Has evolution done stopped?

evolution is not a faith, because evolution has nothing to say on the matter of a God. Evolution does not equal atheism. it is simply a model to replace the discarded creationism model.

cos it is really slow, and evolution occurs to whole populations and relies on evolutionary pressures. However to some degree we can see evolution occuring, albeit in a tragic way; the mass extinction of species who can't cope with the way that humans are ravaging the planet. Those are all creatures that are not adapted to having their environments destroyed by humans.

oh, there are some others too. racoons that live in cities have a brain mass 1/3 larger than racoons that live in the wild.

Speciation (macro-evolution) HAS been observed.


From http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html

Here is just a couple of the many examples given:


Maidenhair Fern (Adiantum pedatum)
Rabe and Haufler (1992) found a naturally occurring diploid sporophyte of maidenhair fern which produced unreduced (2N) spores. These spores resulted from a failure of the paired chromosomes to dissociate during the first division of meiosis. The spores germinated normally and grew into diploid gametophytes. These did not appear to produce antheridia. Nonetheless, a subsequent generation of tetraploid sporophytes was produced. When grown in the lab, the tetraploid sporophytes appear to be less vigorous than the normal diploid sporo- phytes. The 4N individuals were found near Baldwin City, Kansas.

Woodsia Fern (Woodsia abbeae)
Woodsia abbeae was described as a hybrid of W. cathcariana and W. ilvensis (Butters 1941). Plants of this hybrid normally produce abortive sporangia containing inviable spores. In 1944 Butters found a W. abbeae plant near Grand Portage, Minn. that had one fertile frond (Butters and Tryon 1948). The apical portion of this frond had fertile sporangia. Spores from this frond germinated and grew into prothallia. About six months after germination sporophytes were produced. They survived for about one year. Based on cytological evidence, Butters and Tryon concluded that the frond that produced the viable spores had gone tetraploid. They made no statement as to whether the sporophytes grown produced viable spores.
5.1.2 Animals Speciation through hybridization and/or polyploidy has long been considered much less important in animals than in plants [[[refs.]]]. A number of reviews suggest that this view may be mistaken. (Lokki and Saura 1980; Bullini and Nascetti 1990; Vrijenhoek 1994). Bullini and Nasceti (1990) review chromosomal and genetic evidence that suggest that speciation through hybridization may occur in a number of insect species, including walking sticks, grasshoppers, blackflies and cucurlionid beetles. Lokki and Saura (1980) discuss the role of polyploidy in insect evolution. Vrijenhoek (1994) reviews the literature on parthenogenesis and hybridogenesis in fish. I will tackle this topic in greater depth in the next version of this document.



I suppose now you are going to say "But, but, .... they're still ferns"

ElElohe said:

I would submit to you that, denotatively, evolution and athiesm are faiths, belief systems.

Click to expand...

*sigh* This again?

Fine, if we go with your version, then I also have faith in the quantum mechanics, gravity, the existance of France, and that my television will turn on when I hit the power button.

But, in doing so, the whole definition of "faith" and "belief" (if you equate these to a religious context) gets watered down to the point where it becomes meaningless.

Um, there is quite a bit of evidence for evolution, one just needs to be willing to learn it.

Evolution is not atheism
Evolution is not atheism
Evolution is not atheism


Remember that. Its very important.

Science is Agnostic
Science is Agnostic
Science is Agnostic

Remember that. Its very important.

Science changes as more evidence is found. Creationism Used to be the belief that science had, untill evidence changed that belief and falsified creationism.

ElElohe said:

faith ( P ) Pronunciation Key (fth) n.

Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing.

Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence. See Synonyms at belief. See Synonyms at trust.

Loyalty to a person or thing; allegiance: keeping faith with one's supporters. often Faith Christianity. The theological virtue defined as secure belief in

God and a trusting acceptance of God's will.

The body of dogma of a religion: the Muslim faith.

A set of principles or beliefs.
-------------------------------------------------------
Albeit you cannot prove the existence of God much more than you can evolution. However there is not more evidence for one than the other, despite a lot of those convinced of this.
-------------------------------------------------------
be·lief ( P ) Pronunciation Key (b-lf) n.

The mental act, condition, or habit of placing trust or confidence in another: My belief in you is as strong as ever.

Mental acceptance of and conviction in the truth, actuality, or validity of something: His explanation of what happened defies belief.

Something believed or accepted as true, especially a particular tenet or a body of tenets accepted by a group of persons.
--------------------------------------------------------
I would submit to you that, denotatively, evolution and athiesm are faiths, belief systems.

Tolerance is a virtue of a man without convictions. GK Chesterton

Click to expand...

