[_ Old Earth _] God is amazing.

[jwu]

The physical evidence will not contradict the Word of God, but the theories of men will. Those who find their theories contradict the Word of God, twist the Word and say that the revelation of creation can not be a literal revelation.

The physical evidence however can contradict specific interpretations (made by men) of the Word of God (written down passed through the millennia and hence distorted by men). Is an adjustment of the interpretation to fit the physical evidence then a "twist" of the Word of God, or is it just a clarification?

The hard evidence is all around you, but without faith, you are blinded to it.

...and when one saw hard evidence, it's not faith anymore. Then it's knowledge.

 

[Charlie Hatchett]

Here's an argument I posted earlier on another forum:

1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.

2 Now the earth was [a] formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.

3 And God said, "Let there be light," and there was light. 4 God saw that the light was good, and He separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light "day," and the darkness he called "night." And there was evening, and there was morningâ€â€the first day.

6 And God said, "Let there be an expanse between the waters to separate water from water." 7 So God made the expanse and separated the water under the expanse from the water above it. And it was so. 8 God called the expanse "sky." And there was evening, and there was morningâ€â€the second day.

9 And God said, "Let the water under the sky be gathered to one place, and let dry ground appear." And it was so. 10 God called the dry ground "land," and the gathered waters he called "seas." And God saw that it was good.

11 Then God said, "Let the land produce vegetation: seed-bearing plants and trees on the land that bear fruit with seed in it, according to their various kinds." And it was so. 12 The land produced vegetation: plants bearing seed according to their kinds and trees bearing fruit with seed in it according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good. 13 And there was evening, and there was morningâ€â€the third day.

14 And God said, "Let there be lights in the expanse of the sky to separate the day from the night, and let them serve as signs to mark seasons and days and years, 15 and let them be lights in the expanse of the sky to give light on the earth." And it was so. 16 God made two great lightsâ€â€the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars. 17 God set them in the expanse of the sky to give light on the earth, 18 to govern the day and the night, and to separate light from darkness. And God saw that it was good. 19 And there was evening, and there was morningâ€â€the fourth day.

20 And God said, "Let the water teem with living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the expanse of the sky." 21 So God created the great creatures of the sea and every living and moving thing with which the water teems, according to their kinds, and every winged bird according to its kind. And God saw that it was good. 22 God blessed them and said, "Be fruitful and increase in number and fill the water in the seas, and let the birds increase on the earth." 23 And there was evening, and there was morningâ€â€the fifth day.

24 And God said, "Let the land produce living creatures according to their kinds: livestock, creatures that move along the ground, and wild animals, each according to its kind." And it was so. 25 God made the wild animals according to their kinds, the livestock according to their kinds, and all the creatures that move along the ground according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good.

26 Then God said, "Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, and over all the creatures that move along the ground."

27 So God created man in his own image,
in the image of God he created him;
male and female he created them.

28 God blessed them and said to them, "Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air and over every living creature that moves on the ground."

29 Then God said, "I give you every seed-bearing plant on the face of the whole earth and every tree that has fruit with seed in it. They will be yours for food. 30 And to all the beasts of the earth and all the birds of the air and all the creatures that move on the groundâ€â€everything that has the breath of life in itâ€â€I give every green plant for food." And it was so.

31 God saw all that he had made, and it was very good. And there was evening, and there was morningâ€â€the sixth day.

Notice there is no indication that God created "amoebas" and commanded

them to evolve into the different kingdoms, phyla, classes, orders,

families, genera, and species.

This is what God said he did:

1. Let the land produce vegetation: seed-bearing plants and trees on the

land that bear fruit with seed in it, according to their various kinds.

2. God created the great creatures of the sea and every living and moving

thing with which the water teems, according to their kinds.

3. and every winged bird according to its kind.

4. God made the wild animals according to their kinds, the livestock

according to their kinds, and all the creatures that move along the

ground according to their kinds.

5. Let us make man in our image, in our likeness.


God tells us that he created all the different plants and animals already in

their final form ("according to their kinds"). As for man, we are told we were

created in the Trinity's likeness.(Father, Son, Holy Spirit). I think it's

cool how God spelled it out: 10 times God emphasizes that all creatures

and plants were created according to its kind. God obviously wanted

us to "get this".

Man has a special place: we were created according to the

Trinity's image and likeness.

