Creation & EvolutionForum for the discussion of this important topic. This forum is open to non-believers. There is a Christians-only forum in the Christians-only section too.
Oh, but we have. Remember, there are species for whom a "generation" is only a few months or even a few weeks. So you can observe hundreds, even thousands of generations in the space of a few years. Changes such as these are an observed fact.
So what new species have we observed evolving in these occurances? I haven't seen reports of any.
Come on. You were pointed to these 2 or 3 times right back at the beginning of this thread. Are you saying you never read them? Or that you did not understand them?
Nevertheless, here are some again:
Case One: allopatric speciation
Kilias, SN Alahiotis, and M Pelecanos A multifactorial genetic investigation of speciation theory using drosophila melanogaster; Evolution 34:730-737, 1980.
5.3.4 Sexual Isolation as a Byproduct of Adaptation to Environmental Conditions in Drosophila melanogaster Kilias, et al. (1980) exposed [/i]D. melanogaster[/i] populations to different temperature and humidity regimes for several years. They performed mating tests to check for reproductive isolation. They found some sterility in crosses among populations raised under different conditions. (1) They also showed some positive assortative mating. (2) These things were not observed in populations which were separated but raised under the same conditions. (3) They concluded that sexual isolation was produced as a byproduct of selection. (4)
To be more specific, the researchers began with a homgeneous population of D. melanogaster. They divided the population into several different groups. They kept one group as a control group---raising it in the familiar environment it had always been in. (3). They placed each of the others in a new and different environment, including, in some cases, unfamiliar food sources such as bread and meat.
After several years, they found each population well-adapted to its new environment. They also found:
some of the adapted populations could no longer reproduce successfully with other populations --- even though they all came originally from the same parent population (1)
some of the adapted populations refused to mate with other populations. (2)
these observations did not apply to the population kept in its original environment. (3)
Now remember what you said on August 9. post #435
Originally Posted by razzelflaben
Originally Posted by gluadys
Away back in post 158 (july 30) I posted this definition of species. It is basically the biological definition. As far as I am concerned it is the most useful working definition of a species.
Do you have any problems with using it as a standard definition?
If all groups accept the fuzziness, not at all, it seems to work fine for me.
By the biological definition of species (based on reproductive isolation) this experiment produced new species of Drosophila from a common ancestor. Species that refused to breed with other populations descended from the same ancestor and/or were unable to produce fertile offspring when they did mate.
If you check posts by lucaspa elsewhere on this forum (he is a professional biologist) he notes that in some cases the genetic difference between the parent species and the daughter species amounted to 3% of the genome. Humans and chimpanzees are differentiated by only 2%.
Now, is this or is this not a case of direct observation of speciation?
As direct observation, how is it not conclusive evidence that speciation happens? i.e. that evolution happens.
Two species of sunflower, the "common sunflower", Helianthus annuus, and the "prairie sunflower", H. petiolaris, grow widely over the western half of the United States. They can interbreed, but only rarely are fertile offspring produced.
However, Rieseberg and colleagues have found evidence that successful hybridization between them has happened naturally in the past. They have shown that three other species of sunflower (each growing in a habitat too harsh for either parental type) are each the product of an ancient hybridization between Helianthus annuus and [/i]H. petiolaris[/i]. Although each of these species has the same diploid number of chromosomes as the parents (2n = 34), they each have a pattern of chromosome segments that have been derived, by genetic recombination, from both the parental genomes. They demonstrated this in several ways, notably by combining RFLP analysis with the polymerase chain reaction (PCR).
They even went on to produce (at a low frequency) annuus x petiolaris hybrids in the greenhouse that mimicked the phenotypes and genotypes of the natural hybrids. (You can read about the results of these monumental studies in the 29 August 2003 issue of Science.)
So here we have both natural speciation (unless you can explain the three other species of sunflower differently) and a laboratory replication of the same speciation.
The laboratory replication is a direct observation of speciation.
Case 3: A unicellular speciation
Bacteria that eat waste nylon-
The ability of a bacterium to consume nylon must be a mutation, as nylon did not even exist until the 1940’s. These bacteria metabolize short nylon oligomers with enzymes in their system. These enzymes have come from a frameshift mutation of a gene which codes for an unrelated enzyme. This has been repeated experimentally to test the validity of the theory. In the experiments, non-nylon-metabolizing strains of the bacterium Pseudomonas were grown in media with only nylon oligomers available for food. Within a few generations, the bacteria were producing the enzyme needed to metabolize the oligomers.
