any creationists about?

[charles cure]

That's not very easy to follow, especially when time is not on your side.
Could you perhaps skip to the points to evolution being the reason why the first life was created on earth?

Thanks
Jan.

ah your unwillingness to even entertain an alternative view is revealed. time is obviously "on your side" enough that you can waste it posting responses, yet you cant take what would probably be about 10 minutes to read a conclusive response to one of your stupid questions doubting the validity of evolutionary theory? sweet excuse.

 

[KennyJC]

When does a river become a canyon?

When does a species become a new species?

 

[KennyJC]

Jan: You are obviously skeptical about evolution, which is fine. But if you don't accept the evidence of evolution, then what better theory is there to the origins of life?

I have never seen an anti-evolutionist come up with a better theory: Surely if you can not present one here, then you must at least concede that evolution is our best explanation wether you agree it is fact or not.

Why do I have a feeling you will dodge this...

 

[Ophiolite]

A river never becomes a canyon, though it may flow in one.

A species becomes a new species when it can no longer interbreed successfully with the old species.

 

[TheVisitor]

Jan: You are obviously skeptical about evolution, which is fine. But if you don't accept the evidence of evolution, then what better theory is there to the origins of life?

I have never seen an anti-evolutionist come up with a better theory: Surely if you can not present one here, then you must at least concede that evolution is our best explanation wether you agree it is fact or not.

Why do I have a feeling you will dodge this...

Creation, not Evolution...
Species can adapt to a certain extent for survival but it has been proved they can not evolve into a completely another species.
There was mixing of species to create our present state as a hybrid.
Let me explain;......(this is from a verbatum recording of Wiliam Branham)

"Now, in the beginning when God spoke, and Satan was standing there and he heard it... And the people are trying to find this missing link. I'll tell you by revelation, if--if you want to receive it, that missing person between animal and man is the serpent, before he had his legs taken from him.
The Bible said, "He was the most subtle of all the beasts (not reptile), of all the field." He was the one who beguiled the woman in his beauty. And she conceived, and now by doing that and seeing sin was coming, God put such a curse upon him till science will never find any relationship between this serpent as known today and mankind.
But, there is your fallen, degraded being between--that hooked the animal life together. There you are. God has hid it from the wise and prudent, but will reveal it to babes such as will learn. See? There's your fallen person.
The serpent, he was brought from way, the most subtle, the greatest, the most beautiful, the more like human being. And then because of this evil that he did with Eve; He brought him down to a reptile to go on his belly all the days of his life, and dust should be his meat."

 

[longlostlady]

Jan,

I thought as much, but it doesn't stop you from assuming what others assume.

you thought as much? on what grounds? and when have i assumed what other assume? throughout this thread i have asked for answers, i have tried to assume as little as possible.

What? You don't like to be refered to as "she"?

not especially, no.

Don't you think the people who came up with this figure have any semblence of life?

as i remember i put a after that comment. it was meant in a very tongue in cheek way, actually, and i'm beginning to rather resent your seeming inability to step away from the defensive position.

Why pose this question on a site where creationism is mocked?

firstly i'm new. secondly i don't think anyone has "mocked" creationism. some people have disagreed vehemently but that's not the same thing at all.

Did you think you would get a fair answer?

you've put forward your arguments, they've put forward theirs. fair enough, i say. i've heard both sides and it's been very interesting for me to read the debate. i'd say it's been fair - hopefully i've a brain enough to read through the personal attacks from both sides.

Why didn't you go somewhere where your question(s) would be answer perfectly?

where would you suggest? my circle of friends and associates doesn't include a single creationist, sadly or happily, depending upon one's viewpoint. if you're pissed off with me for starting this thread then i'm sorry, but you didn't have to contribute or continue to contribute if that's the case.

i'm not taking anything out on anybody, because its not personal, try and remember that

point taken. i don't see myself as the one taking things personally in this situation.

 

[SnakeLord]

Species can adapt to a certain extent for survival but it has been proved they can not evolve into a completely another species.

See, we were all fine with your statements concerning snakes bonking eve and ancient nuclear bombs.. but your above statement shows beyond any doubt that you're full of shit.

You say it's 'proven'. Go for it.. astound us all.

 

[TheVisitor]

See, we were all fine with your statements concerning snakes bonking eve and ancient nuclear bombs.. but your above statement shows beyond any doubt that you're full of shit.

