Why insist on being wrong?
- Thread starter BVZ
- Start date
OdwinOddball
Atheist Water Fowl
- Jan 3, 2006
- 2,200
- 217
- 50
- Faith
- Atheist
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Democrat
from Meriam-Websters Dictionary of Law
Main Entry: eye·wit·ness
Function: noun
: one who sees an occurrence or object or sometimes experiences it through other senses (as hearing) and usually reports or testifies about it
Did I sit and watch the cake bake during the entire hour? No. Could I still serve as an eyewitness to the baking of the cake? Well legal, yes as I was there for the baking of the cake. I observed no other interaction with the cake other than myself placing it in the oven. It is demonstrable beyond a reasonable doubt that I baked the cake using a normal thermal reaction of the batter and the heat in the oven.
In a sense I am also NOT an eyewitness to the baking of the cake, because I did not observe it directly. However, in common usage this would be arguing semantics. True, for a scientific discussion getting overly precise is rarely a fault. But to claim one was a witness to something doesn't require such stringent standards, I witnessed the cake baking.
The same is true in the science lab. Say you introduce a bacterium to a petri dish containing a nutrient rich gel. You then introduce a suspected mutagen into the mix. You allow the bacteria to develop overnight while you are asleep. In the morning you come back to the lab and examine the bacteria and see that they have mutated, thus confirming your suspicions of the possible mutagen. You witnessed the mutation first hand. You did not observe the bacteria go thru all stages of reproduction as the mutation was spread, but then you didn't have to in order to come to a valid conclusion.
Eventually some principles in science are so well grounded that you don't have to re-examine them in order to conduct experiments using such principles. I don't have to re-prove gravity in order to determine the orbit of a suspected new planet. That work has already been done and accepted as solid by the scientific community.
So in a sense perhaps you are correct, we do not have direct eye-witness accounts in the strictest "watch the cake bake" way. But to say that they lie when the claim to have witnessed mutations and speciation is to be overly pedantic. It makes you look like a crank grasping at straws rather than someone seeking intelligent discourse.
Main Entry: eye·wit·ness
Function: noun
: one who sees an occurrence or object or sometimes experiences it through other senses (as hearing) and usually reports or testifies about it
Did I sit and watch the cake bake during the entire hour? No. Could I still serve as an eyewitness to the baking of the cake? Well legal, yes as I was there for the baking of the cake. I observed no other interaction with the cake other than myself placing it in the oven. It is demonstrable beyond a reasonable doubt that I baked the cake using a normal thermal reaction of the batter and the heat in the oven.
In a sense I am also NOT an eyewitness to the baking of the cake, because I did not observe it directly. However, in common usage this would be arguing semantics. True, for a scientific discussion getting overly precise is rarely a fault. But to claim one was a witness to something doesn't require such stringent standards, I witnessed the cake baking.
The same is true in the science lab. Say you introduce a bacterium to a petri dish containing a nutrient rich gel. You then introduce a suspected mutagen into the mix. You allow the bacteria to develop overnight while you are asleep. In the morning you come back to the lab and examine the bacteria and see that they have mutated, thus confirming your suspicions of the possible mutagen. You witnessed the mutation first hand. You did not observe the bacteria go thru all stages of reproduction as the mutation was spread, but then you didn't have to in order to come to a valid conclusion.
Eventually some principles in science are so well grounded that you don't have to re-examine them in order to conduct experiments using such principles. I don't have to re-prove gravity in order to determine the orbit of a suspected new planet. That work has already been done and accepted as solid by the scientific community.
So in a sense perhaps you are correct, we do not have direct eye-witness accounts in the strictest "watch the cake bake" way. But to say that they lie when the claim to have witnessed mutations and speciation is to be overly pedantic. It makes you look like a crank grasping at straws rather than someone seeking intelligent discourse.
Upvote
0
Nightson
Take two snuggles and call me in the morning
- Jul 11, 2005
- 4,470
- 235
- Faith
- Atheist
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- US-Democrat
SamCJ said:
So you want scientists to stare at a piece of DNA and sit and wait until it mutates? Scientists have seen mutations in person, it's just not something they make a big deal about to clarify in their papers.
Upvote
0
Nightson
Take two snuggles and call me in the morning
- Jul 11, 2005
- 4,470
- 235
- Faith
- Atheist
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- US-Democrat
SamCJ said:
I've been reading this entire thread, near as I can tell thats what you want. That and some sort of "proof" that mutations are random and not caused by God.
