Evolution true or false?

[Mechanical Bliss]

The thing is, most people with PhD's disagree among themselves on how they think evolution may have happened.

But they agree that evolution does happen and has happened. This brings to light that distinction between the fact of evolution, that it actually happens, and the theory of evolution, which seeks to explain that fact.

Secondly, most creationists use the very same evidence that evolutionists do. It is the interpretation that is different.

If that were actually true, creationists might actually have a shread of credibility, but it's not. Even creationist organizations like AiG and ICR admit that they omit the evidence that does not support young earth creationism. They use a smaller data set with more superficial observations and explanations.

One need only look at the way YECists compare varves to beach sands or Berthault's silica dust experiment or the way YECists compare the Grand Canyon to a lahar around Mt. St. Helens. Those analogies consistently prove that creationists do not use the same evidence and they ignore the facts they don't like.

In my opinion, it is quite arrogant for a PhD to think only he can make conclusions to scientific findings. Most of us in the rest of the world can think logically and come to conclusions for ourselves. We do not need to spend 80 hours a week in a lab to do this. But, we do need to read copiously in order to make good judgements.

Except that's not really true. If you have someone with a great deal of education and experience in a field making conclusions versus someone with little to no scientific education or experience in the field, the credibility of the former is virtually infinitely greater than the credibility of the latter.

After all, you've already demonstrated that you do not understand the laws of thermodynamics and likely the theory of evolution as well. If you have such fundamental misunderstandings, it is arrogant for you to think that you can make commentaries on topics you do not understand.

It comes down to Humanism vs Christianity. Evolution is the newest morph of humanism (ie human dominance through naturalistic processes.)

First of all, evolution is not a religion as you want to imply. But most importantly is that this is a false dichotomy. But since creationists tend to refuse to recognize this, I'll say instead that this type of dichotomy:

Christianity=(y.e.) creationism versus evolution=atheism

endangers your religion. It's probably one of the central reasons why people like Vance and h2whoa post here. Creationists who falsely insist that creationism equals Christianity while evolution is atheistic and thus anti-Christianity bring the religion into the realm of the falsifiable. All one has to do is disprove creationism and Christianity is disproved. That means Christianity was disproved in the 19th century. Perhaps that will cause you to think about the claims you are making.

 

[Ondoher]

Natural selection actually removes systems from the gene pool. It has not yet been observed to add anything to any creature or plant. So I agree with you here.

Mutations increase genetic variability, whereas natural selection reduces it.

However, chance does not increase evolution. Chance actually reduces evolutoinary speciation into a complete impossibility, on the order of 1 in billions of billions. The mathematics cannot lie. Read the hemoglobin chance I put in my post above. This I got from Dr. Richard A Swenson, M.D. in his book More Than Meets The Eye.

(By the way, that last "to the 10th power" shouldn't be there. That is a typo.)

And yet speciation happens. Perhaps the error is actually in your understanding. Math can lie when the assumptions plugged into your equation are wrong. Your hemoglobin example assumes 1) chance was the only mechanism at work in the the origin of hemoglobin 2) that a specific hemoglobin protein was the only useful outcome of that process. The fact is there are already many different forms of hemoglobin, which itself is part of a larger family of globins, all with a single, ancestral root globin. The evolution of the globin family is pretty well understood.

 

[h2whoa]

this type of dichotomy:

Christianity=(y.e.) creationism versus evolution=atheism

endangers your religion. It's probably one of the central reasons why people like Vance and h2whoa post here.

Darn tootin'

h2

 

[Ondoher]

Ok, but I'm sort of arguing from a philosophical perspective. If you take chance as an element to any theory, it cannot be falsified, because it can be explained away no matter how improbable it seems. There could be an infinite amount of universes, it would be more probable that one of them have human life, in fact infinitely many could have, and we are just in one of them. There is just no explanatory power in arguing that something is rooted in chance in any way. A scientific theory must make definitive predictions so it can be falsified, evolution is not one of them.

