Dolphin May Have 'remains' Of Legs

November 9, 2006

[slam] Let's get into the fossils. I'm asking specifically for any that show the gradual disappearance of a land animals legs as they started to evolve into flippers or fins. I'm familiar with the ones seen on one of the whale evolution sites poste here, but I have yet to see any showing disappearing legs.

Are your eyes closed?

[slam] When did you or anyone present any fossils showing the gradual disappearance of the land animal's legs? BTW, did you know that many evolutionists don't believe the fossil record supports gradual evolution?

I assume you are referring to punctuated equilibrium. What that refers to is evolution occurring relatively fast, i.e. fast relative to the geological time scale. To put it in perspective, 10000 years is all but nothing.

[slam] Right now, I am interested in gradualism, not rapid evolution.

This is also an example of you being disingenuous. You ask for a specific type of evidence, then claim that "evolutionists don't believe that anyway."

[slam] No, many evolutionists still believe the fossils support gradual evolution. When you say "evolutionists" you imply I'm speaking of all of them.

Which leads me to...

One more thing. Please stop using language like "disingenuous douche bag."

I calls 'em hows I sees 'em.

[slam] Please apologize for calling me that so we can continue. Thanks:-)

[slam] Did you see the understanding and respect I got from skitsofreaky?
I understand that you will deny every piece of evidence given, which is why I don't respect you. And way to spell my name.

November 9, 2006

[slam] I'm looking for more fossil evidence (not drawings or illustration) for the gradual disappearance of the land animals bone structures, esp. it legs.

First of all, why is this discussion of Evolution limited to paleontology? Like I said before, the ToE is not dependent on fossil records alone. Practically every single field of science shows evidence for it, over, and over, and over, and over without any hiccups in it. But lets go ahead and look at paleontology since it seems to be the focus here.

I need to ask, once you have it, what will you do with it? If the mention of them, and illustrations of what they actually have isn’t good enough, then this probably won’t be either, but here’s a brief list of just the transitional fossils for primates alone:

• Palaechthon, Purgatorius (middle Paleocene) -- Very primitive plesiadapids. To modern eyes they looks nothing like primates, being simply pointy-faced, small early mammals with mostly primitive teeth, and claws instead of nails. But they show the first signs of primate-like teeth; lost an incisor and a premolar, and had relatively blunt-cusped, squarish molars.

• Cantius (early Eocene) -- One of the first true primates (or "primates of modern aspect"), more advanced than the plesiadapids (more teeth lost, bar behind the eye, grasping hand & foot) and beginning to show some lemur-like arboreal adaptations.

• Pelycodus & related species (early Eocene) -- Primitive lemur-like primates.

The tarsiers, lemurs, and New World monkeys split off in the Eocene. The Old World lineage continued as follows:

• Amphipithecus, Pondaungia (late Eocene, Burma) -- Very early Old World primates known only from fragments. Larger brain, shorter nose, more forward-facing eyes (halfway between plesiadapid eyes and modern ape eyes).

GAP: Here's that Oligocene gap mentioned above in the timescale. Very few primate fossils are known between the late Eocene and early Oligocene, when there was a sharp change in global climate. Several other mammal groups have a similar gap.

• Parapithecus (early Oligocene) -- The O.W. monkeys split from the apes split around now. Parapithecus was probably at the start of the O.W. monkey line. From here the O.W. monkeys go through Oreopithecus (early Miocene, Kenya) to modern monkey groups of the Miocene & Pliocene.

• Propliopithecus, Aegyptopithecus (early Oligocene, Egypt) -- From the same time as Parapithecus, but probably at the beginning of the ape lineage. First ape characters (deep jaw, 2 premolars, 5- cusped teeth, etc.).

• Aegyptopithecus (early-mid Oligocene, Egypt) -- Slightly later anthropoid (ape/hominid) with more ape features. It was a fruit-eating runner/climber, larger, with a rounder brain and shorter face.

• Proconsul africanus (early Miocene, Kenya.) -- A sexually dimorphic, fruit-eating, arboreal quadruped probably ancestral to all the later apes and humans. Had a mosaic of ape-like and primitive features; Ape-like elbow, shoulder and feet; monkey- like wrist; gibbon-like lumbar vertebrae.

• Limnopithecus (early Miocene, Africa) -- A later ape probably ancestral to gibbons.

• Dryopithecus (mid-Miocene) -- A later ape probably ancestral to the great apes & humans. At this point Africa & Asia connected via Arabia, and the non-gibbon apes divided into two lines:

1. Sivapithecus (including "Gigantopithecus" & "Ramapithecus", mid- Miocene) -- Moved to Asia & gave rise to the orangutan.

2. Kenyapithecus (mid-Miocene, about 16 Ma) -- Stayed in Africa & gave rise to the African great apes & humans.

GAP: There are no known fossil hominids or apes from Africa between 14 and 4 Ma. Frustratingly, molecular data shows that this is when the African great apes (chimps, gorillas) diverged from hominids, probably 5-7 Ma. The gap may be another case of poor fossilization of forest animals. At the end of the gap we start finding some very ape-like bipedal hominids:

• Australopithecus ramidus (mid-Pliocene, 4.4 Ma) -- A recently discovered very early hominid (or early chimp?), from just after the split with the apes. Not well known. Possibly bipedal (only the skull was found). Teeth both apelike and humanlike; one baby tooth is very chimp-like. (White et al., 1994; Wood 1994)

• Australopithecus afarensis (late Pliocene, 3.9 Ma) -- Some excellent fossils ("Lucy", etc.) make clear that this was fully bipedal and definitely a hominid. But it was an extremely ape-like hominid; only four feet tall, still had an ape-sized brain of just 375-500 cc (finally answering the question of which came first, large brain or bipedality) and ape-like teeth. This lineage gradually split into a husky large-toothed lineage and a more slender, smaller- toothed lineage. The husky lineage (A. robustus, A. boisei) eventually went extinct.

• Australopithecus africanus (later Pliocene, 3.0 Ma) -- The more slender lineage. Up to five feet tall, with slightly larger brain (430-550 cc) and smaller incisors. Teeth gradually became more and more like Homo teeth. These hominds are almost perfect ape- human intermediates, and it's now pretty clear that the slender australopithecines led to the first Homo species.

• Homo habilis (latest Pliocene/earliest Pleistocene, 2.5 Ma) -- Straddles the boundary between australopithecines and humans, such that it's sometimes lumped with the australopithecines. About five feet tall, face still primitive but projects less, molars smaller. Brain 500-800 cc, overlapping australopithecines at the low end and and early Homo erectus at the high end. Capable of rudimentary speech? First clumsy stone tools.

• Homo erectus (incl. "Java Man", "Peking Man", "Heidelberg Man"; Pleist., 1.8 Ma) -- Looking much more human now with a brain of 775-1225 cc, but still has thick brow ridges & no chin. Spread out of Africa & across Europe and Asia. Good tools, first fire.

• Archaic Homo sapiens (Pleistocene, 500,000 yrs ago) -- These first primitive humans were perfectly intermediate between H. erectus and modern humans, with a brain of 1200 cc and less robust skeleton & teeth. Over the next 300,000 years, brain gradually increased, molars got still smaller, skeleton less muscular. Clearly arose from H erectus, but there are continuing arguments about where this happened.

• One famous offshoot group, the Neandertals, developed in Europe 125,000 years ago. They are considered to be the same species as us, but a different subspecies, H. sapiens neandertalensis. They were more muscular, with a slightly larger brain of 1450 cc, a distinctive brow ridge, and differently shaped throat (possibly limiting their language?). They are known to have buried their dead.

• H. sapiens sapiens (incl. "Cro-magnons"; late Pleist., 40,000 yrs ago) -- All modern humans. Average brain size 1350 cc. In Europe, gradually supplanted the Neanderthals.

Known species-species transitions in primates:

Phillip Gingerich has done a lot of work on early primate transitions. Here are some of his major findings in plesiadapids, early lemurs, and early monkeys:

• Plesiadapids: Gingerich (summarized in 1976, 1977) found smooth transitions in plesiadapid primates linking four genera together: Pronothodectes, Nannodectes, two lineages of Plesiadapis, and Platychoerops. In summary: Pronothodectes matthewi changed to become Pro. jepi, which split into Nannodectes intermedius and Plesiadapis praecursor. N. intermedius was the first member of a gradually changing lineage that passed through three different species stages (N. gazini, N. simpsoni, and N. gidleyi). Ples. praecursor was the first member of a separate, larger lineage that slowly grew larger (passing through three more species stages), with every studied character showing continuous gradual change. Gingerich (1976) noted "Loss of a tooth, a discrete jump from one state to another, in several instances proceeded continuously by continuous changes in the frequencies of dimorphism -- the percentage of specimens retaining the tooth gradually being reduced until it was lost entirely from the population." The Plesiadapis lineage then split into two more lineages, each with several species. One of these lineages shows a gradual transition from Plesiadapis to Platychoerops,"where the incisors were considerably reorganized morphologically and functionally in the space of only 2-3 million years."

• Early lemur-like primates: Gingerich (summarized in 1977) traced two distinct species of lemur-like primates, Pelycodus frugivorus and P. jarrovii, back in time, and found that they converged on the earlier Pelycodus abditus "in size, mesostyle development, and every other character available for study, and there can be little doubt that each was derived from that species." Further work (Gingerich, 1980) in the same rich Wyoming fossil sites found species-to-species transitions for every step in the following lineage: Pelycodus ralstoni (54 Ma) to P. mckennai to P. trigonodus to P. abditus, which then forked into three branches. One became a new genus, Copelemur feretutus, and further changed into C. consortutus. The second branch became P. frugivorus. The third led to P. jarrovi, which changed into another new genus, Notharctus robinsoni, which itself split into at least two branches, N. tenebrosus, and N. pugnax (which then changed to N. robustior, 48 Ma), and possibly a third, Smilodectes mcgrewi (which then changed to S. gracilis). Note that this sequence covers at least three and possibly four genera, with a timespan of 6 million years.

• Early monkey-like primates: Gingerich (1982, also discussed in Gingerich, 1983) also describes gradual species-species transitions in a lineage of early Eocene primate: Cantius ralstoni to C. mckennai to C. trigonodus.

And here are some transitions found by other researchers:

• Rose & Bown (1984) analyzed over 600 specimens of primates collected from a 700-meter-thick sequence representing approximately 4 million years of the Eocene. They found smooth transitions between Teilhardina americana and Tetonoides tenuiculus, and also beween Tetonius homunculus and Pseudotetonius ambiguus. "In both lines transitions occurred not only continuously (rather than by abrupt appearance of new morphologies followed by stasis), but also in mosaic fashion, with greater variation in certain characters preceding a shift to another character state." The T. homunculus - P. ambiguus transition shows a dramatic change in dentition (loss of P2, dramatic shrinkage of P3 with loss of roots, shrinkage of C and I2, much enlarged I1) that occurs gradually and smoothly during the 4 million years. The authors conclude "...our data suggest that phyletic gradualism is not only more common than some would admit but also capable of producing significant adaptive modifications."

• Delson (discussed in Gingerich, 1985) has studied transitions in primates from the Miocene to the present. For instance, in a 1983 paper (see Chaline, 1983), he discussed a possible smooth transition from Theropithecus darti to T. oswaldi, and discusses transitions in hominids, concluding that Homo sapiens clearly shows gradual changes over the last 800,000 years.

