[_ Old Earth _] The Flood & Dinosaurs

[hopefulcynic]

I accuse him of ignoring the FLOOD and making excuses for evolution. I've seen book after book starting off with the PREMISE that the Earth is billions of years old without any logic or explanation and then proceed to concoct fabrications about how everything evolved over time and calling that "science"..... Now if you are suggesting that the earth is part of a Cosmic Clock, I would agree; however, it you are suggesting that the future projectory of the planet earth is somehow in question, I would disagree --- it is fixed.

While I understand your point here, I don't think you answered my primary question. Just in case you missed, I will restate it here.

The Bible states that the earth is unmovable. You interpret this to mean that the earth is moving throughout space on a particular trajectory. My question is how did you arrive at such a conclusion? Solely from the verses themselves? Or did you use scientific knowledge? If you used the latter, than that is no different from what so called liberal Christians (ie theistic evolutionists) do. They look at the evidence and try to make it mesh with the Bible. Or, did you look at the verses alone and arrive at your interpretation? If this is the case could you please provide an explanation for how you did so, and explain how your method is different from that of liberal Christians?

I understand that the interpretation of the Bible is not exactly my strong point, so I am sincere in my request. Hopefully you are able to answer.

Thanks in advance.

 

[LittleNipper]

Evolutionary theory is also funded by companies, because it actually produces results. E.g. when developing new medicines. And old earth geology is used by mineral oil companies to locate oil deposits.

So...question to YECs: Why is that so? Why isn't creation science commercially applied?

Medicines are developed through CHEMISTRY and Laboratory work. Aside from DNA studies which suggests only variation within kinds (big, tall, hairy, bald, fat, thin, muscular, allergic, non-allergic), there is NOTHING that demonstrates that dog kinds were anything but dog kinds. We did not emerge from bacteria and bacteria is no less bacteria today then it was when GOD created the earth (though undoubtedly corrupt). Mineral and oil companies do sounding and look at the topography, and also use experience of previous drillings. The age of the earth plays second fiddle to experience. The religion of an old earth may provide interesting rationalizations for what they find and where they find it, but again it is often hit and miss. Again, I do not feel that evolution is being commercially applied except to sell text books and make thrilling entertaining episodes for the Discovery Channel. It is the discussion of students and University professors who collect bones and dream of becoming gods, and little else....
Next you'll be saying that the building industry applies evolution to errecting new houses.....................................

 

[jwu]

Medicines are developed through CHEMISTRY and Laboratory work.

You conveniently left out how it is considered that due to evolution bacteria will become resistant to antibiotics...

Aside from DNA studies which suggests only variation within kinds (big, tall, hairy, bald, fat, thin, muscular, allergic, non-allergic), there is NOTHING that demonstrates that dog kinds were anything but dog kinds.

Then explain ERVs. Or Cytochrome C.

Mineral and oil companies do sounding and look at the topography, and also use experience of previous drillings. The age of the earth plays second fiddle to experience.

They use stratigraphy to predict where certain features can be found which make it likely that there is oil, such as the permeability. For this it is important to know how that stratum formed and so on.
They don't just guess where it is...

http://home.entouch.net/dmd/gstory.htm
The above is an article written by Glenn Morton, a former YEC (i think you even know him from CF...), who even published papers for ICR. His work in the oil industry and the geological features which he saw there convinced him that no noachian flood took place, and that the earth is old.

Again, I do not feel that evolution is being commercially applied except to sell text books and make thrilling entertaining episodes for the Discovery Channel.

Then you're mistaken.

# Evolutionary theory has been put to practical use in several areas (Futuyma 1995; Bull and Wichman 2001). For example:

* Bioinformatics, a multi-billion-dollar industry, consists largely of the comparison of genetic sequences. Descent with modification is one of its most basic assumptions.
* Diseases and pests evolve resistance to the drugs and pesticides we use against them. Evolutionary theory is used in the field of resistance management in both medicine and agriculture (Bull and Wichman 2001).
* Evolutionary theory is used to manage fisheries for greater yields (Conover and Munch 2002).
* Artificial selection has been used since prehistory, but it has become much more efficient with the addition of quantitative trait locus mapping.
* Knowledge of the evolution of parasite virulence in human populations can help guide public health policy (Galvani 2003).
* Sex allocation theory, based on evolution theory, was used to predict conditions under which the highly endangered kakapo bird would produce more female offspring, which retrieved it from the brink of extinction (Sutherland 2002).