ElElohe said:

For those proponents of this faith-based religion called evolution:

Why can't we observe evolution presently? I am talking Macro, not Microevolution which is more accurately termed adapatation.

Click to expand...

First, evolution is not faith based, nor is it a religion. Evolution is not atheism, altho you mistakenly seem to think it is.

Second, we do observe evolution presently. The distinction you try to make between "micro" and "macro" evolution doesn't exist. Adaptation leads to new species, which is macroevolution.

As it happens, we have observed new species -- macroevolution -- in both the lab and the wild. If you want, I'll give you those references.

Using artificial selection, we have evolved a whole new GENUS of plants consisting of several species, from a wheat-rye hybrid. Now that's macroevolution with a vengeance!

"But we must ask, what exactly are these genera, families, orders, and so on? It was clear to Darwin, and it should be obvious to all today, that they are simply ever larger categories used to give names to ever larger clusters of related species. That's all these clusters, these higher taxa, really are: simply clusters of related species.

Thus, in priniciple the evolution of a family should be no different in its basic nature, and should involve no different processes, from the evolution of a genus, since a family is nothing more than a collection of related genera. And genera are just collections of related species. The triumph of evolutionary biology in the 1930s and 1940s was the conclusion that the same principles of adaptive divergence just described -- primarily the processes of mutation and natural selection -- going on within species, accumulate to produce the differences we see between closely related species -- i.e., within genera. Q.E.D.: If adaptive modification within species explains the evolutionary differences between species within a genus, logically it must explain all the evolutionary change we see between families, orders, classes, phyla, and the kingdoms of life. Niles Eldredge, The Triumph of Evolution and the Failure of Creationism. pgs 76-77.

ElElohe said:

faith ( P ) Pronunciation Key (fth) n.

Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing.

Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence. See Synonyms at belief. See Synonyms at trust.

Loyalty to a person or thing; allegiance: keeping faith with one's supporters. often Faith Christianity. The theological virtue defined as secure belief in

God and a trusting acceptance of God's will.

The body of dogma of a religion: the Muslim faith.

A set of principles or beliefs.
-------------------------------------------------------
Albeit you cannot prove the existence of God much more than you can evolution. However there is not more evidence for one than the other, despite a lot of those convinced of this.
-------------------------------------------------------
be·lief ( P ) Pronunciation Key (b-lf) n.

The mental act, condition, or habit of placing trust or confidence in another: My belief in you is as strong as ever.

Mental acceptance of and conviction in the truth, actuality, or validity of something: His explanation of what happened defies belief.

Something believed or accepted as true, especially a particular tenet or a body of tenets accepted by a group of persons.
--------------------------------------------------------
I would submit to you that, denotatively, evolution and athiesm are faiths, belief systems.

Tolerance is a virtue of a man without convictions. GK Chesterton

Click to expand...

I agree with you that atheism is a faith or belief system. But not evolution.

Look above at your definition of faith. Look at:
"Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence."

Since evolution rests on material evidence, it can't be a faith.

Now, by #2 of "belief", evolution MIGHT be a belief. However, that definition states "Mental acceptance of and conviction in the truth, actuality, or validity of something"

And that is what happens with evolution. We ACCEPT the validity of evolution because of the material evidence.

I always use the term "accept" for evolution rather than "believe" to avoid the confusion you have by using definitions 1 and 3.

Many Christians tenatively ACCEPT evolution based on the evidence just as they accept any other theory of science that is built through the scientific method and has not been falsified, but this does not interfere with their BELIEF or FAITH in God or Christ.

Why is it that whenever anyone tries to defend speciation and evolution, they are always using plants as example. Can't you be original? Like, for instance, tell me how humans and animals are speciating. Tell me how they are doing it without scientific intervention. Tell me how the old species is dying off, like Darwin said they would. Forget about the plants. They're boring and the act is old and dead. lol

notto said:

Many Christians tenatively ACCEPT evolution based on the evidence just as they accept any other theory of science that is built through the scientific method and has not been falsified, but this does not interfere with their BELIEF or FAITH in God or Christ.

Click to expand...

Yes, but those Christians recognize that there is DNA encodings providing for limited speciation, and that their existence is no accident.

drfeelgood said:

Yes, but those Christians recognize that there is DNA encodings providing for limited speciation, and that their existence is no accident.

Click to expand...

Nope, maybe some, but many biologists are Christian and have no problem with evolution as layed out in the scientific theory. This theory places no limitations on changes in the DNA. The mechanisms for microevolution and macroevolution (speciation) are exactly the same. If they BELIEVE that there is a limitation, they are not doing it from a scientific standpoint. No limiting factor can be demonstrated scientifically. Evolution has not been falsified as a valid scientific theory that explains diversity on this planet through a series of speciations. Proving any limiting factor would falsify evolution but as of yet, this has not been demonstrated.