Upvote
0
OdwinOddball said:
Fair enough. I appreciate your argument. The reason I think the "pedantic" point is important, is that God may be involved in every wave vs. particle determination, and the argument "That's silly" irritates me. Similarly, God could be engineering every mutation, or some mutations whether you think his engineering is intelligent or not. There are lots of strange things going on that scientists do not understand, and I oppose the arrogant exclusion of the concept of God as a possibility. On the other hand, I strongly oppose the concept of God excluding scientific search for natural causes.
If pressed, no scientist would claimed to have observed gravity. If he is honest, he would claimed to have observed the effects of gravity, and we have devoloped a theory about how it works that is consistent with all our observations of those effects so far.
Scientists know the effects of mutation from which they develop their theories of evolution better than I do, so perhaps they cannot tell the difference between the two statements anymore. I would be satisfied, if they change their statement to something like: While we cannot observe mutation occurring, we have observed the before and after genes under such conditions, that we believe the difference was an accidental copying error.
Upvote
0
Nightson said:
Okay. I would love that proof, but that is not my beef in this thread. I want evolutionists to be precise. When saying that random mutations have been directly observed, I consider that to be untrue. They have observed the before and after genes and reached certain conclusions about the event and how and why it occurred, that are probably well-founded. They do not need to overstate their case. When IDists say that random mutation (the act of mutating) has never been observed, I think that is correct, and they should not be called liars or ill-informed.
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
SamCJ said:
Scientists have never directly observed oxygen combining with hydrogen to make water, yet it is taught as fact in chemistry classes. Should we lynch those chemistry teachers for teaching this as fact?
Many things in science are observed indirectly. For instance, the Luria-Delbruck fluctuation assay (which I dealt with in a previous thread that is now deleted) demonstrated that phage resistance in E. coli occurs through random mutation before exposure to phage. There are many different mechanisms that can create mutations that are random with respect to fitness: chemical mutagens, radiation, viral insertions, and replication errors to name a few. The following abstract deals with the fit between the nucleotide and the enzyme responsible for DNA replication. They found that the active site is "loose" which allows the wrong nucleotide to slip in once in a while.
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2005 Nov 1;102(44):15803-8. Epub 2005 Oct 25.Related Articles, Links
[SIZE=+1]Probing the active site tightness of DNA polymerase in subangstrom increments.[/SIZE]
Kim TW, Delaney JC, Essigmann JM, Kool ET.
Department of Chemistry, Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305-5080, USA.
We describe the use of a series of gradually expanded thymine nucleobase analogs in probing steric effects in DNA polymerase efficiency and fidelity. In these nonpolar compounds, the base size was increased incrementally over a 1.0-A range by use of variably sized atoms (H, F, Cl, Br, and I) to replace the oxygen molecules of thymine. Kinetics studies with DNA Pol I (Klenow fragment, exonuclease-deficient) in vitro showed that replication efficiency opposite adenine increased through the series, reaching a peak at the chlorinated compound. Efficiency then dropped markedly as a steric tightness limit was apparently reached. Importantly, fidelity also followed this trend, with the fidelity maximum at dichlorotoluene, the largest compound that fits without apparent repulsion. The fidelity at this point approached that of wild-type thymine. Surprisingly, the maximum fidelity and efficiency was found at a base pair size significantly larger than the natural size. Parallel bypass and mutagenesis experiments were then carried out in vivo with a bacterial assay for replication. The cellular results were virtually the same as those seen in solution. The results provide direct evidence for the importance of a tight steric fit on DNA replication fidelity. In addition, the results suggest that even high-fidelity replicative enzymes have more steric room than necessary, possibly to allow for an evolutionarily advantageous mutation rate.
Upvote
0
Oncedeceived
Senior Veteran
The Ordeal of the Unfaithful Wife - Sotah
[SIZE=+1] By Copyright © 1999 Tilia Klebenov [/SIZE]
Judaism is a law-based religion, and the Torah abounds with rules and regulations covering everything from what kind of fabric to wear to what to do if your ox falls into your neighbor's ditch. (Lev 19:19 and Exodus 21:33, respectively.) A great number of these laws may seem hopelessly archaic and irrelevant to current life. A closer examination, however, often reveals another message with profound resonances for the modern Jew.