You say it's 'proven'. Go for it.. astound us all.

Piltdown man, and Java man, were fakes...with pieces of ape and gibbons replaced for the testing.

http://www.tanbooks.com/doct/science_today.htm

 

[SnakeLord]

Piltdown man, and Java man, were fakes...with pieces of ape and gibbons replaced for the testing.

Lol.. And that is somehow "proof that a species cannot evolve into a different species"?

Seriously boy, get an education.

 

[mountainhare]

TheVisitor:

Piltdown man, and Java man, were fakes...with pieces of ape and gibbons replaced for the testing.

1. Yes, so what? The fakes were never taken seriously by the scientific community.

2. And guess who discovered that the fossils were fakes? Scientists. Oops, that sort of like sharp pain in groin, huh? Because science has just demostrated that it is self-correcting, and constantly searching for truth.

 

[mountainhare]

KennyJ:

I have never seen an anti-evolutionist come up with a better theory:

GODDIDIT!!!

 

[Ophiolite]

1. Yes, so what? The fakes were never taken seriously by the scientific community.

Piltdown man was a hoax. Java man was not. Classified by its dicoverer Dubois as Pithecanthropus erectus, and now considered to be Homo erectus erectus, there is no doubt as to its authenticity.

However, Piltdown man was certainly taken very seriously by scientists of the time. It was not until radioactive dating methods were applied that the fakery was revealed.

 

[Ophiolite]

mountainhare,
You're pissed because I don't accept Darwins idea of evolution, and your inability to give any real scientific evidence which unequivocaly supports his idea, has been revealed.

You might find the items on this list a useful starting point for your reassessment of evolution. The emphasis is on, but not restricted to, evidence for speciation. Once you have completed this, if you have any remaining doubts, just let us know.

General
1. M Nei and J Zhang, Evolution: molecular origin of species. Science 282: 1428-1429, Nov. 20, 1998. Primary article is: CT Ting, SC Tsaur, ML We, and CE Wu, A rapidly evolving homeobox at the site of a hybrid sterility gene. Science 282: 1501-1504, Nov. 20, 1998. As the title implies, has found the genes that actually change during reproductive isolation.
2. M Turelli, The causes of Haldane's rule. Science 282: 889-891, Oct.30, 1998. Haldane's rule describes a phase every population goes thru during speciation: production of inviable and sterile hybrids. Haldane's rule states "When in the F1 [first generation] offspring of two different animal races one sex is absent, rare, or sterile, that sex is the heterozygous [heterogemetic; XY, XO, or ZW] sex."Two leading explanations are fast-male and dominance. Both get supported. X-linked incompatibilities would affect heterozygous gender more because only one gene."
3. Barton, N. H., J. S. Jones and J. Mallet. 1988. No barriers to speciation. Nature. 336:13-14.
4. Baum, D. 1992. Phylogenetic species concepts. Trends in Ecology and Evolution. 7:1-3.
5. Rice, W. R. 1985. Disruptive selection on habitat preference and the evolution of reproductive isolation: an exploratory experiment. Evolution. 39:645-646.
6. Ringo, J., D. Wood, R. Rockwell, and H. Dowse. 1989. An experiment testing two hypotheses of speciation. The American Naturalist. 126:642-661.
7. Schluter, D. and L. M. Nagel. 1995. Parallel speciation by natural selection. American Naturalist. 146:292-301.
8. Callaghan, C. A. 1987. Instances of observed speciation. The American Biology Teacher. 49:3436.
9. Cracraft, J. 1989. Speciation and its ontology: the empirical consequences of alternative species concepts for understanding patterns and processes of differentiation. In Otte, E. and J. A. Endler [eds.] Speciation and its consequences. Sinauer Associates, Sunderland, MA. pp. 28-59.

