Evolution is an elaborate fairy tale

Mike Flynn · #**501** 29th November 2003, 10:43 PM

Originally Posted by lucaspa

Since when did revelation stop being evidence?

I never said that it did. I am talking about scientific evidence (or proof) of God's existence. Revelation hardly qualifies. I have always said that there is evidence for faith...just not the scientific kind. Why have you assumed that I am implying otherwise? Are we not talking about strictly scientific evidence here?

Originally Posted by lucaspa

But now you are doing what the militant atheists do: saying that the only evidence is scientific evidence. But that ain't so. Science never claims it is the only way of knowing. Within its domain, science is very reliable, but science is limited.

Lucaspa, I agree...and you should know that by now. I have always stated the same. I am saying that there is no provable, repeatable, irrefutable data that points to God's existence. And this is part of the reason why creation science is a wasted effort. I am not saying that God does not engage in and reveal Himself this existence at all. I wouldn't be able to witness as a Christian here if that were true. Its just that the real evidence that He exists is made plain when you cross the boundary into faith....that same evidence is meaningless to those that havn't.

You don't seem to recall previous threads where we have agreed on precisely these points. While I appreciate your posts tremendously, sometimes it seems like you are intent to pick apart posts whether they are in agreement with you or not.

lucaspa · #**502** 29th November 2003, 11:03 PM

Originally Posted by Calvin

"In October 1980, . . a conference was held in Chicago on one of the
hottest issues in evolutionary studies. The respected magazine, Science,
organ of the American Association of the Advancement of Science, called
it `a historic conference' which `challenges the four-decade long
dominance of the Modern Synthesis.'

Calvin, you should indeed be upset at the false witness the website and other creationists are giving you. I have gone to the library and gotten teh original Science article. Have you?

It doesn't say what these reportes say it says.

The meeting was about phyletic gradualism. This is a sub-theory that Darwin proposed. In it the rate of evolutionary change was constant. Moreover, Darwin emphasized that entire large populations transformed to new species. This transformation of the entire population of one species to another species over time is called anagenesis.

Gould and Eldredge realized that most of evolution could not have proceeded that way. Since anagenesis doesn't produce an increase in the number of species, eventually all species would go extinct since extinction does occur. Gould and Eldredge took Mayr's allopatric speciation model and proposed that the fossil record showed that most speciation in the past was allopatric and thus represents cladogenesis or the formation of two species where there was once one. It is an increase in the number of species. The second species forms from small isolated populations geographically separated from the main population.

Now, what the controversy also illustrates is that scientists get their fame from showing theories to be wrong. There is no fame in holding onto an old falsified theory. So the idea that scientists would try to keep evolution if it weren't true is simply not born out by what happened here.

Gould went way beyond his original claims in an attempt to get fame and said he was attacking the Modern Synthesis. He was not. The Modern Synthesis and Darwinism didn't rely on phyletic gradualism. When the dust had settled after 10 years (by 1990) everyone realized this. Including Gould.

"Punctuated equilibrium is neither a creationist idea nor even a non-Darwinian evolutionary theory about sudden change that produces a new species all at once in a single generation. Punctuated equilibrium accepts the conventional idea that new species form over hundreds or thousands of generations and through an extensive series of intermediate changes. But geological time is so long that even a few thousand years may appear as a mere "moment" relative to the several million years of existence for most species. Thus, rates of evolution vary enourmously and new species may appear to arise "suddenly" in geological time, even though the time involved woudl seem long, and the change very slow, when compared to a human lifetime." Stephen J. Gould, Science and Creationism, A view from the National Academy of Sciences, 2nd edition, pg 29, 1999. www.nap.edu

What this shows is that scientists will argue whenever they can and as long as they can. When scientists accept descent with modification and natural selection they do so because the data gives them no chance to argue.

In trying to "disprove" evolution, your website has instead undermined its central idea: that evolution is falsified but scientist won't admit it!

BTW, I see the website has the truncated Darwin quote about the "impossibility" of getting an eye by natural selection. If it is willing to repeat this false witness as truth, the rest of its quotes are equally suspect until proven to be accurate.

When you can give us the entire paragraph of the quote, or in the case of Medawar, his entire opening remarks, then we will listen. Until then we have no choice, based on the evidence we can check, that we are dealing with a deliberate misquote false witness.

Ironic how a site supposedly "defending" Christianity is so willing to break the 9th Commandment, isn't it?