For another natural example of the same type of speciation in a Flavobacterium see:
In what cases have we observed speciation to crose species lines? What data proves it is not fraudulant? And how many cases have we obseved? Were the cased observed able to reproduce? Please, where is the evidence to support this claim? I am hungry for truth, not speculation.
See above for examples. What proves that these are not fraudulent? The fact that a) they passed peer review in order to get published in the first place, and b) the papers published describe minutely the methods used and the results obtained. Anyone can read and challenge these experiments; or try to replicate them.
We have observed facts, that animal such as the neonate salamander, adapt without evolution
No, we have observed that a species of salamander has evolved the ability to reproduce in a neonate state. Where did you get the idea that the neotony could occur without evolution?
It is not a sufficent prediction to say that we can assume that species evolve into new species.
We don't assume this. Speciation has been documented by direct observation.
For example, there are those here who assert that the neonate is a different species.
Has anyone said that? I missed it if they did. It could be that it is a different species. Depends on whether or not it can reproduce with the parent species.
I suggest to you that the neonate is the same species or it would not grow into a salamander.
You mean if the iodine is added again? Well, if you manipulate the genome of chickens they will grow teeth. (They still have the genes to do so; but the expression of those genes is ordinarily suppressed.) Does that make chickens the same species as Archeopteryx?
To assert it is a new species is a manipulation of the definition of species to prove E. (C can also manipulate the definition)
No manipulation. If it cannot/will not reproduce with the parent species, it is a different species. If it can/will reproduce with the parent species, it is not a different species. That's what the definition says.
What the definition doesn't deal with well are the in-between cases when we can't give a straight "yes" or "no" to the question of whether it is inter-fertile with the parent species.
Yes, it should, since it is part of the observed world. All theories should also explain why it is part of the observed world. TOE does. Does TOC? Does ID?
Sorry, I forget what this was in reference too and my computer is not allowing me to see it right now.
It's in reference to nature's fuzzy species lines. You said it should be part of all the theories, and I agreed. I also said all the theories should explain why this fuzziness exists. TOE does. Speciation is a slow process and we should expect to see examples in nature of partial speciation. Fuzzy species lines indicate that we do.
So how would TOC or ID explain nature's fuzzy species lines?
All of these, and other "fuzzy" situations are explained by the TOE as part of the process of speciation. They occur because the speciation is incomplete.
Does TOC have an explanation for them? Does ID?
I am not sure I am following your line of thinking here, if the animal grows into a salamander, then the most logical explaination is that the animal is the inmature form of that salamander.
It is an immature form of that salamander. That doesn't stop if from being a separate species. If it does not mate or successfully reproduce with the original mature form, it is a new species.
Because it is born with a complete, mature reproductive system does not mean it is not a salamander.
Of course not. That is not the issue. The issue is whether or not it is a new species of salamander.
In fact, if science can prove that the neonate, when reproducing from the neonate form, produces offspring that cannot mature into salamanders, but remain in the neonate form,
Let's be clear that if the neonate is capable of reproduction it is mature in the neonate form. And it is a salamander in the neonate form. If its offspring also mature to reproductive capacity in neonate form they have matured into salamanders. What else would they be?
If the environmental condition is changed such that they mature into more ordinary looking salamanders, they have also matured into salamanders. What else would you expect them to be?
Without this, however, the neonate supports the TOC rather than the TOE for the predciction of C is that the neonate would mature into a salamander. The prediction of E would be that a neonate would have offspring that would remain neonates and couldnot mature beyond this state.
No, that is not a prediction of TOE. TOE predicts the salamander form can change in either direction, and that the development of the young will respond to the environmental condition (presence or absence of iodine).
I'll take your word for it, but can TOC explain adaptability without evolution?
Now why should we treat the theories as equally satisfactory if 2 out of 3 of them cannot explain the observations while the third does? Are not the two which fail to explain the observations failing to do precisely what a theory is supposed to do?
I gave you some possible theories to explain the phenomina in an earlier post today. I think that should be sufficient.
I have addressed those in the reply to that post. Meanwhile you have not answered this question:
"If 2 out of 3 theories fail to explain observed data, while the 3rd does, are not the first two failing to do what a theory ought to do?"
And I will add this question:
"If a theory is failing to do what a theory ought to do---namely, explain observed data---why should scientists continue to support it?"
The point is, that the fossil record cannot be counted as fact without more record studied, not that the record is falsified or fraudulant or not even that it cannot support the TOE, only that is it insufficient to claim on theory over the other.