One such example is the "Strange Case of the Suspected Sotah", described in Numbers 5:11-31. It details the legal procedure for a woman whose husband has accused her of adultery. If there are no witnesses or other proofs of her guilt, she is to drink a sacred potion while accepting an adjuration from the high priest, stating that the potion will cause her grim and visible injury if she is in fact guilty. The text gives no indication of what happens to the couple immediately after the wife drinks the potion; presumably they go home and await further results. Final proof of the woman's innocence is pregnancy (which is ironic, considering the nature of the original accusation); confirmation of her guilt is that her body will change shape for all the world to see.
This seemingly bizarre ritual was intended to remove the very suspicion of marital unfaithfulness from the midst of Israel. At the same time, it seems to have been designed to provide protection to the innocent wife in case of unreasonable suspicions on the part of the husband.
Like most laws, this one has its ups and downs. On the negative side, the jealous husband is never held accountable for his own acts. On the plus side, however, the woman is physically and legally protected, especially because the ceremony removes judgment from society and puts it in the hands of God. In fact, by means of this rite the wife is placed in a peculiarly intimate relationship with the Divine. Furthermore, the nature of the ritual, with its emphasis on the individual as a focal point of interest for both God and human culture, holds messages for us today.
The Law of the Sotah, as the text is called, is clearly one-sided. For example, no one is required to ask the woman what happened; the husband is free to accuse her, even in the absence of any evidence. Furthermore, the passage is written in language which exonerates him of any wrongdoing or responsibility. It states that he must do these things if the spirit of jealousy come upon him. (Num 5:14)
The word for spirit here is ruach. It is also often translated as breath. It is very commonly used throughout the Hebrew Bible, and is usually positive and always powerful. In Genesis, the ruach of God sweeps over the waters before Creation begins. (Gen 1:2) In the Book of Judges, the ruach of the LORD grips Samson and he kills thirty Philistines. (Jud 14:19) Occasionally, as in I Samuel, an evil ruach causes problems, such as those that continually plague Saul. (I Sam 16:15) In all cases, however, it comes from elsewhere. When it enters into someone, that person can no longer take full credit or responsibility for his actions. Such is the case with the jealous husband. Apparently these are not his emotions, his jealousy, or his suspicions; instead, a spirit has entered him and changed his way of thinking. Something completely external is acting upon him.
This is the first of several times the husbands behavior is condoned. The final one occurs at the end of the passage, which states that after the trial, even if the woman is found innocent, the man shall be clear of guilt; but that woman shall suffer for her guilt. (Num 5:31)
Finally, it goes without saying that no equivalent law exists for the woman, should the ruach of jealousy enters her. She has no recourse, and her philandering husband is free to continue with his debauched lifestyle.
These facts notwithstanding, however, there are distinct advantages for the woman as well. Specifically, she does not lose her life. This is no small conclusion for an accused wife in an intensely patriarchal culture. Rather than kill her, her husband is forced to bring her to a presumably neutral third party who is also the highest authority in this society. Ruach or no ruach, he is clearly not allowed to take matters into his own hands. This was not necessarily the case outside of Israel; the ancient Babylonian Law Code of Hamurabi states that if a man suspects his wife of cheating, she is to throw herself into a river for the sake of her husband. If she survives, she is innocent; if she drowns, she is guilty. Either way, her husband is no longer afflicted by his nagging doubts.
Nor is such a mentality limited to ancient times. In Massachusetts, during the Salem witch trials, a similar technique was used to ferret out suspected witches: they were tied up, weighted down, and thrown into deep water. In this case, however, a woman who survived was deemed guilty, and promptly executed.
In the case of the Sotah, however, responsibility is removed from the husband and society, and given to God; and the procedure, though doubtless humiliating for the wife, was a private rather than public affair.
Furthermore, the ritual starts with the assumption of innocence. The priest's first words to the woman are: "If no man has lain with you, if you have not gone astray in defilement while married to your husband, be immune to harm from this water of bitterness that induces the spell." (Num 5:19)
At this point, the woman drinks the potion. If she is indeed guilty, says the priest: "May the LORD cause your thigh to sag and your belly to distend; may this water that induces the spell enter your body, causing the belly to distend and the thigh to sag." (Num 5:21.)
There is more going on here than the loss of a carefully crafted body image. It has to do with physical evidence of an otherwise invisible sin--one committed in the darkest secrecy. The Jews believe that evil had a physical, though intangible, reality, and had to be addressed by physical methods. It was a property that, if left unattended, would poison the community. The closest modern analogy might perhaps be radioactivity it is invisible, inaudible, and essentially undetectable by ordinary means; yet it is both real and dangerous. If it is not disposed of in the appropriate fashion, it is lethal. For the good of the community, it must be gotten rid of.