Why don't you use the real website?
http://www.pathlights.com/ce_encyclopedia/Index.htm

lucaspa · #**503** 29th November 2003, 11:20 PM

Originally Posted by Calvin

Pls see my last post on a few names and here is some more on the fallicy of evolution itself:

The following is a another great excerpt from the Creation-Evolution
Encyclopedia well worth your read:

WISTAR DESTROYS EVOLUTION

What I see is a lot of quoting, but no reference to the publications of the meeting or the actual data.

At Wistar, evolutionary theory was
destroyed by mathematical facts.

"The ascription of all changes in form to chance has long caused raised
eyebrows.

Starting off with error. Natural selection is not chance. It appears that mathematicians can be just as ignorant of evolution as creationists.

A milestone meeting was the Wistar Institute Symposium held in
Philadelphia in April 1966. The chairman, *Sir Peter Medawar, made the
following opening remark:

"The immediate cause of this conference is a pretty widespread sense of
dissatisfaction about what has come to be thought as the accepted
evolutionary theory in the English-speaking world, the so-called
neo-Darwinian theory . . These objections to current neo-Darwinian
theory are very widely held among biologists generally; and we must on
no account, I think, make light of them."-*Peter Medawar, remarks by the
chairman, *Paul Moorhead and *Martin Kaplan (ed.), Mathematical
Challenges to the Neo-Darwinian Interpretation of Evolution, Wistar
Institute Monograph No. 5.

Now, where has this gone since? It appears that the mathematicians called the conference, made their case, and then found that their mathematics were irrelevant to the biological problem.

A number of mathematicians, familiar with the biological problems, spoke
at that 1966 Wistar Institute. They clearly refuted neo-Darwinianism in
several areas, and showed that its "fitness" and "adaptation" theories
were tautologous-little more than circular reasoning.

Then they weren't familiar with the biological problems. Fitness has a precise mathematical definition based on Mendelian genetics.

Fitness is the ratio of the progeny actually produced to the progeny expected from Mendelian inheritance. Fitness is therefore always relative (Understanding Evolution, pp. 153-154.) We can also get a selection coefficient that measures the selective advantage, or disadvantage. S = 1.0 - fitness.

The mathematicians weren't familiar with this? Seems not!

For example, one of the mathematicians, *Murray Eden of MIT, explained
that life could not begin by the "random selection," which is the basic
pillar of evolutionary teaching. Yet he said that if randomness is set
aside, then only "design" would remain-and that would require purposive
planning by an Intelligence.

LOL!! Life doesn't begin by "random selection". The term itself is nonsense. Life begins by chemistry. And that is not randomness. No chemist would describe chemical reactions as "random"!

At last mathematicians were able to work out
the probability of evolution ever having occurred. They discovered that,
mathematically, life would neither have begun nor evolved by random
action.

Everyone agrees to this. Evolution is not random! Just shows that either 1) mathematicians don't understand biology or 2) your source is misleading you.

*Murray Eden showed that it would be impossible for even a single
ordered pair of genes to be produced by DNA mutations in the bacteria,
E. coli,-with 5 billion years in which to produce it!

Too bad Hall and colleagues showed him to be wrong.
1. BG Hall,Evolution on a petri dish. The evolved beta-galactosidase system as a model for studying evolution in the laboratory. Evolutionary Biology 15: 85-150,1982.
2. BG Hall, Evolution of new metabolic functions in laboratory organisms. in Evolution of Genes and Proteins ed. by M Nei and RK Koehn, Sinhouer Associates,Sunderland, MA, 1983. Also described at http://biocrs.biomed.brown.edu/Darwin/DI/AcidTest.html

Eden then showed the
mathematical impossibility of protein forming by chance. He also
reported on his extensive investigations into genetic data on hemoglobin
(red blood cells).

Hemoglobin has two chains, called alpha and beta. A minimum of 120
mutations would be required to convert alpha to beta. At least 34 of
those changes require changeovers in 2 or 3 nucleotides. Yet, *Eden
pointed out that, if a single nucleotide change occurs through mutation,
the result ruins the blood and kills the organism!

Wrong. 8. N.H. Komiyama et al. Nature, 373, 244(1995), points out that just a change of *12* amino acids in human hemoglobin would give it the properties of crocodile hemoglobin, and allow humans to stay under water for prolonged periods.

Besides, Eden apparently doesn't know that many single nucleotide substitutions are silent and don't change the amino acid at all! Look, if you promote wrong data, then of course you get wrong conclusions. However good a mathematician Eden may be, he's a terrible geneticist. Math is dependent on getting the right premises. Math is particularly susceptible to GIGO -- garbage in, garbage out. These guys started with garbage and ended up with it.

