Since Evolution Is The Answer - Tell Me When Can I Expect To Grow My Wings And Fly

[RD2191]

End of story, no one has ever observed evolution.

[RD2191]

All available evidence supports the central conclusions of evolutionary theory, that life on Earth has evolved and that species share common ancestors. Biologists are not arguing about these conclusions. But they are trying to figure out how evolution happens, and that's not an easy job. It involves collecting data, proposing hypotheses, creating models, and evaluating other scientists' work. These are all activities that we can, and should, hold up to our checklist and ask the question: are they doing science?
All sciences ask questions about the natural world, propose explanations in terms of natural processes, and evaluate these explanations using evidence from the natural world. Evolutionary biology is no exception. Darwin's basic conception of evolutionary change and diversification (illustrated with a page from his notebook at left) explains many observations in terms of natural processes and is supported by evidence from the natural world.
Some of the questions that evolutionary biologists are trying to answer include:


Does evolution tend to proceed slowly and steadily or in quick jumps?
Why are some clades very diverse and some unusually sparse?
How does evolution produce new and complex features?
Are there trends in evolution, and if so, what processes generate them?

[Woo Bum-kon]

Yes they have. You sound like a broken record.

You haven't observed your God, yet you still believe in him.

[RD2191]

We don't know how it happened, but we know that it did happen.:lmao

[RD2191]

And you haven't observed evolution yet you believe in it, so what's the difference?

[Woo Bum-kon]

Evolution has been observed. I already posted a link showing that it has. If you are trying to make a point about me personally not observing evolution, I'll ask you this: Have you ever been to Antarctica?

Why do you believe in a god who hasn't been observed?

[RD2191]

Charges of fraudIn 1983, a half-dozen leading British (http://www.conservapedia.com/British) scientists led by noted British Radio-astronomer Sir Fred Hoyle (http://www.conservapedia.com/Fred_Hoyle) carefully studied the plates and counter-plates from the two best Archaeopteryx specimens, and found evidence of forgery.[3] (http://www.conservapedia.com/Archaeopteryx#cite_note-2) They discovered that the front and back slabs of each specimen do not match.[4] (http://www.conservapedia.com/Archaeopteryx#cite_note-four-3) They found that an alteration had been made to the left wing as depicted in an 1863 drawing.[4] (http://www.conservapedia.com/Archaeopteryx#cite_note-four-3) They concluded that the feather markings had been imprinted by hand.[4] (http://www.conservapedia.com/Archaeopteryx#cite_note-four-3) They also found that etching process had used cement blobs.[4] (http://www.conservapedia.com/Archaeopteryx#cite_note-four-3) When the scientists requested the ability to use an electronic microscope and carbon-14 dating, the museum refused and withdrew the specimens from the scientists.[4] (http://www.conservapedia.com/Archaeopteryx#cite_note-four-3) The same British (http://www.conservapedia.com/British) Museum had been responsible for the Piltdown Man (http://www.conservapedia.com/Piltdown_Man) fraud.

[RD2191]

:lmao

[RD2191]

Piltdown Man was a notorious hoax perpetrated early in 20th century Great Britain (http://www.conservapedia.com/Great_Britain), in which a medieval human skull was combined with the lower jaw of an orangutan (http://www.conservapedia.com/Orangutan) and subsequently "found" in a gravel pit in the near the village of Piltdown, England. Hailed as the "missing link (http://www.conservapedia.com/Missing_link)" between man and ape-like species by promoters of evolution (http://www.conservapedia.com/Evolution) for decades, Piltdown man was exposed as a fraud only through later scientific testing and simple observation. The refusal of the discoverer to allow independent scrutiny of his claims enabled this fraud to persist for over forty years.
Critics of evolution believe that the Piltdown man was not an isolated incident of bad judgment by evolutionists and that the examples of the Nebraska Man, Java Man, Ocre Man, Neanderthals (http://www.conservapedia.com/Neanderthal), and Flores Man can be cited. [1] (http://www.conservapedia.com/Piltdown_Man#cite_note-0) Rather than admit the defects in their methods that facilitate hoaxes, many evolutionists simply rewrote their alleged tree of ancestors without the Piltdown man in it (a clear case of evolutionist denial (http://www.conservapedia.com/Evolutionist_denial) and not of science working as intended, since the fraud was easily detectable immediately if scientific methods had been used by evolutionists).

[RD2191]

:lmao:lmao

[Clipper Nation]

You're just asking the same stupid questions a million times, with slight variations. You already know that that is not what evolution claims.