Evolutionary theory is being applied to and has potential applications in may other areas, from evaluating the threats of genetically modified crops to human psychology. Additional applications are sure to come.

# Phylogenetic analysis, which uses the evolutionary principle of common descent, has proven its usefulness:

* Tracing genes of known function and comparing how they are related to unknown genes helps one to predict unknown gene function, which is foundational for drug discovery (Branca 2002; Eisen and Wu 2002; Searls 2003).
* Phylogenetic analysis is a standard part of epidemiology, since it allows the identification of disease reservoirs and sometimes the tracking of step-by-step transmission of disease. For example, phylogenetic analysis confirmed that a Florida dentist was infecting his patients with HIV, that HIV-1 and HIV-2 were transmitted to humans from chimpanzees and mangabey monkeys in the twentieth century, and, when polio was being eradicated from the Americas, that new cases were not coming from hidden reservoirs (Bull and Wichman 2001). It was used in 2002 to help convict a man of intentionally infecting someone with HIV (Vogel 1998). The same principle can be used to trace the source of bioweapons (Cummings and Relman 2002).
* Phylogenetic analysis to track the diversity of a pathogen can be used to select an appropriate vaccine for a particular region (Gaschen et al. 2002).
* Ribotyping is a technique for identifying an organism or at least finding its closest known relative by mapping its ribosomal RNA onto the tree of life. It can be used even when the organisms cannot be cultured or recognized by other methods. Ribotyping and other genotyping methods have been used to find previously unknown infectious agents of human disease (Bull and Wichman 2001; Relman 1999).
* Phylogenetic analysis helps in determining protein folds, since proteins diverging from a common ancestor tend to conserve their folds (Benner 2001).


# Directed evolution allows the "breeding" of molecules or molecular pathways to create or enhance products, including:

* enzymes (Arnold 2001)
* pigments (Arnold 2001)
* antibiotics
* flavors
* biopolymers
* bacterial strains to decompose hazardous materials.

Directed evolution can also be used to study the folding and function of natural enzymes (Taylor et al. 2001).

# The evolutionary principles of natural selection, variation, and recombination are the basis for genetic algorithms, an engineering technique that has many practical applications, including aerospace engineering, architecture, astrophysics, data mining, drug discovery and design, electrical engineering, finance, geophysics, materials engineering, military strategy, pattern recognition, robotics, scheduling, and systems engineering (Marczyk 2004).

# Tools developed for evolutionary science have been put to other uses. For example:

* Many statistical techniques, including analysis of variance and linear regression, were developed by evolutionary biologists, especially Ronald Fisher and Karl Pearson. These statistical techniques have much wider application today.
* The same techniques of phylogenetic analysis developed for biology can also trace the history of multiple copies of a manuscript (Barbrook et al. 1998; Howe et al. 2001) and the history of languages (Dunn et al. 2005).

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA215.html


However...what about practical applications of creation science? Can you name some? Can you name even a single company that invests into it?

 

[Slevin]

Medicines are developed through CHEMISTRY and Laboratory work. Aside from DNA studies which suggests only variation within kinds (big, tall, hairy, bald, fat, thin, muscular, allergic, non-allergic), there is NOTHING that demonstrates that dog kinds were anything but dog kinds. We did not emerge from bacteria and bacteria is no less bacteria today then it was when GOD created the earth (though undoubtedly corrupt). Mineral and oil companies do sounding and look at the topography, and also use experience of previous drillings. The age of the earth plays second fiddle to experience. The religion of an old earth may provide interesting rationalizations for what they find and where they find it, but again it is often hit and miss. Again, I do not feel that evolution is being commercially applied except to sell text books and make thrilling entertaining episodes for the Discovery Channel. It is the discussion of students and University professors who collect bones and dream of becoming gods, and little else....
Next you'll be saying that the building industry applies evolution to errecting new houses.....................................