George Wald stood up and explained that he had done extensive research
on hemoglobin also,-and discovered that if just ONE mutational change of
any kind was made in it, the hemoglobin would not function properly. For
example, the change of one amino acid out of 287 in hemoglobin causes
sickle-cell anemia.

But the hemoglobin still functions. I doubt that Wald said this. It sounds like your source misrepresented him. It's amazing that all this research never shows up as a paper in PubMed, isn't it?

LorentzHA · #**504** 29th November 2003, 11:23 PM

Originally Posted by Jet Black

we are all closet creationists, remember?

So when are you going to come out?

lucaspa · #**505** 29th November 2003, 11:30 PM

Originally Posted by Mike Flynn

I never said that it did. I am talking about scientific evidence (or proof) of God's existence. Revelation hardly qualifies. I have always said that there is evidence for faith...just not the scientific kind. Why have you assumed that I am implying otherwise? Are we not talking about strictly scientific evidence here?

You didn't specify that, Mike. Go back to the post I quoted. You found it amazing that God did not give "any" evidence! Where did you say "scientific"?

I am saying that there is no provable, repeatable, irrefutable data that points to God's existence.

Look at the words you are using. "proveable", "irrefutable". You are stacking the deck against yourself. What you mean to say is that there is no intersubjective data that conclusively shows the existence of God. By "conclusively" I mean "all other hypotheses to explain the data have been falsified".

I am not saying that God does not engage in and reveal Himself this existence at all. I wouldn't be able to witness as a Christian here if that were true. Its just that the real evidence that He exists is made plain when you cross the boundary into faith....that same evidence is meaningless to those that havn't.

Again you are stacking the deck against yourself. You say you already have to believe before you can see the data. That's wrong. Saul did not believe in a risen Christ before he saw the evidence that convinced him. CS Lewis was not a theist when he had the personal experiences that convinced him.

The real evidence of personal experience does not depend on a prior belief. It's just that not everyone has the personal experience. To those that have not had the personal experience, their experience is of no experience and they do what the theists do -- believe their experience above others.

You don't seem to recall previous threads where we have agreed on precisely these points.

I do recall them, which is why I am commenting here. Your posts here don't reflect the same ideas the other ones did. All I can do is go by what you write.

While I appreciate your posts tremendously, sometimes it seems like you are intent to pick apart posts whether they are in agreement with you or not.

And I do! Statements get tested, Mike. It doesn't matter who says them. It doesn't matter what the person's previous ideas were. What matters is the statements right here and now. And either thru accident or intention, your statements were not saying what you think they did. But I can't read your mind. I can only go by the statements.

lucaspa · #**506** 29th November 2003, 11:47 PM

Originally Posted by Calvin

I want to go head to head with the bigotry and close mindedness of atheists,

Then do that! Argue against atheism! Not evolution. EVOLUTION IS NOT ATHEISM!

the scientists I love.

Are you under the impression that all scientists are atheist!!! NONSENSE!

Calvin, you are tragically arguing the wrong battle in the wrong place against the wrong foe. If you want to argue against atheism I will help you. But this isn't it. This is playing right into the hands of atheism! If you make science and evolution be atheism, then all you are going to do is prove atheism.

This is a major reason why creationism is such a danger to Christianity. By painting science as atheistic and evolution as atheism incarnate, you guarantee to give legitimacy to atheism and "disprove" theism.

Here is an example.

Pls post one proof where information is added....just one....or just one proof for evolution at all for that matter....pls...I beg you?

If you want "proof", then that can be provided. I've provided increase in information. In fact, the IDer William Dembski has demonstrated that selection creates information. So, guess what natural selection is going to do?

Remember, Darwin's book was On the Origin of the Species.
1. G Kilias, SN Alahiotis, and M Pelecanos. A multifactorial genetic investigation of speciation theory using drosophila melanogaster Evolution 34:730-737, 1980. Laboratory experiment to get new species. Did so by natural selection. What's more, the new species and the old had a genetic difference of 3%. Chimps and humans, when measured the same way, have a genetic difference less than 2%!

1. Principles of Paleontology by DM Raup and SM Stanley, 1971, there are transitional series between classes. (mammals and reptiles are examples of a class)
2. HK Erben, Uber den Ursprung der Ammonoidea. Biol. Rev. 41: 641-658, 1966.

