R
ricmat
Guest
- So they had one particular “item” under constant surveillance, and saw it produce an offspring of a different species?
- It seems like if you really knew how evolution works, you’d be able to reproduce it in a lab.
- Status
O
Orogeny
Guest
talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html
- Who says that it hasn’t happened?
- Why can’t nature be the lab? Is there a difference between a speciation event observed in a lab and one observed in nature?
Tim
R
ricmat
Guest
- Science is all about controlled experiments. Else you get something like “de Vries (1905) found an unusual variant among his plants.” Whoopee. He found something that wasn’t there before…or was it? Did he have an airtight enclosure, nothing blowing in? Sterilized soil to be sure there weren’t any other seeds involved? etc. etc.
Second, most biologists accept the idea that speciation takes a long time (relative to human life spans). Because of this we would not expect to see many speciation events actually occur.
That’s exactly my point. So how long does it take? If you KNOW each mutation leading down a path from simple life to advanced life (any lineage will do), calculate how long the whole process takes. Make reasonable assumptions about gestation periods, populations needed to get a reasonable chance of the next “correct” mutation, etc. Then add up all the times. If it comes to substantially more than 5 billion years…well, your theory isn’t a very good one.
What I think the answer is, is that you don’t know exactly (for ANY lineage) what mutations are needed to occur to go from S(imple) to C(omplex) life (any lineage). Nor do you know how much time it really takes. That’s a poor theory that alleges to be certain of it’s outcome.
E
edwest2
Guest
I agree completely. Texbook evolution is highly improbable. All of these little genetic mistakes, some of them beneficial, some of them supposedly capable of being passed on, and then some of them being “naturally” selected.
Let’s not forget accident, disease and a lack of breeding partners, and that beneficial mutation has a lot less of a chance. Of course, we do not find isolated pockets of 5 legged, six tailed creatures that happened to do quite well in their little ecological niche.
The story of evolution seems to more closely resemble science fiction, where imagination and human bias, ideological bias, create suitable sounding explanations.
God bless,
Ed
Let’s not forget accident, disease and a lack of breeding partners, and that beneficial mutation has a lot less of a chance. Of course, we do not find isolated pockets of 5 legged, six tailed creatures that happened to do quite well in their little ecological niche.
The story of evolution seems to more closely resemble science fiction, where imagination and human bias, ideological bias, create suitable sounding explanations.
God bless,
Ed
R
rossum
Guest
No ed, this had parents who were slightly different, great … great grandparents who were more different and even earlier ancestors who were very different.
Why so? Both humans and lemurs have five fully-developed fingers and five fully-developed toes. Both humans and lemurs have prehensile toes and hands which can grasp with dexterity. Both humans and lemurs have only two lactal nipples and they are on the chest as opposed to the abdomen. Both humans and lemur males have a pendulous penis. Both humans and lemurs have a well-devoloped ceacum or appendix, unlike all other mammals. Both humans and lemurs have fangs that are reduced in size along with some varied dentition indicative of primates exclusively. Both humans and lemurs have is thin and relatively sparse fur over most of their body, and in both cases the claws have been reduced to flat chitinous fingernails. Both humans and lemurs have fingers with distinctive print patterns. Both humans and lemurs are mortally allergic to the toxin of the male funnel web spider of Australia, (which is deadly to all primates, but only dangerous to primates, which is why you’d be better beware of these spiders.). Both humans and lemurs cannot produce vitamin-C naturally and must have it supplemented in their diet, because both humans and lemurs (along with all the other primates) have exactly the same fault in exactly the same gene which breaks the vitamin-C synthesis pathway.
Nearly every one of these individual traits are unique only to primates exclusively. There is almost no other organism on Earth that matches any one of these descriptions separately, but absolutely all of the lemurs, tarsiers, monkeys, apes, you,
and I match all of them at once perfectly, implying common descent.
(Adapted from You Are an Ape)
We did not descend from any of the primates alive today. We descended from other primates which are now extinct. Apart from that your argument is still wrong: “Americans cannot have descended from Europeans; I say this in light of the fact that the types of Europeans: French, Dutch, English and so on, still exist today.”
False. We can observe the evolution of antibiotic resistance in bacteria, see the Luria-Delbrück experiment. For speciation, others have already pointed to Observed Instances of Speciation and Some More Observed Speciation Events.
rossum
W
Wolseley
Guest
Okay, I used the wrong term. It still doesn’t change anything.
