Is some of the anti science movement to be blamed on scientists?

[Cabal]

Really, then can you show me just 1 time mankind has EVER observed one species evolve into a completely different species?

Just 1?

Throughout the history of mankind, has this ever been observed 1 time?

Because if you want to have a respected hypothesis, you should at least observe it happen 1 time, right?

Can give you a lot more than one. Thanks as always to lucaspa for the list:

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 Speciation through homoploid hybridization between allotetraploids in peonies (Paeonia) — PNAS
3. Scruffy little weed shows Darwin was right as evolution moves on 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. Science/AAAS | Science Magazine: Sign In Natural selection of reproductive isolation observed in two cases. Full papers are: AP Hendry, JK Wenburg, P Bentzen, EC Volk, TP Quinn, Rapid evolution of reproductive isolation in the wild: evidence from introduced salmon. Science 290: 516-519, Oct. 20, 2000. and M Higgie, S Chenoweth, MWBlows, Natural selection and the reinforcement of mate recognition. Science290: 519-521, Oct. 20, 2000
2. G Vogel, African elephant species splits in two. Science 293: 1414, Aug. 24, 2001. http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/conten.../293/5534/1414
3. C Vila` , P Savolainen, JE. Maldonado, IR. Amorim, JE. Rice, RL. Honeycutt, KA. Crandall, JLundeberg, RK. Wayne, Multiple and Ancient Origins of the Domestic Dog Science 276: 1687-1689, 13 JUNE 1997. Dogs no longer one species but 4 according to the genetics. http://www.idir.net/~wolf2dog/wayne1.htm
4. Barrowclough, George F.. Speciation and Geographic Variation in Black-tailed Gnatcatchers. (book reviews) The Condor. V94. P555(2) May, 1992
5. Kluger, Jeffrey. Go fish. Rapid fish speciation in African lakes. Discover. V13. P18(1) March, 1992.
Formation of five new species of cichlid fishes which formed since they were isolated from the parent stock, Lake Nagubago. (These fish have complex mating rituals and different coloration.) See also Mayr, E., 1970. _Populations, Species, and Evolution_, Massachusetts, Harvard University Press. p. 348
6. Genus _Rattus_ currently consists of 137 species [1,2] and is known to have
originally developed in Indonesia and Malaysia during and prior to the Middle
Ages[3].
[1] T. Yosida. Cytogenetics of the Black Rat. University Park Press, Baltimore, 1980.
[2] D. Morris. The Mammals. Hodder and Stoughton, London, 1965.
[3] G. H. H. Tate. "Some Muridae of the Indo-Australian region," Bull. Amer. Museum Nat. Hist. 72: 501-728, 1963.
7. Stanley, S., 1979. _Macroevolution: Pattern and Process_, San Francisco,
W.H. Freeman and Company. p. 41
Rapid speciation of the Faeroe Island house mouse, which occurred in less than 250 years after man brought the creature to the island.

Enjoy

 

[Cabal]

You should get a better job.

Given that without science, no-one would be listening to you right now as the internet has given a voice to those who otherwise really wouldn't get an audience (and quite frankly whose ideas are so intellectually bankrupt they don't merit an audience, but c'est la vie), I really wouldn't bite the hand that feeds you.

Brush up on logic 101.

ad hominem

Did you read my post? I addressed your point, and all you've done is keep demonstrating your lack of understanding of the most basic logical fallacies instead of producing a counterargument. So it's not an ad hominem, as I am not trying to substitute a personal remark in the place of addressing your argument, as I have already addressed it.

It was a person who noticed that it was filed. Does it take a scientist to discover that? nope, but one sure can be fooled by it.

Sure, it's possible that a non-scientist could discover the fakes. The fact is, they didn't. It was scientists - and definitely not creationists who are several decades if not centuries behind everyone else. They seem to think that fossils that were discarded decades ago are still being used as evidence today, when they are definitely not.

Do decide that one species can become a completely different species, YES you do

Yes, I do. See the massive list I pwned you with in the previous post.

OR to decide that life can come from a ROCK over a million or few years, YES, you do.

Never claimed that. Life didn't come from a rock. You have strawmanned what abiogenesis claims.

LOL, You DEFINITELY deserve an award for that comment.

Weren't you whining about ad hominems before now? Do try and be consistent.

Yes, but the requirement was narrowed wasn't it to a certain authority.