In both of these papers you have a smooth transition of individuals from one species to another to another to another to another across genera, family, order, and to a new class in the taxonomic system. Remember, mammals and birds are examples of a class. So you have a smooth transition in the right time sequence that proves macroevolution in the fossil record as the Kilias et al paper shows macroevolution in real time.

I haven't seen any...either have all the biologists, scientists or educators I have posted.

Oh, yes they have. Except for some of the ignorant mathematicians, all the biologists you quoted have accepted evolution. They have the evidence. It's just that the misquotes make it look different by false witness. You haven't seen any evidence because you only go to creationist websites that hide the information from you. That's your problem, not evolution's.

That's why evolution is being discarded and educated scientists and bilogists are leaving this fairy tale in masses today.

LOL! Calvin, go to Pubmed at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi and enter "evolution" as your search term. If you check "Limits" you will find a box called "Entrez date". After you notice the number of papers on evolution in general, do the search using 3 months, 6 months, 1 year, two years, etc. back. Notice the increase in the number of papers in recent years! It's a nice fairy tale of your own that you believe, but it is not one backed by facts. Sorry.

lucaspa · #**507** 29th November 2003, 11:55 PM

Originally Posted by napajohn

You mentioned : Natures Destiny also complete title is "Nature’s Destiny: How the Laws of Biology Reveal Purpose in the Universe. (Denton 1998)...purpose..what does purpose have to do with evolution..i thought evolution was naturalistic occuring without an intelligent designer (God?) ..that life has within it the ability to produce, replicate to greater complexity all without an external intelligent form guiding it

What you have defined is atheism, not evolution. Darwin thought that evolution was how God accomplished His purpose. So have a great many other people.

What evolution does say is that the material processes are complete as material processes. IOW, there is no need for God to directly manufacture either life or specific organisms or parts of organisms. Chemistry and natural selection will do the manufacturing just fine. IOW, God manufactured organisms using chemistry and evolution.

But to go beyond this and say that God is absent is going beyond science into a belief.

read up on Michael Behe and see his issues..he is not a creationist per se

Been there, done that, bought the T-shirt. I own Darwin's Black Box and have read other essays by Behe. I also know that Behe's thesis that Darwinian evolution can't make IC structures has been refuted. Here is a good summary:
http://www.cbs.dtu.dk/staff/dave/articles/jtb.pdf

Calvin · #**508** 30th November 2003, 12:04 AM

Originally Posted by PhantomLlama

Nothing you have written here disproves evolution. It merely says evolution took a different route than previously envisaged.

LOL.....this is hilarious!

A different route that previously "envisaged".....

Yeah....it took a different route ok....a real louie.....LOLLLLLLLLLL!!!!!

Evolution is a vision though,,,I'm with you there.......it's the vision of a madman!

Hey, how many other louie's is it going to take do you think before it settle's down, how many other visions are we going to see, it's not millions of years now it's hundred's of thousands of years....you promise, right?,,,,,oh well....it's all relatives anyway, right?

LOLLLLLLLLLLLLL

You guy's kill me!

Hey, I got one......once upon a time in a far away land a long long time ago, there was little bity tiny weenie fishy like thingy. And he was swimmin 'round an 'round an 'round and he didn't know where to go so he swam up to the dirty shore and looked around and said "I'm gonna eat me some meat"....but there wasn't any meat around yet so he ate some green things until other swimmy things swam 'round an 'round an 'round and landed on the shore too and grew up to be meaty things and then they could eat each other up and then they were all really happy. And tat's how everything that was is and is was and you can bet your booty's tat's right, right?

LOLLLLL......

If this wasn't so sad it really would be alot more funnier....well........enough fun for one day, it's off to beddie now kiddie's, I see no more proof's have been made to my challenge but a whole lota grinding and gnashing goin on!

LOL....Give me a holler when you think you got another visage (he he he he).....ok?

lucaspa · #**509** 30th November 2003, 12:11 AM

Originally Posted by Calvin

C'mon, that's it? You give me 20 sites and say "read this!" LOL, I want to hear it in your own words. I have read the books and they are nothng.

I don't think you have read the books.

For instance take speciation.

The following is another great excerpt from the Creation-Evolution
Encyclopedia well worth your read:

SCIENTISTS SPEAK ABOUT SPECIATION
An asterisk ( * ) by a name indicates that person is not known to be a
creationist. Of over 4,000 quotations in the books this Encyclopedia is
based on, only 164 statements are by creationists.