Chromosome numbers in various species
http://www.kean.edu/~breid/chrom2.htm

Speciation in Insects
1. G Kilias, SN Alahiotis, and M Pelecanos. A multifactorial genetic investigation of speciation theory using drosophila melanogaster Evolution 34:730-737, 1980. Got new species of fruit flies in the lab after 5 years on different diets and temperatures. Also confirmation of natural selection in the process. Lots of references to other studies that saw speciation.
2. JM Thoday, Disruptive selection. Proc. Royal Soc. London B. 182: 109-143, 1972.
Lots of references in this one to other speciation.
3. KF Koopman, Natural selection for reproductive isolation between Drosophila pseudobscura and Drosophila persimilis. Evolution 4: 135-148, 1950. Using artificial mixed poulations of D. pseudoobscura and D. persimilis, it has been possible to show,over a period of several generations, a very rapid increase in the amount of reproductive isolation between the species as a result of natural selection.
4. LE Hurd and RM Eisenberg, Divergent selection for geotactic response and evolution of reproductive isolation in sympatric and allopatric populations of houseflies. American Naturalist 109: 353-358, 1975.
5. Coyne, Jerry A. Orr, H. Allen. Patterns of speciation in Drosophila. Evolution. V43. P362(20) March, 1989.
6. Dobzhansky and Pavlovsky, 1957 An incipient species of Drosophila, Nature 23: 289- 292.
7. Ahearn, J. N. 1980. Evolution of behavioral reproductive isolation in a laboratory stock of Drosophila silvestris. Experientia. 36:63-64.
8. 10. Breeuwer, J. A. J. and J. H. Werren. 1990. Microorganisms associated with chromosome destruction and reproductive isolation between two insect species. Nature. 346:558-560.
9. Powell, J. R. 1978. The founder-flush speciation theory: an experimental approach. Evolution. 32:465-474.
10. Dodd, D. M. B. and J. R. Powell. 1985. Founder-flush speciation: an update of experimental results with Drosophila. Evolution 39:1388-1392. 37. Dobzhansky, T. 1951. Genetics and the origin of species (3rd edition). Columbia University Press, New York.
11. Dobzhansky, T. and O. Pavlovsky. 1971. Experimentally created incipient species of Drosophila. Nature. 230:289-292.
12. Dobzhansky, T. 1972. Species of Drosophila: new excitement in an old field. Science. 177:664-669.
13. Dodd, D. M. B. 1989. Reproductive isolation as a consequence of adaptive divergence in Drosophila melanogaster. Evolution 43:1308-1311.
14. de Oliveira, A. K. and A. R. Cordeiro. 1980. Adaptation of Drosophila willistoni experimental populations to extreme pH medium. II. Development of incipient reproductive isolation. Heredity. 44:123-130.15. 29. Rice, W. R. and G. W. Salt. 1988. Speciation via disruptive selection on habitat preference: experimental evidence. The American Naturalist. 131:911-917.
30. Rice, W. R. and G. W. Salt. 1990. The evolution of reproductive isolation as a correlated character under sympatric conditions: experimental evidence. Evolution. 44:1140-1152.
31. del Solar, E. 1966. Sexual isolation caused by selection for positive and negative phototaxis and geotaxis in Drosophila pseudoobscura. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (US). 56:484-487.
32. Weinberg, J. R., V. R. Starczak and P. Jora. 1992. Evidence for rapid speciation following a founder event in the laboratory. Evolution. 46:1214-1220.
33. V Morell, Earth's unbounded beetlemania explained. Science 281:501-503, July 24, 1998. Evolution explains the 330,000 odd beetlespecies. Exploitation of newly evolved flowering plants.
34. B Wuethrich, Speciation: Mexican pairs show geography's role. Science 285: 1190, Aug. 20, 1999. Discusses allopatric speciation. Debate with ecological speciation on which is most prevalent.