Testable predictions from evolutionary theory:

1. If common ancestry is true then all life descends from a common ancestor. If this is true, then there should be a single family tree, called a phylogeny, for all species, past and present. If this is true then independent analysis of molecular and morphologic data should yield the same family trees within a statistically significant margin of error. This is, of course, confirmed with the twin nested hierarchy: http://www.ebonmusings.org/evolution/evoevidence.html#hierarchy
2. If common ancestry is true then there should be a statisitcal correlation between the stratigraphic record and phylogeny. This is confirmed through analysis: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section1.html#chronology
3. If common ancestry is true, then shared genetic defects such as pseudogenes and endgenous retroviruses should produce phylogenies that match those produced through other analysis. Confirmation: http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/96/18/10254
4. If evolution is true, then we should not find highly derived character traits, like feathers, in species that are not connected by a common ancestor with that trait. For example, we should not find a whale with feathers.
5. If evolution is true, we would expect that occasional mistakes in genetics would cause the reemergence of previously inhibited ancestral traits. This is confimed in such things as the occasional atavistic tail in humans, and atavistic whale legs: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section2.html#atavisms

I think that's enough to make the point.

When you say evolutionary speciation, what else is there to drive speciation than random mutation?

Some of the mechanisms of evolution include mutation, recombination, gene flow, natural selection, sexual selection and genetic drift.

 

[Natman]

OneManSows and Natman: Just what do you think a species is, and how do you tell if one species has become a different species?

In my post #74 I asked...
"Give me an example of "observed" speciation, keeping in mind that "biological species" is defined as a group of organisms that are able to mate and reproduce (genetically)."

I have not recieved a response.

No one is debating that "adaptation" does not take place. As I pointed out earlier, we see evidence of this in ALL creatures in what I have come to understand as "micro-evolution" (sub-speciation). This is merely a switching "on" or "off" of already pre-existent genetic information and is commonly seen in species that have short life cycles in changing environments. One well documented example is "Darwins Finches" who's beaks change cyclically with the drought and monsoon conditions of the Galopegos islands. At any point in this cycle, they are still finches, capable of mating and repoducing other finches.

Many examples of "macro-evolution" (speciation) that have been thrown at me over the years have been nothing more than "adaptation" within a species and not true "speciation".

1. The fallacy that macro-evolution is a different process than micro-evolution rather than being simply the continuation of the same process to the point of speciation and beyond.

Glaudys mentioned "talkorigins.org" as a reference for his information. From that very web site we get...
"Microevolution, or change beneath the species level, may be thought of as relatively small scale change in the functional and genetic constituencies of populations of organisms."

and..
"In evolutionary biology today, macroevolution is used to refer to any evolutionary change at or above the level of species. It means the splitting of a species into two (speciation, or cladogenesis, from the Greek meaning "the origin of a branch") or the change of a species over time into another (anagenesis, not nowadays generally used)."

Mendel showed that there are mathematically "limited" combinations of characteristics within a particular species. Like the binary numbers between 0 through 7, consisting of three on/off conditions. There are eight possible combinations ... 000, 001, 010, 011, 100, 101, 110, 111. One switch may cause long/short hair, another, long/short legs. Some seem to have no affect, while others are set based on the contitions of other switches resulting in mutual inclusion or mutual exclusion, ie blond hair and fair skin. Expand the number of switches from three to thousands and millions and we have quite a variety of characteristics avaiable within a single species. When the variations are significant enough and consistant enough, we have the tendency to re-classify and organisms into sub-species.

3. The fallacy that mutation applies only to "macro-evolution" and is not necessary to all evolution.

I did not say that "mutation only applies to macro-evolution", but that it is the only mechanism available to cause macro-evolution. This is true whether it occurs in a single generation or over a long period of time. Mutations can occur in several ways and cause varying results. They can occur in areas of the DNA have no coded significance and there by produce no change whatsoever in the organism. They can occur in coded areas causing insignificant changes (such as skin pigmentation). They can occur in coded areas causing dramatic variations (sickle cell, cancer). Or, they can add or substract from the code.

This is the area I have the most problem with because this is the point of true speciation. At this point replication with another organism becomes difficult if not impossible, unless two similar organisms are mutated in a similar manner at a proximate time and place.

7. The fallacy of confusing evolution with abiogenesis

If we are to take evolution to it's ultimate conclusion, that life began from a single celled organism millions or billions of years ago, then we must also conclude that that single celled organism had to arise from non-life at some point.