INTRODUCTION
The knowing are disillusioned, the ignorant are gullible.

"Throughout the past century there has always existed a significant
minority of first-rate biologists who have never been able to bring
themselves to accept the validity of Darwinian claims. In fact, the
number of biologists who have expressed some degree of disillusionment
is practically endless."-*Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis
(1986), p. 327.

A false witness. Denton is indeed known as a creationist, especially at the time he wrote the book. He has since changed to a theistic evolutionist.

2. Have you noticed that none of the quotes are later than 1986, and that one was a creationist? You are aware that new data falsifies old ideas, aren't you?

"Darwin never really did discuss the origin of the species in his Origin
of the Species."-*Niles Eldredge, Time Frames: The Rethinking of
Darwinian Evolution and the Theory of Punctuated Equilibria (1985), p.
33.

This is a misquote. It's the same sentence Eldredge used in his The Monkey Business: A Scientist Looks at Creationism. Eldredge goes on to say in the rest of the paragraph that Darwin did indeed discuss the origin of species. The whole book was that discussion rather than anything specific.

ONLY WELL-DEFINED SPECIES
If the theory was true, there would be no sharp distinctions, just a
blur.

"Charles Darwin, himself the father of evolution in his later days,
gradually became aware of the lack of real evidence for his evolutionary
speciation and wrote: `As by this theory, innumerable transitional forms
must have existed. Why do we not find them embedded in the crust of the
earth? Why is not all nature in confusion instead of being, as we see
them, well-defined species?"-H. Enoch, Evolution or Creation, (1966), p.
139.

Darwin answered this. The intermediate forms die out. Also, Darwin counted on the incompleteness of the fossil record. It turns out that most speciation was allopatric and we simply don't have the right rocks at the surface, or the transitions occurred faster than the rock layers were laid down.

*G.H. Harper, "Alternatives to Evolution," in Creation
Research Society Quarterly 17(1):49-50.

Another falsehood. Only creationists are allowed to publish in the CRSQ.

"Why should we be able to classify plants and animals into types or
species at all? In a fascinating editorial feature in Natural History,
Stephen Gould writes that biologists have been quite successful in
dividing up the living world into distinct and discrete species.
Furthermore, our modern scientific classifications often agree in minute
detail with the `folk classifications' of so-called primitive peoples,
and the same criteria apply as well to fossils. In other words, says
Gould, there is a recognizable reality and distinct boundaries between
types at all times and all places . .

" `But,' says Gould, `how could the existence of distinct species be
justified by a theory [evolution] that proclaimed ceaseless change as
the most fundamental fact of nature?' For an evolutionist, why should
there by species at all? If all life forms have been produced by gradual
expansion through selected mutations from a small beginning gene pool,
organisms really should just grade into one another without distinct
boundaries."-Henry Morris and Gary Parker, What is Creation Science?
(1987), pp. 121-122.

So we have creationists quoting Gould. Why don't you look Gould up directly and see what he said?

"Despite this, many species and even whole families remain inexplicably
constant. The shark of today, for instance, is hardly distinguishable
from the shark of 150 million years ago. And this constancy is seen at
higher levels too: Birds vary widely in size, shape, coloring, song, and
habits, but are still substantially similar to the birds of the early
Tertiary.

I'll answer this one in the next post. However, note that sharks are a family not a species. The family is very similar but are not the same species as existed before.

ONLY THE SPECIES EXISTS
Phylum, class, order, family, and most genera are just paper
classifications. (Some creatures classed by men as genera or subspecies
are really species.)

Now, I want you to remember this! All the "higher" taxa are simply groups of species. You wanted speciation. I'm going to give you what looks like a long list but is really just the tip of the iceberg of observed speciation. I don't want you saying "but they are still flies". Flies are a genus or family, not a species. Now, can you name the genus that is really a species?

"Species are groups of interbreeding natural populations that are
reproductively isolated from other groups."-*Ernst Mayr, Principles of
Systematic Zoology (1969).