Let’s talk about Darwinist biology. According to that, all life, whether it’s a whale or a horse or a man or a cow, all started out as a gob of snot in mud puddle that “evolved” from there, is that not correct?
T
The_Barbarian
Guest
Originally Posted by rossum
You need to do a bit more research. Beetles are not a species, beetles are an Order
There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved. (this from my 1872 Edition)
You need to do a bit more research. Beetles are not a species, beetles are an Order
Primates are an order. The amount of evolution you are brushing off when it comes to beetles, puts humans and lemurs in the same evolutionary group.
Good idea.
No, it’s wrong. Like most creationists, you don’t really know what Darwin wrote, or the evidence for it. Darwin had no idea how life formed; he merely attributed the first living things to God’s creation. (the last sentence of “The Origin of Species”)
There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved. (this from my 1872 Edition)
E
edwest2
Guest
W
Wolseley
Guest
Amazing, isn’t it? And I have read that explanation over and over again on Darwinist websites, and yet when it’s brought up here, all you ever hear is, “You know nothing about biology”, or “You need to read more, go the library, you’re ignorant of science”, or “You have no idea what Darwin actually wrote”.
They think I fell off a pickle boat the day before yesterday, but I didn’t. I can spot Doublespeak just as well as the next fellow.
R
reggieM
Guest
A popular college psychology textbook (Introduction to Psychology, 4th edition, James Kalat, Thompson-Wadsworth) informs students that all of their decisions are predetermined by their genes and their environment. According to the author, defenders of free will may claim “that people sometimes make decisions not controlled by their genetics, their past experiences, or their environment. But what is left besides genetics and environment?”
“There is obviously some evolutionary basis to rape just like there is some evolutionary basis to all aspects of living things,” claims anthropologist Craig Palmer, coauthor of A Natural History of Rape. “Rape might be an adaptation. There might have been selection favoring males who raped under some circumstances in the past. And therefore there might be some aspects of male brains designed specifically to rape under some conditions.” (Thornhill and Palmer, A Natural History of Rape)
Scientists at Rice University and the Baylor College of Medicine have tried to identify the origins of altruism by studying “a slime-mold crowd of single-celled amoebas.” Funded by $5 million from the National Science Foundation, “The Evolution of Biological Social Systems” project used “genetic technology … to identify the genes and molecular pathways that underlie . . . social behavior among amoebas.”
nsf.gov/od/lpa/news/03/pr03106_slimemold.htm
Slimemold …
“There is obviously some evolutionary basis to rape just like there is some evolutionary basis to all aspects of living things,” claims anthropologist Craig Palmer, coauthor of A Natural History of Rape. “Rape might be an adaptation. There might have been selection favoring males who raped under some circumstances in the past. And therefore there might be some aspects of male brains designed specifically to rape under some conditions.” (Thornhill and Palmer, A Natural History of Rape)
Scientists at Rice University and the Baylor College of Medicine have tried to identify the origins of altruism by studying “a slime-mold crowd of single-celled amoebas.” Funded by $5 million from the National Science Foundation, “The Evolution of Biological Social Systems” project used “genetic technology … to identify the genes and molecular pathways that underlie . . . social behavior among amoebas.”
nsf.gov/od/lpa/news/03/pr03106_slimemold.htm
Slimemold …
W
Wolseley
Guest
The pinnacle of human achievement. No matter how far we’ve come, we’re still just the gob of snot in the mud puddle, acting on our “primal urges”.
That should fit in quite well with current American society, where every behavior is determined by some form of pelvic activity…
No matter how far we’ve come, we’re still just the gob of snot in the mud puddle, acting on our “primal urges”.That should fit in quite well with current American society, where every behavior is determined by some form of pelvic activity…
R
reggieM
Guest
Some great titles on that reading list …
The root of the universal tree and the origin of eukaryotes based on elongation factor phylogeny.
Root of the universal tree of life based on ancient aminoacyl-tRNA synthetase gene duplications
The root of the universal tree of life inferred from anciently duplicated genes encoding components of the protein-targeting machinery.
Where is the root or the universal tree of life?
Uprooting the tree of life. Scientific American 282:90-95
Genome data shake the tree of life. Science 280:672-674
Is it time to uproot the tree of life? Science 284:1305-1307
The rooting of the universal tree of life is not reliable. Journal of Molecular Evolution . :
… and don’t forget these great titles …
Astrobiology: Exploring the origins, evolution, and distribution of life in the universe.
