Facts for evolutionists

[RTooty]

Fact: Modern scientific method grew in a religious context. Wiki "Tabula Rasa" and look for the guy who started the idea. You will find he was a religious scholar and scientist (he was also muslim). Several of the more contemporary founders of the scientific method (Bacon and Berkerly particularly).


Fact: Natural Selection =/= Evolution, IF Evolution = Random Mutations OR Evolution = Macroevolution (macroevolution being change from species to species) OR Evolution = Beginning of Life. Natural selection is scienficially verifiable. Microevolution (change within species) is scientifically verifiable. Macroevolution is not scientifically verifiable because no one can ever empirically shown one species turning into another one. Evidence such as the fossil record merely shows that such organisms existed, not necessarily that they grew out of each other.


Fact: No one has ever shown a beneficial mutation involving the creation of a new biological process or structure such as a man who can eat rocks to survive (lithovorism as ridiculous as it sounds). You can find mutations that remove DNA, swap DNA, change an organ's size, shape, color, and function but none of these mutations have been proven to be beneficial. In a previous discussion there was a debate that there was a rare mutation that has been found in the human genome that makes a human immune to some diseases. In fact this mutation removed a certain part of the cell or cell function (I can't remember). This is like saying people who have had their legs amputated are better of than those who have their legs because they are immune to athlete's foot. Please note that this mutation was discovered but the discoverers did not document the change meaning that this "mutation" could have existed all along and was just selectively passed down or dormant in some people. And again, this is not the creation of a new beneficial genetic sequence but removal of a damaging one. Let me remind you, that the most common human mutation is CANCER.

 

[CACTUSJACKmankin]

Fact: Natural Selection =/= Evolution, IF Evolution = Random Mutations OR Evolution = Macroevolution (macroevolution being change from species to species) OR Evolution = Beginning of Life. Natural selection is scienficially verifiable. Microevolution (change within species) is scientifically verifiable. Macroevolution is not scientifically verifiable because no one can ever empirically shown one species turning into another one. Evidence such as the fossil record merely shows that such organisms existed, not necessarily that they grew out of each other.

But that fossils occur in chronologically logical sequences from primitive being early to modern being recent, isnt a coincidence. traits exclusive to one group are the result of inheritence.
furthermore the genetic and molecular evidence for common descent is such that we dont need to see macro in action. macro = micro + time.

Fact: No one has ever shown a beneficial mutation involving the creation of a new biological process or structure such as a man who can eat rocks to survive (lithovorism as ridiculous as it sounds).

no but there is a bacterium that developed the ability to digest nylon, which didnt exist in the environment until synthesized by DuPont. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nylon-eating_bacteria
I am truly sick of this no beneficial mutation stuff. Unless a mutation is 100% fatal prior to reproductive age, there can always be a set of environmental circumstances that would promote it. loss of digits is detrimental to us, but has worked out pretty well for the horse. beneficial vs detrimental relies entirely on the environmental factors that dictate ts affect on competitiveness. oh and thanks to the redundancy of the amino acid code, most mutations are benign.

 

[Vene]

I see it's PRATT time. Hopefully this isn't a post and run.

Fact: Modern scientific method grew in a religious context. Wiki "Tabula Rasa" and look for the guy who started the idea. You will find he was a religious scholar and scientist (he was also muslim). Several of the more contemporary founders of the scientific method (Bacon and Berkerly particularly).

So? Early geologists were advocates of a global flood. Now it's a joke. Ideas evolve.

Fact: Natural Selection =/= Evolution, IF Evolution = Random Mutations OR Evolution = Macroevolution (macroevolution being change from species to species) OR Evolution = Beginning of Life. Natural selection is scienficially verifiable. Microevolution (change within species) is scientifically verifiable. Macroevolution is not scientifically verifiable because no one can ever empirically shown one species turning into another one. Evidence such as the fossil record merely shows that such organisms existed, not necessarily that they grew out of each other.

Natural selection is one process that leads to evolution. Others include sexual selection, genetic drift and random mutations. As for one species changing into another, that is called speciation and has been directly observed (link). You must be new to define macroevolution properly. You're going to want to start saying that it's a change from one kind to another.