Now, I want you to remember this one too. All the examples I am giving you are now reproductively isolated! The list is in the next post. It is so long that it causes the post to be too long!

lucaspa · #**510** 30th November 2003, 12:12 AM

General
1. M Nei and J Zhang, Evolution: molecular origin of species. Science 282: 1428-1429, Nov. 20, 1998. Primary article is: CT Ting, SC Tsaur, ML We, and CE Wu, A rapidly evolving homeobox at the site of a hybrid sterility gene. Science 282: 1501-1504, Nov. 20, 1998. As the title implies, has found the genes that actually change during reproductive isolation.
2. M Turelli, The causes of Haldane's rule. Science 282: 889-891, Oct.30, 1998. Haldane's rule describes a phase every population goes thru during speciation: production of inviable and sterile hybrids. Haldane's rule states "When in the F1 [first generation] offspring of two different animal races one sex is absent, rare, or sterile, that sex is the heterozygous [heterogemetic; XY, XO, or ZW] sex."Two leading explanations are fast-male and dominance. Both get supported. X-linked incompatibilities would affect heterozygous gender more because only one gene."
3. Barton, N. H., J. S. Jones and J. Mallet. 1988. No barriers to speciation. Nature. 336:13-14.
4. Baum, D. 1992. Phylogenetic species concepts. Trends in Ecology and Evolution. 7:1-3.
5. Rice, W. R. 1985. Disruptive selection on habitat preference and the evolution of reproductive isolation: an exploratory experiment. Evolution. 39:645-646.
6. Ringo, J., D. Wood, R. Rockwell, and H. Dowse. 1989. An experiment testing two hypotheses of speciation. The American Naturalist. 126:642-661.
7. Schluter, D. and L. M. Nagel. 1995. Parallel speciation by natural selection. American Naturalist. 146:292-301.
8. Callaghan, C. A. 1987. Instances of observed speciation. The American Biology Teacher. 49:3436.
9. Cracraft, J. 1989. Speciation and its ontology: the empirical consequences of alternative species concepts for understanding patterns and processes of differentiation. In Otte, E. and J. A. Endler [eds.] Speciation and its consequences. Sinauer Associates, Sunderland, MA. pp. 28-59.
10. Callaghan, C. A. 1987. Instances of observed speciation. The American Biology
Teacher. 49:3436.

Speciation in Insects
1. G Kilias, SN Alahiotis, and M Pelecanos. A multifactorial genetic investigation of speciation theory using drosophila melanogaster Evolution 34:730-737, 1980. Got new species of fruit flies in the lab after 5 years on different diets and temperatures. Also confirmation of natural selection in the process. Lots of references to other studies that saw speciation.
2. JM Thoday, Disruptive selection. Proc. Royal Soc. London B. 182: 109-143, 1972.
Lots of references in this one to other speciation.
3. KF Koopman, Natural selection for reproductive isolation between Drosophila pseudobscura and Drosophila persimilis. Evolution 4: 135-148, 1950. Using artificial mixed poulations of D. pseudoobscura and D. persimilis, it has been possible to show,over a period of several generations, a very rapid increase in the amount of reproductive isolation between the species as a result of natural selection.
4. LE Hurd and RM Eisenberg, Divergent selection for geotactic response and evolution of reproductive isolation in sympatric and allopatric populations of houseflies. American Naturalist 109: 353-358, 1975.
5. Coyne, Jerry A. Orr, H. Allen. Patterns of speciation in Drosophila. Evolution. V43. P362(20) March, 1989.
6. Dobzhansky and Pavlovsky, 1957 An incipient species of Drosophila, Nature 23: 289- 292.
7. Ahearn, J. N. 1980. Evolution of behavioral reproductive isolation in a laboratory stock of Drosophila silvestris. Experientia. 36:63-64.
8. 10. Breeuwer, J. A. J. and J. H. Werren. 1990. Microorganisms associated with chromosome destruction and reproductive isolation between two insect species. Nature. 346:558-560.
9. Powell, J. R. 1978. The founder-flush speciation theory: an experimental approach. Evolution. 32:465-474.
10. Dodd, D. M. B. and J. R. Powell. 1985. Founder-flush speciation: an update of experimental results with Drosophila. Evolution 39:1388-1392. 37. Dobzhansky, T. 1951. Genetics and the origin of species (3rd edition). Columbia University Press, New York.
11. Dobzhansky, T. and O. Pavlovsky. 1971. Experimentally created incipient species of Drosophila. Nature. 230:289-292.
12. Dobzhansky, T. 1972. Species of Drosophila: new excitement in an old field. Science. 177:664-669.
13. Dodd, D. M. B. 1989. Reproductive isolation as a consequence of adaptive divergence in Drosophila melanogaster. Evolution 43:1308-1311.
14. de Oliveira, A. K. and A. R. Cordeiro. 1980. Adaptation of Drosophila willistoni experimental populations to extreme pH medium. II. Development of incipient reproductive isolation. Heredity. 44:123-130.15. 29. Rice, W. R. and G. W. Salt. 1988. Speciation via disruptive selection on habitat preference: experimental evidence. The American Naturalist. 131:911-917.
30. Rice, W. R. and G. W. Salt. 1990. The evolution of reproductive isolation as a correlated character under sympatric conditions: experimental evidence. Evolution. 44:1140-1152.
31. del Solar, E. 1966. Sexual isolation caused by selection for positive and negative phototaxis and geotaxis in Drosophila pseudoobscura. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (US). 56:484-487.
32. Weinberg, J. R., V. R. Starczak and P. Jora. 1992. Evidence for rapid speciation following a founder event in the laboratory. Evolution. 46:1214-1220.
33. V Morell, Earth's unbounded beetlemania explained. Science 281:501-503, July 24, 1998. Evolution explains the 330,000 odd beetlespecies. Exploitation of newly evolved flowering plants.
34. B Wuethrich, Speciation: Mexican pairs show geography's role. Science 285: 1190, Aug. 20, 1999. Discusses allopatric speciation. Debate with ecological speciation on which is most prevalent.