I have never seen more straw-men in one post.

 

[LittleNipper]

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA215.html


However...what about practical applications of creation science? Can you name some? Can you name even a single company that invests into it?

While I do accept MICRO evolution. I am fully convinced that GOD has set parameters around each kind, so as to prevent one "kind" from changing into some other "new kind". DNA research is limited to the manipulation of an existing "kind's" DNA; however, no new kinds have been manufactured nor has life been created from that which is not living. The practical application of creation science is to provide scientific study and research with heart felt moral concern and a respect to the creative genius found all around us. I has awakened a desire, in many, to embrace GOD as the Omnipotent Ruler and LORD This in and of itself places warnings on the form, extent and the direction scientific research may morally go. This in the long run may save many lives. At the very least, people who are thoughtless and careless with their research will have no excuse..............

 

[jwu]

What is a kind? How does one tell one kind from another, on purely biological terms?

However, e.g. the aforementioned phylogenic analysis is not limited by any boundaries.


I notice that you did not explain ERVs nor Cytochrome C. And you did not provide any examples of commercially applied creation science either.

 

[Charlie Hatchett]

What is a kind? How does one tell one kind from another, on purely biological terms?

However, e.g. the aforementioned phylogenic analysis is not limited by any boundaries.


I notice that you did not explain ERVs nor Cytochrome C. And you did not provide any examples of commercially applied creation science either.

What are "purely biological terms". Science is a constant state of flux, as new observations are analyzed.

Commercially applied creation science: Medicine; Gravity; Physics; Geology; Chemistry; Paleontology; The Scientific Method; Anatomy; Thermokinetics; Astronomy; Entomology; Electromagnetics; Botany; Genetics; Biology; Mathematics; Hydraulics ...

YEC Scientists:

# Gerald E. Aardsma (physicist and radiocarbon dating)

# Louis Agassiz (helped develop the study of glacial geology and of ichthyology)

# Alexander Arndt (analytical chemist, etc.) [more info]

# Steven A. Austin (geologist and coal formation expert) [more info]

# Charles Babbage (helped develop science of computers / developed actuarial tables and the calculating machine)

# Francis Bacon (developed the Scientific Method)

# Thomas G. Barnes (physicist) [more info]

# Robert Boyle (helped develop sciences of chemistry and gas dynamics)

# Wernher von Braun (pioneer of rocketry and space exploration)

# David Brewster (helped develop science of optical mineralogy)

# Arthur V. Chadwick (geologist) [more info]

# Melvin Alonzo Cook (physical chemist, Nobel Prize nominee) [more info]

# Georges Cuvier (helped develop sciences of comparative anatomy and vertebrate paleontology)

# Humphry Davy (helped develop science of thermokinetics)

# Donald B. DeYoung (physicist, specializing in solid-state, nuclear science and astronomy) [more info]

# Henri Fabre (helped develop science of insect entomology)

# Michael Faraday (helped develop science of electromagnetics / developed the Field Theory / invented the electric generator)

# Danny R. Faulkner (astronomer) [more info]

# Ambrose Fleming (helped develop science of electronics / invented thermionic valve)

# Robert V. Gentry (physicist and chemist) [more info]

# Duane T. Gish (biochemist) [more info]

# John Grebe (chemist) [more info]

# Joseph Henry (invented the electric motor and the galvanometer / discovered self-induction)

# William Herschel (helped develop science of galactic astronomy / discovered double stars / developed the Global Star Catalog)

# George F. Howe (botanist) [more info]

# D. Russell Humphreys (award-winning physicist) [more info]

# James P. Joule (developed reversible thermodynamics)

# Johann Kepler (helped develop science of physical astronomy / developed the Ephemeris Tables)

# John W. Klotz (geneticist and biologist) [more info]

# Leonid Korochkin (geneticist) [more info]

# Lane P. Lester (geneticist and biologist) [more info]

# Carolus Linnaeus (helped develop sciences of taxonomy and systematic biology / developed the Classification System)

# Joseph Lister (helped develop science of antiseptic surgery)

# Frank L. Marsh (biologist) [more info]

# Matthew Maury (helped develop science of oceanography/hydrography)

# James Clerk Maxwell (helped develop the science of electrodynamics)

# Gregor Mendel (founded the modern science of genetics)

# Samuel F. B. Morse (invented the telegraph)

# Isaac Newton (helped develop science of dynamics and the discipline of calculus / father of the Law of Gravity / invented the reflecting telescope)