It's been clear for a long time that you don't know anything about evolution and simply have no desire to learn. You feel that it threatens your belief in an invisible sky daddy, so you misinterpret it (sometimes deliberately and sometimes through sheer ignorance) in a vain attempt to make your opponent look stupid. You are lame and you take pride in your complete ignorance.

The most ironic thing is that you claim to not want to explain your religious views, because you fear that atheists will pick them apart no matter what you post. It's ironic because not only do you automatically reject every claim that atheists make, you put words in their mouths and attack claims that they don't even make more than you attack claims that they actually do make.
There's really no use debating with him, he's made zero effort to learn the basics of evolution and has only Googled it in order to come up with strawman arguments and spam irrelevant bullshit.... he's just a proudly ignorant Jeebotard who melts down to a pathetic degree whenever his narrow and primitive worldview is challenged, so it's not worth it....

[RD2191]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Htheuxtv9o

[RD2191]

:lmao:lmao

[RD2191]

“
Our theory of evolution has become, as Popper described, one which cannot be refuted by any possible observations. Every conceivable observation can be fitted into it. It is thus outside of empirical science but not necessarily false. No one can think of ways in which to test it. Ideas, either without basis or based on a few laboratory experiments carried out in extremely simplified systems, have become part of an evolutionary dogma accepted by most of us as part of our training. The cure seems to us not to be a discarding of the modern synthesis of evolutionary theory, but more skepticism about many of its tenets.[135] (http://www.conservapedia.com/Evolution#cite_note-134)
”

[Woo Bum-kon]

There's really no use debating with him, he's made zero effort to learn the basics of evolution and has only Googled it in order to come up with strawman arguments and spam irrelevant bullshit.... he's just a proudly ignorant Jeebotard who melts down to a pathetic degree whenever his narrow and primitive worldview is challenged, so it's not worth it....

Yeah, I'm done. He asks a stupid question, claims that nobody answered it even though several people have, then keeps asking until he can't pretend like his question wasn't answered. Then it's on to the next stupid question.

He never acknowledges that he is wrong. He just fires off shitty argument after shitty argument to try to see what sticks, and doesn't even attempt to explain why he believes what he does.

[RD2191]

10 fishes moving from water to land.
Supposedly there is no point to evolution and shit just happens.
What are the odds that all 10 fish evolved into the same species say for instance a rat?

[RD2191]

What are the odds that, of the millions of species of animals, birds, fish and insects, a male of each species developed at the same time and in the same place as a female of the same species, so that the species could propagate? Why are there two sexes anyhow? This is not foreordained in the evolutionary framework. Is there some sort of plan here? If the first generation of mating species didn’t have parents, how did the mating pair get to that point? Isn’t evolution supposed to progress when an offspring of a mating pair has a beneficial mutation?

[RD2191]

Knowing that detail about the transition from fish to land-dweller, she said, “might help us to unravel why it happened at all. Why did creatures come out of the water and get legs and walk away?”
It’s impossible to tell if Tiktaalik was a direct ancestor of land vertebrates, she said, but if a scientist set out to design a plausible candidate, “you’d probably come up with something like this.”

[RD2191]

:lmao:lmao

[ChumpDumper]

rob is really a strong candidate for top meltdown of all time.

Wasn't sure anything was going to beat SBM's screenplay, but the stunningly pronounced ignorance, the sheer volume of reassuring emoticons and non sequitur Google pastes makes a strong case for rob.

[xmas1997]

rob is really a strong candidate for top meltdown of all time.

Wasn't sure anything was going to beat SBM's screenplay, but the stunningly pronounced ignorance, the sheer volume of reassuring emoticons and non sequitur Google pastes makes a strong case for rob.


Don't know about down here, but upstairs kobyz is my choice for melt down king. He doesn't need any help, he does it all by himself!

[DisAsTerBot]

holy shit i didnt know someone could be so dumb. lol robbeaner

[RandomGuy]

Oh and scientist can't lie? Has he done any actual studies himself? No, he hasn't. In other words he has faith in what they are saying is true.

So much wrong in one short post.

Lets break it out.

"A scientist can lie."

Sure, a scientist can lie, for a brief period of time, and some do. The problem is that collectively, you are talking about hundreds of thousands of people, using a peer-review process for published papers, designed to catch bad science or reasoning or even such flaws as outright lying/fraud.

This touches on concepts you need to understand when thinking about science and speaks to the rest of it.