No, it wasn't. It wasn't an appeal to authority - it wasn't a claim that the scientific literature was right. It was a request for you to back up your assertions about science being anti-God within the primary scientific literature.

Like if I said, Show me 5 places in the alphabet where it says 2+2=4. Just because the alphabet does not contain this math equation, does not make the equation wrong.

aka a FALLACY

The only fallacy here is that you have completely failed to understand what was being asked of you.

I'll simplify it for you: where in the scientific journals can one see evidence for your assertion that science is anti-God? Not from the books and talks of Richard Dawkins, not some outspoken scientist going on a rant on his own lecture circuit - in the primary scientific literature, where is your evidence?

Benefit from science?
Sadly you do not know the difference between science and Naturalism. Science is unbiased. Naturalism is a fruit loop religion that believes all life came from a rock and man came from a monkey.

My goodness, and you don't know what naturalism is either.

It is a methodology of explaining the natural world without addressing the involvement of the supernatural. That's it.

Funny, if I am out of my depth, then why am I right?

You aren't, sweetheart. You have posted little else other than ignorance and misrepresentation.

 

[AV1611VET]

Can give you a lot more than one.

I'll make mine a little tougher.

Show me where a specific species gave rise to a new genus.

I want the name of the father species and the name of his son's species, which, of course would have a new genus.

Example: Specificus eight → Neogenus one.

Not: Specificus seven → Neogenus one.

Notice the emergence of a new genus, which is true macroevolution?

 

[Cabal]

I'll make mine a little tougher.

Show me where a specific species gave rise to a new genus.

I want the name of the father species and the name of his son's species, which, of course would have a new genus.

Example: Specificus eight → Neogenus one.

Not: Specificus seven → Neogenus one.

Notice the emergence of a new genus, which is true macroevolution?

No thanks - not in the mood for a game of "move the goalposts".

 

[AV1611VET]

No thanks - not in the mood for a game of "move the goalposts".

Then evolution can take a hike.

You guys have more gaps to fill than there are seconds in the universe.

And you say we espouse god-of-the-gaps theology?

You can't even connect two dots of macroevolution -- (in my opinion).

 

[Cabal]

Then evolution can take a hike.

You guys have more gaps to fill than there are seconds in the universe.

"Should I ever be struggling against damning evidence in a murder trial, I will certainly consider retaining Vij Sodera (a laughably wrong creationist - C) in my defence team. Such a talent for refuting the obvious should not go to waste. He could assert, for instance, that people fire guns and other people fall dead shot, but to suggest that there could be any link between the two is foolhardy in the extreme."

The Sunday Telegraph letters - Telegraph

And you say we espouse god-of-the-gaps theology?

You do.

You can't even connect two dots of macroevolution -- (in my opinion).

Well, until you come up with some evidence for your imagined magical barriers, your opinion can take a hike.

 

[AV1611VET]

Take a look at this drawing, Cabal:

There must be billions of species between each skeleton, if evolution is to be correct.

Yet all you guys do is talk about the mountain tops.

 

[Cabal]

Take a look at this drawing, Cabal:

There must be billions of species between each skeleton, if evolution is to be correct.

Yet all you guys do is talk about the mountain tops.

No, your problem is you're only focusing on one particular mountain range. Fossil evidence isn't the only kind of evidence for evolution.

And no, we don't have to show every skeleton, if a means of inheritance and enough similarities between potentially related species are found - which we have.

 

[HAPMinistries]

Can give you a lot more than one. Thanks as always to lucaspa for the list:

Sadly, there is not one example in here.

I asked for one species that evolved into a completely different species.

Can you name one?

Just 1?

 

[Cabal]

Sadly, there is not one example in here.

I asked for one species that evolved into a completely different species.

Can you name one?

Just 1?

Somehow I suspect you're not that fast a reader. That aside, they did speciate, as the results show a subset of a population that is reproductively incompatible with the remainder of the population it speciated from.

If you think they all did not speciate, please post individual refutations of each claimed case of speciation in that list.

 

[AV1611VET]

And no, we don't have to show every skeleton, if a means of inheritance and enough similarities between potentially related species are found - which we have.

Then you're comfortable with the gaps?

 

[Cabal]

Then you're comfortable with the gaps?

People are comfortable with gaps in plenty of other areas of life and content to live by inference from known naturalistic laws, so there is no reason why evolution should be treated differently.