No, the point is that every iota of data in the fossil record is observed data which the theories are supposed to explain. Even though only a small portion of the fossil record has been examined, we have thousands upon thousands of fossils and everyone of them offers data by which we can determine the adequacy of the theories which try to explain them.
This has proved to be more than sufficient evidence to make the TOE the only viable scientific theory. The TOC does NOT explain this mountain of evidence now. Why should we expect it to do so when we have tripled or quintupled or multiplied that mountain of evidence a thousand times over.
Can you name one single prediction the TOC has made about what to expect in the way of future observations in biology? Can you name any correct prediction based on TOC?
First let me ask you what that would prove? The discussion is not about one theory being more "correct" than another, but that the two sides can have a discussion without arguing and making assumptions.
I don't need to argue or to make assumptions to show that TOE explains the evidence and TOC does not.
Secondly, yes.
predicted observations, neonate salamaders will grow into salamaders with the right environment and that the offspring of the neonate will also grow into salamanders. Predicted observations, offspring of animals that cross species lines, will have difficulty or impossible reproductive systems, how's that for a start.
But these are not unique predictions. The same predictions are made by TOE. So again, TOC is only correct when it coincides with or borrows from TOE. TOE does not need to borrow from TOC.
Now every time I turn around, E are claiming that evidence that supports C is fraudulant. I suggest to you that some of the fossil evidence has been suggested to be fraudulant and you go off on me? I did not say it was fraudulant, or even that we shouldn't consider is, only that the possibility for fraud left the evidence inconclusive when making claims about the soundness of the TOE. Again, we see a double standard coming through.
That is because they have been caught doctoring evidence. No double standard when the fraud is proven. The mere possibility of fraud does not make evidence inconclusive. You have to show that there really was fraud. Otherwise, you are basically bearing false witness. Only, the fact of fraud renders the conclusions invalid.
I am beginning to understand this assertion based on one of Bellmans last posts, but when I look at the original theory, I cannot see how this assertion holds true. I can understand how some would want it too, on both sides of the issue, but not how it does in relation to the original theory, I fear someone will have to further enlighten me on that aspect of the assertion.
Since you are drawing your original theory from the bible, I can see why you are mystified. The bible does not give a precise definition of kind either, and creationists assumed, as scientific classification began to come into vogue, that "kind"="species". It was only when it was shown beyond doubt that species do evolve that some creationists opted to break with that definition. That would not be obvious from the biblical text.
What I have said from the very beginning is that one cannot pigeon hole someone's beliefs, that it is important to find out want they believe before claiming they are wrong. For example, I can be a C without holding to the beliefs of AIG and in order to have an intelligent converstion with me one must first find out if I hold to those beliefs or some other beliefs within the theory. This is called communication.
Well, that is what I am trying to do: ascertain what you personally believe, rather than assuming you buy into the canned creationist dogma of ICR or AIG or Kent Hovind. Yet every time I ask you directly what you believe, you question why I ask (see above in this post). This puzzles me. If you want me not to label you, why are you so reticent about providing your personal beliefs when asked to do so?
I'm pretty sure I already addressed this issue but to recap, you would have valid arguement if the neonate remained neonate dispite it's environment.
You have asked many times that we not make assumptions about the TOC, and I am diligently trying not to.
May I ask the same of you when it comes to the TOE. The statement above is a false assumption about what the TOE would predict. In fact it is the opposite of what the TOE would predict.
TOE says that natural selection produces adaptation to the environment. If one environment favours a neonate form, and another favours a non-neonate form, TOE predicts we will see the form favored by that environment. It does not predict that either the neonate or the ordinary form is stuck in its current form and cannot change as the environment changes. In fact it predicts that both the ordinary and neonate form will change as the environment changes.
Again, I refer you to the pepper moth thread for another excellent example of back and forth evolution, as well as the recent work on the beaks of Galapagos finches.
In fact, if man's environment changed and the "neonate" man grew into a chipanzee, then your point would be well made and I would not have anything more to say on the issue, however, the neonate does mature into a salamander when the environment is right, and humans do not grow into chimpanzees when the environment is changed, which are both predictions that the TOC would make, and would contridict the predictions of the TOE on this issue.
Again, you are making assumptions about TOE which are not correct. So here is where you need to listen and learn more about TOE so that you can evaluate it accurately. TOE would not make either of the predictions you assume it would make. Here are some reasons why:
1. An adult neotenous form is still an adult; it did not fail to mature. What it has done is retain features that in its predecessor disappeared with maturity.