# Gary E. Parker (biologist and paleontologist) [more info]

# Blaise Pascal (helped develop science of hydrostatics / invented the barometer)

# Louis Pasteur (helped develop science of bacteriology / discovered the Law of Biogenesis / invented fermentation control / developed vaccinations and immunizations)

# William Ramsay (helped develop the science of isotopic chemistry / discovered inert gases)

# John Ray (helped develop science of biology and natural science)

# Lord Rayleigh (helped develop science of dimensional analysis)

# Bernhard Riemann (helped develop non-Euclidean geometry)

# James Simpson (helped develop the field of gynecology / developed the use of chloroform)

# Nicholas Steno (helped develop the science of stratigraphy)

# George Stokes (helped develop science of fluid mechanics)

# Charles B. Thaxton (chemist) [more info]

# William Thompson (Lord Kelvin) (helped develop sciences of thermodynamics and energetics / invented the Absolute Temperature Scale / developed the Trans-Atlantic Cable)

# Larry Vardiman (astrophysicist and geophysicist) [more info]

# Leonardo da Vinci (helped develop science of hydraulics)

# Rudolf Virchow (helped develop science of pathology)

# A.J. (Monty) White (chemist) [more info]

# A.E. Wilder-Smith (chemist and pharmacology expert) [more info]

# John Woodward (helped develop the science of paleontology)

Obviously the YEC worldview has contributed to every fundamental hard science field, which are applied to commercial applications every day...again, physics, geology, chemistry, medicine, genetics,...

ERVs nor Cytochrome C.

As I think we established in a former debate, ERVs and Cytochrome C are merely mutations.

 

[jwu]

What are "purely biological terms". Science is a constant state of flux, as new observations are analyzed.

Then what is the current definition?

Commercially applied creation science: Medicine; Gravity; Physics; Geology; Chemistry; Paleontology; The Scientific Method; Anatomy; Thermokinetics; Astronomy; Entomology; Electromagnetics; Botany; Genetics; Biology; Mathematics; Hydraulics ...

Contributions of creation science are not the same as contributions by creationist scientists.

I was asking for an example of creation science (as in, the earth is young and so on) - as opposed to conventional science - which is commercially applied. I'm not aware of anything on that list that is not part of conventional science and compatible with an old earth and so on.

As I think we established in a former debate, ERVs and Cytochrome C are merely mutations.

You said they were, but you did not explain why they look like viral insertions, with all the typical characteristics.
[edit] And the sequences being due to mutation instead of viral infection doesn't even help your case, it makes it even worse for you: It is less likely that hundreds of thousands of base pairs mutate in exactly the same way in various species than a shared type of viral infection is. [/edit]

And in case of Cytochrome C, that is a mutation and no-one argues otherwise, the problem is that other primates share this particular mutation, and there is no reason why the same mutation should have happened in them as in humans, in a pattern which precisely recapitulates the phylogenic tree.

 

[LittleNipper]

I have never seen more straw-men in one post.

I don't believe I've seen the Phrase "straw-men" so over used......

 

[LittleNipper]

What is a kind? How does one tell one kind from another, on purely biological terms?

However, e.g. the aforementioned phylogenic analysis is not limited by any boundaries.


I notice that you did not explain ERVs nor Cytochrome C. And you did not provide any examples of commercially applied creation science either.

What has been the commercial application of EVOLUTION. The idea that new antibiotics must be developed because bacteria evolves is not necessarily so. The simple fact is that bacteria compete and when an antibiotic is developed that wipes out several strains of bacteria, what is left is a strain which is more resistant. They in turn have more interaction because the competition has been eradicated. That is why one needs to continue to take the full dosage, so that those resistant yet weakened remaining bacteria are not allowed to multiply unrestricted. On the other hand, the bacteria which is left is also more specific and is more susceptible to other forms of specific medications.