The difference between this and God of the gaps is that in God of the gaps, the only place people who use it can find a place for God is in the gaps. At least evolution has definite knowledge and some minor gaps, rather than being entirely gap.

 

[AV1611VET]

People are comfortable with gaps in plenty of other areas of life and content to live by inference from known naturalistic laws, so there is no reason why evolution should be treated differently.

The difference between this and God of the gaps is that in God of the gaps, the only place people who use it can find a place for God is in the gaps. At least evolution has definite knowledge and some minor gaps, rather than being entirely gap.

Well, like I said, if you guys filled one gap per second, you would run out of time before you ran out of gaps.

In my opinion.

 

[matthewgar]

man...I leave the topic for a few days and suddenly it becomes dozens of pages on Pluto...:> Though I think I've figured out AV's obsession with it, he's really a alien from it who is [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse]ed off that his planets been demoted :>

 

[Cabal]

Well, like I said, if you guys filled one gap per second, you would run out of time before you ran out of gaps.

In my opinion.

Right, and if you can't present in court a photo for every Planck interval showing the bullet's exact trajectory, the murderer would go scotfree.

Oh wait, no-one thinks like that, so there is no reason to get precious over evolution either.

 

[AV1611VET]

Right, and if you can't present in court a photo for every Planck interval showing the bullet's exact trajectory, the murderer would go scotfree.

Nope -- the intent follows the bullet.

 

[HAPMinistries]

Given that without science, no-one would be listening to you right now as the internet has given a voice to those who otherwise really wouldn't get an audience (and quite frankly whose ideas are so intellectually bankrupt they don't merit an audience, but c'est la vie), I really wouldn't bite the hand that feeds you.

Without science?
Funny, without creation, there would be nothing to hear.

Did you read my post? I addressed your point, and all you've done is keep demonstrating your lack of understanding of the most basic logical fallacies instead of producing a counterargument. So it's not an ad hominem, as I am not trying to substitute a personal remark in the place of addressing your argument, as I have already addressed it.

And sadly you kept making fallacies, didn't you?

Sure, it's possible that a non-scientist could discover the fakes. The fact is, they didn't.

OF COURSE THEY DID! Do you not think ministers called Piltdown Man a fake all those years?
AND, only certain people are allowed to see these 'great pieces of evidence'.

Yes, I do. See the massive list I pwned you with in the previous post.

You commit fallacies. That is about it. I called you on them. If anything, I have been owning you.

I see you do not know the difference between a species becoming a completely different species, and speciation. For someone who does this for a living, you are pretty dull.

Never claimed that. Life didn't come from a rock. You have strawmanned what abiogenesis claims.

Really? And what does Abiogenesis claim? Hope you don't make your warm pond with water that comes from any rocks.

Weren't you whining about ad hominems before now? Do try and be consistent.

I thought it was the only language you knew.

No, it wasn't. It wasn't an appeal to authority

Yes, it was.

The only fallacy here is that you have completely failed to understand what was being asked of you.

Funny, what has been asked of me has been nothing but fallacious. All you do is cry because I call you on it.

I'll simplify it for you: where in the scientific journals

Appeal to Authority silly person.

My goodness, and you don't know what naturalism is either.

It is a methodology of explaining the natural world without addressing the involvement of the supernatural. That's it.

Which is hard to explain thoughts, dreams, and imagination, isn't it?

You aren't, sweetheart. You have posted little else other than ignorance and misrepresentation.

Actually, that is what you do.

 

[Cabal]

I'll make mine a little tougher.

Show me where a specific species gave rise to a new genus.

I want the name of the father species and the name of his son's species, which, of course would have a new genus.

Example: Specificus eight → Neogenus one.

Not: Specificus seven → Neogenus one.

Notice the emergence of a new genus, which is true macroevolution?

My goodness, I really did skim-read the list I posted.

Lookey here:

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.

 

[HAPMinistries]

Somehow I suspect you're not that fast a reader. That aside, they did speciate...

Did I ask for an example of speciation silly one?

I asked for one species that evolved into a completely different species.

Do you know the difference?

 

[Cabal]

Nope -- the intent follows the bullet.

Well if you can't follow the bullet for EVERY SINGLE Planck interval, then justice can take a hike.

(I don't actually think this, but this is how ridiculous this kind of unreasonable criticism of evolution is when applied to other processes that are trying to do exactly the same kind of discovery).