8. The fallacy of relying on bogus probabilities.

Evolutionists want us to believe that life is "undirected" (other than by "natural" causes), developed by the chance alignment of the right chemicals in the right environment (Miller/Urey). Emile Borel simply enumerated that chance to show how unlikely (actually far beyond "scientifically impossible") it was. All other arenas of science depend on chance and probability to predict the outcome and reliability of hypothesis and theory. From a purely scientific standpoint, it must be included when talking about the origin of life as well.

The fallacy that geological stratification and fossil deposition can be explained by a universal flood. A must read are the numerous refutations of this fallacy by Frumious Bandersnatch. http://www.christianforums.com/t95378

I will read through these and get back.

 

[h2whoa]

In my post #74 I asked...
"Give me an example of "observed" speciation, keeping in mind that "biological species" is defined as a group of organisms that are able to mate and reproduce (genetically)."

I have not recieved a response.

Only you did.

In posts 75 and 76. I realise that they were cunningly hidden immediately after your post but I thought you'd probably see them.

You will have to follow the link in post 75.

h2

 

[Ondoher]

In my post #74 I asked...
"Give me an example of "observed" speciation, keeping in mind that "biological species" is defined as a group of organisms that are able to mate and reproduce (genetically)."

I have not recieved a response.

Here are two pages of them: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html and http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.html.

No one is debating that "adaptation" does not take place. As I pointed out earlier, we see evidence of this in ALL creatures in what I have come to understand as "micro-evolution" (sub-speciation). This is merely a switching "on" or "off" of already pre-existent genetic information and is commonly seen in species that have short life cycles in changing environments. One well documented example is "Darwins Finches" who's beaks change cyclically with the drought and monsoon conditions of the Galopegos islands. At any point in this cycle, they are still finches, capable of mating and repoducing other finches.

Many examples of "macro-evolution" (speciation) that have been thrown at me over the years have been nothing more than "adaptation" within a species and not true "speciation".

The above examples give you what you asked, the formation of non-interbreeding propulations.

Glaudys mentioned "talkorigins.org" as a reference for his information. From that very web site we get...
"Microevolution, or change beneath the species level, may be thought of as relatively small scale change in the functional and genetic constituencies of populations of organisms."

and..
"In evolutionary biology today, macroevolution is used to refer to any evolutionary change at or above the level of species. It means the splitting of a species into two (speciation, or cladogenesis, from the Greek meaning "the origin of a branch") or the change of a species over time into another (anagenesis, not nowadays generally used)."

Those are fine definitions.

Mendel showed that there are mathematically "limited" combinations of characteristics within a particular species. Like the binary numbers between 0 through 7, consisting of three on/off conditions. There are eight possible combinations ... 000, 001, 010, 011, 100, 101, 110, 111. One switch may cause long/short hair, another, long/short legs. Some seem to have no affect, while others are set based on the contitions of other switches resulting in mutual inclusion or mutual exclusion, ie blond hair and fair skin. Expand the number of switches from three to thousands and millions and we have quite a variety of characteristics avaiable within a single species. When the variations are significant enough and consistant enough, we have the tendency to re-classify and organisms into sub-species.

Mendel explained how inheritence works. He did not show that an increase in variability is not possible.

I did not say that "mutation only applies to macro-evolution", but that it is the only mechanism available to cause macro-evolution. This is true whether it occurs in a single generation or over a long period of time. Mutations can occur in several ways and cause varying results. They can occur in areas of the DNA have no coded significance and there by produce no change whatsoever in the organism. They can occur in coded areas causing insignificant changes (such as skin pigmentation). They can occur in coded areas causing dramatic variations (sickle cell, cancer). Or, they can add or substract from the code.

This is the area I have the most problem with because this is the point of true speciation. At this point replication with another organism becomes difficult if not impossible, unless two similar organisms are mutated in a similar manner at a proximate time and place.

There is never a single mutation that suddenly causes speciation. There is genetic divergence of separated populations that accumulates genetic or behavioral differences that ultimately lead to the inability of these populations to interbreed.

If we are to take evolution to it's ultimate conclusion, that life began from a single celled organism millions or billions of years ago, then we must also conclude that that single celled organism had to arise from non-life at some point.

No. I could just as easily conclude that the first life appeared on this planet when an experiment performed by pandimensional, three-toed frogs went horribly awry. It may be a bad hypothesis, but even if it were true or false, it would not effect the veracity of evolution one iota.