Fact: No one has ever shown a beneficial mutation involving the creation of a new biological process or structure such as a man who can eat rocks to survive (lithovorism as ridiculous as it sounds). You can find mutations that remove DNA, swap DNA, change an organ's size, shape, color, and function but none of these mutations have been proven to be beneficial. In a previous discussion there was a debate that there was a rare mutation that has been found in the human genome that makes a human immune to some diseases. In fact this mutation removed a certain part of the cell or cell function (I can't remember). This is like saying people who have had their legs amputated are better of than those who have their legs because they are immune to athlete's foot. Please note that this mutation was discovered but the discoverers did not document the change meaning that this "mutation" could have existed all along and was just selectively passed down or dormant in some people. And again, this is not the creation of a new beneficial genetic sequence but removal of a damaging one. Let me remind you, that the most common human mutation is CANCER.

Joy, genetics time. First off, I see you don't understand how genes work. DNA is responsible for the creation of a protein based on the order of the nucleotides. There are 4 different bases (adenine, guanine, thymine, and cytosine) that make up DNA (link). During protein synthesis they are paired with corresponding RNA bases (adenine, guanine, cytosine, and uracil (link)) and the RNA molecule travels to a ribosome.
This table (link) tells you which set of three bases yield which amino acid.

For example the sequence AUGAUAGCAUAA forms a peptide composed of methionine-isoleucine-alanine
and the sequence ACAGUCUUAAUU is complete nonsense.

For help in understanding the order of events, this diagram is helpful (link):

There are also multiple types of mutations, and they have nothing to do with how it effects protein synthesis (link). There are deletion mutations, which remove 1+ base from the DNA. In the above peptide example a deletion mutation (AUGAUAGCAUAA to AUGAUAGCA) removes the stop codon and makes the peptide longer depending on what bases are after it. It could also destroy it (AGAUAGCAUAA), no start codon, no peptide. There are insertions that actually add new bases to DNA. It can make a piece of junk into a peptide (ACAGUCUUAAUU to AUGCAGUCUUAAUU forms the peptide methionine-glutamine-serine) or can destroy a peptide forming sequence (AUGAUAGCAUAA to AUAGAUAGCAUAA). There are also point mutations. These one change one base into another base. They can form new peptides (UUGUUUAGACCAUAA to AUGUUUAGACCAUAA froms methionine-phenyalanine-arginine-proline), destroy existing peptides (AUGUUUAGACCAUAA to AUCUUUAGACCAUAA), or do nothing (AUGUUUAGACCAUAA to AUGUUUAGACCAUAG). All forms of mutations are capable of making new proteins and destroying existing proteins. In light of this it is very possible for a mutation to make a new protein or change one into something novel.

In fact, there is a good example of a new protein evolving. It is called nylonase (link) and is an enzyme that allows for the digestion of nylon (an artifical polymer). This protein evolved in a population of flavobacteria in Japan. This was at a pond where waste water was poured and nylon eating bacteria didn't exist until very recently. Care to tell me why this isn't a benefical mutation?

As for your cancer example, it is caused by mutation, but it is far from the most common. The most common mutation in humans are harmless, neutral mutations. The number of mutations per base per generation of humans is 2.5x10[sup]-8[/sup] (link) and the number of bases in the human genome is ~3,000,000,000 (link). This means there are ~75 mutations per human generation. Every baby born has 75 mutations in his/her genome. I guess they aren't as deadly as you think. But, this is no surprise considering that only 1.5% of our genome is responsible for the formation of proteins.

TL;DR
Your examples are flat out wrong and there is no reason we should believe a word you say. Especially since you didn't even cite a single source.

 

[TeddyKGB]

Before we begin yet another episode of Creationist Whack-a-Mole, I have some questions: What is your scientific specialty? What are your credentials? I can only assume you have some because you seem quite confident that thousands of other credentialed scientists - and a rather significant portion of biology - are completely wrong.