• Kurten (1968) reports a smooth transition linking Macaca florentina to M. sylvana

This article I extracted this from above goes into all the detail you would need to cover what transitional fossils are, what they have, how scientists look at them, etc. I think if you spend some time there, you will get a better picture of what it really is all about, rather than the skewed ideas that come out of the camps of frauds like Kent Hovind.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html

[slam] Are you not familiar with all the ancient pottery, pictographs, etc. showing man and dinosaur? Check out these sites:

http://www.bible.ca/tracks/dino-art.htm

http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v...4/dinosaurs.asp

Are you not familiar with all the ancient pottery that shows Alien Astronauts? Check out this site! http://www.ufoarea.com/index.html

BTW, that dino tracks thing has be debunked six ways to Sunday and back again. It has been shown to be a fraud, yet it is cited again and again as some sort of proof. Ridiculous, and quite sad really.

Again, WHERE IS THE PEER REVIEW? Is this stuff credible science? My answer: No, not at all.

Have you answered my question, “Is peer review important, or unimportant in doing science?”

[sLam] It is "Behemoth" that Job applied to this large creature (40:15). Leviathan appears to be a sea creature.

Yes, in either case, mighty slim evidence from the Bible, considering how vague it is. How do real scholars of the Bible react to that reading of it, BTW? Can I offer a guess? They roll there eyes briefly, then move on to the next scholarly pursuit with their time.

[slam] Fossils are the best evidence.

Is it? What about DNA?

If life forms evolved, there should be a slow and steady reflection of life from the simple to complex life forms. I think it is perfectly reasonable to expect the fossil record to show this gradual major change from land creature to sea creature.

It does. Do we have a complete, 100% edge to edge fossil record? What, do you think these things are just sitting there in easily accessible places like on the shelves of a grocery store??? Considering how difficult it is to locate these things, the number of people in the field, the permissions they have to get from governments to study likely sites, the amount of time it takes to do all this, the funding, etc, etc, I think the fact that they are finding as much as there are, that shows as much as it does speaks to the amount of fossils that must there! We have a clearly defined map of transitional fossils that do in fact show a progression.

This argument of “no transitional fossils” began at Darwin’s time 150 years ago, and now that we have an abundance of them, the religious opposition tries to dismiss them as not really what the trained scientists are concluding. Ridiculous.

[slam] My basis is that many notable evolutonists don't believe the fossil record supports evolution between major kinds. So I'm wondering why some web sites take the opposing view. It's a given that I don't believe evolution because the Bible doesn't support it. But I want to stay away from it and just let the scientists speak.

What notable paleontologist doesn’t see evolution between species? Names please?

Thank you for admitting that you are not following science and are starting with the Bible as an authority over science. You are starting with the answer, and hunting for confirmation. You are completely biasing the outcome to fit one conclusion – the conclusion you had before you researched anything.

This is not science. This is religion

So that now clearly established, please answer these two questions:

-Why is your faith dependent on what science teaches about the natural world?

- Could you possibly have some mistaken ideas about what is really there in the Bible?

[slam] Again, you have me painting science/scientific method with a broad brush. I have only questioned our origins as viewed by science and now evolution based on the statements of evolutionists who take exception to the position that the fossil record supports evolution between major kinds. I'm sure you must be aware of this. Yes?

Again, this is a double-standard Slam. You accept the methods of science when they give answers you can live with. You don’t accept what they have to say when you don’t like what they have to say.

How is this any different then the Catholic Church and Galileo? You are overseeing them with the Bible.

I address the rest of your response later.

November 9, 2006

[slam] Right now, I am interested in gradualism, not rapid evolution.

So what was the point of bringing up punctuated equilibrium? Besides, "rapid evolution" is a relative term. Tens of thousands of years is still a very long time, and the changes are still gradual.

This is also an example of you being disingenuous. You ask for a specific type of evidence, then claim that "evolutionists don't believe that anyway."

[slam] No, many evolutionists still believe the fossils support gradual evolution. When you say "evolutionists" you imply I'm speaking of all of them.

What I said was a slight exaggeration, but it's the same idea as when you said "many evolutionists."

[slam] Please apologize for calling me that so we can continue. Thanks:-)

Please apologize for being a disingenuous douche bag.

November 9, 2006

[slam] Thanks for sharing all the information on apes, but I was interested in the subject at hand. That is, fossil evidence showing the disappearing legs of a land animal as they evolved into fins and flippers. WE can talk about ape/human evolution down the line. What I would like to do here is call your attention to the fact that there are many evolutionists who don't support gradual evolution between major kinds. I think the public is not aware of this because the lack of gradual transitionals is not a popular position with many other evolutionists.

[slam] Are you not familiar with all the ancient pottery, pictographs, etc. showing man and dinosaur? Check out these sites:

http://www.bible.ca/tracks/dino-art.htm

http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v...4/dinosaurs.asp

Check out this site! http://www.ufoarea.com/index.html

[slam] I couldn't get it to come up. What did you think of the stegosaurus carvings in the 10th century La Prohm temple?

BTW, that dino tracks thing has be debunked six ways to Sunday and back again. It has been shown to be a fraud, yet it is cited again and again as some sort of proof. Ridiculous, and quite sad really.

[slam] Not in Turkmenistan. But what about the T Rex found with undecayed blood cells and tissue?

Have you answered my question, “Is peer review important, or unimportant in doing science?”

[slam] Of course. But peer review is not the issue concerning our discussions on origins, which are not subject to the scientific method and the fossil record which many evolutionists believe does not supports gradual evolution between major kinds. It seems to me that these are the peers, those who know more about the fossil record than anyone. Peers depend on the experts for their information.

[sLam] It is "Behemoth" that Job applied to this large creature (40:15). Leviathan appears to be a sea creature.

Yes, in either case, mighty slim evidence from the Bible, considering how vague it is. How do real scholars of the Bible react to that reading of it, BTW? Can I offer a guess? They roll there eyes briefly, then move on to the next scholarly pursuit with their time.

[slam] Stop and think for a moment. What creature are you aware of that fits the description of behemoth in verses 15-24? What creature could stand in a raging river and not be swept away? What creature do you know that has a tail that sways like a cedar? What creature do you know that has bones like beams of bronze and whose strength and power are in its hips and stomach muscle?

[slam] Fossils are the best evidence.

Is it? What about DNA?

[slam] The fossil record is the best. It is history of animal life buried in rocks. What bout DNA? All life forms have it? From what do you suppose DNA evolved? Does science have any evidence?

If life forms evolved, there should be a slow and steady reflection of life from the simple to complex life forms. I think it is perfectly reasonable to expect the fossil record to show this gradual major change from land creature to sea creature.

It does. Do we have a complete, 100% edge to edge fossil record? What, do you think these things are just sitting there in easily accessible places like on the shelves of a grocery store??? Considering how difficult it is to locate these things, the number of people in the field, the permissions they have to get from governments to study likely sites, the amount of time it takes to do all this, the funding, etc, etc, I think the fact that they are finding as much as there are, that shows as much as it does speaks to the amount of fossils that must there! We have a clearly defined map of transitional fossils that do in fact show a progression.

[slam] Much, if not most, of the map is represented by drawings and illustrations. But why do so many evolutionists say just the opposite?

This argument of “no transitional fossils” began at Darwin’s time 150 years ago, and now that we have an abundance of them,

[slam] According to the evolutionists I am siting, this simply is not true. Here's another one:

“Gaps at a lower taxonomic level, species and genera, are practically universal in the fossil record of the mammal-like reptiles. In NO SINGLE ADEQUATELY DOCUMENTED CASE (emph. added) is it possible to trace a transition, species by species, from one genus to another.” Thomas S. Kemp, Mammal-Like Reptiles and the Origin of Mammals (New York: Academic Press, 1982), p. 319.

the religious opposition tries to dismiss them as not really what the trained scientists are concluding. Ridiculous.

[slam] Many evolutionists are in agreement with the "religious opposition" which has believed all along that there are no transitional fossils between major kinds.

[slam] My basis is that many notable evolutonists don't believe the fossil record supports evolution between major kinds. So I'm wondering why some web sites take the opposing view. It's a given that I don't believe evolution because the Bible doesn't support it. But I want to stay away from it and just let the scientists speak.

What notable paleontologist doesn’t see evolution between species? Names please?

[slam] Make that "gradual" evolution between species: Patterson, Raup, Pilbeam, Stanley, Gould, Kemp, Ayala, Valentine, Eldredge, Johanson, Kenyon. If you wish, I will supply their statements.

Thank you for admitting that you are not following science and are starting with the Bible as an authority over science.

[slam] Look, leave the Bible out of this. I am giving you names of evolutionists who don't view the fossil record favorably when it comes to gradual transitions between species.

You are starting with the answer, and hunting for confirmation.

[slam] And the answers are confirmed by the evolutionists I am citing.

You are completely biasing the outcome to fit one conclusion – the conclusion you had before you researched anything.

[slam] So what if the evolutionists I'm citing are right?

This is not science. This is religion

[slam] I think you need to drop the Bible and religion thing and start concentrating on what these evolutionists are saying. Here's a couple more:

"And let us dispose of a common misconception. The complete transmutation of even one animal species into a different species has never been directly observed either in the laboratory or in the field." Dean H. Kenyon (Professor of Biology, San Francisco State University), affidavit presented to the U.S. Supreme Court, No. 85-1513, Brief of Appellants, prepared under the direction of William J. Guste, Jr., Attorney General of the State of Louisiana, October 1985, p. A-16

"A large number of well-trained scientists outside of evolutionary biology and paleontology have unfortunately gotten the idea that the fossil record is far more Darwinian than it is. This probably comes from the oversimplification inevitable in secondary sources: LOW-LEVEL TEXTBOOKS, SEMI-POPULAR ARTICLES, AND SO ON (emph. added). Also, there is probably some WISHFUL THINKING involved. In the years after Darwin, his advocates hoped to find predictable progressions. In general, these HAVE NOT BEEN FOUND -yet the optimism has DIED HARD, and some PURE FANTASY has crept into textbooks (David M. Raup, "Evolution and the Fossil Record," in Science, July 17, 1981, p. 289. ) - Emph. added.

Could you possibly have some mistaken ideas about what is really there in the Bible?

[slam] I know the Bible pretty well. If there's something I've missed that addresses evolution, I'm all ears.

[slam] Again, you have me painting science/scientific method with a broad brush. I have only questioned our origins as viewed by science and now evolution based on the statements of evolutionists who take exception to the position that the fossil record supports evolution between major kinds. I'm sure you must be aware of this. Yes?

Again, this is a double-standard Slam. You accept the methods of science when they give answers you can live with. You don’t accept what they have to say when you don’t like what they have to say.

[slam] All we've talked about is origins and the fossil record. You have almost come around to agreeing that it was possible for Jehovah (God) to have created the universe and now I'm sharing

powerful statements from evolutionists who agree with my understanding of the fossil record. How do you say I reject what science says?

How is this any different then the Catholic Church and Galileo? You are overseeing them with the Bible.

[slam] IMO, the Vatican has had some real problems with theology and behavior. Luther and Galileo set the Vatican straight on salvation and the earth rotating around the sun. You will have set yourself straight by accepting the possibility that God created the universe and, if you go along with these evolutionists, that the fossil record does not support what you believe.

Here's another statement from a renowned evolutionist:

"The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology. The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches; the rest is inference, however reasonable, not the evidence of fossils . . . . We fancy ourselves as the only true students of life's history, yet to preserve our favored account of evolution by natural selection we view our data as so bad that we never see the very process we profess to study." Stephen Jay Gould, "Evolution's Erratic Pace," Natural History, Vol. 5, May 1977, p. 14.

November 10, 2006

I would love to take the time right now to go through your whole post point for point again, but time is not on my side right now.