 

[jwu]

What has been the commercial application of EVOLUTION.

It's used to develop antibiotics which are less susceptible to bacteria developing resistance.

The idea that new antibiotics must be developed because bacteria evolves is not necessarily so. The simple fact is that bacteria compete and when an antibiotic is developed that wipes out several strains of bacteria, what is left is a strain which is more resistant.

And exactly that is evolution.

On the other hand, the bacteria which is left is also more specific and is more susceptible to other forms of specific medications.

Yet another such case...one of the reasons for this is that it is less likely that the decimated population will develop a resistance there too than the original full sized population.

 

[LittleNipper]

Yet another such case...one of the reasons for this is that it is less likely that the decimated population will develop a resistance there too than the original full sized population.

It is mere micro evolution and nothing more. Micro evolution has NEVER been scientifically demonstrated to lead to MACRO evolution. Bacteria remains bacteria and nothing more and as such it remains to this very day....

 

[Slevin]

It is mere micro evolution and nothing more.

It is evolution. There is no difference between micro and macro evolution.

Micro evolution has NEVER been scientifically demonstrated to lead to MARCO evolution.

What about POLO evolution?

Bacteria remains bacteria and nothing more and as such it remains to this very day....

Yes....who said that it would be any different?

 

[LittleNipper]

Yes....who said that it would be any different?

Well, if man evolved out of the slime, it would have to become different ----- eventually.

Micro and Macro evolution are not the same thing. Macro is a change from species to species. Micro is only variations which seem to swing back and forth.

 

[Slevin]

Well, if man evolved out of the slime, it would have to become different ----- eventually.

Micro and Macro evolution are not the same thing. Macro is a change from species to species. Micro is only variations which seem to swing back and forth.

Man didn't evolve out of slime and no Evolutionary Theory posits that.

Micro and Macro are the same things.

Micro evolution uses the same mechanisms as macro evolution, the only difference is the amount of time attributed to the evolution.

What is a change from species to species?

 

[Proximity]

Micro and Macro evolution are NOT the same thing.

Take frogs for example:

Many frog species change color over many generations to better suit themselves to their environment. Therefore if they are in a green environment, the greener ones will survive more often and their offspring will eventually entirely green. If the same species of frogs go into a brown environment they will eventually turn brown through natural selection. That is mearly adaptation.

With macro evolution you get changes from one species to another. Not only is the earth not old enough by anyones guess to allow things to turn from slime to people, but since the start of recorded history there has been no noticeable crossing of species whatsoever.

It's called the missing link for a reason. With the way we are tearing apart this earth if there was a missing link then we'd have found it by now.

Plus, if we came from slime, why is there still slime? Or monkeys, why aren't monkeys human?

Also, if you think that by the randomness of evolution we ended up as complex as we are consider this:

I have all the peices needed to assemple a lap top
I put them in a dryer
I turn it on and walk away

Would the lap top ever by 'random chance' assemple itself to be a perfectly engineered working laptop? If you think so try it. Even if it was going for a billion years the odds are tiny that they would somehow assemble into a laptop.

In conclusion: Micro evolution exists, there is proof, and is fits with the Bible
Macro evolution does not exist, there is no proof, and does not fit with the Bibile.

 

[Slevin]

Micro and Macro evolution are NOT the same thing.

They are, the only distinction involved is the amount of time.

The same mechanisms are involved, therefore it's the same thing over a different amount of time.

 

[jwu]

Not only is the earth not old enough by anyones guess to allow things to turn from slime to people, but since the start of recorded history there has been no noticeable crossing of species whatsoever.

Wrong, speciation has been directly observed many times:

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.

It's called the missing link for a reason. With the way we are tearing apart this earth if there was a missing link then we'd have found it by now.

Are you aware that every time we find an intermediate between humans and other apes, we create two new gaps to fill?

Plus, if we came from slime, why is there still slime? Or monkeys, why aren't monkeys human?

Why should there not be slime? And why should monkeys be human? That's like asking "why isn't my cousin me?"

Also, if you think that by the randomness of evolution we ended up as complex as we are consider this:

I have all the peices needed to assemple a lap top
I put them in a dryer
I turn it on and walk away

Would the lap top ever by 'random chance' assemple itself to be a perfectly engineered working laptop? If you think so try it. Even if it was going for a billion years the odds are tiny that they would somehow assemble into a laptop.