Reproducibility.
--IF the work is valid, then any scientist can, and often do, come along and try to reproduce the results. Additionally, older papers are often used to form the basis of subsequent papers. They build on each other. Scientists get the accolades from overturning established science. Taking a long held theory, and finding new conclusive evidence that points to a different theory is how you win Nobel prizes. If someone lies, others are out there to find it.

In that way it is self-correcting, unlike the copy and paste bullshit on creatist websites that gets passed around without a whiff of critical thinking.

Reproducibility also speaks to whether I have to do it myself. I don't, but I can, if I chose to do so, and so could you.

"he has faith in what they are saying is true."

I do not have faith in scientists. Faith is the excuse people use when they don't thave a good reason to believe something.

In this case, I understand the process and methods of science. It is designed to be a self-correcting mechanism, produce results that are reproducible by anybody who knows what they are doing, and the value of any theory is its ability to make predictions about future data, which the theory of evolution does extremely well.

I have, thereofore, a good, logical reason to think that when the evidence and overall consensus about that evidence is that great over centuries, it is almost certainly correct.

Although my college education primarily dealt with language and accounting/finance, I am very, very scientifically literate. Further, my professional job as an intelligence analsyst, and now auditor both required me to look at underlying data, and evaluate sufficiency of evidence, apply critical thinking and examine confirmation bias.

I have spent the last two decades looking into the claims of creationists, especially concerning the theory of evolution. At best, those claims are flimsy and made out of ignorance of the actual science involved. At worst some of it is DELIBERATE falsehoods on the part of people who think they are defending their faith in God, and see a little lying as an acceptable method to defeat evil.

If you want to think I am incapable of reading and understanding the science, simply because I don't have a degree, fine. I will say that I do, and can demostrate that fairly easily.

Lastly, although I have not done the science, and don't have a degree is not entirely relevant. The people making the claims in the papers and articles do. They are actual experts. Unless you can show where specifically they are wrong or lying, you will have to accept that what they say carries weight.

[RandomGuy]

Biased site, let me ask you something, are you a scientist?


Fallacy: Ad Hominem



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Description of Ad Hominem
Translated from Latin to English, "Ad Hominem" means "against the man" or "against the person."

An Ad Hominem is a general category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author of or the person presenting the claim or argument. Typically, this fallacy involves two steps. First, an attack against the character of person making the claim, her circumstances, or her actions is made (or the character, circumstances, or actions of the person reporting the claim). Second, this attack is taken to be evidence against the claim or argument the person in question is making (or presenting). This type of "argument" has the following form:




Person A makes claim X.
Person B makes an attack on person A.
Therefore A's claim is false.

The reason why an Ad Hominem (of any kind) is a fallacy is that the character, circumstances, or actions of a person do not (in most cases) have a bearing on the truth or falsity of the claim being made (or the quality of the argument being made).


http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/ad-hominem.html

Person A = Talkorigins website
Claim X = that creationist claims have been debunked
Person B =robdiaz2191



Talkorigins website (Person A) claims that creationist claims have been debunked (X)
Robdiaz (Person B) says “[Talkorgins is a] biased website (attack on person A).”
Therefore TalkOrigin’s claims are false

QED.

What does it say about the strength of your reasoning, when it is relying on obviously flawed logic?


And where is the proof of evolution? A moth has always been a moth, a sparrow a sparrow, and a butterfly a butterfly. Have adaptations been observed? Yes, but not "evolution".

That isn't really an answer. You ignored this question too. I will ask it a second time.

What does it say about the strength of your reasoning, when it is relying on obviously flawed logic?

[RandomGuy]

I do not know and you don't either, you are simply doing what I am doing. You are gathering your so called knowledge and information from books or the internet. Have you done any studies on the second law of thermodynamics? I highly doubt that you have. So then how do you know that you are right and that I am wrong? You don't. I have links and sources that claim the theory of evolution does violate the second law, you have sources that claim otherwise, so who is right?


The second law of thermodynamics states that the entropy of an isolated system never decreases.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_law_of_thermodynamics


The claims of creationists go like this:

"Evolution is order from chaos (entropy), therefore it violates the second law of thermodynamics, because disordered things (organic molecules) became more ordered. (long chain RNA, etc)"


The law of increasing entropy -- also known as the second law of thermodynamics -- stipulates that all systems in the real world tend to go "downhill," as it were, toward disorganization and decreased complexity.
This law of entropy is, by any measure, one of the most universal, bestproved laws of nature. It applies not only in physical and chemical systems, but also in biological and geological systems -- in fact, in all systems, without exception.