"And heaping to themselves teachers having itching ears"

Suffice to say, your citing Dr. Kenyon as an "evolutionist" who supports the Creationist position, sure there are some scientist with very controversial ideas and Dr. Kenyon is an ID advocate. Do bear in mind, there are also scientists who firmly believe in UFO's also. His quote that is so loved by the Creation Instutute folks, “And let us dispose of a common misconception. The complete transmutation of even one animal species into a different species has never been directly observed either in the laboratory or in the field.” This statement is in error.

There are lots of cases of observed speciation:

5.0 Observed Instances of Speciation

The following are several examples of observations of speciation.

5.1 Speciations Involving Polyploidy, Hybridization or Hybridization Followed by Polyploidization.

5.1.1 Plants

(See also the discussion in de Wet 1971).

5.1.1.1 Evening Primrose (Oenothera gigas)

While studying the genetics of the evening primrose, Oenothera lamarckiana, de Vries (1905) found an unusual variant among his plants. O. lamarckiana has a chromosome number of 2N = 14. The variant had a chromosome number of 2N = 28. He found that he was unable to breed this variant with O. lamarckiana. He named this new species O. gigas.

5.1.1.2 Kew Primrose (Primula kewensis)

Digby (1912) crossed the primrose species Primula verticillata and P. floribunda to produce a sterile hybrid. Polyploidization occurred in a few of these plants to produce fertile offspring. The new species was named P. kewensis. Newton and Pellew (1929) note that spontaneous hybrids of P. verticillata and P. floribunda set tetraploid seed on at least three occasions. These happened in 1905, 1923 and 1926.

5.1.1.3 Tragopogon

Owenby (1950) demonstrated that two species in this genus were produced by polyploidization from hybrids. He showed that Tragopogon miscellus found in a colony in Moscow, Idaho was produced by hybridization of T. dubius and T. pratensis. He also showed that T. mirus found in a colony near Pullman, Washington was produced by hybridization of T. dubius and T. porrifolius. Evidence from chloroplast DNA suggests that T. mirus has originated independently by hybridization in eastern Washington and western Idaho at least three times (Soltis and Soltis 1989). The same study also shows multiple origins for T. micellus.

5.1.1.4 Raphanobrassica

The Russian cytologist Karpchenko (1927, 1928) crossed the radish, Raphanus sativus, with the cabbage, Brassica oleracea. Despite the fact that the plants were in different genera, he got a sterile hybrid. Some unreduced gametes were formed in the hybrids. This allowed for the production of seed. Plants grown from the seeds were interfertile with each other. They were not interfertile with either parental species. Unfortunately the new plant (genus Raphanobrassica) had the foliage of a radish and the root of a cabbage.

5.1.1.5 Hemp Nettle (Galeopsis tetrahit)

A species of hemp nettle, Galeopsis tetrahit, was hypothesized to be the result of a natural hybridization of two other species, G. pubescens and G. speciosa (Muntzing 1932). The two species were crossed. The hybrids matched G. tetrahit in both visible features and chromosome morphology.

5.1.1.6 Madia citrigracilis

Along similar lines, Clausen et al. (1945) hypothesized that Madia citrigracilis was a hexaploid hybrid of M. gracilis and M. citriodora As evidence they noted that the species have gametic chromosome numbers of n = 24, 16 and 8 respectively. Crossing M. gracilis and M. citriodora resulted in a highly sterile triploid with n = 24. The chromosomes formed almost no bivalents during meiosis. Artificially doubling the chromosome number using colchecine produced a hexaploid hybrid which closely resembled M. citrigracilis and was fertile.

5.1.1.7 Brassica

Frandsen (1943, 1947) was able to do this same sort of recreation of species in the genus Brassica (cabbage, etc.). His experiments showed that B. carinata (n = 17) may be recreated by hybridizing B. nigra (n = 8) and B. oleracea, B. juncea (n = 18) may be recreated by hybridizing B. nigra and B. campestris (n = 10), and B. napus (n = 19) may be recreated by hybridizing B. oleracea and B. campestris.

5.1.1.8 Maidenhair Fern (Adiantum pedatum)

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

5.1.1.9 Woodsia Fern (Woodsia abbeae)

Woodsia abbeae was described as a hybrid of W. cathcariana and W. ilvensis (Butters 1941). Plants of this hybrid normally produce abortive sporangia containing inviable spores. In 1944 Butters found a W. abbeae plant near Grand Portage, Minn. that had one fertile frond (Butters and Tryon 1948). The apical portion of this frond had fertile sporangia. Spores from this frond germinated and grew into prothallia. About six months after germination sporophytes were produced. They survived for about one year. Based on cytological evidence, Butters and Tryon concluded that the frond that produced the viable spores had gone tetraploid. They made no statement as to whether the sporophytes grown produced viable spores.

5.1.2 Animals

Speciation through hybridization and/or polyploidy has long been considered much less important in animals than in plants [[[refs.]]]. A number of reviews suggest that this view may be mistaken. (Lokki and Saura 1980; Bullini and Nascetti 1990; Vrijenhoek 1994). Bullini and Nasceti (1990) review chromosomal and genetic evidence that suggest that speciation through hybridization may occur in a number of insect species, including walking sticks, grasshoppers, blackflies and cucurlionid beetles. Lokki and Saura (1980) discuss the role of polyploidy in insect evolution. Vrijenhoek (1994) reviews the literature on parthenogenesis and hybridogenesis in fish. I will tackle this topic in greater depth in the next version of this document.

5.2 Speciations in Plant Species not Involving Hybridization or Polyploidy

5.2.1 Stephanomeira malheurensis

Gottlieb (1973) documented the speciation of Stephanomeira malheurensis. He found a single small population (< 250 plants) among a much larger population (> 25,000 plants) of S. exigua in Harney Co., Oregon. Both species are diploid and have the same number of chromosomes (N = 8). S. exigua is an obligate outcrosser exhibiting sporophytic self-incompatibility. S. malheurensis exhibits no self-incompatibility and self-pollinates. Though the two species look very similar, Gottlieb was able to document morphological differences in five characters plus chromosomal differences. F1 hybrids between the species produces only 50% of the seeds and 24% of the pollen that conspecific crosses produced. F2 hybrids showed various developmental abnormalities.

5.2.2 Maize (Zea mays)

Pasterniani (1969) produced almost complete reproductive isolation between two varieties of maize. The varieties were distinguishable by seed color, white versus yellow. Other genetic markers allowed him to identify hybrids. The two varieties were planted in a common field. Any plant's nearest neighbors were always plants of the other strain. Selection was applied against hybridization by using only those ears of corn that showed a low degree of hybridization as the source of the next years seed. Only parental type kernels from these ears were planted. The strength of selection was increased each year. In the first year, only ears with less than 30% intercrossed seed were used. In the fifth year, only ears with less than 1% intercrossed seed were used. After five years the average percentage of intercrossed matings dropped from 35.8% to 4.9% in the white strain and from 46.7% to 3.4% in the yellow strain.

5.2.3 Speciation as a Result of Selection for Tolerance to a Toxin: Yellow Monkey Flower (Mimulus guttatus)

At reasonably low concentrations, copper is toxic to many plant species. Several plants have been seen to develop a tolerance to this metal (Macnair 1981). Macnair and Christie (1983) used this to examine the genetic basis of a postmating isolating mechanism in yellow monkey flower. When they crossed plants from the copper tolerant "Copperopolis" population with plants from the nontolerant "Cerig" population, they found that many of the hybrids were inviable. During early growth, just after the four leaf stage, the leaves of many of the hybrids turned yellow and became necrotic. Death followed this. This was seen only in hybrids between the two populations. Through mapping studies, the authors were able to show that the copper tolerance gene and the gene responsible for hybrid inviability were either the same gene or were very tightly linked. These results suggest that reproductive isolation may require changes in only a small number of genes.

5.3 The Fruit Fly Literature

5.3.1 Drosophila paulistorum

Dobzhansky and Pavlovsky (1971) reported a speciation event that occurred in a laboratory culture of Drosophila paulistorum sometime between 1958 and 1963. The culture was descended from a single inseminated female that was captured in the Llanos of Colombia. In 1958 this strain produced fertile hybrids when crossed with conspecifics of different strains from Orinocan. From 1963 onward crosses with Orinocan strains produced only sterile males. Initially no assortative mating or behavioral isolation was seen between the Llanos strain and the Orinocan strains. Later on Dobzhansky produced assortative mating (Dobzhansky 1972).

5.3.2 Disruptive Selection on Drosophila melanogaster

Thoday and Gibson (1962) established a population of Drosophila melanogaster from four gravid females. They applied selection on this population for flies with the highest and lowest numbers of sternoplural chaetae (hairs). In each generation, eight flies with high numbers of chaetae were allowed to interbreed and eight flies with low numbers of chaetae were allowed to interbreed. Periodically they performed mate choice experiments on the two lines. They found that they had produced a high degree of positive assortative mating between the two groups. In the decade or so following this, eighteen labs attempted unsuccessfully to reproduce these results. References are given in Thoday and Gibson 1970.

5.3.3 Selection on Courtship Behavior in Drosophila melanogaster

Crossley (1974) was able to produce changes in mating behavior in two mutant strains of D. melanogaster. Four treatments were used. In each treatment, 55 virgin males and 55 virgin females of both ebony body mutant flies and vestigial wing mutant flies (220 flies total) were put into a jar and allowed to mate for 20 hours. The females were collected and each was put into a separate vial. The phenotypes of the offspring were recorded. Wild type offspring were hybrids between the mutants. In two of the four treatments, mating was carried out in the light. In one of these treatments all hybrid offspring were destroyed. This was repeated for 40 generations. Mating was carried out in the dark in the other two treatments. Again, in one of these all hybrids were destroyed. This was repeated for 49 generations. Crossley ran mate choice tests and observed mating behavior. Positive assortative mating was found in the treatment which had mated in the light and had been subject to strong selection against hybridization. The basis of this was changes in the courtship behaviors of both sexes. Similar experiments, without observation of mating behavior, were performed by Knight, et al. (1956).

5.3.4 Sexual Isolation as a Byproduct of Adaptation to Environmental Conditions in Drosophila melanogaster

Kilias, et al. (1980) exposed D. melanogaster populations to different temperature and humidity regimes for several years. They performed mating tests to check for reproductive isolation. They found some sterility in crosses among populations raised under different conditions. They also showed some positive assortative mating. These things were not observed in populations which were separated but raised under the same conditions. They concluded that sexual isolation was produced as a byproduct of selection.

5.3.5 Sympatric Speciation in Drosophila melanogaster

In a series of papers (Rice 1985, Rice and Salt 1988 and Rice and Salt 1990) Rice and Salt presented experimental evidence for the possibility of sympatric speciation. They started from the premise that whenever organisms sort themselves into the environment first and then mate locally, individuals with the same habitat preferences will necessarily mate assortatively. They established a stock population of D. melanogaster with flies collected in an orchard near Davis, California. Pupae from the culture were placed into a habitat maze. Newly emerged flies had to negotiate the maze to find food. The maze simulated several environmental gradients simultaneously. The flies had to make three choices of which way to go. The first was between light and dark (phototaxis). The second was between up and down (geotaxis). The last was between the scent of acetaldehyde and the scent of ethanol (chemotaxis). This divided the flies among eight habitats. The flies were further divided by the time of day of emergence. In total the flies were divided among 24 spatio-temporal habitats.

They next cultured two strains of flies that had chosen opposite habitats. One strain emerged early, flew upward and was attracted to dark and acetaldehyde. The other emerged late, flew downward and was attracted to light and ethanol. Pupae from these two strains were placed together in the maze. They were allowed to mate at the food site and were collected. Eye color differences between the strains allowed Rice and Salt to distinguish between the two strains. A selective penalty was imposed on flies that switched habitats. Females that switched habitats were destroyed. None of their gametes passed into the next generation. Males that switched habitats received no penalty. After 25 generations of this mating tests showed reproductive isolation between the two strains. Habitat specialization was also produced.