This leaves no room for "amoeba to man evolution". The repetition

of living organisms being created according to their kinds (10 times)

and man being created according to the Trinity's likeness emphasizes this

point.

Peace

 

[Solo]

The physical evidence will not contradict the Word of God, but the theories of men will. Those who find their theories contradict the Word of God, twist the Word and say that the revelation of creation can not be a literal revelation.

The physical evidence however can contradict specific interpretations (made by men) of the Word of God (written down passed through the millennia and hence distorted by men). Is an adjustment of the interpretation to fit the physical evidence then a "twist" of the Word of God, or is it just a clarification?

[quote:562fa]The hard evidence is all around you, but without faith, you are blinded to it.

...and when one saw hard evidence, it's not faith anymore. Then it's knowledge.[/quote:562fa]
And now you can decide which bias to attribute to the hard evidence, the atheist/humanist evolution theory or the Word of God creationist theory. It is your bias and your choice, and until Jesus returns your faith will be in evolutionist theories or creationist fact.

 

[ArtGuy]

This leaves no room for "amoeba to man evolution". The repetition

of living organisms being created according to their kinds (10 times)

and man being created according to the Trinity's likeness emphasizes this

point.

Peace

I don't see why God couldn't have creating all creatures according to their kinds by starting with a single organism and leading it to evolve until it had ultimately become millions of separate species.

Here's another way to look at it: Did God make you? Did he make me? I would say yes, he did. God created all, and all things come from him, and this means that everything and everyone who exists was, in essence, made by God. But did God form you directly out of nothingness? No, he created (according to YEC) Adam and Eve, and they multiplied, and from them came every other human in all of history. God still created you and I, even though it was in a roundabout way. There's no scriptural reason he couldn't have created all the other creatures "according to their kind" in the same fashion.

 

[Solo]

This leaves no room for "amoeba to man evolution". The repetition

of living organisms being created according to their kinds (10 times)

and man being created according to the Trinity's likeness emphasizes this

point.

Peace

I don't see why God couldn't have creating all creatures according to their kinds by starting with a single organism and leading it to evolve until it had ultimately become millions of separate species.

Here's another way to look at it: Did God make you? Did he make me? I would say yes, he did. God created all, and all things come from him, and this means that everything and everyone who exists was, in essence, made by God. But did God form you directly out of nothingness? No, he created (according to YEC) Adam and Eve, and they multiplied, and from them came every other human in all of history. God still created you and I, even though it was in a roundabout way. There's no scriptural reason he couldn't have created all the other creatures "according to their kind" in the same fashion.

I don't see why Christians cannot accept that God created each animal, fish, plant, man with the seed after their own kind, just as the Bible says. Why do Christians eat up the atheist/humanistic theory of evolution. There are no facts in this false science. There is only speculation and changes within a created kind.

Is it that some who purport themselves to be Christians really are not? Or is their God too weak to create all things in a literal six day period? Or what?

 

[jwu]

"Let the land produce..."

That can be read as short for evolution. The "earth brought forth", not "poof, there it is".

"According to their kinds" can be read in various ways, and it doesn't mean that the kinds were instantly finished either.
Additionally, it can be read as stating nothing else than that an individual will only give birth to an individuum of its own species, not one of a different species. If it'd still be the same species as its great great great..........grandparents however is an entirely different question, and hence speciation or even way greater variance is not in any way impeded by the "bringing forth after one's kind" thing.

What is a "kind" anyway?

As for man, we are told we were
created in the Trinity's likeness.(Father, Son, Holy Spirit). I think it'scool how God spelled it out: 10 times God emphasizes that all creatures
and plants were created according to its kind. God obviously wanted
us to "get this".
Man has a special place: we were created according to the
Trinity's image and likeness.

What is God's eye colour? Does He have hairy legs too?
Sorry, but "in our likeness" referring to a physical body makes no sense to me at all.

And now you can decide which bias to attribute to the hard evidence, the atheist/humanist evolution theory or the Word of God creationist theory. It is your bias and your choice, and until Jesus returns your faith will be in evolutionist theories or creationist fact.

Theistic evolution for me.

Just because the conventional theory of evolution does not explicitly include God it is not atheistic and definitely not humanist. Evolution isn't any more atheistic than the theory of gravity.