2. An adult neotenous form may or may not be interfertile with a non-neotenous form. If it is inter-fertile, then its offspring may or may not be neotenous, as they can receive genetic information from both a neotenous and non-neotenous parent.
3. Whether offspring are or are not neotenous may depend on environmental factors which influence the expression of genes. However, not all neotenous features will be subject to such environmental impact. We would need to study each one on a case-by-case basis. So you cannot generalize from the salamander case to a proposed human/chimp case.
4. If the neotenous form becomes reproductively isolated from its parent species, and its neotenous features are not impacted environmentally, there is no reason it would ever revert to a non-neotenous form.
5. Humans already live in the same habitats as chimps and have not resumed a non-neotenous form. Of course, they have also not resumed an arboreal life-style or a chimp-like diet either. So even in the same habitat, they are not really in the same environment, because they are not in the same ecological niche.
I have found this habit frustrating as well. You continually say the evidence is inconclusive, but never say why you come to that conclusion. What questions are outstanding that makes them inconclusive?
I have addressed this issue many times,
No you have not. Your charge has been that the evidence is not conclusive.
But when asked to be specific about why it is not conclusive, you do not deal with the evidence.
You cite lack of evidence. That is entirely different from looking at the evidence and saying that no conclusions can be made from it. We can have a relatively small amount of actual evidence as compared to the total potential amount of evidence, and we may still be able to draw sound conclusions from it. Furthermore, even a small amount of evidence may be enough to falsify an unsound theory. My position is that the evidence we have is sufficient to rule out TOC.
You cite possible fraud, but that is not looking at the evidence, and you have produced nothing more than vague rumours of fraud. Are you saying science is not allowed to make a case unless and until it chases down and exposes every false allegation of fraud, no matter how nebulous? Is there not an American tradition of "innocent until proven guilty"?
You cite possible other explanations, but you do not provide any, or you provide vague notions which you do not link to the evidence in any way that shows how the concept explains the evidence.
You speak of "unsupported evidence like the neonate salamander", but the salamander is real. How is that "unsupported evidence"?
You speak of observations which contradict the TOE, but on the one hand, you have not cited any such observations, and on the other hand you have not given the TOE the chance you are asking for the TOC---namely that we discuss and understand it, so that we do not make incorrect assumptions about what it says, as you have been doing.
And by the way, it's not just you. Some creationists are forthright in their adherence to their peculiar interpretation of scripture as the reason for rejecting TOE.
What makes you think that I reject the TOE?
Did you miss the phrase "it's not just you"? I believe I made it clear that I was going on to speak of other creationists, not you.
And yet when I go off topic an discuss the possibilities of either theory, no one refutes my possible claims, only ignore them, sigh, or ask me why I don't offer other possible alternatives. Hmmm? Why would that be in light of the claim you just made?
If I have inadvertently ignored any claim you have made for TOC, please direct me to it. I believe my responses have been very thorough.
I am always surprised by what people object too or applaud, All I am trying to say is that until or unless the evidence provided is proven to not be fraudulant, we cannot assume it to be fact,
On the contrary. We DO assume it to be genuine until there is a reason to suspect fraud. Innocent until proven guilty, remember.
What I don't understand about my comment, is that when I mention scientific studies that support C, the E here are more than quick to point out that they are fraudulant.
Because they are. Or at least they use faulty methodology and sub-standard reporting. These are not "possible" frauds. They are frauds.
There is no double standard being used here.
it would seem that if the E are so afraid to face the facts that the evidence is not conclusive,
Evos are not afraid to face the fact that some evidence is inconclusive; but they do object to very well established evidence being called into question for no discernable reason (other than religious bias). e.g. dating of fossils.
We are talking about thousands of measurements of the age of dinosaur fossils. All of them date before 65 million years ago.
We are talking about thousands of measurements of artefacts of hominids. All of them date less than 8 million years ago.
And you are seriously suggesting that all of this order might reasonably be due to faulty readings? That is so unlikey, why even bother to mention it?
Weirder things have happened. Heck, even E would be a weirder, more unlikely thing to happen. Even C would be a weirder, more unlikely thing to happen than mere man making some mistakes.
Correct, dinosaurs were extinct long before humans. That is my point. They died millions of years before humans. There is clear evidence for that. Do you or do you not agree?