I will accept however that theistic evolutionists (Christians who ACCEPT mainstream science and still have no problem being Christian) probably BELIEVE (as I do) that their existence is no accident.

So you refuse to accept the evidence because it's boring?!?!

Yes, but those Christians recognize that there is DNA encodings providing for limited speciation, and that their existence is no accident

Click to expand...

Examples? I've never heard of a DNA encoding for "limited speciation". Also, please define the term "limited speciation".

drfeelgood said:

Why is it that whenever anyone tries to defend speciation and evolution, they are always using plants as example. Can't you be original? Like, for instance, tell me how humans and animals are speciating. Tell me how they are doing it without scientific intervention. Tell me how the old species is dying off, like Darwin said they would. Forget about the plants. They're boring and the act is old and dead.

Click to expand...

Hmm. Forget about the evidence? That's convenient, isn't it? However, I did tell you have one species of Drosophila speciated into several under different environmental conditions. Must not have looked at that one.

Before I get into speciation, let's address "the old species dying off". This doesn't happen instantaneously. That is, the new species evolves and the old one drops dead. In either allopatric or sympatric speciation, the new species is separated from the old one. Either by geography or lifestyle. Therefore there is no competition between them and there is no reason for the old species to become extinct. It is still doing quite well in the original location or ecological niche.

Animals speciating:
11. JM Thoday, Disruptive selection. Proc. Royal Soc. London B. 182: 109-143, 1972.
Lots of references in this one to other speciation.
12. KF Koopman, Natural selection for reproductive isolation between Drosophila pseudobscura and Drosophila persimilis. Evolution 4: 135-148, 1950.
6. B Wuethrich, Speciation: Mexican pairs show geography's role. Science 285: 1190, Aug. 20, 1999. Butterflies
12. 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 Both papers are on salmon.

Humans beginning the process of speciation.

1. Am J Trop Med Hyg 1994 Oct;51(4):460-5 Low prevalence of human T lymphotropic virus type I in !Kung San in Bushmanland, Namibia.

2. Hum Immunol 1990 Aug;28(4):406-15 The HLA genetic constitution of the Bushmen (San). du Toit ED, Taljaard DG, Marshall J, Ritchie C, Oudshoorn M

3. Ann Hum Genet 1979 May;42(4):425-33 Red cell adenosine deaminase (ADA) polymorphism in Southern Africa, with special reference to ADA deficiency among the !Kung.

These 3 papers show incipient reproductive isolation between the San and particularly the !Kung and other human populations. Such incipient reproductive isolation is the beginning of speciation.

1. Hum Biol 2000 Feb;72(1):201-28 Tibetan and Andean patterns of adaptation to high-altitude hypoxia. Beall CM

2. Comp Biochem Physiol A Mol Integr Physiol 1999 Sep;124(1):1-17
Adaptation and conservation of physiological systems in the evolution of human hypoxia tolerance. Hochachka PW, Rupert JL, Monge C

3. Am J Phys Anthropol 1998;Suppl 27:25-64 Human adaptation to high altitude: regional and life-cycle perspectives. Moore LG, Niermeyer S, Zamudio S

These 3 papers show genetic adaptations to living at high altitudes. It is significant that Himalayan and Andean highlanders have different genetic and physiological adaptations. This is the beginnings of allopatric speciation. Whether it continues or not depends on gene flow between the populations discussed (!Kung and the highlanders) and other human populations. If there is sufficient gene flow, then the process of reproductive isolation will be halted. However, if there is little or no gene flow (as is seen particularly with the !Kung) then you will end up with a new species.

Now, since most humans won't live in the Kalahari desert and most of the world isn't the Kalahari desert, the new species H. !kungis would not threaten the old species H. sapiens.

drfeelgood said:

Yes, but those Christians recognize that there is DNA encodings providing for limited speciation, and that their existence is no accident.

Click to expand...

Two points:

1. Find for us the barriers that limit speciation. Phylogenetic analysis has been done across hundreds of taxa by now and such a barrier hasn't been found. I can go into more detail if you want.

2. For theistic evolutionists, their existence is not an "accident". Our particular physical form is contingent on historicial events, but so are our entire lives, and Christians believe that such contingent events are part of God's plan. So what is the problem with believing that God is also capable of using the contingent events in evolutionary history to further His plan, just like He uses the contingent events in our lives for His purpose?