However...for creationism to be called a theory it would have to be falsifyable. What would you accept as a falsification of (young earth) creationism?

 

[reznwerks]

WARNING: I'm just a teenager and can barely wrap my head around what i'm about to post, therefore i'm not going to be able to greatly dispute something that you might have in rebutle. These are the notes that I took from one of my youth pastor's sermons, so if you don't understand my notes... i'm sorry.

quote]
As a teenager your first lesson in critical thinking is this: not having an answer or solution to something is not evidence of God. Man does not and may not ever have all the answers to everything. Again this is not evidence of a superior being.

 

[Charlie Hatchett]

jwu wrote:



"Let the land produce..."

That can be read as short for evolution. The "earth brought forth", not "poof, there it is".

"According to their kinds" can be read in various ways, and it doesn't mean that the kinds were instantly finished either.
Additionally, it can be read as stating nothing else than that an individual will only give birth to an individuum of its own species, not one of a different species. If it'd still be the same species as its great great great..........grandparents however is an entirely different question, and hence speciation or even way greater variance is not in any way impeded by the "bringing forth after one's kind" thing.

What is a "kind" anyway?

But, why not just take the most straight forward interpretation. Contrary to

popular belief in the scientific community, intelligent design is at least as

supportable by the scientific method, or better. Would you admit that I've

been able to debate with you intellectually concerning the finer points of

both sides of the issue (although you may not agree with a particular view I

possess)?

What is a "kind" anyway?

I take kinds to be species.

jwu wrote:

If it'd still be the same species as its great great great..........grandparents however is an entirely different question, and hence speciation or even way greater variance is not in any way impeded by the "bringing forth after one's kind" thing.

Variation (i.e.-microevolution) is programmed into the DNA. This variation

allows the species to adapt to different enviroments, via natural selection.

These assumptions are at the core of ID Theory. Where the rub comes in

between ToE and ID proponents, is Id does not allow for Macro-Evolution

(i.e.-Dinosaurs evolving into Birds or a single cell evolving into a human).

Sometimes there's confusion between Macro and Micro-Evolution (or what ID

types call Genetic Variance).

Peace


Romans 1:20

20For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualitiesâ€â€his eternal power and divine natureâ€â€have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.

 

[Charlie Hatchett]

Artguy wrote:

I don't see why God couldn't have creating all creatures according to their kinds by starting with a single organism and leading it to evolve until it had ultimately become millions of separate species.

Here's another way to look at it: Did God make you? Did he make me? I would say yes, he did. God created all, and all things come from him, and this means that everything and everyone who exists was, in essence, made by God. But did God form you directly out of nothingness? No, he created (according to YEC) Adam and Eve, and they multiplied, and from them came every other human in all of history. God still created you and I, even though it was in a roundabout way. There's no scriptural reason he couldn't have created all the other creatures "according to their kind" in the same fashion.

But, why not just take the most straight forward interpretation. Contrary to

popular belief in the scientific community, intelligent design is at least as

supportable by the scientific method, or better. Would you admit that I've

been able to debate with you intellectually concerning the finer points of

both sides of the issue (although you may not agree with a particular view I

possess)?

Peace


Romans 1:20

20For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualitiesâ€â€his eternal power and divine natureâ€â€have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.

 

[Simple Mind]

jwu,

I'm curious as to how you came to be so confident in the ToE. What would you say are the key things that convinces you that it really happened that way? (Sorry to be asking for the 30,000 ft view here, but it seems a better place to start than getting lost in the details.)

Blessings,
Lou

 

[Grengor]

I don't see why Christians cannot accept that God created each animal, fish, plant, man with the seed after their own kind, just as the Bible says.

Because they've come to a different conclusion with regards to evidence? Incredulance is not a good basis for an argument.

I can't comprehend why Christians cannot accept that the final prophet is Muhammad. Does that get us anywhere?

Why do Christians eat up the atheist/humanistic theory of evolution. There are no facts in this false science. There is only speculation and changes within a created kind.

Um....wow...where do I start? Evolution is about as atheistic and humanistic as heliocentrism. Neither mention God and both challenge an interpretation of the Bible. Labeling it as such does nothing but cast doubt on your understanding on the subject. This is going out on a leg about the evidence part as well.

Is it that some who purport themselves to be Christians really are not? Or is their God too weak to create all things in a literal six day period? Or what?