They next repeated the experiment without the penalty against habitat switching. The result was the same -- reproductive isolation was produced. They argued that a switching penalty is not necessary to produce reproductive isolation. Their results, they stated, show the possibility of sympatric speciation.

5.3.6 Isolation Produced as an Incidental Effect of Selection on several Drosophila species

In a series of experiments, del Solar (1966) derived positively and negatively geotactic and phototactic strains of D. pseudoobscura from the same population by running the flies through mazes. Flies from different strains were then introduced into mating chambers (10 males and 10 females from each strain). Matings were recorded. Statistically significant positive assortative mating was found.

In a separate series of experiments Dodd (1989) raised eight populations derived from a single population of D. Pseudoobscura on stressful media. Four populations were raised on a starch based medium, the other four were raised on a maltose based medium. The fly populations in both treatments took several months to get established, implying that they were under strong selection. Dodd found some evidence of genetic divergence between flies in the two treatments. He performed mate choice tests among experimental populations. He found statistically significant assortative mating between populations raised on different media, but no assortative mating among populations raised within the same medium regime. He argued that since there was no direct selection for reproductive isolation, the behavioral isolation results from a pleiotropic by-product to adaptation to the two media. Schluter and Nagel (1995) have argued that these results provide experimental support for the hypothesis of parallel speciation.

Less dramatic results were obtained by growing D. willistoni on media of different pH levels (de Oliveira and Cordeiro 1980). Mate choice tests after 26, 32, 52 and 69 generations of growth showed statistically significant assortative mating between some populations grown in different pH treatments. This ethological isolation did not always persist over time. They also found that some crosses made after 106 and 122 generations showed significant hybrid inferiority, but only when grown in acid medium.

5.3.7 Selection for Reinforcement in Drosophila melanogaster

Some proposed models of speciation rely on a process called reinforcement to complete the speciation process. Reinforcement occurs when to partially isolated allopatric populations come into contact. Lower relative fitness of hybrids between the two populations results in increased selection for isolating mechanisms. I should note that a recent review (Rice and Hostert 1993) argues that there is little experimental evidence to support reinforcement models. Two experiments in which the authors argue that their results provide support are discussed below.

Ehrman (1971) established strains of wild-type and mutant (black body) D. melanogaster. These flies were derived from compound autosome strains such that heterotypic matings would produce no progeny. The two strains were reared together in common fly cages. After two years, the isolation index generated from mate choice experiments had increased from 0.04 to 0.43, indicating the appearance of considerable assortative mating. After four years this index had risen to 0.64 (Ehrman 1973).

Along the same lines, Koopman (1950) was able to increase the degree of reproductive isolation between two partially isolated species, D. pseudoobscura and D. persimilis.

5.3.8 Tests of the Founder-flush Speciation Hypothesis Using Drosophila

The founder-flush (a.k.a. flush-crash) hypothesis posits that genetic drift and founder effects play a major role in speciation (Powell 1978). During a founder-flush cycle a new habitat is colonized by a small number of individuals (e.g. one inseminated female). The population rapidly expands (the flush phase). This is followed by the population crashing. During this crash period the population experiences strong genetic drift. The population undergoes another rapid expansion followed by another crash. This cycle repeats several times. Reproductive isolation is produced as a byproduct of genetic drift.

Dodd and Powell (1985) tested this hypothesis using D. pseudoobscura. A large, heterogeneous population was allowed to grow rapidly in a very large population cage. Twelve experimental populations were derived from this population from single pair matings. These populations were allowed to flush. Fourteen months later, mating tests were performed among the twelve populations. No postmating isolation was seen. One cross showed strong behavioral isolation. The populations underwent three more flush-crash cycles. Forty-four months after the start of the experiment (and fifteen months after the last flush) the populations were again tested. Once again, no postmating isolation was seen. Three populations showed behavioral isolation in the form of positive assortative mating. Later tests between 1980 and 1984 showed that the isolation persisted, though it was weaker in some cases.

Galina, et al. (1993) performed similar experiments with D. pseudoobscura. Mating tests between populations that underwent flush-crash cycles and their ancestral populations showed 8 cases of positive assortative mating out of 118 crosses. They also showed 5 cases of negative assortative mating (i.e. the flies preferred to mate with flies of the other strain). Tests among the founder-flush populations showed 36 cases of positive assortative mating out of 370 crosses. These tests also found 4 cases of negative assortative mating. Most of these mating preferences did not persist over time. Galina, et al. concluded that the founder-flush protocol yields reproductive isolation only as a rare and erratic event.

Ahearn (1980) applied the founder-flush protocol to D. silvestris. Flies from a line of this species underwent several flush-crash cycles. They were tested in mate choice experiments against flies from a continuously large population. Female flies from both strains preferred to mate with males from the large population. Females from the large population would not mate with males from the founder flush population. An asymmetric reproductive isolation was produced.

In a three year experiment, Ringo, et al. (1985) compared the effects of a founder-flush protocol to the effects of selection on various traits. A large population of D. simulans was created from flies from 69 wild caught stocks from several locations. Founder-flush lines and selection lines were derived from this population. The founder-flush lines went through six flush-crash cycles. The selection lines experienced equal intensities of selection for various traits. Mating test were performed between strains within a treatment and between treatment strains and the source population. Crosses were also checked for postmating isolation. In the selection lines, 10 out of 216 crosses showed positive assortative mating (2 crosses showed negative assortative mating). They also found that 25 out of 216 crosses showed postmating isolation. Of these, 9 cases involved crosses with the source population. In the founder-flush lines 12 out of 216 crosses showed positive assortative mating (3 crosses showed negative assortative mating). Postmating isolation was found in 15 out of 216 crosses, 11 involving the source population. They concluded that only weak isolation was found and that there was little difference between the effects of natural selection and the effects of genetic drift.

A final test of the founder-flush hypothesis will be described with the housefly cases below.

5.4 Housefly Speciation Experiments

5.4.1 A Test of the Founder-flush Hypothesis Using Houseflies

Meffert and Bryant (1991) used houseflies to test whether bottlenecks in populations can cause permanent alterations in courtship behavior that lead to premating isolation. They collected over 100 flies of each sex from a landfill near Alvin, Texas. These were used to initiate an ancestral population. From this ancestral population they established six lines. Two of these lines were started with one pair of flies, two lines were started with four pairs of flies and two lines were started with sixteen pairs of flies. These populations were flushed to about 2,000 flies each. They then went through five bottlenecks followed by flushes. This took 35 generations. Mate choice tests were performed. One case of positive assortative mating was found. One case of negative assortative mating was also found.

5.4.2 Selection for Geotaxis with and without Gene Flow

Soans, et al. (1974) used houseflies to test Pimentel's model of speciation. This model posits that speciation requires two steps. The first is the formation of races in subpopulations. This is followed by the establishment of reproductive isolation. Houseflies were subjected to intense divergent selection on the basis of positive and negative geotaxis. In some treatments no gene flow was allowed, while in others there was 30% gene flow. Selection was imposed by placing 1000 flies into the center of a 108 cm vertical tube. The first 50 flies that reached the top and the first 50 flies that reached the bottom were used to found positively and negatively geotactic populations. Four populations were established:

Population A + geotaxis, no gene flow

Population B - geotaxis, no gene flow

Population C + geotaxis, 30% gene flow

Population D - geotaxis, 30% gene flow

Selection was repeated within these populations each generations. After 38 generations the time to collect 50 flies had dropped from 6 hours to 2 hours in Pop A, from 4 hours to 4 minutes in Pop B, from 6 hours to 2 hours in Pop C and from 4 hours to 45 minutes in Pop D. Mate choice tests were performed. Positive assortative mating was found in all crosses. They concluded that reproductive isolation occurred under both allopatric and sympatric conditions when very strong selection was present.

Hurd and Eisenberg (1975) performed a similar experiment on houseflies using 50% gene flow and got the same results.

5.5 Speciation Through Host Race Differentiation

Recently there has been a lot of interest in whether the differentiation of an herbivorous or parasitic species into races living on different hosts can lead to sympatric speciation. It has been argued that in animals that mate on (or in) their preferred hosts, positive assortative mating is an inevitable byproduct of habitat selection (Rice 1985; Barton, et al. 1988). This would suggest that differentiated host races may represent incipient species.

5.5.1 Apple Maggot Fly (Rhagoletis pomonella)

Rhagoletis pomonella is a fly that is native to North America. Its normal host is the hawthorn tree. Sometime during the nineteenth century it began to infest apple trees. Since then it has begun to infest cherries, roses, pears and possibly other members of the rosaceae. Quite a bit of work has been done on the differences between flies infesting hawthorn and flies infesting apple. There appear to be differences in host preferences among populations. Offspring of females collected from on of these two hosts are more likely to select that host for oviposition (Prokopy et al. 1988). Genetic differences between flies on these two hosts have been found at 6 out of 13 allozyme loci (Feder et al. 1988, see also McPheron et al. 1988). Laboratory studies have shown an asynchrony in emergence time of adults between these two host races (Smith 1988). Flies from apple trees take about 40 days to mature, whereas flies from hawthorn trees take 54-60 days to mature. This makes sense when we consider that hawthorn fruit tends to mature later in the season that apples. Hybridization studies show that host preferences are inherited, but give no evidence of barriers to mating. This is a very exciting case. It may represent the early stages of a sympatric speciation event (considering the dispersal of R. pomonella to other plants it may even represent the beginning of an adaptive radiation). It is important to note that some of the leading researchers on this question are urging caution in interpreting it. Feder and Bush (1989) stated:

"Hawthorn and apple "host races" of R. pomonella may therefore represent incipient species. However, it remains to be seen whether host-associated traits can evolve into effective enough barriers to gene flow to result eventually in the complete reproductive isolation of R. pomonella populations."

5.5.2 Gall Former Fly (Eurosta solidaginis)

Eurosta solidaginis is a gall forming fly that is associated with goldenrod plants. It has two hosts: over most of its range it lays its eggs in Solidago altissima, but in some areas it uses S. gigantea as its host. Recent electrophoretic work has shown that the genetic distances among flies from different sympatric hosts species are greater than the distances among flies on the same host in different geographic areas (Waring et al. 1990). This same study also found reduced variability in flies on S. gigantea. This suggests that some E. solidaginis have recently shifted hosts to this species. A recent study has compared reproductive behavior of the flies associated with the two hosts (Craig et al. 1993). They found that flies associated with S. gigantea emerge earlier in the season than flies associated with S. altissima. In host choice experiments, each fly strain ovipunctured its own host much more frequently than the other host. Craig et al. (1993) also performed several mating experiments. When no host was present and females mated with males from either strain, if males from only one strain were present. When males of both strains were present, statistically significant positive assortative mating was seen. In the presence of a host, assortative mating was also seen. When both hosts and flies from both populations were present, females waited on the buds of the host that they are normally associated with. The males fly to the host to mate. Like the Rhagoletis case above, this may represent the beginning of a sympatric speciation.

5.6 Flour Beetles (Tribolium castaneum)

Halliburton and Gall (1981) established a population of flour beetles collected in Davis, California. In each generation they selected the 8 lightest and the 8 heaviest pupae of each sex. When these 32 beetles had emerged, they were placed together and allowed to mate for 24 hours. Eggs were collected for 48 hours. The pupae that developed from these eggs were weighed at 19 days. This was repeated for 15 generations. The results of mate choice tests between heavy and light beetles was compared to tests among control lines derived from randomly chosen pupae. Positive assortative mating on the basis of size was found in 2 out of 4 experimental lines.