Jump-starting a cellular world: Investigating the origin of life, from soup to networks.
… make mine a clam chowder.
The root of the universal tree and the origin of eukaryotes based on elongation factor phylogeny.
Root of the universal tree of life based on ancient aminoacyl-tRNA synthetase gene duplications
The root of the universal tree of life inferred from anciently duplicated genes encoding components of the protein-targeting machinery.
Where is the root or the universal tree of life?
Uprooting the tree of life. Scientific American 282:90-95
Genome data shake the tree of life. Science 280:672-674
Is it time to uproot the tree of life? Science 284:1305-1307
The rooting of the universal tree of life is not reliable. Journal of Molecular Evolution .
:… and don’t forget these great titles …
Astrobiology: Exploring the origins, evolution, and distribution of life in the universe.
Jump-starting a cellular world: Investigating the origin of life, from soup to networks.
… make mine a clam chowder.
R
reggieM
Guest
Such a great guy … as long as you weren’t one of the “unfit”. 
W
Wolseley
Guest
No wonder the Nazis liked him so much. He gave them the perfect excuse for eliminating the “Untermenschen”.
Got weak, maimed, insane, sick, or poor people polluting your gene pool? The solution is simple: gas them! And since there is no God other than random chance, that’s perfectly acceptable. Morals and ethics, after all, are merely a human intellectual construct and therefore “unscientific”.
R
reggieM
Guest
Agreed, Wolseley.
He says that taking care of sick people “leads to the degeneration of a domestic race”.
He then concludes that since “hardly any one is so ignorant as to allow his worst animals to breed” … he leaves the choice to the reader. People who are “unfit” are ruining the greatness of natural selection – so we really need to get rid of them so evolution can really take good care of all the “fit” people.
Evolution knows what is best for us – we just need to cooperate and stop taking care of sick people.
He says that taking care of sick people “leads to the degeneration of a domestic race”.
He then concludes that since “hardly any one is so ignorant as to allow his worst animals to breed” … he leaves the choice to the reader. People who are “unfit” are ruining the greatness of natural selection – so we really need to get rid of them so evolution can really take good care of all the “fit” people.
Evolution knows what is best for us – we just need to cooperate and stop taking care of sick people.
R
reggieM
Guest
I’ve heard that this book is the best refutation of Darwinism yet. It’s another one on my very long list of anti-evolutionary books (there are too many good ones to keep up with lately).
Not by Chance, Lee M. Spetner
amazon.com/gp/product/1880582244/ref=cm_cr_pr_product_top
Not by Chance, Lee M. Spetner
amazon.com/gp/product/1880582244/ref=cm_cr_pr_product_top
T
The_Barbarian
Guest
The truth is often disputed. We are just clarifying what the truth is, by the marketplace of ideas.
Because there is a well-financed and vigorous effort to sell ID as a science. But we can check that claim rather simply, by seeing what IDers said it is when they thought no one was listening:
From the Wedge Document, originally an internal “eyes only” memo produced by the Discovery Institute:
**Governing Goals
To defeat scientific materialism and its destructive moral, cultural and political legacies.
To replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and hurnan beings are created by God.**
ID could be a lot of things, but that statement makes it very clear that it is not science.
R
reggieM
Guest
Scientists at Rice University and the Baylor College of Medicine have tried to identify the origins of altruism by studying “a slime-mold crowd of single-celled amoebas.” Funded by $5 million from the National Science Foundation …
E
edwest2
Guest
I was wondering when the ‘secret’ Wedge Document would show up. As someone who works in media, this is as phoney (and obvious) as a $3 bill. ID is science but it is in the process of being discredited. I don’t and won’t support any group that would use deception to promote an agenda, no matter what it is. The ends do not justify the means.
I am reading with amusement, statements like “… spent $25 million on advertising and has little in the way of results…” Results. Just spend the money to convince the people. That bit of paraphrasing could apply to gay rights, abortion or a presidential candidate. I’m not here for the money.
In the ‘marketplace’ of ideas, it is often those with the money who get the access to the ‘marketplace.’ I am tired of turning on the News and getting the latest on Brad, Jen, some ditzy blonde and what’s her name.
ID is sound science but I also have to contend with astroturf on the internet as well (paid to be average people people).
God bless,
Ed
W
Wolseley
Guest
And whoever markets the best, has the truth?
I had no idea that ultimate reality boils down to a contest between salesmen…
- Status