Notwithstanding the questions about what, exactly, these researchers are actually doing cooped up in their labs (reading their KJVs, no doubt), what Nobel-worthy data have you uncovered that overturns biology in one fell swoop?

 

[Bombila]

Vene, I have this really beautiful, intelligent scholarship winning neice just starting at university....

And it's Canada, man! No Republicans!

 

[Washington]

 

[Vene]

Vene, I have this really beautiful, intelligent scholarship winning neice just starting at university....

And it's Canada, man! No Republicans!

Oh sure, bribe the biology geek.

 

[Bombila]

Oh sure, bribe the biology geek.

Anything to advance science, I say. Besides, I'm nervous about the hordes of jocks she's about to encounter... not that there's anything wrong with jocks...

She speaks French as well.

 

[Chalnoth]

You can find mutations that remove DNA, swap DNA, change an organ's size, shape, color, and function but none of these mutations have been proven to be beneficial.

Oh, of course this has been shown!

Look, beneficial is a relative statement. A mutation is beneficial whenever it leads to more reproductive success than members of the population without the gene. Now, what the specific changes are is completely random. Most changes have no effect at all. Of those that do have an effect, a large percentage are lethal, and so simply don't get passed on (this is why approximately half of all human conceptions result in spontaneous abortion, and the prospective parents just try again the next month, none the wiser). Then we have the small changes. The things like small adjustments in body proportions, adjustments in the amount/thickness of hair. Adjustments in various body structures such as the shapes of hands/feet. Adjustments in less visible areas, such as digestion or the immune system.

All of these changes based upon random mutations that are small enough to be non-lethal then get acted on by the environment. Some percentage of them end up being beneficial. Some end up being detrimental. It all depends upon the specific environment that the population is under.

Consider wolves, just for a moment. Imagine that we have a set of genes that determine the thickness of the wolves' coat. Some mutations to these genes will make their coats thicker. Other mutations will make their coats thinner. Which of these mutations is beneficial? That entirely depends upon their environment. If they're in a situation where their coats are such that they freeze to death some percentage of the time, but rarely have heat stroke, then an increase in coat thickness is a beneficial mutation. If, on the other hand, they live in an environment where heat stroke is a more common cause of death than freezing, a loss in coat thickness is a beneficial mutation.

It all depends upon the environment. And this environment involves all sorts of factors: it involves the other members of the population in which the individual must survive. It involves the diseases that the person must overcome to survive and reproduce (right now this is a huge driver of human evolution, particularly in third-world countries...HIV resistance, for instance, is becoming more prevalent in areas where we have an AIDS epidemic). It involves other organisms in the ecosystem that are predators or prey of the organism in question, or that compete for the same resources. It involves the climate of the region in question, and what the local weather variations are. It involves the common natural disasters of the area that must be weathered from time to time. It involves which animals are sexually attractive to others of the same species.

All of these factors determine which animals survive to reproduce, and which die out without doing so, or which die out without reproducing as much. And the fact remains that various traits that depend upon our genes (as well as other heritable components) have an impact upon whether or not we survive. This means that some mutations are going to be beneficial, just as some are detrimental. Which is which depends entirely upon the environment of those genes.

Now, this process is of course slow. And thus if we want to see evolution in action, we have to look very closely. But here's one excellent example of evolution in action: that driven by malaria.

You may be aware that a particular disorder, sickle-cell anemia, is much more prevalent among those of African descent than those of European, Asian, or American descent. There turns out to be a very, very good reason for this: malaria. Malaria is a disease that has been extremely prevalent within Africa for quite a long time. There was a mutation some time ago, however, that conferred resistance to this disease. And so it grew in prevalence. But this mutation has a problem: it's great when a person has only one copy of the gene. But if a person gets a copy of the gene from both parents, then they get sickle cell anemia, and are likely to die young.

This shows the dual nature of evolution: how a change can be both beneficial and detrimental, in different circumstances. It also highlights another feature of evolution that is extremely common: evolution just doesn't find the best solution. It merely finds a solution that works. And this sickle cell gene works, at least most of the time. That's enough to make it increase in frequency in malaria-prone populations, up to a point.