5.7 Speciation in a Lab Rat Worm, Nereis acuminata

In 1964 five or six individuals of the polychaete worm, Nereis acuminata, were collected in Long Beach Harbor, California. These were allowed to grow into a population of thousands of individuals. Four pairs from this population were transferred to the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute. For over 20 years these worms were used as test organisms in environmental toxicology. From 1986 to 1991 the Long Beach area was searched for populations of the worm. Two populations, P1 and P2, were found. Weinberg, et al. (1992) performed tests on these two populations and the Woods Hole population (WH) for both postmating and premating isolation. To test for postmating isolation, they looked at whether broods from crosses were successfully reared. The results below give the percentage of successful rearings for each group of crosses.

WH × WH - 75%

P1 × P1 - 95%

P2 × P2 - 80%

P1 × P2 - 77%

WH × P1 - 0%

WH × P2 - 0%

They also found statistically significant premating isolation between the WH population and the field populations. Finally, the Woods Hole population showed slightly different karyotypes from the field populations.

5.8 Speciation Through Cytoplasmic Incompatability Resulting from the Presence of a Parasite or Symbiont

In some species the presence of intracellular bacterial parasites (or symbionts) is associated with postmating isolation. This results from a cytoplasmic incompatability between gametes from strains that have the parasite (or symbiont) and stains that don't. An example of this is seen in the mosquito Culex pipiens (Yen and Barr 1971). Compared to within strain matings, matings between strains from different geographic regions may may have any of three results: These matings may produce a normal number of offspring, they may produce a reduced number of offspring or they may produce no offspring. Reciprocal crosses may give the same or different results. In an incompatible cross, the egg and sperm nuclei fail to unite during fertilization. The egg dies during embryogenesis. In some of these strains, Yen and Barr (1971) found substantial numbers of Rickettsia-like microbes in adults, eggs and embryos. Compatibility of mosquito strains seems to be correlated with the strain of the microbe present. Mosquitoes that carry different strains of the microbe exhibit cytoplasmic incompatibility; those that carry the same strain of microbe are interfertile.

Similar phenomena have been seen in a number of other insects. Microoganisms are seen in the eggs of both Nasonia vitripennis and N. giraulti. These two species do not normally hybridize. Following treatment with antibiotics, hybrids occur between them (Breeuwer and Werren 1990). In this case, the symbiont is associated with improper condensation of host chromosomes.

For more examples and a critical review of this topic, see Thompson 1987.

5.9 A Couple of Ambiguous Cases

So far the BSC has applied to all of the experiments discussed. The following are a couple of major morphological changes produced in asexual species. Do these represent speciation events? The answer depends on how species is defined.

5.9.1 Coloniality in Chlorella vulgaris

Boraas (1983) reported the induction of multicellularity in a strain of Chlorella pyrenoidosa (since reclassified as C. vulgaris) by predation. He was growing the unicellular green alga in the first stage of a two stage continuous culture system as for food for a flagellate predator, Ochromonas sp., that was growing in the second stage. Due to the failure of a pump, flagellates washed back into the first stage. Within five days a colonial form of the Chlorella appeared. It rapidly came to dominate the culture. The colony size ranged from 4 cells to 32 cells. Eventually it stabilized at 8 cells. This colonial form has persisted in culture for about a decade. The new form has been keyed out using a number of algal taxonomic keys. They key out now as being in the genus Coelosphaerium, which is in a different family from Chlorella.

5.9.2 Morphological Changes in Bacteria

Shikano, et al. (1990) reported that an unidentified bacterium underwent a major morphological change when grown in the presence of a ciliate predator. This bacterium's normal morphology is a short (1.5 um) rod. After 8 - 10 weeks of growing with the predator it assumed the form of long (20 um) cells. These cells have no cross walls. Filaments of this type have also been produced under circumstances similar to Boraas' induction of multicellularity in Chlorella. Microscopic examination of these filaments is described in Gillott et al. (1993). Multicellularity has also been produced in unicellular bacterial by predation (Nakajima and Kurihara 1994). In this study, growth in the presence of protozoal grazers resulted in the production of chains of bacterial cells.

See: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html#part5

And: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.html

For each of these people, I could do the same. They are either grossly misquoted by the Creationists as saying something they weren't (seen time and time again by the dishonest promoters of Creationism), or they are just bad science that is rejected by the scientific community for errors such as above.

Again, we cannot leave the Bible out of this as that is you source for the answer before looking at evidence. You are using it in your version of the scientific method. It stays on the table. Care to put it under the knife of scrutiny?

BTW, why exactly are you trying to lead me to say that Genesis 1 with Jehovah attached to it could be possible? I've answered my position on that as cleary as I can without allowing you to try to make it more than I am saying. This is why every single time you will get the same answer. "It is possible in the same sense as anything without the support of science is possible. It could be, but is so terribly unsupported for all intents and purposes it is an irrelevent question." Let's cut to your point, if you have one?

November 10, 2006

I would love to take the time right now to go through your whole post point for point again, but time is not on my side right now.

"And heaping to themselves teachers having itching ears"

Suffice to say, your citing Dr. Kenyon as an "evolutionist" who supports the Creationist position, sure there are some scientist with very controversial ideas and Dr. Kenyon is an ID advocate.

[slam] You have already said that it is possible an intelligent designer created the universe. In any event, Kenyon is an evolutionist.

Do bear in mind, there are also scientists who firmly believe in UFO's also. His quote that is so loved by the Creation Instutute folks, “And let us dispose of a common misconception. The complete transmutation of even one animal species into a different species has never been directly observed either in the laboratory or in the field.” This statement is in error.

[slam] He's not the only one. What you have cited below does not show one major kind evolving into a different kind. Plants are plants and flies are flies. Show me where one species changed into something different.

For each of these people, I could do the same. They are either grossly misquoted by the Creationists...

[slam] I'm only showing you that many evolutionists no longer accept Darwinian (gradual) evolutionary theory. Please feel free to show which statements are misquotes. Each quote has an address. Raup, Patterson, Gould and Eldredge are as knowledgable as anyone about fossils. All four reject the fossil record supporting the evolution of one major kind into a different kind.

as saying something they weren't (seen time and time again by the dishonest promoters of Creationism), or they are just bad science that is rejected by the scientific community for errors such as above.

[slam] The four cited are recognized as knowledgeable as any. Stanley is right up there with them. "In fact,the fossil record does not convincingly document a SINGLE TRANSITION (emph added) from one species to another." S. M. Stanley, The New Evolutionary Timetable (New York: Basic Books, 1981) p. 95

Why not take up your disagreement with these evolutionists? I'm not saying there are other evolutionists who don't support gradualism. I'm sure there are. I just want to show that not all evolutionists accept Darwinian evolution.

Again, we cannot leave the Bible out of this as that is you source for the answer before looking at evidence. You are using it in your version of the scientific method. It stays on the table. Care to put it under the knife of scrutiny?

[slam] Please explain how my belief in the Bible affects scientific evidence? How does it affect the fossil record?

BTW, why exactly are you trying to lead me to say that Genesis 1 with Jehovah attached to it could be possible? I've answered my position on that as cleary as I can without allowing you to try to make it more than I am saying.

[slam] I'm sorry if I misrepresented your position, but I thought you said that it could have been Jehovah along with Baal, etc.

This is why every single time you will get the same answer. "It is possible in the same sense as anything without the support of science is possible.

[slam] Ok, that sounds good. But make sure you apply that to a big bang, or whatever else science believes created the universe.

It could be, but is so terribly unsupported for all intents and purposes it is an irrelevent question."

[slam] Just as any other theory about the origins of the universe.

Let's cut to your point, if you have one?

[slam] My point is the same it has always been. On what grounds can science rule out the possibility that the universe was created by God as in Gen. 1:1? Don't forget that the singularity that brought the universe into existance was unobserved and can't be tested or repeated, putting it outside the scientific method. An expanding universe could be the result of a so-called big bang, or God speaking the universe into existance (Ps. 33:6,9) and then stretching it out like a curtain (Isa. 40:22). Possible? Just say yes and we can drop the universe:-)

November 10, 2006

[slam] You have already said that it is possible an intelligent designer created the universe. In any event, Kenyon is an evolutionist.

And here is a beautiful example of someone deliberately yanking what someone says and holding it up for everyone to see, to sound like I consider an ID a valid consideration. I have seen you trying to lead and rope my words this way, and I have purposefully stated my position on this in response to each of this maneuverings with a carefully worded response, that though it allow for any possibility before the Big Bang, such as the Trix Cereal Rabbit being the source of all life, it completely irrelevant to the question.

Yet, here like a good Creationist, you are taking those highly qualified statements of mine, and publicly stating them as suggesting I consider it a very real possibility. If you don’t think I view that way, then why are you holding it out like you are above? Unlike Stephen Gould and others who the Creationists quote out of context, I am right here and am calling you on your misuse of my words.

I said very clearly, though anything is possible before the Big Bang, from ET Students, to Jehovah, to Buddha, to the Lucky Charms leprechaun, they have such an utter lack of support for any and all of those hypothesis they are for all intents and purposes, outside the realm of consideration. Though anything is possible, most of them are totally unrealistic. I put Jehovah squarely into that group – unrealistic. Clear enough now?

Don’t make me question your integrity. A tactic like you seem to be using may work in a Jr. High argument, but not with me. I won’t put up with insincerity.

[slam] He's not the only one. What you have cited below does not show one major kind evolving into a different kind. Plants are plants and flies are flies. Show me where one species changed into something different.

Oh for god’s sake. You ask me for transitional fossils, I give you some. Those aren’t good enough, you want Whale fossils and not primate fossils. You quote an ID advocate as saying speciation has never been observed, I show you were it has, but you won’t accept fruit flies or plants as having this happen in the lab as acceptable. What in the world?! A fruit fly isn’t good enough?

You don’t want the evidence. When I give it you, you wiggle on some minor point that it wasn’t a whale transitional fossil, etc. I gave you transitional fossils. I gave you speciation. This discussion is coming to an end very soon.

[slam] I'm only showing you that many evolutionists no longer accept Darwinian (gradual) evolutionary theory. Please feel free to show which statements are misquotes. Each quote has an address. Raup, Patterson, Gould and Eldredge are as knowledgable as anyone about fossils. All four reject the fossil record supporting the evolution of one major kind into a different kind.

Who said anything about Darwinian Evolution? There are lots of modern ways of looking at the ToE, like the Punctuated Equilibria of Stephen Gould. This doesn’t not negate the ToE!!! Again, the insincerity of the Creationist comes through.

There are few components of modern evolutionary theory which seem so prone to misinterpretation as Niles Eldredge and Stephen Jay Gould's theory of punctuated equilibria (PE for short). In this matter, the person attempting to come to a better understanding of punctuated equilibria will find that he or she may be hampered by the popular writings of those same authors rather than helped. As in most cases, the primary literature remains the best source of information.

Read more about this aspect of the ToE here: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/punc-eq.html

Again, it’s a long, long, long way from difference in the events of how Evolution of the species works, to the possibility of Jehovah doing it! Be serious. Be honest. Science is always improving upon itself. It is NEVER “The Truth”. Back full circle to what I said at the outset. Just because science may find more information and improve their understanding of how something works, it is hardly an indication that the entire ToE will be unseated.

Again, this is another example of the intellectual dishonesty of Creationists. They seem so driven by their emotional desire to hold onto the idolatrous views of God, that they resort to lying and distortion of the facts. They lack integrity in the moral behaviors.

[slam] Please explain how my belief in the Bible affects scientific evidence? How does it affect the fossil record?