An analogous imperative becomes incumbent upon the Sotah. She must eliminate the taint of sin. Indeed, she is the only one who can. Thus she drinks the ink of the curse which the priest has written on a scroll, just for this occasion. In so doing, she literally imbibes the forensic aspect of the Divine, and his judgment enters into her on a physical level, in order to establish or refute her material purity in relation to her sin. It is closely tied to the physical nature of sin, which in this case is tied up in the body. Indeed, the body itself becomes an instrument for bringing clandestine transgressions to light.
The catalyst for this revelation is the priestly potion. In addition to the ink, it contains holy water, meim kiddoshim, mixed with some of the earth that is on the floor of the Tabernacle.(Num 5:17) This act contains multiple layers of meaning. On a literal level, this poor woman has to drink mud. Sin or no sin, this cannot have been pleasant.
To appreciate the cosmic significance of this act, however, we need to note the source of the earth. It is from the floor of the Tabernacle, which was the wandering Israelites precursor to the Temple. The Israelites saw the Jerusalem Temple as an axis mundi, the center of the world. Being in the middle of the city on the highest point of land, it was thought to be close to heaven and therefore the point at which heaven and earth connected. At this site, the sacred erupted into the profane, giving it meaning and orientation.
The significance of the Temple is difficult to overstate. Life in ancient Israel focused on it to an extent which is difficult to imagine now it was both a spiritual and a community center where all of Israel gathered during Pilgrimage Festivals. Indeed, it was even the physical heart of the city, for houses in ancient Jerusalem were oriented toward it.
The Tabernacle was its antecedent. Smaller and portable, and thus suitable for a nomadic people, it nevertheless had the same functions as Solomon's Temple. It contained the Ark, God's throne, and was the place ordinary people would go to be close to God. It was the place where heaven and earth were linked by the just and powerful presence of the Divine. Because of this, the woman's drinking the earth and water is nothing less than her completing a circuit. She is becoming physically and visibly connected to the earth--it is now in her body--the same earth which God enters at this same location.
This is especially powerful when we realize that this is a culture which believed that mankind sprang from the soil. Adam, of course, is fashioned from the earth; and the Hebrew word for soil is adamah. The two words have the same root. In this sense, then, the woman is doing nothing less than imbibing her own essential nature, she is earth, and she drinks the earth. In so doing, she is placing herself utterly in God's presence, in the hands of the one who fashioned the first humans from that same soil.
Upvote
0
Oncedeceived
Senior Veteran
CONTINUED:
Tilia Klebenov is a graduate of Oberlin College and Harvard Divinity School. She teaches English, History, and Comparative Religion in Stoughton, Massachusetts. This article is an adaptation of the davar she gave at her adult bat mitzvah.
God is to judge the wife's spiritual purity, which in this case is contingent on a physical sin; and her guilt or innocence are to be manifested physically, in her body--which she and all those present at the ceremony believed sprang from the very dust she just drank.
If the water of bitterness signifies God's justice, His judging power, then it seems the other symbols involved indicate His mercy. During the ritual, the woman holds in her hand one-tenth of an ephah of barley-flour, which is a meal offering of remembrance which recalls wrongdoing. (Num 5:15)
Some commentators have suggested that the coarseness of the barley was an indication of the gravity of the situation, for it indicated the abased condition of the suspected woman. This interpretation is flawed, however, for it overlooks the crucial fact that the woman is so far only accused of adultery; she may be absolutely innocent. Where, then, is her abased condition? Instead, the meal-offering presents yet another complex of symbols. Even though it seems to be less than entirely positive, it is also not utterly negative. Indeed, how could grain be a curse in an agricultural society?
In some ways the barley suggests hope and redemption. In Israel, barley is the first spring crop, something of which the priest, the woman, and the husband would all have been aware. It represents the beginning of the growing season, the time of bounty and fertility of the land.
The concept of grain as a sign of God's sustenance of His people is still powerful and familiar to Jews today. The woman's holding the flour during her trial is strongly reminiscent of the prayer, hamotzi, in which we thank God for lechem min ha-aretz, food or bread from the earth. This is the earth's bounty, and God's nourishment of us via it we earthlings are sustained by the earth that formed us. The same clay that became humanity also provides food for the sake of human life.
True, the emblems used here are ambiguous. They contradict their own usual significance. The barley calls to mind the possibility of an evil deed. The water, which ordinarily makes fertile the soil, is now bitter. With their dual meanings they reflect the ambiguous status of the woman, who is accused but not yet convicted.
