Creationism 101

[Split Rock]

She is not bad, but she still need some training.

If I were her, Shermer will surely hit his foot with his own questions, started with the very first one.

His first question was: "By research, what do you do?" How would you have made him "hit his foot" with that one?

 

[pgp_protector]

His first question was: "By research, what do you do?" How would you have made him "hit his foot" with that one?

Good question, after all Juvenissun wouldn't lie would they ? (Given lying is an abomination to the Lord)

 

[USincognito]

I only watched about 10 minutes the other night and, while I found her responses the same torture I do reading them on the 'Net, I was a bit disappointed with Shermer's questions. Basically it was PRATT questions with Creationist biolerplate answers we all know and loathe.

 

[ahiggs]

I only watched about 10 minutes the other night and, while I found her responses the same torture I do reading them on the 'Net, I was a bit disappointed with Shermer's questions. Basically it was PRATT questions with Creationist biolerplate answers we all know and loathe.

i was not able to watch the video, but i can guess what was said by reading some of the blogs...there is evidence that points where you want it to point, people can argue, but they will very seldomly change anybodys view of how we got here. it is really just what do you want to believe

 

[Split Rock]

i was not able to watch the video, but i can guess what was said by reading some of the blogs...there is evidence that points where you want it to point, people can argue, but they will very seldomly change anybodys view of how we got here. it is really just what do you want to believe

Actually, for many of us here it isn't about what we want to believe, it has to do with what is inferred by the physical evidence. And that is common descent.

 

[ahiggs]

Actually, for many of us here it isn't about what we want to believe, it has to do with what is inferred by the physical evidence. And that is common descent.

but there is physical evidence that evolution can not explain...so most tend to ignore it or talk around it

 

[juvenissun]

His first question was: "By research, what do you do?" How would you have made him "hit his foot" with that one?

OK, then the first "real question".

 

[Tammisto]

but there is physical evidence that evolution can not explain...so most tend to ignore it or talk around it

Examples, please.

I hope this wont go where I think it is going.

 

[ahiggs]

Examples, please.

I hope this wont go where I think it is going.

unnecessary...it never leads anywhere. and i really don't feel like getting into that argument again, hope you don't take offence...but it is a fruitless adventure, like i said before people will only believe what they want to, that includes myself

 

[Cabal]

unnecessary...it never leads anywhere. and i really don't feel like getting into that argument again, hope you don't take offence...but it is a fruitless adventure, like i said before people will only believe what they want to, that includes myself

*sigh*

Why does everyone with the "evidence evolution can't explain" viewpoint do this....

Maybe it doesn't go anywhere because your view is incorrect, perhaps?

 

[ahiggs]

*sigh*

Why does everyone with the "evidence evolution can't explain" viewpoint do this....

Maybe it doesn't go anywhere because your view is incorrect, perhaps?

fine if you really want to do this...there is no evidence that any animal ever became another animal, there would have to be thousands of intermediary fossils between each species and there just aren't. for one

 

[Cabal]

Observed Speciation (and this is an old version of the list, but it comes in handy - thank you 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. 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 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

 

[Cabal]

fine if you really want to do this...there is no evidence that any animal ever became another animal, there would have to be thousands of intermediary fossils between each species and there just aren't. for one

Fossil evidence isn't the only method of verifying descent. But even focusing on that, there have been enough finds to verify what evolution predicts (for one thing, the existence of intermediate forms etc, like Archaeopteryx, Tiktaalik). Also, if you're going down that line of arguing, is "thousands" of transitional forms going to be enough? What about the gaps in between those?

 

[ahiggs]

Fossil evidence isn't the only method of verifying descent. But even focusing on that, there have been enough finds to verify what evolution predicts (for one thing, the existence of intermediate forms etc, like Archaeopteryx, Tiktaalik). Also, if you're going down that line of arguing, is "thousands" of transitional forms going to be enough? What about the gaps in between those?

your mule example will not work...it is still equestrian. i will give you two cats male and female you can breed them and their offspring together as many times as you want, you will never get a dog or even better yet a bird

 

[thaumaturgy]

OK, then the first "real question".

