I just wanted to point out, that despite disagreeing with @PDPrice on many particulars, I think he’s been pretty forthcoming when it comes to his background and lack of particular expertise in science. He often (probably to the chagrin of many of the biologists here) defers to authors and co-authors with relevant science backgrounds when pressed about details. I think for a non-expert those are good qualities to have. He also makes fairly coherent posts, which is also nice. I may disagree, but at least I can understand pretty clearly what he’s saying.
@PDPrice, I think if you can hang in there and find ways to engage with people who disagree strongly, but still find common ground and good will, you may find your credibility increasing. You may not care, but I’ve seen it happen where people who start as complete “enemies” end up finding mutual understanding and “peace”.
His coauthors do not have relevant science backgrounds, Jordan. That’s false. And it’s not really about “backgrounds,” it’s about doing actual science and testing their hypotheses. They’ve quit.
Is he saying that every H1N1 outbreak since 2009-10 is less virulent, and will be in the future?
No, nothing’s changed between yesterday and today. I still am only stating what I am getting from Ph.D. scientists and from peer-reviewed literature. I still, even today, am making no appeals to my own authority.
Today you’re claiming to know more about population genetics than a population geneticist.
A Ph.D. isn’t enough. Expertise comes from experience. You don’t have any, and you only get what you get from scientists with whom you agree on YEC.
You’re grossly misrepresenting the evidence in the peer-reviewed literature. This is not about interpretation, as you repeatedly and falsely claim.
I notice that you didn’t address an example of that:
Are viruses isolated from every H1N1 outbreak since 2009-10 (which 2 days ago you were falsely claiming didn’t even exist) less virulent than those from 2009-10, and will be in the future?
Frankly I couldn’t believe what he said. It was totally surprising that he would not understand that the fitness distribution of random mutations is not a product of selection. I would challenge you to find any peer-reviewed science literature that says what he did right there-- that effectively neutral mutations are split 50/50 between beneficial and deleterious. I mean, maybe some people back in the 1960’s (or earlier) thought that way, but that has been known false for a long time now.
The “human version” (or what is also known as ‘Spanish Flu’) is (to the best of our scientific ability to detect it). And the CDC chart I showed you agreed with that conclusion 100%.
From your coauthor’s legend:
The 2009–2010 outbreak samples and additional samples from 2011–2012 are circled. These and the scattered points are all derived from swine H1N1 versions.
You are unequivocally, objectively misrepresenting the evidence itself. Your misinterpretation of a cartoon is not evidence.