Finally, the woman's body becomes charged with meaning. If she is guilty, her physical being will declare her sin before all Israel. If she is an adulteress, she sags; she droops; her abdomen and thighs become flabby. In other words, she no longer looks young and sexy. She looks like an old, infertile woman, which is in fact what she has become if, indeed, she is guilty her wrongdoing, as revealed by the ritual, renders her sterile. (Num 5:28) This seems a fitting consequence for a carnal sin. If, however, she is innocent, she shall be unharmed and able to retain seed. (Num 5:28) This is, of course, exactly what the earth itself has done retained seed and provided the barley which she now holds.
Similarly, the woman herself takes on characteristics of that very soil, and they are manifested in her body as a physical response to the intangibility of sin. If innocent, she becomes as the land when it is pure it is fertile and able to retain seed and grow food, providing for the next generation. If polluted by transgression, then like a piece of cursed ground, she is barren.
The Trial of the Sotah shows the paramount importance of the individual not only in Israelite society but also in the eyes of God. It ensures that one woman, wrongdoer or not, is elevated in status so that her guilt or innocence become the focal point of God's creative and judicial energies. In this ceremony, key aspects of Creation, earth and water, conjoin to divine the true status of a possible adulteress; and by taking these elements into her body, she has taken on their essential attributes as aspects of God's Creation. She is like clay for him to mold.
Modern Jews do not go this route. This practice ended with the destruction of the Temple in 70. But what has endured from that day to this is a profound respect for the individual and that person's relationship with God. To illustrate this, I can do no better than to quote from a contemporary prayer. Like Jews of generations past, we celebrate the grandeur of creation. Like Jews of every age, we echo our people's ancient call for justice. We are Jews, but each of us is unique. We stand apart and alone, with differing feelings and insights. And yet we are not entirely alone and separate, for we are children of one people and one heritage.
Ultimately, perhaps, what the Trial of the Sotah assumes and what Judaism strives for is a just society not community at the expense of the individual, but for the sake of the individual. What this archaic ritual demonstrates so dramatically is that each human being is entirely worthy of God's attention; that even a petty sinner deserves to stand, for one shining moment, at the nexus of God's power and mercy, and society's yearning for justice in his eyes.
Tilia Klebenov is a graduate of Oberlin College and Harvard Divinity School. She teaches English, History, and Comparative Religion in Stoughton, Massachusetts. This article is an adaptation of the davar she gave at her adult bat mitzvah.
Upvote
0
Aron-Ra
Senior Veteran
- Jul 3, 2004
- 4,571
- 393
- 61
- Faith
- Atheist
- Marital Status
- Single
And I have repeated –ad nauseum- that I did. Go back and check the citations again. Jill Buttner M.Sc. is but one of those examples, and she is an eye witness the process of mutation. I linked or directed you to references for several others as well. Go back and look 'em up.SamCJ said:
One changed into other? One what changed into another what? What are you talking about?
It depends on exactly what you’re talking about. But I would have to say that is wrong. We know of many times of mutations and exactly how they happen, and we’ve even caused specific ones intentionally many times. So we definitely have witnessed the process again and again and again.
Resorting to personal insults so soon? Well then, let me return the compliment in kind.
The oft-repeated claim is the truth. There have been eye-witnesses to that process. Look up the work of Nobel laureate, Norman Borloug if you want proof of that. I can provide dozens more specific examples by name if you like.
You need to understand that there is a difference between the predictions of the scientific method and prophesy. We’re not predicting events of the future, we’re prediction future discoveries: ‘If such-and-such circumstance is true, then we should discover that logical associated consequences should also prove to be true.’ Then we set up tests, investigations, or expeditions to discover whether they’re accurate.
If by “Eot” you mean ‘evolutionary theory’, then not only is that denial irrelevant, it is non-existent too. Many evolutionary scientists are Christians including some of the leaders in their fields. This is true currently and has been true throught evolutionary history since Darwin’s day, and even before then. We do not deny God’s involvement any more than we deny leprechauns. Its just that we don’t have any evidence of either one.
And as I’ve already explained, each of the specific mutations we’ve been able to identify were either accidental defects, or we did them ourselves. So yes, we have witnessed the process of mutation. We have many times witnessed beneficial mutations resulting in new species occuring under direct supervision, and the only intelligence ever involved appears to have been our own, or there was none at all. And we can use evolutionary theory to make numerous predictions, including those concerning the results of future experiments or circumstances.