It also rises the important point that evolution doesn't result in "better" organisms. A more correct understanding is that it results in different organisms. Different populations find different ways to cope with the stresses of their environments. We find that sometimes very different organisms evolve very similar tools for solving the same problems. Wings, for instance, have evolved multiple times (see insects, birds, and bats). Each time they've evolved, they've evolved somewhat differently. They grow from different structures, but largely use the same basic motion and follow the same basic shape. A bat's wing is not "better" than a bird's wing, or vice versa: it's just that the history of the bat's evolution was different from the bird's.

Anyway, I think I've rambled enough. But if you want to learn more about beneficial mutations that have been observed, see this list for a small number of examples:
http://www.gate.net/~rwms/EvoMutations.html

And for direct evidence of macroevolution, see this excellent essay:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

 

[Vene]

Anything to advance science, I say. Besides, I'm nervous about the hordes of jocks she's about to encounter... not that there's anything wrong with jocks...

She speaks French as well.

I'm sure she has dealt with jocks in the past. But I have found a good way to avoid the jocks: take mainly science classes. They simply don't have the time to study and do half-way decent (or even pass). The genetic stuff I posted, that's first year biology.

 

[RTooty]

But that fossils occur in chronologically logical sequences from primitive being early to modern being recent, isnt a coincidence. traits exclusive to one group are the result of inheritence.
furthermore the genetic and molecular evidence for common descent is such that we dont need to see macro in action. macro = micro + time.


no but there is a bacterium that developed the ability to digest nylon, which didnt exist in the environment until synthesized by DuPont.
I am truly sick of this no beneficial mutation stuff. Unless a mutation is 100% fatal prior to reproductive age, there can always be a set of environmental circumstances that would promote it. loss of digits is detrimental to us, but has worked out pretty well for the horse. beneficial vs detrimental relies entirely on the environmental factors that dictate ts affect on competitiveness. oh and thanks to the redundancy of the amino acid code, most mutations are benign.

Forgive me for my lack of knowledge of all the species of bacteria. I would like to state that these organisms are still the same species. No new species has come from them as of yet.

 

[LewisWildermuth]

RTooty, I am sorry that your religious teachers seem to have taught you things that are untrue about science and God's creation.

Please take a look at what God's creation really tells us about ourselves and how we were created, and what scientists, the majority of whom are Christians too, really say. Do as God encourages us to do and test what these people are telling you about God's creation and hold onto what is true, not just what you or your religious teachers might like to think should be true.

 

[RTooty]

But that fossils occur in chronologically logical sequences from primitive being early to modern being recent, isnt a coincidence. traits exclusive to one group are the result of inheritence.
furthermore the genetic and molecular evidence for common descent is such that we dont need to see macro in action. macro = micro + time.


no but there is a bacterium that developed the ability to digest nylon, which didnt exist in the environment until synthesized by DuPont.
I am truly sick of this no beneficial mutation stuff. Unless a mutation is 100% fatal prior to reproductive age, there can always be a set of environmental circumstances that would promote it. loss of digits is detrimental to us, but has worked out pretty well for the horse. beneficial vs detrimental relies entirely on the environmental factors that dictate ts affect on competitiveness. oh and thanks to the redundancy of the amino acid code, most mutations are benign.

Explain this:
pubmedcentral.nih.gov/pagerender.fcgi?artid=345072&pageindex=1#page

Abstract says that the ability to process nylon is a "variation of the pre-existing theme." This seems to me that biological processing of nylon something like different skin colors in humans.

 

[RTooty]

Mutation does not support evolution. A butterfly is an example of mutation but at the end of the cycle it is still... a butterfly. After hundreds of years of observation of butterflies they are still butterflies, flies are flies, and there are still the same number of finch species in the Gallipolis today as when they were discovered. Although I am impressed by some of your evolutionist arguments are always the same. It goes something like this:
1. Claim its real.
2. Say there's science to back it even though they don't have proof
3. Try to ridicule those who believe differently by some extreme example or insult of intelligence.