Evolutionists want us to believe that life is "undirected" (other than by "natural" causes), developed by the chance alignment of the right chemicals in the right environment (Miller/Urey).

The Urey Miller experiment was not an experiment of chance, but of chemistry. Chemistry is not chance.

It was an attempt to see how the basic building blocks of life (amino acids) might form through chemical means given conditions that may have been present in an early atmosphere. Since that time, the experiment has been repeated using different atmospheric conditions with equaly satisfying results.

Emile Borel simply enumerated that chance to show how unlikely (actually far beyond "scientifically impossible") it was. All other arenas of science depend on chance and probability to predict the outcome and reliability of hypothesis and theory. From a purely scientific standpoint, it must be included when talking about the origin of life as well.

In order to form a probability you first need a model. Then you have to extract the variables from that model and assign values to those variables. So, what is your model of abiogenesis? Why is that a good model? What variables did you extract? What values did you assign them? Why those values? Until you can answer those questions, your numbers are meaningless.

I will read through these and get back.

 

[h2whoa]

Mendel showed that there are mathematically "limited" combinations of characteristics within a particular species.

Things have moved on a little since the advent of Mendelian inheritance. That is why we geneticists frequently see traits that are inherited in a strictly non-Mendelian manner.

Mendel's mathematics assume that traits are fixed units. Of course, the discovery of DNA as the genetic material and the actual strucutre of DNA has allowed us to appreciate that this is not so. De novo mutations for example invalidate this mathematical model. But even more significantly than this, the phenomena of crossing over during meiosis, which is extremely frequent means that again this mathematical model does not hold true.

Mendel's math was excellent supposition for the time. But remember that he died in 1884, way before DNA was even known to be the genetic material. Things change as we understand more.

h2

 

[Split Rock]

This is the area I have the most problem with because this is the point of true speciation. At this point replication with another organism becomes difficult if not impossible, unless two similar organisms are mutated in a similar manner at a proximate time and place.

Populations evolve NOT individuals! You are looking for a single mutation that will produce the "speciation event." That is NOT the way it works.

If we are to take evolution to it's ultimate conclusion, that life began from a single celled organism millions or billions of years ago, then we must also conclude that that single celled organism had to arise from non-life at some point.

If you like, you can assume the first unicellular organism was created by God. It makes no difference as far as evolution is concerned. Of course, the main reason for your rejection of evolution is probably the idea that man evolved from dirty souless animals... so this point is probably moot anyway.

 

[ForeRunner]

In my post #74 I asked...
"Give me an example of "observed" speciation, keeping in mind that "biological species" is defined as a group of organisms that are able to mate and reproduce (genetically)."

I have not recieved a response.

Since you seem to have trouble clicking....

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 find fossil record.
2. A trilobite odyssey. Niles Eldredge and Michelle J. Eldredge. Natural History 81:53-59, 1972. A discussion of "gradual" evolution of trilobites in one small area and then migration and replacement over a wide area. Is lay discussion of punctuated equilibria, and does not overthrow Darwinian gradual change of form. Describes transitionals

Thank you Dr. Lucas

 

[Deamiter]

Closed for review

 

[Deamiter]

Thanks for waiting (seems the forums are a bit slow at the moment). Please try to keep it civil in here, but there seems to be some good discussion. Carry on.

 

[TheFriendlyGiant]

Greeting to everyone,

This is my 1st post, so be gentle. I used to buy into the evolution theory, but now I look back and can't believe how anyone could ever believe it.

I don't know how or why God did things the way he did, but I do know that the God that can create matter from nothing isn't so stupid that he can't create things exactly as he wanted 6000 years ago. Maybe he wants the world to look older, maybe its not (there seems to be evidence on both sides) But evolution cannot explain how (even in millions of years) the complexity of life can happen. People have said that certain parts of the body are poor design...garbage... thats looking at a small point of the whole design. When it takes trillions of cells (supposedly by accident or whatever you want to call it) working together to make up these so called poor designs. I wonder who decided that we needed vision to survive. We must have at one point had no vision...no eyes...no wiring of the eyes to the brain...etc....so if we have never known vision of any kind, who decided that we needed to see....and how many millions of years would it take to develop this sight that we knew nothing about. Then on top of that...to evolve to get a second identical eye....There are so may amazing things in the world to point to a designer. Why can simple birds fly (completely by random accident...must suck to be bird waiting millions of years for random mutations to add up to perfect flight), and man still can't design anything as efficient as something that happens by accident.