Because you keep saying God did it. There is NOTHING in science that leads to that conclusion. That is an answer provided by that book alone. This is why in how you do “science” it is a factor. In the real world however, it should be left off the table.

If you were to actually be leaving off the table, then I would never hear you reference Genesis, or God, or Jesus. You are, so therefore you are using the Bible. If you did leave it off the table, then you’d have no reason to question the science that Gould, Darwin, etc are all doing. Additionally, it is clearly your personal motive behind hearing only the bits you want to here, and distorting the contexts of everything you are presented with.

[slam] My point is the same it has always been. On what grounds can science rule out the possibility that the universe was created by God as in Gen. 1:1? Don't forget that the singularity that brought the universe into existance was unobserved and can't be tested or repeated, putting it outside the scientific method. An expanding universe could be the result of a so-called big bang, or God speaking the universe into existance (Ps. 33:6,9) and then stretching it out like a curtain (Isa. 40:22). Possible? Just say yes and we can drop the universe:-)

And my answer is the same as it always has been, it doesn’t rule anything out. However it is so unsupported it’s not a genuine consideration. Why should Jehovah or the Trix Cereal Rabbit be considered scientific possibilities? They need at least some evidence.

Jehovah talking the Big Bang into existence is a philosophical question, or a religious question, not a scientific probability. God is a possibility from a religious consideration, but is irrelevant as a scientific consideration.

I think this should conclude these discussions as I see it going no further now than just going back in circles over the same issues now. Thanks for the dialog, and we can certainly discuss God philosophically if you wish, as that at least doesn’t demand scientific grounds for consideration.

November 11, 2006

[slam] These are getting long and as you say it may be best to conclude them. I only have two observations. You said creationists take Gould out of context. Was the quote I cited out of context?

Secondly, I still couldn't find an example of one specie evolving into a different specie in the web site you posted. As far as I can see plants are plants and flies are flies.

Jehovah talking the Big Bang into existence is a philosophical question, or a religious question, not a scientific probability. God is a possibility from a religious consideration, but is irrelevant as a scientific consideration.

[slam] What difference does it make what brought the universe into existance? How would science be harmed if it was a God singularity?

November 11, 2006

[slam] What difference does it make what brought the universe into existance? How would science be harmed if it was a God singularity?

Science would be harmed because it is imposing a concept that comes from religious faith into a discipline that of necessity must operate independent of religion. Science is a language to describe the natural world that transcends personal, cultural, and religious world views.

If you impose God into it, that God came not from a dispassionate evaluation of the natural world, but from one of many competing religious ideas. Science would become nothing more than a religious weapon that Christianity claimed as their own, or Islam claimed as their own, or Hinduism, etc.

The point is science must remain dispassionate so it can function as a useful language to everyone, no matter their religious affiliation. Science must remain silent of matters of religion. If science discovered God, then everyone, no matter what their ideas of God, would be able to talk together about this discovery and the validity of the research supporting it.

If you desire to be able to see God through science, then God must be able to be approached by science and meet all the requirements that make science an objective, dispassionate language. Since God cannot be approached this way, then it remains a religious faith of personal belief, and a language of the human heart.

November 12, 2006

[slam] What difference does it make what brought the universe into existance? How would science be harmed if it was a God singularity?

Science would be harmed because it is imposing a concept that comes from religious faith into a discipline that of necessity must operate independent of religion.

Science is a language to describe the natural world that transcends personal, cultural, and religious world views.

If you impose God into it, that God came not from a dispassionate evaluation of the natural world, but from one of many competing religious ideas. Science would become nothing more than a religious weapon that Christianity claimed as their own, or Islam claimed as their own, or Hinduism, etc.

The point is science must remain dispassionate so it can function as a useful language to everyone, no matter their religious affiliation. Science must remain silent of matters of religion.

[sLam] Many different scientific disciplines have been helped greatly by men who believed in God and intelligent design, and who did not let it interfere with their research. How would science be harmed if they proclaimed their faith in a Creator/Intelligent Designer?

If science discovered God, then everyone, no matter what their ideas of God, would be able to talk together about this discovery and the validity of the research supporting it.

[slam] Right. What would be so terrible about that?

If you desire to be able to see God through science, then God must be able to be approached by science and meet all the requirements that make science an objective, dispassionate language.

[slam] I "see" God through the wonders of space and DNA. But I don't need to approach him scientifically. It is the things he has created that are the object of scientific approah. Many people see God through what he has made. That is precisely what the Apostle ment:

"For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse." (Rom. 1:20)

Since God cannot be approached this way, then it remains a religious faith of personal belief, and a language of the human heart.

[slam] But that has nothing to do with science being harmed by men of faith in God. Why couldn't the Creator make everything and then let it be turned over to science for research and study so we can learn more about the universe and life?

Would the marvels of DNA be any less marvelous if scientists believed it was created by God? Would the research that goes into the study of it be harmed if researchers believed it was intelligently design? If so, how?

Would medical researchers change their methods and reserach tools if they believed that God created life? If so, how?

Would space exploration be harmed if NASA scientists believed that God created the universe? If so how?

Would the treatment of disease be harmed if the medical profession believed that life was created by God? If so, how?

Was the science of the development of the telephone harmed because Bell believed in intelligent design? If so, how?

Was the science of computer technology harmed because Bill Gates believed in intelligent design? If so, how?

The man who invented the MRI is a Christian. How was the science of this technology harmed because he believes that God created life? If so, how?

The same applies to many of our early scientists who believed that God is the Creator. How was science harmed by their accomplishments? Please be specific about this. What harm has come to any branch of science just because these men, or any others, believed in God as Creator/Intelligent Designer?

[slam] Oh, I forgot to ask. Did you find out the context in which Gould made that statement which I posted?

November 12, 2006

Oh, I forgot to ask. Did you find out the context in which Gould made that statement which I posted?

I'm starting a seperate topic in response to the new discussion that is beginning about the place of religion in science. I will post the link to that new topic in here once I have started it.

To finsh this topic off with a response to your inquiry about what Gould was talking about, I will let Stephen Jay Gould himself answer that for you:

"Since we proposed punctuated equilibria to explain trends, it is infuriating to be quoted again and again by creationists--whether through design or stupidity, I do not know--as admitting that the fossil record includes no transitional forms. Transitional forms are generally lacking at the species level, but they are abundant between larger groups. Yet a pamphlet entitled 'Harvard Scientists Agree Evolution Is a Hoax' states: 'The facts of punctuated equilibrium which Gould and Eldredge...are forcing Darwinists to swallow fit the picture that Bryan insisted on, and which God has revealed to us in the Bible.'"

Please read the entire following artile by Michael Hopkins to underscore what I have said about misquotations: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/

From that article:

One of the favorite tactics of evolution deniers and other pseudoscientists is to use numerous quotations to make their case. For many people the use of quote after quote makes a very persuasive argument. However, the antievolutionist use of quotes is invalid and does not in any way provide evidence for creationism or against evolution. The reasons for this fall into several major categories: the use of quotations often is a fallacy of "argument from authority," selective quotation may be occurring, the quotations are often out-of-date, the quoted authorities are often not appropriate authorities, evolution deniers are sometimes not honest in representing who the people they quote are, and many of the quotations are misquotations.

<snip>

Many evolution deniers quote Stephen Jay Gould and other punctuated equilibria proponents as saying that transitional forms are very rare. Most non-specialists get ideas of "missing links" between higher taxa of animals when they hear about transitional forms. Gould has been very clear that these are common and yet he has been quoted many times that transitional forms are rare. What is going on here? In the context of punctuated equilibria, a transitional form is between immediately related species (say two species of squirrels, species of similar Devonian trilobites, etc.), and is not referring to a transition between human and non-human, whales and primitive land mammals, etc. Indeed the transitions Gould and other punctuated equilibria proponents are arguing about would be generally be dismissed as "microevolution" by many evolution deniers. Thus antievolutionists arguing against the existence of transitions between larger taxa are very likely guilty of misquotation if they quote Gould's writings on punctuated equilibria. For more details on this see Gould's10 classic essay "Evolution as Fact and Theory" where he explains his position on the fossil record as well as demonstrates young-earth creationist misrepresentations of his views.

Stephen Jay Gould's essay "Evolution as Fact and Theory" here: http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/gould_...and-theory.html

A last thought from Stephen Jay Gould in his essay linked to above about this debate:

I am both angry at and amused by the creationists; but mostly I am deeply sad. Sad for many reasons. Sad because so many people who respond to creationist appeals are troubled for the right reason, but venting their anger at the wrong target. It is true that scientists have often been dogmatic and elitist. It is true that we have often allowed the white-coated, advertising image to represent us—"Scientists say that Brand X cures bunions ten times faster than…" We have not fought it adequately because we derive benefits from appearing as a new priesthood. It is also true that faceless and bureaucratic state power intrudes more and more into our lives and removes choices that should belong to individuals and communities. I can understand that school curricula, imposed from above and without local input, might be seen as one more insult on all these grounds. But the culprit is not, and cannot be, evolution or any other fact of the natural world. Identify and fight our legitimate enemies by all means, but we are not among them.

November 12, 2006

"Since we proposed punctuated equilibria to explain trends, it is infuriating to be quoted again and again by creationists--whether through design or stupidity, I do not know--as admitting that the fossil record includes no transitional forms. Transitional forms are generally lacking at the species level, but they are abundant between larger groups.

[slam] I will address what Gould said about fossils, transitionals and gradualism, based on what he said above and the snipet below. BTW, What is the difference between "species level and larger groups?"

"Many evolution deniers quote Stephen Jay Gould and other punctuated equilibria proponents as saying that transitional forms are very rare. Most non-specialists get ideas of "missing links" between higher taxa of animals when they hear about transitional forms. Gould has been very clear that these are common and yet he has been quoted many times that transitional forms are rare. What is going on here? In the context of punctuated equilibria, a transitional form is between immediately related species (say two species of squirrels, species of similar Devonian trilobites, etc.), and is not referring to a transition between human and non-human, whales and primitive land mammals, etc. Indeed the transitions Gould and other punctuated equilibria proponents are arguing about would be generally be dismissed as "microevolution" by many evolution deniers. Thus antievolutionists arguing against the existence of transitions between larger taxa are very likely guilty of misquotation if they quote Gould's writings on punctuated equilibria. For more details on this see Gould's10 classic essay "Evolution as Fact and Theory" where he explains his position on the fossil record as well as demonstrates young-earth creationist misrepresentations of his views.

[slam] To me, there seems to be contradiction or confusion when compared with the following?

““All paleontologists know that the fossil record contains precious little in the way of intermediate forms; transitions between major groups are characteristically abrupt.” The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology. The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches; the rest is inference, however reasonable, not the evidence of fossils....

"The history of most fossil species includes two features inconsistent with gradualism: 1. Stasis. Most species exhibit no directional change during their tenure on earth. They appear in the fossil record looking much the same as when they disappear… 2. Sudden Appearance. In any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and 'fully formed'. (Stephen Jay Gould, “Evolution’s Erratic Pace,” Natural History, May 1977, pp. 13,14)

"The fundamental reason why a lot of paleontologists don't care much for gradualism ("xxxxx" - expletive deleted) is because the fossil record doesn't show gradual change and every paleontologist has known that ever since Cuvier. If you want to get around that you have to invoke the imperfection of the fossil record. Every paleontologist knows that most species, most species, don't change. That's bothersome if you are trained to believe that evolution ought to be gradual. In fact it virtually precludes your studying the very process you went into the school to study. Again, because you don't see it, that brings terrible distress." (Stephen J. Gould, from the Symposium on Evolution, Hobart/Smith College, Feb. 14, 1980)

So Gould rejects that the fossil record supports gradualism at the species level, but believed there is an abundance of transitionals between higher groups. Nowhere did he say these transitionals were gradual. As I have repeatedly said, my point was about gradualism, not PE, or any other fossil theory. No where does Gould say be believed the fossil record is characterized by gradualism. Characterized by transitionals between larger groups (whatever they are) yes, but not between species.