No exception to the second law of thermodynamics has ever been found -- not even a tiny one. Like conservation of energy (the "first law"), the existence of a law so precise and so independent of details of models must have a logical foundation that is independent of the fact that matter is composed of interacting particles.18



"In the natural sciences an isolated system is a physical system without any external exchange – neither matter nor energy can enter or exit, but can only move around inside."


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_law_of_thermodynamics


The claims of creationists go like this:

"Evolution is order from chaos (entropy), therefore it violates the second law of thermodynamics, because disordered things (organic molecules) became more ordered. (long chain RNA, etc)"




http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isolated_system

Now ask yourself:

"Is the Earth an isolated system?"

"Is the inside of a plankton cell living in the ocean an isolated system?"

Why or why not?


See, this is not difficult at all, and you don't ahve to take anybody's word for it. You can read on the subject yourself, as I have done.


That's what they all do, they all retort to name calling. They claim superiority and dismiss you as uniformed.

I have given you the information you need to answer a very basic question, about a very basic claim you have posted.

These questions don't go away, are simple to answer with less than five minutes worth of reading.

According to the second law of thermodynamics:

Is the earth an isolated system?

Is the inside of a plankton cell living in the ocean an isolated system?

[RandomGuy]

FOR THE 50TH FUKIN TIME, WHAT WERE THE ORIGINALS AND WHAT LED TO THE ORIGINALS? WE FUKIN KNOW YOU THINK WE EVOLVED FROM A BIPEDAL PRIMATE, I WANNA KNOW WHAT CAME BEFORE THE BIPEDAL PRIMATE?

Most basic level:
http://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence/human-family-tree

A bit more detail, showing the full phlyogeny:


Homo sapiens taxonomy[edit]The cladistic line of descent (taxonomic rank) of Homo sapiens (modern humans) is as follows:

Taxonomic rank Name Common name Millions of
years ago
Domain Eukaryota Cells with a nucleus 2,100
Kingdom Animalia Animals 590
Phylum Chordata Vertebrates and closely related invertebrates 530
Subphylum Vertebrata Vertebrates 505
Superclass Tetrapoda Tetrapods 395
Unranked Amniota Amniotes, tetrapods that are fully terrestrially-adapted 340
Class Mammalia Mammals 220
Subclass Theriiformes Mammals that birth live young (i.e. non-egg-laying)
Infraclass Eutheria Placental mammals (i.e. non-marsupials) 125
Magnorder Boreoeutheria Supraprimates, bats, whales, most hoofed mammals, and most carnivorous mammals
Superorder Euarchontoglires Supraprimates (primates, rodents, rabbits, tree shrews, and colugos) 100
Grandorder Euarchonta Primates, colugos and tree shrews
Mirorder Primatomorpha Primates and colugos 79.6
Order Primates Primates 75
Suborder Haplorrhini "Dry-nosed" (literally, "simple-nosed") primates (apes, monkeys, and tarsiers) 40
Infraorder Simiiformes "Higher" primates (or Simians) (apes, old-world monkeys, and new-world monkeys)
Parvorder Catarrhini "Downward-nosed" primates (apes and old-world monkeys) 30
Superfamily Hominoidea Apes 28
Family Hominidae Great apes (Humans, chimpanzees, bonobos, gorillas, and orangutans) 15
Subfamily Homininae Humans, chimpanzees, bonobos, and gorillas 8
Tribe Hominini Genera Homo and Australopithecus 5.8
Subtribe Hominina Contains only the Genus Homo 2.5
Genus Homo Humans 2.5
Species (Archaic) Homo sapiens Modern humans 0.5
Subspecies Homo sapiens sapiens Fully anatomically modern humans 0.2

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_human_evolution

The information is out there, if you bother to find it.

Why have you not looked for it before this? Aren't there better places to find this information than a basketball forum?

[Clipper Nation]

Problem is, he doesn't want to know, he wants to stay in his Jeebotard bubble and not have to deal with differing opinions.... his response will likely be more strawmen and irrelevant questions and/or a bunch of reassuring emoticons, tbh....

[RandomGuy]

Problem is, he doesn't want to know, he wants to stay in his Jeebotard bubble and not have to deal with differing opinions.... his response will likely be more strawmen and irrelevant questions and/or a bunch of reassuring emoticons, tbh....

I understand that will happen, with little doubt.

What I am mindful of, though, is that often places like this are the first places that many are actually exposed to things that contradict their pre-existing beliefs, or with concepts like logical fallacies, principles of intellectual honesty, and empiricism.