Bah...again, where do I start?

Unfortunately, it would not suprise me if people purporting themselves as Christians really aren't, but you can be sure TE's exist. http://www.uwosh.edu/colleges/cols/clergy_project.htm

And the same argument could be used about God's strength. Is God too weak to constantly guide things for billions of years and has to create it all in an instant? No, he's not. What He did is much more different than what he can do.

It's the Creationists who have such bad arguments like these that are forcing people away from Christianity. If there's a single most dangerous logical falacy I would vote the false dichotomy.

 

[jwu]

But, why not just take the most straight forward interpretation.

Because the evidence indicates that that interpretation is incorrect. Hence another one has to be found, or the Bible is false.

Contrary to popular belief in the scientific community, intelligent design is at least as
supportable by the scientific method, or better.

What would falsify intelligent design. Potential falsification is the single most important part of the scientific method, so what would you accept as a falsification of intelligent design?

Would you admit that I've
been able to debate with you intellectually concerning the finer points of
both sides of the issue (although you may not agree with a particular view I
possess)?

You have put up a good debate, better than most others than i have seen on the subject (albeit the information theory one is not done yet...i'm just waiting for you to finish the current work in progress post). That however doesn't make ID scientific. In fact, even if you somehow could disprove evolution, that would do exactly nothing to support ID yet. It needs own positive evidence to stand on, not "evolution cannot explain it, therefore ID by default".

I take kinds to be species.

Ok...what about this list of observed speciation? Note that it even includes the observed emergence of a whole new genus.

{kudos to Lucaspa for assembling the list}

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. http://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.

Variation (i.e.-microevolution) is programmed into the DNA. This variation allows the species to adapt to different enviroments, via natural selection.
These assumptions are at the core of ID Theory. Where the rub comes in
between ToE and ID proponents, is Id does not allow for Macro-Evolution
(i.e.-Dinosaurs evolving into Birds or a single cell evolving into a human).
Sometimes there's confusion between Macro and Micro-Evolution (or what ID
types call Genetic Variance).

Actually many ID proponents accept common descent, they just argue that it couldn't have happened without God's guidance.

I'm curious as to how you came to be so confident in the ToE. What would you say are the key things that convinces you that it really happened that way? (Sorry to be asking for the 30,000 ft view here, but it seems a better place to start than getting lost in the details.)

Genetic evidence such as ERVs, and many things which are incompatible with a young earth.

 

[Simple Mind]

[

I'm curious as to how you came to be so confident in the ToE. What would you say are the key things that convinces you that it really happened that way? (Sorry to be asking for the 30,000 ft view here, but it seems a better place to start than getting lost in the details.)

Genetic evidence such as ERVs, and many things which are incompatible with a young earth.

It seems we started the discussion about genetic evidence in another thread, so I'll leave it there.

What are the strongest evidence against a young earth in you opinion?

Blessings,
Lou

 

[jwu]

Mostly geological ones:
- A number of meteor impacts which cannot be reconciled with a young earth on which there is still life
- Lack of short lived isotopes on earth which shouldn't have decayed away yet if it was young
- Radiometric dating methods which indicate that rock samples are very old
- Annual ice core layers
- Annual river varves
- Daily (!) coral layers
- Calcite Layers

I'm sure i can come up with many other things if i do some research.

 

[Simple Mind]

Mostly geological ones:
- A number of meteor impacts which cannot be reconciled with a young earth on which there is still life
- Lack of short lived isotopes on earth which shouldn't have decayed away yet if it was young
- Radiometric dating methods which indicate that rock samples are very old
- Annual ice core layers
- Annual river varves
- Daily (!) coral layers
- Calcite Layers

I'm sure i can come up with many other things if i do some research.

Thats a long list of potentially good topics to discuss. I'll look into these as I have time.

Much blessings,
Lou

 

[Charlie Hatchett]

jwu wrote:

Because the evidence indicates that that interpretation is incorrect. Hence another one has to be found, or the Bible is false.

jwu, you can't call yourself a Christian if you don't believe God's word. I respect

your free will to choose, but don't mask yourself as a Christian if God's word can

be twisted to your likings.

jwu wrote:

What would falsify intelligent design. Potential falsification is the single most important part of the scientific method, so what would you accept as a falsification of intelligent design?