Now do me a favor, and produce for me one lie in favor of evolution, -and stop repeating the same lies for creationism even after they’ve been refuted again and again and again.
Upvote
0
Aron-Ra said:
I looked up the first one. Here it is in total:
Janice Britton-Davidian spent several weeks in 1999 placing hundreds of mousetraps all over the semi-tropical island of Madeira and discovered what may be an example of "rapid evolution." She caught hundreds of small brown mice that look pretty much alike but that are genetically distincta very unusual thing for such a small, geographically contained place. It normally takes thousands to millions of years for one species of animal to diverge to become two. On Madeira, one species may have evolved into six in the space of just 500 years.
Britton-Davidian, an evolutionary biologist at Université Montpellier II in Montpellier, France, showed that populations of Maderian mice have between 22 and 30 chromosomes, even though their ancestors, who first arrived with the Portugese in the 15th century, had 40.
Madeira is a rugged volcanic island with sharp black cliffs that block all but a few isolated rocky shores. Only a few small villages decorate the strip of coast. The Portuguese were first to inhabit the island, bringing with them the mice that Britton-Davidian so avidly seeks. As the Portuguese founded small settlements around the island, they inadvertently deposited small groups of mice at each stop. And, for the last five centuries, mountainous barriers have prevented these coastal colonies of rodents from commingling.
Britton-Davidian collected hundreds of mice from about 40 locations around the island and found six distinct populations. The common brown house mouse of Europe, presumably the ancestor of the Madeira mice, has 40 chromosomes, but the six families of Madeiran mice have between 22 and 30.
The current families of Madeiran mice are not short of genetic material. They have not lost any DNA. What happened is this: over time, some of the chromosomes fused together, packing more DNA into some chromosomes. Each of the six unique populations of mice on Madeira has its own special assembly of fused chromosomes. Each group of mice may now be its own species.
The diversity of fused chromosomes seems to have occurred in just 500 years, or between 1,500-2,000 generations of mice, says Britton-Davidian. Furthermore, the huge diversity in chromosomes has evolved solely from geographic isolation rather than adaptations to different environments.
"What is surprising is how fast this has taken place," says Scott Edwards, an evolutionary biologist from the University of Washington, in Seattle. Based on fossil records of sea urchins and invertebrates, evolution of different species is thought to take thousands to millions of years. "But this is an interesting case because it may prove to be an extreme case of rapid speciation," says Edwards.
Britton-Davidian wants to know whether these populations of mice have evolved into different species or whether they are on the cusp of speciation. A species is defined as a group of organisms that can mate and produce fertile offspring.
One of Britton-Davidian's most surprising findings is that she and her colleagues found no mice that are hybrids among any of the six groups. "This might be because the hybrids are infertile or they may be less fit than the parents and unable to survive," says Britton-Davidian. Other explanations could be that the groups have been geographically isolated and have not had the chance to mate, or that the mice "recognize each other as different and choose not to mate."
Britton-Davidian has taken some mice from Madeira back to her lab in France and will try interbreeding the six populations to confirm whether the hybrid mice are infertile, which, if they are, would imply that the different groups were in the process of speciation. Her team will also observe the mice to see whether they show behavioral or physical differences.
Because it fails to remotely support your claim, I did not spend much time on the other half dozen links, figuring they were just so much more irrelvant material like the first. However, when your cohorts said the material was supportive, I asked for one simple quote so I would not have to read through more irrelevant garbage. No quotes were provided then and you have provided none now.
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
Aron-Ra
Senior Veteran
- Jul 3, 2004
- 4,571
- 393
- 61
- Faith
- Atheist
- Marital Status
- Single
Oncedeceived said:
You see, dad? I told you "potion" was the right word.
See, oncedeceived? I told it didn't lead to anything "immediately."
Now you both see that my use of the word, "spell" was appropriate also. Thank you.
Wait a minute. That's it?! That's the best analysis Tilia can come up with? I think I would pit my world religion teacher against yours any day.
I mean, that was a nice bit of pointless apologetics there, a talented rationalization, but poorly translated. Where you and Tilia imagine cottage-cheese thighs, saying that her thigh(s) will sag, the World English Bible and the American Standard version both say her thigh will "fall away". What did they think that meant? Did they believe her legs would fall off?
Young's Literal Translation says they will, or rather 'it' will. In all but one version, the word, 'thigh' is always singular. Now why is that?