Speciation in Plants
1. Speciation in action Science 72:700-701, 1996 A great laboratory study of the evolution of a hybrid plant species. Scientists did it in the lab, but the genetic data says it happened the same way in nature.
2. Hybrid speciation in peonies http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/061288698v1#B1
3. http://www.holysmoke.org/new-species.htm new species of groundsel by hybridization
4. Butters, F. K. 1941. Hybrid Woodsias in Minnesota. Amer. Fern. J. 31:15-21.
5. Butters, F. K. and R. M. Tryon, jr. 1948. A fertile mutant of a Woodsia hybrid. American Journal of Botany. 35:138.
6. Toxic Tailings and Tolerant Grass by RE Cook in Natural History, 90(3): 28-38, 1981 discusses selection pressure of grasses growing on mine tailings that are rich in toxic heavy metals. "When wind borne pollen carrying nontolerant genes crosses the border [between prairie and tailings] and fertilizes the gametes of tolerant females, the resultant offspring show a range of tolerances. The movement of genes from the pasture to the mine would, therefore, tend to dilute the tolerance level of seedlings. Only fully tolerant individuals survive to reproduce, however. This selective mortality, which eliminates variants, counteracts the dilution and molds a toatally tolerant population. The pasture and mine populations evolve distinctive adaptations because selective factors are dominant over the homogenizing influence of foreign genes."
7. Clausen, J., D. D. Keck and W. M. Hiesey. 1945. Experimental studies on the nature of species. II. Plant evolution through amphiploidy and autoploidy, with examples from the Madiinae. Carnegie Institute Washington Publication, 564:1-174.
8. Cronquist, A. 1988. The evolution and classification of flowering plants (2nd edition). The New York Botanical Garden, Bronx, NY.
9. P. H. Raven, R. F. Evert, S. E. Eichorn, Biology of Plants (Worth, New York,ed. 6, 1999).
10. M. Ownbey, Am. J. Bot. 37, 487 (1950).
11. M. Ownbey and G. D. McCollum, Am. J. Bot. 40, 788 (1953).
12. S. J. Novak, D. E. Soltis, P. S. Soltis, Am. J. Bot. 78, 1586 (1991).
13. P. S. Soltis, G. M. Plunkett, S. J. Novak, D. E. Soltis, Am. J. Bot. 82,1329 (1995).
14. Digby, L. 1912. The cytology of Primula kewensis and of other related Primula hybrids. Ann. Bot. 26:357-388.
15. Owenby, M. 1950. Natural hybridization and amphiploidy in the genus Tragopogon. Am. J. Bot. 37:487-499.
16. Pasterniani, E. 1969. Selection for reproductive isolation between two populations of maize, Zea mays L. Evolution. 23:534-547.

Speciation in microorganisms
1. Canine parovirus, a lethal disease of dogs, evolved from feline parovirus in the 1970s.
2. Budd, A. F. and B. D. Mishler. 1990. Species and evolution in clonal organisms -- a summary and discussion. Systematic Botany 15:166-171.
3. Bullini, L. and G. Nascetti. 1990. Speciation by hybridization in phasmids and other insects. Canadian Journal of Zoology. 68:1747-1760.
4. Boraas, M. E. 1983. Predator induced evolution in chemostat culture. EOS. Transactions of the American Geophysical Union. 64:1102.
5. Brock, T. D. and M. T. Madigan. 1988. Biology of Microorganisms (5th edition). Prentice Hall, Englewood, NJ.
6. Castenholz, R. W. 1992. Species usage, concept, and evolution in the cyanobacteria (blue-green algae). Journal of Phycology 28:737-745.
7. Boraas, M. E. The speciation of algal clusters by flagellate predation. EOS. Transactions of the American Geophysical Union. 64:1102.
8. Castenholz, R. W. 1992. Speciation, usage, concept, and evolution in the cyanobacteria (blue-green algae). Journal of Phycology 28:737-745.
9. Shikano, S., L. S. Luckinbill and Y. Kurihara. 1990. Changes of traits in a bacterial population associated with protozoal predation. Microbial Ecology. 20:75-84.

New Genus
1. Muntzig, A, Triticale Results and Problems, Parey, Berlin, 1979. Describes whole new *genus* of plants, Triticosecale, of several species, formed by artificial selection. These plants are important in agriculture.

Invertebrate not insect
1. ME Heliberg, DP Balch, K Roy, Climate-driven range expansion and morphological evolution in a marine gastropod. Science 292: 1707-1710, June1, 2001. Documents mrorphological change due to disruptive selection over time. Northerna and southern populations of A spirata off California from Pleistocene to present.
2. Weinberg, J. R., V. R. Starczak and P. Jora. 1992. Evidence for rapid speciation following a founder event with a polychaete worm. . Evolution. 46:1214-1220.