Observing intelligence arising from natural processes.

jwu wrote:


You have put up a good debate, better than most others than i have seen on the subject (albeit the information theory one is not done yet...i'm just waiting for you to finish the current work in progress post). That however doesn't make ID scientific. In fact, even if you somehow could disprove evolution, that would do exactly nothing to support ID yet. It needs own positive evidence to stand on, not "evolution cannot explain it, therefore ID by default".

ID is just as "scientific" as evolution. It's falsifiable, it follows the rules of

cause and effect. It also makes the most common sense. If you found

something like this:

you would know intuitively it was designed. You would never think that it

might have thrown itself together...no matter how many ions of time you

might assume. Thus ID parallels our everyday observations. We never see

complex things in the process of putting themselves together...unless they

contain DNA or are the product of intelligence.

jwu wrote:

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. http://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.

If you want, you can post each article for us to read, and we'll debate each.

I've obviously not read the huge list of abstracts. A list of abstracts in

themselves say little...except alot of ToE proponents are out there. An

equally long list of abstracts could be compiled concerning proofs of ID

related claims (sorry guys, I'm not volunteering for that one....lol!!!)

jwu wrote:

Actually many ID proponents accept common descent, they just argue that it couldn't have happened without God's guidance.

Hmmmm....one involves random,

natural processes, the other intelligent design. Seems to be contradictory.



Peace

 

[ArtGuy]

If you found

something like this:

you would know intuitively it was designed.

I would know that it was designed if I saw it walking around here on Earth. (I would also know that I wanted one, because that's cool.) I would know this because I would see that it bore no resemblance to the sort of organic, carbon-based life with which the world is populated. I would also know that it looked a lot like other things which I know have been hand-crafted by man.

Now, if I had no concept of what life looked like, if I was somehow incapable of looking at my own body, if I'd never before seen Earthly life, and I saw that... I don't know what I would think. I don't think anyone can accurately predict what he would think.

 

[jwu]

jwu, you can't call yourself a Christian if you don't believe God's word. I respect your free will to choose, but don't mask yourself as a Christian if God's word can be twisted to your likings.

If the bible said the sky was green but you clearly see that it is not, would you then not rather trust your senses? I don't twist it to my likings, but i try to reconcile it with the available evidence.

There is tons of evidence that the creation of the earth and life on it did not happen like one specific interpretation of Genesis suggests - so i look for another one. What is bad about that? Using God's creation as a tool for exegesis seems perfectly legitimate to me.

Saint Augustine again:
"When they [the unbeliever] are able, from reliable evidence, to prove some fact of physical science, we shall show that it is not contrary to our Scripture."

I guess he wasn't a Christian either then...

Observing intelligence arising from natural processes.

That'd merely show that the designer could have come from natural processes, it would not in any way falsify the concept that today's lifeforms were designed.

However, the growth of any neuronal network due to environmental feedback is exactly that, the rise of intelligence from natural processes.

We never see
complex things in the process of putting themselves together...unless they
contain DNA or are the product of intelligence.

We do observe evolution happening today

If you want, you can post each article for us to read, and we'll debate each.

We can do that. FYI, even creationist organizations meanwhile concede that speciation happens. After all, without it there is no way to fit all currently existing species into the ark...young earth creationism needs speciation, and even more rapid speciation than proposed by evolution!
A nice example of speciation are ring species - Population A being able to mate with population B, and B with C, but not A with C.

An equally long list of abstracts could be compiled concerning proofs of IDrelated claims (sorry guys, I'm not volunteering for that one....lol!!!)

I don't think so. I've followed the E/C debates for about two years now, and i do not recall more then three or so times that pro-ID papers made it into peer review. Each time it was quite a big topic on various forums.

[quote:a7648]Actually many ID proponents accept common descent, they just argue that it couldn't have happened without God's guidance.

Hmmmm....one involves random,
natural processes, the other intelligent design. Seems to be contradictory. [/quote:a7648]Sorry, but unless you suggest that common descent could not have happened with God's guidance you're not making any sense.

 

[Charlie Hatchett]

artguy wrote:

I would also know that I wanted one, because that's cool.

Lol...right!! It is pretty cool. I'm asking my wife for on for my birthday...lol!

I'll answer your guys points this evening I

hope...work....reality....ugggggghhhh!