Oh, I forgot to ask. Did you find out the context in which Gould made that statement which I posted?

I am so forgetful. Were you able to find where any plant or fly ever evolved into different species?

November 14, 2006

Stephen Jay Gould's essay "Evolution as Fact and Theory" here: http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/gould_...and-theory.html

[slam] Here's more of Gould's preception of gradualism, as noted by his own statement in the above essay.

"We proposed the theory of punctuated equilibrium largely to provide a DIFFERENT explanation for pervasive trends in the fossil record. Trends, we argued, cannot be attributed to gradual transformation within lineages, but must arise from the DIFFERENT success of certain kinds of species."

Any gradualism Gould finds in the fossil record seems to be confined within the boundaries of punctualism, or as he notes within "larger groups." Gould has used three different terms:

1. Higher Taxa

2. Larger Groups

3. Species

What is the distinction between these?

November 16, 2006

Hi slamdunk, I'm a scientist and could you go for a fraction or a percentage instead of saying "many" scientists. You can find "many" people with vestigial tails or thick hair across much of their body but that doesn't mean they are the norm or even common. The devision in the scientific community about evolution is a total fallasy. At most its 98/2 in favour of evolution (gradual or punctuated, it doesn't matter).

Second, do you know how uncommon fossils are? How specific a set of circumstances have to arrise to create them? And then the chances or randomly finding them? Also, you saw a whale like creature with tiny useless leg bones within it. Why would God make a tiny useless leg boned creature? You seem to be demanding almost time stop footage of a creature evolving over millions of years and yet need nothing at all to prove it the other way. How about, that carbon dating the "maybe three" fossils we may have of a creature changing to another shows that they are in age order with appropriate gaps between them. Also, evolution happened all over the world, proving it involves every species, even if the evidence for whales only said it was 50/50 (which it doesn't) then fine. So does the evidence for monkeys, sheep, cows, dogs, cats, etc. This evidense is entirely seperate for each species. Indipendent evidense from thousands of sources. For every one of them to have got it wrong would be almost impossible. I'm afraid that the only possible way that some form of evolution didn't happen is if God shows up and said he planted all the evidense himself, altered rocks etc. at a sub-molecular level to appear different ages, and generally put an awful lot of work into a hoax that we wouldn't even discover for, what age does the bible say?, 6000 years is it?

P.S. don't ask ME to find all the evidense for you, I'm currently exploiting aspects of Physics to accurately image the interior of the body without having to spend vast amounts on a top class scanner, so that the technology can be used in a doctors office or a poor region of the world without a spare million quid for a scanner. Its all out there, I have research of my own to do. Try forming a counter argument before you debunk and stop misrepresenting me and many other hard working individuals to support your ill conceived ideas.

November 17, 2006

Hi slamdunk, I'm a scientist and could you go for a fraction or a percentage instead of saying "many" scientists. You can find "many" people with vestigial tails or thick hair across much of their body but that doesn't mean they are the norm or even common. The devision in the scientific community about evolution is a total fallasy. At most its 98/2 in favour of evolution (gradual or punctuated, it doesn't matter).

[slam] Hello neverclear. I like your user ID:-)

Second, do you know how uncommon fossils are?

[slam] Yes, and 95% of them are marine fossils.

How specific a set of circumstances have to arrise to create them? And then the chances or randomly finding them? Also, you saw a whale like creature with tiny useless leg bones within it.

[slam] How do they know they are "leg bones?"

Why would God make a tiny useless leg boned creature?

[slam] Perhaps they are some kind of rare mutation. How many dolphins have they found with this anamoly? But I don't believe they are evolutionary throwbacks.

You seem to be demanding almost time stop footage of a creature evolving over millions of years and yet need nothing at all to prove it the other way.

[slam] Please understand that such demands are based on the views of some evolutonists who don't believe the fossil record supports gradual evolution between major kinds. I am only asking for evidence that would prove them wrong.

How about, that carbon dating the "maybe three" fossils we may have of a creature changing to another shows that they are in age order with appropriate gaps between them.

[slam] What are the "maybe three?" Isn't carbon dating only good under 30 thousand years?

Also, evolution happened all over the world, proving it involves every species, even if the evidence for whales only said it was 50/50 (which it doesn't) then fine. So does the evidence for monkeys, sheep, cows, dogs, cats, etc. This evidense is entirely seperate for each species. Indipendent evidense from thousands of sources. For every one of them to have got it wrong would be almost impossible.

[slam] This is what I'm hearing, that there is so much evidence out there that at least some of it must be true. Well, all I know is what I read from the experts. Perhaps the best direct evidence that species evolved into something different are the fossils. I also think that the fossils that science says is evidence of evolution between major kinds are actually fossils of variations within the same kind, or perhaps extinct species.

I'm afraid that the only possible way that some form of evolution didn't happen is if God shows up and said he planted all the evidense himself,

[slam] What if most fossils were deposited by a major flood? How would science determine whether a fossil was put down by a local flooding, or catastrophy, or a global one?

altered rocks etc. at a sub-molecular level to appear different ages,

[slam] What rock looks like its millions of years older than one that is a few thousand?

and generally put an awful lot of work into a hoax that we wouldn't even discover for, what age does the bible say?, 6000 years is it?

[slam] What physical part of the universe would tell scientists that it is millions/billions of years old verses a few thousand?

P.S. don't ask ME to find all the evidense for you, I'm currently exploiting aspects of Physics to accurately image the interior of the body without having to spend vast amounts on a top class scanner, so that the technology can be used in a doctors office or a poor region of the world without a spare million quid for a scanner.

[slam] I'm envious:-) That really sounds like a great project to be involved with and I wish you well with it.

Its all out there, I have research of my own to do. Try forming a counter argument before you debunk and stop misrepresenting me and many other hard working individuals to support your ill conceived ideas.

[slam] I don't know how much of this thread you have followed, but my two basic points from the get-go have been the origins of the universe and the fossil record. I have said that science cannot possibly know that an intelligent creator did not bring the universe into an expanding existance. Concerning the fossils, I am only citing scientists who know far more about them than I do. There may be many who believe the fossils support gradual evolution between species over millions of years. That's fine. But there are other evolutionists who don't go along with that. And their names are well known (Gould, Eldredge, Patterson, Stanley, Raup). So your arguments are with them, not me. If it can be shown that I have taken any out of context, I will admit it.

November 17, 2006

Firstly, nice to meet you and to everyone else here, see he'll be perfectly nice if you don't shout at him.

[slam] What are the "maybe three?" Isn't carbon dating only good under 30 thousand years?

[slam] What physical part of the universe would tell scientists that it is millions/billions of years old verses a few thousand?

I've just got to say, these two remarks in the same post?!?!?

Here's a nice site that explains some of the basic methods of calculating the age of things, it shouldn't be too hard to understand. I've only skimmed this particular one, but anything you want explained I'll have a go at.

Also yes, you are right, radiocarbon dasting only works on things which we're alive and over 50,000 years. Radiometric dating is what allows us to measure the age of the earth.

[slam] What if most fossils were deposited by a major flood? How would science determine whether a fossil was put down by a local flooding, or catastrophy, or a global one?

I guess this is an ark thing., Well the rocks that the fossils are found in are not the same age. They range in age and match with the time periods in which the creatures are thought to have lived.

Plus the chances that all the species lived together and then happened to be fossilised at the right moments to look like they we're evolving is pretty infinitesimal.

Just to check, you do know they arn't bones any more right? They've been there so long that minerals have leached in and they are now rocks themselves. This would take a fair while.

[slam] I don't know how much of this thread you have followed, but my two basic points from the get-go have been the origins of the universe and the fossil record. I have said that science cannot possibly know that an intelligent creator did not bring the universe into an expanding existance. Concerning the fossils, I am only citing scientists who know far more about them than I do. There may be many who believe the fossils support gradual evolution between species over millions of years. That's fine. But there are other evolutionists who don't go along with that. And their names are well known (Gould, Eldredge, Patterson, Stanley, Raup). So your arguments are with them, not me. If it can be shown that I have taken any out of context, I will admit it.

I know that there are a few famous guys on your side and probably a similar number of famous guys on the other side. The thing is there are thousands upon thousands of guys on the evol side who arn't famous. Creationists etc. get famous more easily because they oppose the almost unanimouis position of the rest of us, not neccesarily because their work has any value of because they are more intelligent. The debate appears two sided because they get one guy from either side to talk each time, but it really isn't. I can't name any creation scientists because the science I learn was put together by thousands of people by thousands of years, the name of the guy who worked this bit out doesn't really matter as much as wether its right and works.

Also sorry for all the stuff about my project. It reads back as pathetic bragging and I didn't mean it to come off that way. Yes it is rewarding overall but it was a frustrating and very long day yesterday and I was a bit tired. I just meant that I wasn't gonna research it for you right then, but you are always welcome and encouraged to ask for help from people. Its the best way to learn properly.

November 20, 2006

erm, slam........hello?

November 20, 2006

Slam, here's one of the transitional fossils mentioned you missed. I remember watching a special on Basilosaurus and them showing the fully defined hind-limbs that were still there but too small for use. See illustration from the site I listed:

[slam] How do you KNOW these "fully defined hind limbs" are throwbacks to the hind limbs of a four-legged land animal. Do they look like animal legs? But let's keep going back. What was the creature before Basilosaurus that manifested anything that looked like the hind legs of a land animal.

Again, I generally assume scientists are not idiots,

[slam] Idiots, no way. Capable of misreading fossils? I think so.

and between them and peers in their fields who review each others work, I'll generally accept that they know how to do science and aren't making an endless series of stupid assumptions like little school children. Don't you?

[slam] Sometimes yes, sometimes no:-) But I would like to see more fossil evidence of creatures bearing morphology that resembling the four legs of a land animal. Could it be that Basilosaurus was just an extinct major kind, or variation within another one?

BTW, did you know that many evolutionists agree that the fossil record is extremely sparse in showing one major kind evolving into a different major kind? Some even say that the fossils don't even record a single transitional between major kinds. Most of these evolutionists say that gradualism is out and punctuated equilibria is in.

Slam is not giving his own opinions. He is parroting mythinformation that I have seen elsewhere, all over the net, from Xians. I first saw this crap over at forum.ulc.net last year...the very same arguments in very nearly the same words. He is doing what all Xians do, quoting either the Biglie or some drivel from a Xian website. He has simply chosen to "believe" things and claim them as his own thoughts. Freaky, dishonest, plagiaristic and boring.

November 20, 2006

I guess this is an ark thing., Well the rocks that the fossils are found in are not the same age. They range in age and match with the time periods in which the creatures are thought to have lived.

Sorry so slow in responding:-)

RM dating has snookered us because dates are based key assumptions:

1) The rate of decay has been constant throughout time.

2). The isotope abundances in the rock dated have not been altered during its history by addition or deletion of either parent or daughter isotopes.

3) The amount of daughter material contained in the host rock.

Plus the chances that all the species lived together and then happened to be fossilised at the right moments to look like they we're evolving is pretty infinitesimal.

[slam] The more salient point is that many evolutionists don't believe the fossils show that gradual progression of change from simple species to the complex. I've heard there are some places around the world where fossils line up according to the geologic column. I've also read where there are significant gaps. If you know a site, pls post just the order of line up. Thanks

Just to check, you do know they arn't bones any more right? They've been there so long that minerals have leached in and they are now rocks themselves. This would take a fair while.