The bottom line. Life can not be explained by evolution. Even if I were to accept that we evolved from less species (which we are still looking for the missing link, you'd think after all these years of digging we'd find one example) it doesn't even explain how life began.

Richard Dawkins (self proclaim Messiah of Evolution) can't explain it. His "theory" is panspermia. Meaning: life came from another planet and traveled to earth and seeded us. Great explanation. He sure dogged that bullet because he now doesn't have to prove how life began. He just pawned it off to another world.

I grew up believing what I was taught in school and like every kid we were told evolution was real and I accepted it. It wasn't until I was presented with contradicting data that I realized the TRUTH was that life can not be explained. Evolutionist will say that everything is random and there is no god, but I don't see anything random about how the universe was created from nothing, how life appeared despite no "seeds" to even produce life, how perfect the Earth is to support life.

It would be easy to believe in evolution. It's a very seductive theory that tries to explain what can't be explained. But if you open your mind to the truth and allow real science to guide your world view you will find that evolution is a lie.

 

[Split Rock]

Macroevolution is not scientifically verifiable because no one can ever empirically shown one species turning into another one. Evidence such as the fossil record merely shows that such organisms existed, not necessarily that they grew out of each other.

I see you have not read Lucaspa's Observed Speciation list. Well then, you are in for a treat. Here it is:

Observed Speciation - Lucaspa

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.

Chromosome numbers in various species
http://www.kean.edu/~breid/chrom2.htm

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. www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/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 fine 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

Let me remind you, that the most common human mutation is CANCER.

And let me remind you that the majority of mutations are phenotypically Neutral. Therefore your statement is False.

 

[Split Rock]

The bottom line. Life can not be explained by evolution. Even if I were to accept that we evolved from less species (which we are still looking for the missing link, you'd think after all these years of digging we'd find one example)

How many do you want? Here's ten.

1. Kenyanthropus platyops
2. Australopithecus anamensis
3. Australopithecus afarensis
4. Australopithecus africanus
5. Homo habilis
6. Homo eraster
7. Homo erectus
8. Homo antecessor
9. Homo heidelbergensis
10. Homo neanderthalensis

it doesn't even explain how life began.

It is supposed to explain the diversity and distribution of life, not where it came from. In other words, the Origin of Species. Ever heard of the term? Someone wrote a book with that title.

Evolutionist will say that everything is random and there is no god, but I don't see anything random about how the universe was created from nothing, how life appeared despite no "seeds" to even produce life, how perfect the Earth is to support life.

Life on Earth is adapted to the Earth, not the other way around. Ever heard about the puddle who exclaimed how perfect the hole was that he found himself in?

It would be easy to believe in evolution. It's a very seductive theory that tries to explain what can't be explained. But if you open your mind to the truth and allow real science to guide your world view you will find that evolution is a lie.

So... "real science" says that part of the natural world (species) cannot be explained? Wrong again.

 

[Split Rock]

Explain this:
pubmedcentral.nih.gov/pagerender.fcgi?artid=345072&pageindex=1#page

Abstract says that the ability to process nylon is a "variation of the pre-existing theme." This seems to me that biological processing of nylon something like different skin colors in humans.

Every mutation (that has an effect on the phenotype) produces a variant of the original gene. Just as a lung is a modified swim bladder, and the vertebrate hand is a modified fin. The fact is, the nylonase mutation produced a *new* function that did not exist before; the ability to breakdown nylon. That is hardly the same as a different skin color.

 

[RTooty]

As for your cancer example, it is caused by mutation, but it is far from the most common. The most common mutation in humans are harmless, neutral mutations. The number of mutations per base per generation of humans is 2.5x10[sup]-8[/sup] and the number of bases in the human genome is ~3,000,000,000. This means there are ~75 mutations per human generation. Every baby born has 75 mutations in his/her genome. I guess they aren't as deadly as you think. But, this is no surprise considering that only 1.5% of our genome is responsible for the formation of proteins.