Vertebrate Speciation
1. N Barton Ecology: the rapid origin of reproductive isolation Science 290:462-463, Oct. 20, 2000. www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/290/5491/462 Natural selection of reproductive isolation observed in two cases. Full papers are: AP Hendry, JK Wenburg, P Bentzen, EC Volk, TP Quinn, Rapid evolution of reproductive isolation in the wild: evidence from introduced salmon. Science 290: 516-519, Oct. 20, 2000. and M Higgie, S Chenoweth, MWBlows, Natural selection and the reinforcement of mate recognition. Science290: 519-521, Oct. 20, 2000
2. G Vogel, African elephant species splits in two. Science 293: 1414, Aug. 24, 2001. http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/conten.../293/5534/1414
3. C Vila` , P Savolainen, JE. Maldonado, IR. Amorim, JE. Rice, RL. Honeycutt, KA. Crandall, JLundeberg, RK. Wayne, Multiple and Ancient Origins of the Domestic Dog Science 276: 1687-1689, 13 JUNE 1997. Dogs no longer one species but 4 according to the genetics. http://www.idir.net/~wolf2dog/wayne1.htm
4. Barrowclough, George F.. Speciation and Geographic Variation in Black-tailed Gnatcatchers. (book reviews) The Condor. V94. P555(2) May, 1992
5. Kluger, Jeffrey. Go fish. Rapid fish speciation in African lakes. Discover. V13. P18(1) March, 1992.
Formation of five new species of cichlid fishes which formed since they were isolated from the parent stock, Lake Nagubago. (These fish have complex mating rituals and different coloration.) See also Mayr, E., 1970. _Populations, Species, and Evolution_, Massachusetts, Harvard University Press. p. 348
6. Genus _Rattus_ currently consists of 137 species [1,2] and is known to have
originally developed in Indonesia and Malaysia during and prior to the Middle
Ages[3].
[1] T. Yosida. Cytogenetics of the Black Rat. University Park Press, Baltimore, 1980.
[2] D. Morris. The Mammals. Hodder and Stoughton, London, 1965.
[3] G. H. H. Tate. "Some Muridae of the Indo-Australian region," Bull. Amer. Museum Nat. Hist. 72: 501-728, 1963.
7. Stanley, S., 1979. _Macroevolution: Pattern and Process_, San Francisco,
W.H. Freeman and Company. p. 41
Rapid speciation of the Faeroe Island house mouse, which occurred in less than 250 years after man brought the creature to the island.

Speciation in the Fossil Record
1. Paleontological documentation of speciation in cenozoic molluscs from Turkana basin. Williamson, PG, Nature 293:437-443, 1981. Excellent study of "gradual" evolution in an extremely 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

Overkill
20. Craig, T. P., J. K. Itami, W. G. Abrahamson and J. D. Horner. 1993. Behavioral evidence for host-race fromation in Eurosta solidaginis. Evolution. 47:1696-1710.
21. Cronquist, A. 1978. Once again, what is a species? Biosystematics in agriculture. Beltsville Symposia in Agricultural Research 2:3-20.
24. de Queiroz, K. and M. Donoghue. 1988. Phylogenetic systematics and the species problem. Cladistics. 4:317-338.
25. de Queiroz, K. and M. Donoghue. 1990. Phylogenetic systematics and species revisited. Cladistics. 6:83-90.
26. de Vries, H. 1905. Species and varieties, their origin by mutation.
27. de Wet, J. M. J. 1971. Polyploidy and evolution in plants. Taxon. 20:29-35.
28. Rice, W. R. and E. E. Hostert. 1993. Laboratory experiments on speciation: What have we learned in forty years? Evolution. 47:1637-1653.