That's pretty much a straw man of abiogenesis and has little to do with evolution. However, since it's intended as a crotique of evolution, please tell me what kind of differential reproductive success is going on in a dryer? It's an essential part of the theory of evolution, without this it wouldn't work. So for the analogy to even have a chance of working there should be some counterpart to it.

 

[Proximity]

They are, the only distinction involved is the amount of time.

The same mechanisms are involved, therefore it's the same thing over a different amount of time.

Not true, Macro evolution is the proccess of becoming more complex. Think of it as a spectrum, and according to evolutionists we are headed toward the more complex end of the spectrum. Micro evolution doesn't mean become more complex and it is 'reversable'.

As for jwu...

Most of the so-called instances of evolution are still at a micro evolutionary level.

Why should there not be slime? And why should monkeys be human? That's like asking "why isn't my cousin me?"

That's not the same thing at all. I'm asking, if species have been becoming more complex over time, why do we still have one celled critters? why haven't they evolved? And monkeys, why have we evolved and they haven't?

Tell me this: Why do we have morals? Why do we think of abstract ideas? Why can we do math? How come we think at such a higher level than any other thing on our planet? Why do we have a soul? Do we have a soul? Are we just animals? If we are just animals how can we have everything in life and still feel completely empty in an undiscribable void of ourselves?

I refuse to accept that when i die i mearly go six feet under, and turn into dirt. What's the point of existance if that's our fate? Chase the things of the world, even if you have it all, you'll still be empty. It's still meaningless.

Regardless of wether or not you believe the bible or if you believe in nothing, it is an unrefuttable fact: 10/10 people die. Is that all we are here for?

 

[jwu]

Not true, Macro evolution is the proccess of becoming more complex.

According to whose definition? I only know it as evolution above the species level, i.e. speciation.

Most of the so-called instances of evolution are still at a micro evolutionary level.

Most implies not all...so you concede that there are instances of macroevolution on this list?

That's not the same thing at all. I'm asking, if species have been becoming more complex over time, why do we still have one celled critters? why haven't they evolved? And monkeys, why have we evolved and they haven't?

Because you have no idea what evolution is about. It isn't a directed process with the goal of becoming more complex. Bacteria survive just fine, so why should they go extinct? Things aren't exclusively headed towards multicellularity, but all possible economical niches get occupied. Bacteria and amoeba have their own just like we have ours.

Monkeys and bacteria are just as evolved as we are, as they are alive at the same time as we are. They just occupy a different ecological niche.

Tell me this: Why do we have morals?

Social constructs.

Why do we think of abstract ideas?

Because it helps us to survive. Humans are neither particularly strong nor resilient or energy efficient, intelligence is pretty much our only strength. If we weren't capable of abstract thinking and developing tactics and so on, we'd be extinct by now.

Why can we do math? How come we think at such a higher level than any other thing on our planet?[/quote]Because there is always some species that has the highest level of intelligence. We happen to have specialized at this in a way beyond other species...albeit as far as i know e.g. dolphins aren't far behind.

Why do we have a soul? Do we have a soul? Are we just animals? If we are just animals how can we have everything in life and still feel completely empty in an undiscribable void of ourselves?

This has nothing to do with evolution. Evolution does not equal atheism by the way.

I refuse to accept that when i die i mearly go six feet under, and turn into dirt. What's the point of existance if that's our fate? Chase the things of the world, even if you have it all, you'll still be empty. It's still meaningless.

Regardless of wether or not you believe the bible or if you believe in nothing, it is an unrefuttable fact: 10/10 people die. Is that all we are here for?

Appeal to emotion. While i am a Christian myself, i don't think it should be argued that way. Whether something makes one feel warm and fuzzy inside or not has nothing to do with its validity as a scientific theory.

And besides...there are plenty atheists who will disagree with you about their point of existence. Making the best out of the short time that one has, having a loving family and friends and so on. Actually i find the view of life of many Christians downright depressing, it seems like they hate the life that was given to them and can't wait to die.