Is it completely impossible for you to be direct? What is so hard about telling us exactly what you mean by his first "real" question and then tell us how he "hit his foot" on it?

You are supposedly a teacher. Why don't you occasionally just be direct? Just for once! It would be a refreshing break.

 

[thaumaturgy]

OK, then the first "real question".

Here, I'll help you, Juvenissun:

Shermer's first TWO questions related to what she does for the Creation "Museum".

His third question was in response to her discussion of the development of pathogenicity in organisms.

His question was asking how that differed from "evolution".

She won't even admit that a change in the microbes are "micro-evolution" because they don't become other creatures. So sounds to me like she is on the path to re-defining "microevolution" even for Creationists. Check out what Creation Wiki says about "Microevolution":

Microevolution typically refers to the small scale change in organisms within the same species, which can lead to a subspecies or variations of the same created kind.(SOURCE)

Creationists need to get all on the same page before they try to "take on" established science. In other words they need to mind the beam in their own eye before they go after the mote in others.

Was this how Shermer "hit his foot"?

Or was this not his first "real" question?

(Do not stumble on the "No True Scotsman Fallacy")

 

[Cabal]

your mule example will not work...it is still equestrian.

I didn't mention mules. How are they relevant?

i will give you two cats male and female you can breed them and their offspring together as many times as you want, you will never get a dog or even better yet a bird

You think that's supposed to happen, then you don't know how evolution actually works. Actually, if that ever happened, it would DISPROVE evolution. Evolution is just common sense - you split a common ancestor into two groups and subject them to different pressures, given enough time they'll speciate (which as you cannot fail to see DOES occur and HAS been observed, and it's a pretty key step in a common ancestor diverging into multiple subsequent forms) and become highly varied and specialised based on environmental pressures. They're not going to just cross the branches and revert into each other's form.

 

[ahiggs]

You think that's supposed to happen, then you don't know how evolution actually works. Actually, if that ever happened, it would DISPROVE evolution. Evolution is just common sense - you split a common ancestor into two groups and subject them to different pressures, given enough time they'll speciate and become highly varied and specialised based on environmental pressures. They're not going to just cross the branches and revert into each other's form.

something like that had to have happened somewhere down the line. i am just saying you can't take one species breed it together, and get something other than that species. it doesn't matter how many times you breed them. i understand microevolution, but i don't care how far apart you move them apart a cat is still a cat and a dog is still a dog, and neither one of them came from a fish

 

[Cabal]

something like that had to have happened somewhere down the line. i am just saying you can't take one species breed it together, and get something other than that species. it doesn't matter how many times you breed them. i understand microevolution, but i don't care how far apart you move them apart a cat is still a cat and a dog is still a dog, and neither one of them came from a fish

You're welcome to believe what you like, but as you can see from lucaspa's list, speciation DOES occur and HAS been observed. I'm personally not au fait with the mechanism by which this arises, but the different populations HAVE diverged and reproduction between the two IS no longer possible. Genetically, they are no longer compatible (even though immediately after speciation they may look like it). And oversimplifying this process doesn't change that fact, no matter how many times you say it - you are still incorrect in face of these facts.

There's NO difference between "micro" and "macro" evolution - just a time factor. It's like saying you can walk from your house to the grocery store round the corner, but you can't walk from your house to the next nearest town. There is no magical barrier present - if you make small changes over long periods, you will see drastic changes, first on the genetic level, usually eventually on the physical level too.

 

[Naraoia]

Wow, at first I thought that the interviewer should challange her on numerous issues. However, letting her talk at length is the greatest counter-argument.
Eye opening post! Thanks.

QFT. I started typing that she was hilarious, but in truth I find he more sad and scary.

How sad to see a molecular geneticist claim evolution is not evolution, and that no "Kind" of animal becomes another "Kind" of animal. I would have liked to ask how she defines "kind," in this context.

She said something about "family level" somewhere around... *checks notes* 14:50.

Then she lies about Mt St Helens being dated to millions of years when it isn't.

Actually, can someone clue me in on this Mt St Helens issue? I guess I've just kept my eyes closed for the past year and a half, but I can't recall anything about it.