Right. About 4500 years:-) But there is no doubt that what has been mineralized represents a creature that is identifiable. Did you know that traces of carbon have been found in dinosaur "rocks?"

I can't name any creation scientists because the science I learn was put together by thousands of people by thousands of years, the name of the guy who worked this bit out doesn't really matter as much as wether its right and works.

Many, if not most, of our early scientists were creationists. They have made significant contributions to many scientific disciplines. (Pasteur, Farraday, Maxwell, Newton, Ohm, etc.)

Also sorry for all the stuff about my project. It reads back as pathetic bragging and I didn't mean it to come off that way. Yes it is rewarding overall but it was a frustrating and very long day yesterday and I was a bit tired. I just meant that I wasn't gonna research it for you right then, but you are always welcome and encouraged to ask for help from people. Its the best way to learn properly.

Thanks. BTW, I didn't think you were bragging, but reflected the thrill of being involved is something very interesting. Good luck:-)

November 21, 2006

Sorry so slow in responding:-)

RM dating has snookered us because dates are based key assumptions:

1) The rate of decay has been constant throughout time.

2). The isotope abundances in the rock dated have not been altered during its history by addition or deletion of either parent or daughter isotopes.

3) The amount of daughter material contained in the host rock.

[neverclear]

1) The rate of decay is based on the probability of an isotope in a specific state decay at any given time. From this we calculate the time in which 1/2 the sample will decay. There is nothing to indicate that the decay rate would have changed throughout time. Also if it had changed then at "the time of adam" the radiation levels and temperature on earth would have rendered it molten!

2) Again, it would be impossible to alter these concentrations undetectably unless god showed up and said "I did it! duh, I am infinitely powerful".

3) do you mean at the time of formation or now?? now it can be measured directly.

The point of this dating stuff is that many different methods come up with the same age.

Plus the chances that all the species lived together and then happened to be fossilised at the right moments to look like they we're evolving is pretty infinitesimal.

[slam] The more salient point is that many evolutionists don't believe the fossils show that gradual progression of change from simple species to the complex. I've heard there are some places around the world where fossils line up according to the geologic column. I've also read where there are significant gaps. If you know a site, pls post just the order of line up. Thanks

Thats a different point, but evolution is not just simple to complex. It is a change to better suit your environment. And please, stop using many. I tiny proportion of us who started from the christian viewpoint, beleive as you do. maybe as much as 1% of the scientific world. Thats it. Seriously. Stop saying many!

[neverclear-quote]

Just to check, you do know they arn't bones any more right? They've been there so long that minerals have leached in and they are now rocks themselves. This would take a fair while.

[slam]Right. About 4500 years:-) But there is no doubt that what has been mineralized represents a creature that is identifiable. Did you know that traces of carbon have been found in dinosaur "rocks?"

doubt from who?? 2 nuts in an alamama church doesn't count as division in the scientific community. Sorry to keep repeating myself but the vastly overwhelming proportion of scientists think thatthey are good representations. They are excellent skeletal representations. you can find every skeletal feature found in complex animals throughout time.

[neverclear-quote] I can't name any creation scientists because the science I learn was put together by thousands of people by thousands of years, the name of the guy who worked this bit out doesn't really matter as much as wether its right and works.

[slam]Many, if not most, of our early scientists were creationists. They have made significant contributions to many scientific disciplines. (Pasteur, Farraday, Maxwell, Newton, Ohm, etc.)

I know that. Every scientist believes the wrong thing until the correct thing is proven to him/her. Thats how science works. You find evidense, you discover what it means, you adjust your world view. You, on the other hand, have found your world view, found evidense, and adjusted what it means.

Also, many (correctly used here) scientists were not creationists, they were simply too scared to come forth. Darwin himself didn't make his true theories known for years because he was scared of ridicule and persecusion from the community at large.

again, yay for polite discourse!

November 21, 2006

I know that. Every scientist believes the wrong thing until the correct thing is proven to him/her. Thats how science works. You find evidense, you discover what it means, you adjust your world view. You, on the other hand, have found your world view, found evidense, and adjusted what it means.

Also, many (correctly used here) scientists were not creationists, they were simply too scared to come forth. Darwin himself didn't make his true theories known for years because he was scared of ridicule and persecusion from the community at large.

This states the difference very well: Adjusting your view to fit the evidence vs. adjusting the evidence to fit your view.

I should add that in addition to the social pressures against early scientists, even those who may have had sincere beliefs in God cannot rightly be called "Creationists". Is there anything in the science of Newton that bears any resemblance to Creationism? Isn't this sort of like every cult claiming Albert Einstein as a member, the "appeal to authority" fallacy? Were Newton alive today, what are the chances he would dismiss out of hand the research of 99% of scientific community? I'm going to go out on a limb and say "slim to none".

November 21, 2006

Slam I was wondering if I might jump in on this conversation with you. I am still interested in your take on the following...

Do you accept the following statements as facts?

1) Organisms reproduce with heritable variation.

2) Many more organisms are born than will survive to reproduce.

Do these statements strike you as reasonable or truthful?

I asked you this in another post, but perhaps you didn't see it. I PMed you, but perhaps you didn't get it. Part of me suspects that you are avoiding me, but perhaps you're not.

November 21, 2006

1) The rate of decay is based on the probability of an isotope in a specific state decay at any given time. From this we calculate the time in which 1/2 the sample will decay. There is nothing to indicate that the decay rate would have changed throughout time.

Also if it had changed then at "the time of adam" the radiation levels and temperature on earth would have rendered it molten!

[slam] I'm far from debatable knowledge on RM dating, but how do scientists know that such levels would have created such conditions just a few thousand years ago?

2) Again, it would be impossible to alter these concentrations undetectably unless god showed up and said "I did it! duh, I am infinitely powerful".

[slam] As I understand it, creation scientists suggest that decay rates could have been affected by the catastrophic forces dealt by the flood, among other things. I know that ICR scientists have published volumes of literature about this. Of course, it is all rejected by conventional science. My position is that the earth is about 6000 years old as the Bible says and their 8 year research on helium diffusion stronlgy supports that position. http://creationwiki.org/Accelerated_decay

3) do you mean at the time of formation or now?? now it can be measured directly.

[slam] Yes, at the time of formation. ICR has published a techinical book on their research and would be something you might be interested in if RM dating is something with which you are very familiar.

The point of this dating stuff is that many different methods come up with the same age.

[slam] And others have come up with widely discordant dates.

[slam] The more salient point is that many evolutionists don't believe the fossils show that gradual progression of change from simple species to the complex. I've heard there are some places around the world where fossils line up according to the geologic column. I've also read where there are significant gaps. If you know a site, pls post just the order of line up. Thanks

Thats a different point, but evolution is not just simple to complex. It is a change to better suit your environment.

[slam] How do environments effect morphological change? FE, how would the lack of food or water in a given area make a creature change?

And please, stop using many. I tiny proportion of us who started from the christian viewpoint, beleive as you do. maybe as much as 1% of the scientific world. Thats it. Seriously. Stop saying many!

[slam] Ok, but those I have cited in these forums are considered as knowledgeable as any in their field. I would be most interested in a debate with the "many" evolutonists who disagree with the few I have cited on the fossil record.

[neverclear-quote]

Just to check, you do know they arn't bones any more right? They've been there so long that minerals have leached in and they are now rocks themselves. This would take a fair while.

[slam]Right. About 4500 years:-) But there is no doubt that what has been mineralized represents a creature that is identifiable. Did you know that traces of carbon have been found in dinosaur "rocks?"

doubt from who?? 2 nuts in an alamama church doesn't count as division in the scientific community. Sorry to keep repeating myself but the vastly overwhelming proportion of scientists think thatthey are good representations. They are excellent skeletal representations. you can find every skeletal feature found in complex animals throughout time.

[slam] I don't understand your context here.

[neverclear-quote] I can't name any creation scientists because the science I learn was put together by thousands of people by thousands of years, the name of the guy who worked this bit out doesn't really matter as much as wether its right and works.

[slam] Many, if not most, of our early scientists were creationists. They have made significant contributions to many scientific disciplines. (Pasteur, Farraday, Maxwell, Newton, Ohm, etc.)

I know that. Every scientist believes the wrong thing until the correct thing is proven to him/her. Thats how science works. You find evidense, you discover what it means, you adjust your world view. You, on the other hand, have found your world view, found evidense, and adjusted what it means.

[slam] I just cite these because often we hear how backward creation scientists are:-) Seriously, I would recommend the RATE book as the latest and most comprehensive work done yet on helium retention. Also, the RATE scientists discovered traces of C-14 in deep earth diamonds. How is that possible?

Also, many (correctly used here) scientists were not creationists, they were simply too scared to come forth. Darwin himself didn't make his true theories known for years because he was scared of ridicule and persecusion from the community at large.

[slam] In addition to Darwin, who are you thinking of that was too scared to come forth? Huxley was the man who "greased Darwin's wheel."

again, yay for polite discourse!

[slam] Yay, too:-)

I should add that in addition to the social pressures against early scientists, even those who may have had sincere beliefs in God cannot rightly be called "Creationists". Is there anything in the science of Newton that bears any resemblance to Creationism?

[slam] Only that he believed in a Creator. Such belief did not affect his science. Hence, he was a creation scientist.

Isn't this sort of like every cult claiming Albert Einstein as a member, the "appeal to authority" fallacy? Were Newton alive today, what are the chances he would dismiss out of hand the research of 99% of scientific community? I'm going to go out on a limb and say "slim to none".

[slam] I think the salient point is that what a scientist may believe about origins, should not affect their science. FE, the RATE scientists at ICR did not let their beliefs in God affect their research. As you probably know, they presented very strong evidence for a young earth based on their measurements of helium in zircons.

November 21, 2006

Slam I was wondering if I might jump in on this conversation with you. I am still interested in your take on the following...

Do you accept the following statements as facts?

1) Organisms reproduce with heritable variation.

2) Many more organisms are born than will survive to reproduce.

Do these statements strike you as reasonable or truthful?

I asked you this in another post, but perhaps you didn't see it. I PMed you, but perhaps you didn't get it. Part of me suspects that you are avoiding me, but perhaps you're not.

[slam] I am not avoiding you. I did miss this. I would say that what you say here is reasonable.

November 21, 2006

Slam I was wondering if I might jump in on this conversation with you. I am still interested in your take on the following...

Do you accept the following statements as facts?

1) Organisms reproduce with heritable variation.

2) Many more organisms are born than will survive to reproduce.

Do these statements strike you as reasonable or truthful?

I asked you this in another post, but perhaps you didn't see it. I PMed you, but perhaps you didn't get it. Part of me suspects that you are avoiding me, but perhaps you're not.

[slam] I am not avoiding you. I did miss this. I would say that what you say here is reasonable.

Cool. Thanks Slam.

If you accept that organisms reproduce with heritable variation and that many more organisms are born than will survive to reproduce then how can you not conclude that evolution will necessarily follow?

Dolphin May Have 'remains' Of Legs

Recommended Posts

Slamdunk

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Posted Images

Antlerman

Link to comment

Share on other sites

scitsofreaky

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Slamdunk

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Antlerman

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Slamdunk

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Antlerman

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Slamdunk

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Antlerman

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Slamdunk

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Antlerman

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Slamdunk

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Slamdunk

Link to comment

Share on other sites

neverclear5

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Slamdunk

Link to comment

Share on other sites

neverclear5

Link to comment

Share on other sites

neverclear5

Link to comment

Share on other sites

roman

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Slamdunk

Link to comment

Share on other sites

neverclear5

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Antlerman

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Legion

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Slamdunk

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Slamdunk

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Legion