The Basic English Bible says the woman will contract a "disease of the stomache", and says her legs will waste. The New American Standard Bible says the woman's thigh will "waste away", the Darby Bible says it will shrink, and the King James Version says it will even rot!
A rotting thigh? Can the (ahem) "thigh" actually rot while the woman is still alive? It can according to Webster's Bible, which says the thigh will actually die!
How is it possible for a woman's limbs to die while she remains alive? I already answered that by citing the Talmud.
"Jewish law is quite clear in its statement that an embryo is not reckoned a viable living thing (in Hebrew, bar kayama) until thirty days after its birth. One is not allowed to observe the Laws of Mourning for an expelled fetus. As a matter of fact, these Laws are not applicable for a child who does not survive until his thirtieth day."
--Rabbi Balfour Brickner, National Director of the Commission on Interfaith Activities
That's why I'd like to explain the New Revised Standard Version again;
"The ecumenical NRSV Bible Translation Committee consists of thirty men and women who are among the top scholars in America today. They come from Protestant denominations, the Roman Catholic church, and the Greek Orthodox Church. The committee also includes a Jewish scholar. ...The NRSV stands out among the many translations available today as the Bible translation that is the most widely "authorized" by the churches. It received the endorsement of thirty-three Protestant churches. It received the imprimatur of the American and Canadian Conferences of Catholic bishops. And it received the blessing of a leader of the Greek Orthodox Church."
--National Council of Churches USA
And the NRSV says the curse will "enter your bowels and make your womb discharge, your uterus drop!"
So your cut-and-paste essay response was less than impressive except on one note: It consists of nearly 1,000 words and still didn't answer my simple, yes-or-no question!
So, One more time....
If a woman of the culture spoken of in Numbers 5 had actually been unfaithful to her husband, and was subjected to this spell while in early pregnancy, would the curse cause her to miscarry, and thus abort the pregnancy? Because if you and Tilia are right, then the spell will render her barren, -sterile. What happens to the fetus when a pregnant woman is made sterile by a cursed potion in a magic spell?
Would the potion cause her womb to discharge, and her uterus to drop, but somehow still allow the child to born alive and at full-term? Or would it instead, shrink, waste away, die, fall away, and rot?
And how does the answer vary depending on whether I believe the spell worked or not?
Upvote
0
Loudmouth said:
Do scientists claim to have directly observed oxygen combining with hydrogen to make water? If so, it seems you would agree such a statement is al lie.
If I recall correctly, you were one of the evolutionists who agreed that an observation of a beneficial mutation in process would be impossible. AronRa says that many scientists claim to have made such observations. Can you reconcile these seemingly contrary positions?
Upvote
0
Aron-Ra
Senior Veteran
- Jul 3, 2004
- 4,571
- 393
- 61
- Faith
- Atheist
- Marital Status
- Single
Those were the ones I kept referring you to, the ones in which the specific mutation had been identified, and confirmed to be (in most cases) an accidental benefit from a defective gene. I also referred you to the work of Norman Borloug, which also would have sated exactly what you were asking for.SamCJ said:
I did give you a quote, from an eyewitness no less. So I don't know what you're still asking for. Will these do?
General
Chromosome numbers in various species. http://www.kean.edu/~breid/chrom2.htm
1. M Nei and J Zhang, Evolution: molecular origin of species. Science 282: 1428-1429, Nov. 20, 1998. Primary article is: CT Ting, SC Tsaur, ML We, and CE Wu, A rapidly evolving homeobox at the site of a hybrid sterility gene. Science 282: 1501-1504, Nov. 20, 1998. As the title implies, has found the genes that actually change during reproductive isolation.
2. M Turelli, The causes of Haldane's rule. Science 282: 889-891, Oct.30, 1998. Haldane's rule describes a phase every population goes thru during speciation: production of inviable and sterile hybrids. Haldane's rule states "When in the F1 [first generation] offspring of two different animal races one sex is absent, rare, or sterile, that sex is the heterozygous [heterogemetic; XY, XO, or ZW] sex."Two leading explanations are fast-male and dominance. Both get supported. X-linked incompatibilities would affect heterozygous gender more because only one gene."
3. Barton, N. H., J. S. Jones and J. Mallet. 1988. No barriers to speciation. Nature. 336:13-14.
4. Baum, D. 1992. Phylogenetic species concepts. Trends in Ecology and Evolution. 7:1-3.
5. Rice, W. R. 1985. Disruptive selection on habitat preference and the evolution of reproductive isolation: an exploratory experiment. Evolution. 39:645-646.