Speciation in Plants
1. Speciation in action Science 72:700-701, 1996 A great laboratory study of the evolution of a hybrid plant species. Scientists did it in the lab, but the genetic data says it happened the same way in nature.
2. Hybrid speciation in peonies http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/061288698v1#B1
3. http://www.holysmoke.org/new-species.htm new species of groundsel by hybridization
4. Butters, F. K. 1941. Hybrid Woodsias in Minnesota. Amer. Fern. J. 31:15-21.
5. Butters, F. K. and R. M. Tryon, jr. 1948. A fertile mutant of a Woodsia hybrid. American Journal of Botany. 35:138.
6. Toxic Tailings and Tolerant Grass by RE Cook in Natural History, 90(3): 28-38, 1981 discusses selection pressure of grasses growing on mine tailings that are rich in toxic heavy metals. "When wind borne pollen carrying nontolerant genes crosses the border [between prairie and tailings] and fertilizes the gametes of tolerant females, the resultant offspring show a range of tolerances. The movement of genes from the pasture to the mine would, therefore, tend to dilute the tolerance level of seedlings. Only fully tolerant individuals survive to reproduce, however. This selective mortality, which eliminates variants, counteracts the dilution and molds a toatally tolerant population. The pasture and mine populations evolve distinctive adaptations because selective factors are dominant over the homogenizing influence of foreign genes."
7. Clausen, J., D. D. Keck and W. M. Hiesey. 1945. Experimental studies on the nature of species. II. Plant evolution through amphiploidy and autoploidy, with examples from the Madiinae. Carnegie Institute Washington Publication, 564:1-174.
8. Cronquist, A. 1988. The evolution and classification of flowering plants (2nd edition). The New York Botanical Garden, Bronx, NY.
9. P. H. Raven, R. F. Evert, S. E. Eichorn, Biology of Plants (Worth, New York,ed. 6, 1999).
10. M. Ownbey, Am. J. Bot. 37, 487 (1950).
11. M. Ownbey and G. D. McCollum, Am. J. Bot. 40, 788 (1953).
12. S. J. Novak, D. E. Soltis, P. S. Soltis, Am. J. Bot. 78, 1586 (1991).
13. P. S. Soltis, G. M. Plunkett, S. J. Novak, D. E. Soltis, Am. J. Bot. 82,1329 (1995).
14. Digby, L. 1912. The cytology of Primula kewensis and of other related Primula hybrids. Ann. Bot. 26:357-388.
15. Owenby, M. 1950. Natural hybridization and amphiploidy in the genus Tragopogon. Am. J. Bot. 37:487-499.
16. Pasterniani, E. 1969. Selection for reproductive isolation between two populations of maize, Zea mays L. Evolution. 23:534-547.