Believing in evolution, or that God used it is wrong. Evolution is taking God out of the world...I saw the birth of my daughter...there I saw the beauty of God...my daughter is the work of God, not millions of years of accidents leading to her birth. If you believe in the bible and the God of the bible....then to say that God is too dumb to get it right the 1st time...then you don't believe in the true God of the universe.

 

[Freodin]

Greeting to everyone,

This is my 1st post, so be gentle. I used to buy into the evolution theory, but now I look back and can't believe how anyone could ever believe it.

I don't know how or why God did things the way he did, but I do know that the God that can create matter from nothing isn't so stupid that he can't create things exactly as he wanted 6000 years ago. Maybe he wants the world to look older, maybe its not (there seems to be evidence on both sides) But evolution cannot explain how (even in millions of years) the complexity of life can happen. People have said that certain parts of the body are poor design...garbage... thats looking at a small point of the whole design. When it takes trillions of cells (supposedly by accident or whatever you want to call it) working together to make up these so called poor designs. I wonder who decided that we needed vision to survive. We must have at one point had no vision...no eyes...no wiring of the eyes to the brain...etc....so if we have never known vision of any kind, who decided that we needed to see....and how many millions of years would it take to develop this sight that we knew nothing about. Then on top of that...to evolve to get a second identical eye....There are so may amazing things in the world to point to a designer. Why can simple birds fly (completely by random accident...must suck to be bird waiting millions of years for random mutations to add up to perfect flight), and man still can't design anything as efficient as something that happens by accident.

Believing in evolution, or that God used it is wrong. Evolution is taking God out of the world...I saw the birth of my daughter...there I saw the beauty of God...my daughter is the work of God, not millions of years of accidents leading to her birth. If you believe in the bible and the God of the bible....then to say that God is too dumb to get it right the 1st time...then you don't believe in the true God of the universe.

The gentle part first: welcome to this forum.

But there is no way to tell you this gently now: you don´t know anything about Evolution.
Your post is filled with the standard strawman variants that are propagated by Creationists, and perhaps the best that can be said about them is: Yes, you are right not to believe in all this - scientists don´t either.

The conclusion all that strawman-burning is false though - Evolution is not Atheism. Stay awhile and talk to the Christians here that accept that Evolution happened. You will see that they believe in the same God as you do.

Denying this would be very insulting - and is, BTW, against the Forum rules.

 

[TheFriendlyGiant]

Maybe I know nothing about evolution, and thats probably a good thing...then I wouldn't believe that God had to use random chance to create these people he loves so much that he would send his son to die for. I think he would put alot more thought into us knowing his son would have to be sacrificed for us. But I will stay a while and read on, but I will never believe that God used evolution.

 

[Karl - Liberal Backslider]

Greeting to everyone,

This is my 1st post, so be gentle. I used to buy into the evolution theory, but now I look back and can't believe how anyone could ever believe it.

Hmmm - the problem here is that it rather asks the question of why 99%+ of working biologists are so stupid. Still, at least they've got you to set them straight.

I don't know how or why God did things the way he did, but I do know that the God that can create matter from nothing isn't so stupid that he can't create things exactly as he wanted 6000 years ago.

No-one is questioning what God can do, merely what He did do.

Maybe he wants the world to look older, maybe its not (there seems to be evidence on both sides)

All the evidence points to an earth billions of years old.

But evolution cannot explain how (even in millions of years) the complexity of life can happen.

It's not meant to. It explains what happens once life has arisen.

People have said that certain parts of the body are poor design...garbage...

No, not garbage. I'd not be too impressed with a digital camera that had the wiring in front of the light sensitive detector - would you?

thats looking at a small point of the whole design. When it takes trillions of cells (supposedly by accident or whatever you want to call it) working together to make up these so called poor designs.

But you said that God was really clever earlier - but apparently not clever enough to make perfect designs in every detail?

I wonder who decided that we needed vision to survive.

We don't. Lots of creatures are blind. So are lots of humans. They survive. The ones with vision often do better, though.

We must have at one point had no vision...no eyes...no wiring of the eyes to the brain...etc....so if we have never known vision of any kind, who decided that we needed to see....