ElElohe said:

For those proponents of this faith-based religion called evolution:

Why can't we observe evolution presently? I am talking Macro, not Microevolution which is more accurately termed adapatation.

Click to expand...

It would appear that you haven't the foggiest idea what evolution is.

Tell me this: What prevents an animal from evolving into another species after a long enough time period? If a species "microevolves" over a long enough time period, what stops it from becoming a new species?

Also, in equating religion with evolution, it also appears that you don't know the meaning of religion in addition to evolution.

What moral guidelines does the theory of evolution present (and please don't confuse evolution with social darwinism)? In addition, how does the theory of evolution tell us how to live (Again, don't confuse evolution with the nonsense of social darwinism)?

I'll bet you can't answer any of these questions, but you will try to evade and handwave.

Who'll take that bet?

ElElohe said:

Meatros said:

It would appear that you haven't the foggiest idea what evolution is.

Click to expand...

Dare I say this in this aggressive forum but, nor do evolutionists.

Click to expand...

Actually I think 'evolutionists' do have an idea what evolution is, due to their years of study and scientific evaluation and all that kind of stuff they like to do to their theories.

Tell me this: What prevents an animal from evolving into another species after a long enough time period? If a species "microevolves" over a long enough time period, what stops it from becoming a new species?

Ah, the magic ingredient in evolution = Time! Notice how the earth, according to science, keeps getting older and older and older . . .

Click to expand...

I dont know about older and older and older. I am fairly sure it has been at around 4.5 billion years for a while.

Time is required for evolution to happen to the required extent, but there has been over four billion years of it to work with.

Also, in equating religion with evolution, it also appears that you don't know the meaning of religion in addition to evolution.

See 3 and 4

re·li·gion ( P ) Pronunciation Key (r-ljn)
n.

Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe.
A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship.
The life or condition of a person in a religious order.
A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader.
A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion.

Click to expand...

I may be misunderstanding you here, but definitions 3 and 4 are 'The life or condition of a person in a religious order' and 'A set of beliefs, values, and practices base don the teachings of a spiritual leader'. Neither definition can even remotely be applied to evolution without creating a whole host of other religions such as 'gravitism', or 'magneticism'.

What moral guidelines does the theory of evolution present

It doesn't

In addition, how does the theory of evolution tell us how to live

It doesn't

Click to expand...

That they don't is the entire point. Religions tend to do this. Evolution does not.

I'll bet you can't answer any of these questions, but you will try to evade and handwave.

Thank you for you confidence. I am almost offended

Click to expand...

[/QUOTE]

Given the behavoiour of many YECs in this forum it is a reasonable assumption to make.

ElElohe said:

Dare I say this in this aggressive forum but, nor do evolutionists.

Click to expand...

I won't deny that, there are many people out there who don't know what they are talking about.

ElElohe said:

Tell me this: What prevents an animal from evolving into another species after a long enough time period? If a species "microevolves" over a long enough time period, what stops it from becoming a new species?

Click to expand...

ElElohe said:

Ah, the magic ingredient in evolution = Time! Notice how the earth, according to science, keeps getting older and older and older . . .

Click to expand...

Sidestepping the question isn't answering the question. Actually scientists, as well as those who study these matters, have been certain that the earth is old since, IIRC, the 1800's. Science is always incorporating new data into the body of knowledge (unlike creationism), with new data theories are refined and added to.

So, since the age of the earth isn't a problem (as I said, science has known it was at least a few million years old since the 1800's, and a few billion years old since the 1900's), please answer my original question.

ElElohe said:

Also, in equating religion with evolution, it also appears that you don't know the meaning of religion in addition to evolution.

Click to expand...

ElElohe said:

See 3 and 4

re·li·gion ( P ) Pronunciation Key (r-ljn)
n.

Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe.
A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship.
The life or condition of a person in a religious order.
A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader.
A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion.

Click to expand...

Well we can cross 3 off, as evolution isn't a set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teaching of a spiritual leader. We can also cross off four, seeing as the theory isn't a cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion.

So again, why are you comparing it to a religion?

ElElohe said:

I'll bet you can't answer any of these questions, but you will try to evade and handwave.

Click to expand...

ElElohe said:

Thank you for you confidence. I am almost offended

Click to expand...

You're right, I was a bit...harsh, my apologies.

The humans in your examples are still humans lucaspa. A bird has always been a bird. And we've been through this before. Darwin said the old species must inevitably die off. There are no maybes.

I remain unconvinced.

As for the DNA. I don't know which genetic code or sequence it is, but I can find out. I can tell you that it is what allows hair to become certain colors, but it doesn't allow hair to become a bird.