I could be wrong, but I really doubt that the dinosaurs buried their dead. Man most likely did however. This could account for at least some of the variations in the fossils, in addition, one could logically expect that the dinosaurs became extinct before man did since man is still here. What makes this theory so hard for you to grasp? It is only a theory that could explain the differences in the fossil layers, not an explaination to replace the expectations of E. They can both exist until one or the other is proven or disproven.
But how can migration account for the fact that all dino fossils are older than 65 million years, and all hominids less than 8 millions years old? This isn't even an explanation, is it?
If man did not migrate to the areas we have uncovered fossil remains until after the extinction of the dinosaur, it could explain the differences. Remember, we have uncovered only a very small amount of fossil evidence compared with all the fossil evidence there is to discover. Human error, human migration, human burial techniques can all influence the results of the fossil data. Now the data can support the TOE, but I maintain that the evidence is not conclusive to the theory and leaves much room for additional possibilities.
Inconclusive? Thousand of readings in many places using different methods all declare that dinosaurs died out before there were humans. How much more evidence do you need before you conclude that dinosaurs probably went extinct before humans existed? What would you consider to be conclusive evidence?
Conclusive evidence would be evidence that does not allow for any other possibilities. That is what conclusive means. Whether or not you think the other possibilities are possible is irrelevant. What is relavent, is whether or not they are possible.
I am glad you list this as the most unlikely. Today's dating methods are much improved over those of even 20 years ago and are very accurate.
However, that does not remove the possibility of human error, not in the dateing or in the collection of data, much less in the reading of the data and could account for some variations.
They were. That is the point of merle's post. All dinosaur bones were preserved earlier than 65 mya. All hominid bones were preserved less than 8 mya. There is a big gap between the most recent dinosaur find and the earliest hominid find.
I addressed this in my last post.
Dinosaurs lived all over the world. Humans also live all over the world. So, yes, humans have migrated into the areas inhabited by dinosaurs. But in every case there is an approximately 60 million year gap between the last dinosaur fossils and the earliest hominid fossils. So it's not a matter of just missing the dinosaurs by a few months.
However, due to the small number of fossils studied in comparision with the total number of fossils, we cannot be sure that the humans we have uncovered were living in the area at the same time as the dinosaurs.
Still want to maintain the evidence is inconclusive?
I will maintain it is inconclusive until it is proven conclusive. Inconclusive meaning that there are other possible solutions to answer the evidence. Prove otherwise and I will reconsider my stand.
2 min. over I really do have to go for now. Have a great one.
Weirder things have happened. Heck, even E would be a weirder, more unlikely thing to happen. Even C would be a weirder, more unlikely thing to happen than mere man making some mistakes.
Some mistakes!? In order to show that the dating is wrong you have to show that practically all of several hundred thousands dates (most of them cross-referenced to avoid error) are nevertheless incorrect, and not just by a little bit, but by several orders of magnitude.
I could be wrong, but I really doubt that the dinosaurs buried their dead. Man most likely did however. This could account for at least some of the variations in the fossils,
Nope. It's totally irrelevant whether bones were buried in a natural accident or a planned funeral.
in addition, one could logically expect that the dinosaurs became extinct before man did since man is still here. What makes this theory so hard for you to grasp?
It is not about dinosaurs becoming extinct before humans become extinct. It is about dinosaurs becoming extinct 60 million years before the first homind appeared on earth. What is so hard to grasp about that?
They can both exist until one or the other is proven or disproven.
One has been disproven and it's not TOE.
If man did not migrate to the areas we have uncovered fossil remains until after the extinction of the dinosaur, it could explain the differences.
60 million years worth of difference?
Remember, we have uncovered only a very small amount of fossil evidence compared with all the fossil evidence there is to discover.
We evaluate theories on what we know now, not on wishful thinking about what might be discovered in the future. We deal with the future by being prepared to change our theories when necessary---but only when necessary.
Conclusive evidence would be evidence that does not allow for any other possibilities.
And what is there about the actual evidence (not wished-for evidence of faulty dates or future fossil discoveries) that allows for any other possibility than that dinosaurs became extinct 60 million years before the first proto-human was born?
in addition, one could logically expect that the dinosaurs became extinct before man did since man is still here. What makes this theory so hard for you to grasp?
Because it's a non-sequitor. There is no "logic" in the statement to follow.
For one thing the earliest Crocodiles and Dinosaurs first appear in the the Triassic, but crocodiles are still here. By your logic, both should be gone since man is still here.
Linear Mode