/quote]

You said that you said that "DNA is responsible for the creation of a protein based on the order of the nucleotides." Then you said that only "1.5% of our genome is responsible for the formation of protiens." What exactly do the rest of the 98.5% do? Also, what exactly do you define evolution as, as in the progression of species (ape, ape/man, man), adaptation of species (like the nylon eating bacteria), or the whole Big Bang/primordial ooze/man rises from the sea story?

Regarding the list of beneficial mutations, I still believe that these mutations are limited. At the end of time, dogs will still be dogs and cats will still be cats unless some crazy guy decides to try to make some sort of chimera.

I did some of the reading on speciation and still found that whatever mutations and adaptations occured, they still remained the same basic organism as in a population of flies has yet to be seen to evolve into a population of birds. This still leaves the question of the origin of life which has yet to be explained by evolution (all life, not just terrestrial life).

 

[HammOnWry]

Mutation does not support evolution. A butterfly is an example of mutation but at the end of the cycle it is still... a butterfly. After hundreds of years of observation of butterflies they are still butterflies, flies are flies, and there are still the same number of finch species in the Gallipolis today as when they were discovered.

Right. Because this:

is still the same as this:

and this:

is still the same as this:

Although I am impressed by some of your evolutionist arguments are always the same. It goes something like this:
1. Claim its real.
2. Say there's science to back it even though they don't have proof
3. Try to ridicule those who believe differently by some extreme example or insult of intelligence.

I'm not sure what an 'evolutionist' is, but since I'm fairly certain that I'm not one of them, I can assure that I won't engage in such tactics.

The bottom line. Life can not be explained by evolution. Even if I were to accept that we evolved from less species (which we are still looking for the missing link, you'd think after all these years of digging we'd find one example)

I'll leave this to someone else, since I notice that Split Rock has posted just such a list of hominids -- the ones that you claim we've yet to find.

it doesn't even explain how life began.

It also fails to explain:

1. The Big Bang
2. Gravity
3. Atheism
4. etc..

Nor should we expect it to explain such things, because they simply aren't part of the theory of evolution by natural selection.

Richard Dawkins (self proclaim Messiah of Evolution) can't explain it. His "theory" is panspermia. Meaning: life came from another planet and traveled to earth and seeded us. Great explanation. He sure dogged that bullet because he now doesn't have to prove how life began. He just pawned it off to another world.

To be fair, Richard Dawkins was asked whether or not there was any context in which ID was tenable, and he replied as honestly and as best he could.

I grew up believing what I was taught in school and like every kid we were told evolution was real and I accepted it. It wasn't until I was presented with contradicting data that I realized the TRUTH was that life can not be explained.

Evolutionary biologists argue from evidence. You seem to be arguing from personal incredulity. Guess which one trumps the other?

Evolutionist will say that everything is random and there is no god, but I don't see anything random about how the universe was created from nothing, how life appeared despite no "seeds" to even produce life, how perfect the Earth is to support life.

Again, what are these 'evolutionists' that you keep refering to? They almost seem like a perverse caricature of real evolutionary biology.

It would be easy to believe in evolution. It's a very seductive theory that tries to explain what can't be explained. But if you open your mind to the truth and allow real science to guide your world view you will find that evolution is a lie.

Tell me something: What is your definition of evolution?

 

[Chalnoth]

Forgive me for my lack of knowledge of all the species of bacteria. I would like to state that these organisms are still the same species. No new species has come from them as of yet.

Species of bacteria aren't as simply-defined as species of animals, because they have no means of sexual reproduction. But it's really irrelevant: the word "species" is just a human word. It doesn't really matter whether we call different populations of bacteria different species or not.

The important point, as far as evolution is concerned, is that bacteria have evolved new traits, traits that they didn't have before. In this famous case of nylonase, we have the ability to digest an entirely new material. This material is a synthetic material, one that simply did not exist before the invention of nylon in 1935. When we first started making nylon, no organism on the planet had an enzyme that could break it down. But then this bacteria evolved in the waste water from nylon producing plants. New species or not is irrelevant: it shows that organisms change with time as a result of environmental pressures. It shows, in short, evolution through mutation and natural selection.