Now you have me confused. You said you used to buy in to this evolution thing, but now I have to question whether you ever knew anything about it. Since when was evolution about organisms deciding they needed something?

and how many millions of years would it take to develop this sight that we knew nothing about. Then on top of that...to evolve to get a second identical eye....

Hint - the same genes that make one eye make the other. Once you have bilateral symmetry (which predates eyes), it tends to happen.

There are so may amazing things in the world to point to a designer. Why can simple birds fly (completely by random accident...must suck to be bird waiting millions of years for random mutations to add up to perfect flight),

No more than it sucks being a flying squirrel, a flying snake, a kiwi or one of those funny running lizards today.

and man still can't design anything as efficient as something that happens by accident.

No. That's why we use evolutionary algorithms to design circuits better than the ones we can design directly. We don't understand how they work, but the same evolutionary processes are used to design them.

Believing in evolution, or that God used it is wrong.

No, it isn't. It is a scientific judgement. The evidence is all for it. I will not call it wrong to accept God's creation as it really is.

Evolution is taking God out of the world...I saw the birth of my daughter...there I saw the beauty of God...my daughter is the work of God, not millions of years of accidents leading to her birth.

But you know that from a scientific frame of reference it was random how the genes divided in meiosis to form the gametes that made your daughter? You know it was random which sperm got there first? You know that science has a perfectly good description of how that zygote developed into a baby? Does understanding and knowing this take God out of the picture? Why then does the evolutionary description of God's activity take Him out of the picture?

If you believe in the bible and the God of the bible....then to say that God is too dumb to get it right the 1st time

No, God got it right first time. This is the only universe we know of that He made, and He made it right.

...then you don't believe in the true God of the universe.

That's OK, as I said that's not how Christian evolutionists see God

 

[Freodin]

Maybe I know nothing about evolution, and thats probably a good thing...then I wouldn't believe that God had to use random chance to create these people he loves so much that he would send his son to die for. I think he would put alot more thought into us knowing his son would have to be sacrificed for us. But I will stay a while and read on, but I will never believe that God used evolution.

You don´t have to believe that God used evolution - but you should not believe that those who do are not real Christians.

And why would you think he did not put as much though into Evolution than into instant creation?

Do you think he loves your daughter (and you as well!) less than Adam and Eve, because he formed the latter from clay, and your daughter by a biological process?

 

[TheFriendlyGiant]

My comment on how much thought went into instant creation....well, did someone who designs a car...that is fully functional in every aspect put more thought into it rather than someone who started with nothing and waited millions of years of mutations to get to the same point?

Also, I would like to appologise for saying that anyone who believes in evolution isn't a Christian...I didn't mean it that way...I do believe that you can believe in the same God as me, just that I believe God is way bigger than evolution, and wouldn't need to resort to somthing like that to create us.

 

[Freodin]

My comment on how much thought went into instant creation....well, did someone who designs a car...that is fully functional in every aspect put more thought into it rather than someone who started with nothing and waited millions of years of mutations to get to the same point?

If if this someone was to design a system that, after a few million years, produced cars from its own - wouldn´t that imply a lot of though as well?

Also, I would like to appologise for saying that anyone who believes in evolution isn't a Christian...I didn't mean it that way...I do believe that you can believe in the same God as me, just that I believe God is way bigger than evolution,...

Don´t worry - no Theistic Evolutionist I know would reduce God to Evolution.
Do you reduce God to "the one who formed humans from clay"? I don´t think you do.

...and wouldn't need to resort to somthing like that to create us.

Ah, see, that is one of the strawmen I told you about.
It is not what God would need to resort to". No one (well, no Christian) says that God would HAVE TO create by Evolution - but many say that it rather looks like he did.

I don´t have to post this answer in English - I am quite able (certainly even better) to write it in German.

But it sure looks like English, doesn´t it?

 

[TheFriendlyGiant]

If evolution is what God used to create everything...then wouldn't Genesis and the bible be void. God said he created everything in 6 days and on the 7th he rested. Everything else in the bible is perfectly clear and acurate. If God meant for us to know it was millions of years of evolution, wouldn't he have put that in the bible? On the 3rd day God created the vegetation....how many millions of years do you think the plants would last before the sun was created? If you are a Christian, you must believe that the bible is the true word of God (the infallable God). So would this mean that God made a mistake in the first book of the bible?