42. Du Rietz, G. E. 1930. The fundamental units of biological taxonomy. Svensk. Bot. Tidskr. 24:333-428.
43. Ehrman, E. 1971. Natural selection for the origin of reproductive isolation. The American Naturalist. 105:479-483.
44. Ehrman, E. 1973. More on natural selection for the origin of reproductive isolation. The American Naturalist. 107:318-319.
45. Feder, J. L., C. A. Chilcote and G. L. Bush. 1988. Genetic differentiation between sympatric host races of the apple maggot fly, Rhagoletis pomonella. Nature. 336:61-64.
46. Feder, J. L. and G. L. Bush. 1989. A field test of differential host-plant usage between two sibling species of Rhagoletis pomonella fruit flies (Diptera:Tephritidae) and its consequences for sympatric models of speciation. Evolution 43:1813-1819.
47. Frandsen, K. J. 1943. The experimental formation of Brassica juncea Czern. et Coss. Dansk. Bot. Arkiv., No. 4, 11:1-17.
48. Frandsen, K. J. 1947. The experimental formation of Brassica napus L. var. oleifera DC and Brassica carinata Braun. Dansk. Bot. Arkiv., No. 7, 12:1-16.
49. Galiana, A., A. Moya and F. J. Alaya. 1993. Founder-flush speciation in Drosophila pseudoobscura: a large scale experiment. Evolution. 47432-444.
50. Gottleib, L. D. 1973. Genetic differentiation, sympatric speciation, and the origin of a diploid species of Stephanomeira. American Journal of Botany. 60: 545-553.
51. Halliburton, R. and G. A. E. Gall. 1981. Disruptive selection and assortative mating in Tribolium castaneum. Evolution. 35:829-843.
52. Karpchenko, G. D. 1927. Polyploid hybrids of Raphanus sativus L. X Brassica oleraceae L. Bull. Appl. Botany. 17:305-408.
53. Karpchenko, G. D. 1928. Polyploid hybrids of Raphanus sativus L. X Brassica oleraceae L. Z. Indukt. Abstami-a Verenbungsi. 48:1-85.
54. Knight, G. R., A. Robertson and C. H. Waddington. 1956. Selection for sexual isolation within a species. Evolution. 10:14-22.
55. Levin, D. A. 1979. The nature of plant species. Science 204:381-384.
56. Lokki, J. and A. Saura. 1980. Polyploidy in insect evolution. In: W. H. Lewis (ed.) Polyploidy: Biological Relevance. Plenum Press, New York.
57. Macnair, M. R. and P. Christie. 1983. Reproductive isolation as a pleiotropic effect of copper tolerance in Mimulus guttatus. Heredity. 50:295-302.
58. Manhart, J. R. and R. M. McCourt. 1992. Molecular data and species concepts in the algae. Journal of Phycology. 28:730-737.
59. Mayr, E. 1942. Systematics and the origin of species from the viewpoint of a zoologist. Columbia University Press, New York.
60. Mayr, E. 1982. The growth of biological thought: diversity, evolution and inheritance. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA. McCourt, R. M. and R. W. Hoshaw. 1990. Noncorrespondence of breeding groups, morphology and monophyletic groups in Spirogyra (Zygnemataceae; Chlorophyta) and the application of species concepts. Systematic Botany. 15:69-78.
61. McPheron, B. A., D. C. Smith and S. H. Berlocher. 1988. Genetic differentiation between host races of Rhagoletis pomonella. Nature. 336:64-66.
62. Muntzing, A. 1932. Cytogenetic investigations on the synthetic Galeopsis tetrahit. Hereditas. 16:105-154.
63. Newton, W. C. F. and C. Pellew. 1929. Primula kewensis and its derivatives. J. Genetics. 20:405-467.
64. Otte, E. and J. A. Endler (eds.). 1989. Speciation and its consequences. Sinauer Associates. Sunderland, MA.
65. Rabe, E. W. and C. H. Haufler. 1992. Incipient polyploid speciation in the maidenhair fern (Adiantum pedatum, adiantaceae)? American Journal of Botany. 79:701-707.
67. Soans, A. B., D. Pimentel and J. S. Soans. 1974. Evolution of reproductive isolation in allopatric and sympatric populations. The American Naturalist. 108:117-124.
68. Soltis, D. E. and P. S. Soltis. 1989. Allopolyploid speciation in Tragopogon: Insights from chloroplast DNA. American Journal of Botany. 76:1119-1124.
69. Thoday, J. M. and J. B. Gibson. 1962. Isolation by disruptive selection. Nature. 193:1164-1166.
70. Thoday, J. M. and J. B. Gibson. 1970. The probability of isolation by disruptive selection. The American Naturalist. 104:219-230.
71. Thompson, J. N. 1987. Symbiont-induced speciation. Biological Journal of the Linnean Society. 32:385-393.
72. Waring, G. L., W. G. Abrahamson and D. J. Howard. 1990. Genetic differentiation in the gall former Eurosta solidaginis (Diptera:Tephritidae) along host plant lines. Evolution. 44:1648-1655.
21. Mosquin, T., 1967. "Evidence for autopolyploidy in _Epilobium angustifolium_
(Onaagraceae)", _Evolution_ 21:713-719
Evidence that a species of fireweed formed by doubling of the chromosome
count, from the original stock.
23. Kaneshiro, Kenneth Y. Speciation in the Hawaiian drosophila: sexual selection
appears to play an important role. BioScience. V38. P258(6) April, 1988.
24. Orr, H. Allen. Is single-gene speciation possible? Yes. Evolution. V45. P764(6) May, 1991
25. Rabe, Eric W.. Haufler, Christopher H.. Incipient polyploid speciation in the maidenhair fern (Adiantum pedatum; Adiantaceae)? The American Journal of Botany. V79. P701(7) June, 1992.
26. Rice, W. R. and G. W. Salt. 1988. Speciation via disruptive selection on habitat preference: experimental evidence. The American Naturalist. 131:911-917.
27. Ringo, J., D. Wood, R. Rockwell, and H. Dowse. 1989. An experiment testing two methods for speciation. The American Naturalist. 126:642-661.
30. Wright, Karen. A breed apart; finicky flies lend credence to a theory of speciation. Scientific American. V260. P22(2) Feb, 1989.
31. Ahearn, J. N. 1980. Evolution of behavioral reproductive isolation leading to speciation in Drosophila silvestris. Experientia. 36:63-64.
32. Barton, N.H. Hewitt, G.M. Adaptation, speciation and hybrid zones (includes related information) Nature. V341. P497(7) Oct 12, 1989.
34. Coyne, J.A. Barton, N.H. What do we know about speciation examples?. Nature. V331. P485(2) Feb 11, 1988.