6. Ringo, J., D. Wood, R. Rockwell, and H. Dowse. 1989. An experiment testing two hypotheses of speciation. The American Naturalist. 126:642-661.
7. Schluter, D. and L. M. Nagel. 1995. Parallel speciation by natural selection. American Naturalist. 146:292-301.
8. Callaghan, C. A. 1987. Instances of observed speciation. The American Biology Teacher. 49:3436.
9. Cracraft, J. 1989. Speciation and its ontology: the empirical consequences of alternative species concepts for understanding patterns and processes of differentiation. In Otte, E. and J. A. Endler [eds.] Speciation and its consequences. Sinauer Associates, Sunderland, MA. pp. 28-59.
10. Callaghan, C. A. 1987. Instances of observed speciation. The American Biology Teacher. 49:3436.
Speciation in Insects
1. G Kilias, SN Alahiotis, and M Pelecanos. A multifactorial genetic investigation of speciation theory using drosophila melanogaster Evolution 34:730-737, 1980. Got new species of fruit flies in the lab after 5 years on different diets and temperatures. Also confirmation of natural selection in the process. Lots of references to other studies that saw speciation.
2. JM Thoday, Disruptive selection. Proc. Royal Soc. London B. 182: 109-143, 1972. Lots of references in this one to other speciation.
3. KF Koopman, Natural selection for reproductive isolation between Drosophila pseudobscura and Drosophila persimilis. Evolution 4: 135-148, 1950. Using artificial mixed poulations of D. pseudoobscura and D. persimilis, it has been possible to show,over a period of several generations, a very rapid increase in the amount of reproductive isolation between the species as a result of natural selection.
4. LE Hurd and RM Eisenberg, Divergent selection for geotactic response and evolution of reproductive isolation in sympatric and allopatric populations of houseflies. American Naturalist 109: 353-358, 1975.
5. Coyne, Jerry A. Orr, H. Allen. Patterns of speciation in Drosophila. Evolution. V43. P362(20) March, 1989.
6. Dobzhansky and Pavlovsky, 1957 An incipient species of Drosophila, Nature 23: 289- 292.
7. Ahearn, J. N. 1980. Evolution of behavioral reproductive isolation in a laboratory stock of Drosophila silvestris. Experientia. 36:63-64.
8. 10. Breeuwer, J. A. J. and J. H. Werren. 1990. Microorganisms associated with chromosome destruction and reproductive isolation between two insect species. Nature. 346:558-560.
9. Powell, J. R. 1978. The founder-flush speciation theory: an experimental approach. Evolution. 32:465-474.
10. Dodd, D. M. B. and J. R. Powell. 1985. Founder-flush speciation: an update of experimental results with Drosophila. Evolution 39:1388-1392. 37. Dobzhansky, T. 1951. Genetics and the origin of species (3rd edition). ColumbiaUniversity 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 NationalAcademy 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 YorkBotanical 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.
Upvote
0
Aron-Ra
Senior Veteran
- Jul 3, 2004
- 4,571
- 393
- 61
- Faith
- Atheist
- Marital Status
- Single
continued from previous list
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/conte...l/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, LakeNagubago. (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
8. Rapid speciation of six new varieties of Madeira island mice, which occurred in less than 250 years after man abandoned their ancestors on the island.
http://www.genomenewsnetwork.org/art...and_mice.shtml
Now I fully expect you to dismiss and ignore all this and everything else I, or anyone else, tells you in answer to your every question. Because faith seems to mean 'never admitting any error' -even when you already know you're wrong. So, since you were unable to provide even one lie for evolution that didn't turn out to be a lie for creationism, then I guess I've made my point.
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/conte...l/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, LakeNagubago. (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
8. Rapid speciation of six new varieties of Madeira island mice, which occurred in less than 250 years after man abandoned their ancestors on the island.
http://www.genomenewsnetwork.org/art...and_mice.shtml
Now I fully expect you to dismiss and ignore all this and everything else I, or anyone else, tells you in answer to your every question. Because faith seems to mean 'never admitting any error' -even when you already know you're wrong. So, since you were unable to provide even one lie for evolution that didn't turn out to be a lie for creationism, then I guess I've made my point.
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
The point is we have 10 species and no evolution for 65 Mya. Or to put it another way, you can have speciation and no evolution. One does not imply the other.
So the mountain of evidence for speciation doesn't prove evolution.
Same goes for you. Until you can actually evolve something, your claim, 'it evolved', is worthless.
Upvote
0
Similar threads