Speciation in microorganisms
1. Canine parovirus, a lethal disease of dogs, evolved from feline parovirus in the 1970s.
2. Budd, A. F. and B. D. Mishler. 1990. Species and evolution in clonal organisms -- a summary and discussion. Systematic Botany 15:166-171.
3. Bullini, L. and G. Nascetti. 1990. Speciation by hybridization in phasmids and other insects. Canadian Journal of Zoology. 68:1747-1760.
4. Boraas, M. E. 1983. Predator induced evolution in chemostat culture. EOS. Transactions of the American Geophysical Union. 64:1102.
5. Brock, T. D. and M. T. Madigan. 1988. Biology of Microorganisms (5th edition). Prentice Hall, Englewood, NJ.
6. Castenholz, R. W. 1992. Species usage, concept, and evolution in the cyanobacteria (blue-green algae). Journal of Phycology 28:737-745.
7. Boraas, M. E. The speciation of algal clusters by flagellate predation. EOS. Transactions of the American Geophysical Union. 64:1102.
8. Castenholz, R. W. 1992. Speciation, usage, concept, and evolution in the cyanobacteria (blue-green algae). Journal of Phycology 28:737-745.
9. Shikano, S., L. S. Luckinbill and Y. Kurihara. 1990. Changes of traits in a bacterial population associated with protozoal predation. Microbial Ecology. 20:75-84.

New Genus
1. Muntzig, A, Triticale Results and Problems, Parey, Berlin, 1979. Describes whole new *genus* of plants, Triticosecale, of several species, formed by artificial selection. These plants are important in agriculture.

Invertebrate not insect
1. ME Heliberg, DP Balch, K Roy, Climate-driven range expansion and morphological evolution in a marine gastropod. Science 292: 1707-1710, June1, 2001. Documents mrorphological change due to disruptive selection over time. Northerna and southern populations of A spirata off California from Pleistocene to present.
2. Weinberg, J. R., V. R. Starczak and P. Jora. 1992. Evidence for rapid speciation following a founder event with a polychaete worm. . Evolution. 46:1214-1220.

Vertebrate Speciation
1. N Barton Ecology: the rapid origin of reproductive isolation Science 290:462-463, Oct. 20, 2000. www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/290/5491/462 Natural selection of reproductive isolation observed in two cases. Full papers are: AP Hendry, JK Wenburg, P Bentzen, EC Volk, TP Quinn, Rapid evolution of reproductive isolation in the wild: evidence from introduced salmon. Science 290: 516-519, Oct. 20, 2000. and M Higgie, S Chenoweth, MWBlows, Natural selection and the reinforcement of mate recognition. Science290: 519-521, Oct. 20, 2000
2. G Vogel, African elephant species splits in two. Science 293: 1414, Aug. 24, 2001. http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/conten.../293/5534/1414
3. C Vila` , P Savolainen, JE. Maldonado, IR. Amorim, JE. Rice, RL. Honeycutt, KA. Crandall, JLundeberg, RK. Wayne, Multiple and Ancient Origins of the Domestic Dog Science 276: 1687-1689, 13 JUNE 1997. Dogs no longer one species but 4 according to the genetics. http://www.idir.net/~wolf2dog/wayne1.htm
4. Barrowclough, George F.. Speciation and Geographic Variation in Black-tailed Gnatcatchers. (book reviews) The Condor. V94. P555(2) May, 1992
5. Kluger, Jeffrey. Go fish. Rapid fish speciation in African lakes. Discover. V13. P18(1) March, 1992.
Formation of five new species of cichlid fishes which formed since they were isolated from the parent stock, Lake Nagubago. (These fish have complex mating rituals and different coloration.) See also Mayr, E., 1970. _Populations, Species, and Evolution_, Massachusetts, Harvard University Press. p. 348
6. Genus _Rattus_ currently consists of 137 species [1,2] and is known to have
originally developed in Indonesia and Malaysia during and prior to the Middle
Ages[3].
[1] T. Yosida. Cytogenetics of the Black Rat. University Park Press, Baltimore, 1980.
[2] D. Morris. The Mammals. Hodder and Stoughton, London, 1965.
[3] G. H. H. Tate. "Some Muridae of the Indo-Australian region," Bull. Amer. Museum Nat. Hist. 72: 501-728, 1963.
7. Stanley, S., 1979. _Macroevolution: Pattern and Process_, San Francisco,
W.H. Freeman and Company. p. 41
Rapid speciation of the Faeroe Island house mouse, which occurred in less than 250 years after man brought the creature to the island.

Speciation in the Fossil Record
1. Paleontological documentation of speciation in cenozoic molluscs from Turkana basin. Williamson, PG, Nature 293:437-443, 1981. Excellent study of "gradual" evolution in an extremely find fossil record.
2. A trilobite odyssey. Niles Eldredge and Michelle J. Eldredge. Natural History 81:53-59, 1972. A discussion of "gradual" evolution of trilobites in one small area and then migration and replacement over a wide area. Is lay discussion of punctuated equilibria, and does not overthrow Darwinian gradual change of form. Describes transitionals