 

[mountainhare]

Ophiolite:

Piltdown man was a hoax. Java man was not.

Whoops, you're right! I was thinking that Java man = Nebraski man (I'm bad at remembering names). Nebraski which was a hoax (but was never taken seriously by the scientific community.)

BTW, I see that you're still talking to Jan. Do you have a disease of the brain?

 

[KennyJC]

Creation, not Evolution...
Species can adapt to a certain extent for survival but it has been proved they can not evolve into a completely another species.
There was mixing of species to create our present state as a hybrid.
Let me explain;......(this is from a verbatum recording of Wiliam Branham)

"Now, in the beginning when God spoke, and Satan was standing there and he heard it... And the people are trying to find this missing link. I'll tell you by revelation, if--if you want to receive it, that missing person between animal and man is the serpent, before he had his legs taken from him.
The Bible said, "He was the most subtle of all the beasts (not reptile), of all the field." He was the one who beguiled the woman in his beauty. And she conceived, and now by doing that and seeing sin was coming, God put such a curse upon him till science will never find any relationship between this serpent as known today and mankind.
But, there is your fallen, degraded being between--that hooked the animal life together. There you are. God has hid it from the wise and prudent, but will reveal it to babes such as will learn. See? There's your fallen person.
The serpent, he was brought from way, the most subtle, the greatest, the most beautiful, the more like human being. And then because of this evil that he did with Eve; He brought him down to a reptile to go on his belly all the days of his life, and dust should be his meat."

I asked for a better theory than evolution. So far you have quoted two mythical beings (God and Satan) and quoted a book with dubious origins that is thousands of years old.

As I said before: I am looking for a better theory than evolution, and your attempts are laughable.

The reason I layed this trap, is because no anti-evolutionist can possibly give a better theory.

Good luck with that.

 

[Iasion]

Greetings,

nothing that has been translated that many times by that many people

I frequently see sceptics claim this.

As if each version of the bible is translated from the previous one - like a game of chinese whispers - each becoming further and further from the original.

This is completely false - its totally backwards.

Each new translation of the Bible is BETTER than the previous ones (generally speaking.)

Because over time we find more MSS, and learn more about how they changed over the years.

Consider the KJV - probably the WORST TRANSLATION available.

Of course, many believers think it's the original and best - bizarre.

Iasion

 

[Iasion]

Greetings,

The laws of probability will tell you that this universe with all of its ordered complexity, could not have come into being by chance.

Rubbish.
Please show your calculations.

There is enough coded information in one human chromosome to fill a small library of books. This had to be designed by an intelligent creator.

Nonsense.
A chromosome is a complex organic chemical that racts according to standard rules of chemistry.

The probability against that happening by chance is very very high.

Rubbish.
Show your calculations.

It's like giving a chimpanzee a typewriter and letting him hit the keys at random.

Rubbish.
It is NOTHING like that at all.
Evolution depends on NON-RANDOM natural selection acting on random mutations.

Ignorant cretinists deliberately IGNORE the NON-RANDOM parts, then claim "look - it's totally random!"

It's NOT.
Learn the facts.

It's really like having someone read the chimp's random nonsense, and KEEPING any real words he finds, then putting the words together to make sentences.

Which shows it would be EASY to have such a chimp write Shakespeare (given a long enough time.)

In order for a single cell to live, all of the parts of the cell must be assembled before life starts. This involves 60,000 proteins that are assembled in roughly 100 different combinations. The probability that these complex groupings of proteins could have happened just by chance is extremely small.

Sadly,
like all cretinists, you have no idea what you are talking about.

Evolution does NOT CLAIM that
"these complex groupings of proteins could have happened just by chance"

But cretinists never bother to check the facts.

But natural selection has not been observed to cause one species to change into another new species.

Yes it has, see here :
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

Then we see the usual cretinist rubbish -
out of context quotes, deliberate LIES, and ignorant opinion from un-related fields (why do you think a Christian Physicist's opinion is relevant?)

They’ve also found human and dinosaur footprints in the same rock strata, in places like Turkmenia, in Nicaragua and near the palaxi river in the US.

All frauds.

Disorder always increases overall, in any observed scientific processes.

Increase of disorder means nothing - the Sun provides energy to increase local order.


Iasion

 

[charles cure]

Greetings,



I frequently see sceptics claim this.

As if each version of the bible is translated from the previous one - like a game of chinese whispers - each becoming further and further from the original.

This is completely false - its totally backwards.

Each new translation of the Bible is BETTER than the previous ones (generally speaking.)

Because over time we find more MSS, and learn more about how they changed over the years.

Consider the KJV - probably the WORST TRANSLATION available.

Of course, many believers think it's the original and best - bizarre.

Iasion

actually that hasnt been true until probably the 20th century.

back in the 1500's they used to have something called the vulgate bible. it was the bible in three different languages, side by side in three different columns on each page. one column was in hebrew, one was in greek, and the last was the vatican's latin translation. at some point a guy named Michael Servetus, who was educated enough to understand all three languages, did something that no one had done before, he read the whole thing and kept track of the mistranslations from one language to another and in some cases, the totally different take on events in the Vatican translation. he then used some of these errors as a basis to argue against the concept of the holy trinity, write two books about christianity, both of which were banned and hunted down and destroyed almost toally, and was then burned at the stake as a heretic by john calvin. the point is, even way back then the bible was a bundle of mistranslations, the king james is a hunk of garbage in terms of accuracy, and thats the version that most people own, despite the fact that there are probably better translations out there now post-1900. so your point is moot.

 

[mountainhare]

Originally Posted by ghost7584
Disorder always increases overall, in any observed scientific processes.

Snowflakes?

 

[charles cure]

Disorder always increases overall, in any observed scientific processes. It is an established law of entropy in physics. Small areas of order can happen that is not very complex in small parts of any system, but the overall disorder of the system must increase.

this is only one part of the equation im afraid. the law of entropy basically says that all ordered systems eventually progress into a state of disorder. that however does not prevent the elements of that system from being reordered in different ways. how could there be anything in a state of order whatsoever if entropy truly prevailed? entropy is basically decay, its what gives things a limited time span of existence in a state of order, but you will find that for every system that falls into disorder, its parts also eventually become part of other new orders, the nature of which tends to be different from the original. your statement here does not mean that the world must be created just because entropy prevails, you just failed to understand that order and disorder are part of a circuit, and entropy is not the only actor on systemic function. failing systems that are not well equipped to survive fall into entropy far more quickly and their elements form newer systems, and through sheer probability eventually will form into a system that "decays" much more slowly, therefore constituting a potentially viable system, one that may proliferate.

or take your estimation of it and look at it from a macro scale. a protein or chain of proteins, the eventual building blocks of cellular life are a very small ordered part of a whole primordial world of disorder and entropy. the first organisms were tiny and lived in a chaotic environment. animals and humans compared to the natural environment that is made up of the entire earth are tiny little ordered specks in a sea of disorder and entropy. the law may be correct that entropy increases overall, but one person or a one-celled bacteria represent only a tiny little part of the overall system and while disorder may increase, they remain enclaves of ordered complexity within the system.

none of that points to creation as a prerequisite for life.