People that post in this way often have never been given the tools to actually evaluate what they are being told. Critical thinking is a hard skill to teach and learn.

I view it as my job to give them the tools and conceptual framework to finally get around to asking the questions they should have been asking, and the information that their own confirmation bias has not allowed them to understand or learn yet.

For that reason I generally try, not always successfully, to be polite and patient.

I have had at least one person PM me saying "thanks, you changed my mind after I took the time to read for myself."

Even if no one had done so, I would still be making the case, simply because it seems like the right thing to do.

Call me Sisyphus.

If you didn't know or actively were lied to, you would want someone to make the effort to tell you the truth, wouldn't you?

[RD2191]

Sounds like preaching to me. Evolution is full of shit, IDK how someone as intelligent as you can't see that.

[RD2191]

You could write a book on the whole theory, everything fits into it. Why do scientist get so upset when people question evolution? Why do they automatically assume that people who don't believe in it are idiots?

[Koolaid_Man]

Another Christian raises his hand. "Professor, may I address the class?"

The professor turns and smiles. "Ah, another Christian in the vanguard! Come, come, young man. Speak some proper wisdom to the gathering."

The Christian looks around the room. "Some interesting points you are making, sir. Now I've got a question for you. Is there such thing as heat?"

"Yes," the professor replies. "There's heat."

"Is there such a thing as cold?"

"Yes, son, there's cold too."

"No, sir, there isn't."

The professor's grin freezes. The room suddenly goes very cold.

The second Christian continues. "You can have lots of heat, even more heat, super-heat, mega-heat, white heat, a little heat or no heat but we don't have anything called 'cold'. We can hit 458 degrees below zero, which is no heat, but we can't go any further after that. There is no such thing as cold, otherwise we would be able to go colder than 458 - You see, sir, cold is only a word we use to describe the absence of heat. Because heat is energy. Cold is not the opposite of heat, sir, just..," [Silence fills the room] "...the absence of it." [More silence. A pin drops somewhere in the classroom.] "Is there such a thing as darkness, professor?"

"That's a dumb question, son. What is night if it isn't darkness? What are you getting at...?"

"So you say there is such a thing as darkness?"

"Yes..."

"You're wrong again, sir. Darkness is not something, it is the absence of something. You can have low light, normal light, bright light, flashing light but if you have no light constantly you have nothing and it's called darkness, isn't it? That's the meaning we use to define the word. In reality, Darkness isn't. If it were, you would be able to make darkness darker and give me a jar of it. Can you...give me a jar of darker darkness, professor?"

Despite himself, the professor smiles at the young effrontery before him. This will indeed be a good semester. "Would you mind telling us what your point is, young man?"

"Yes, professor. My point is, your philosophical premise is flawed to start with and so your conclusion must be in error...."

The professor goes toxic. "Flawed...? How dare you...!"

"Sir, may I explain what I mean?" The class is all ears.

"Explain...oh explain..." The professor makes an admirable effort to regain control. Suddenly he is affability itself. He waves his hand to silence the class, for the student to continue.

"You are working on the premise of duality," the Christian explains. "That for example there is life and then there's death; a good God and a bad God. You are viewing the concept of God as something finite, something we can measure. Sir, science cannot even explain a thought. It uses electricity and magnetism but has never seen, much less fully understood them. To view death as the opposite of life is to be ignorant of the fact that death cannot exist as a substantive thing. Death is not the opposite of life, merely the absence of it."

The young man holds up a newspaper he takes from the desk of a neighbor who has been reading it. "Here is one of the most disgusting tabloids this country hosts, professor. Is there such a thing as immorality?"

"Of course there is, now look..."

"Wrong again, sir. You see, immorality is merely the absence of morality. Is there such thing as injustice? No. Injustice is the absence of justice. Is there such a thing as evil?" The Christian pauses. "Isn't evil the absence of good?" [The teacher is temporarily speechless.] The Christian continues. "If there is evil in the world, professor, and we all agree there is, then God, if he exists, must be accomplishing a work through the agency of evil. What is that work, God is accomplishing? The Bible tells us it is to see if each one of us will, of our own free will, choose good over evil."

The professor bridles. "As a philosophical scientist, I don't view this matter as having anything to do with any choice; as a realist, I absolutely do not recognize the concept of God or any other theological factor as being part of the world equation because God is not observable."

"I would have thought that the absence of God's moral code in this world is probably one of the most observable phenomena going," the Christian replies. "Newspapers make billions of dollars reporting it every week! Tell me, professor. Do you teach your students that they evolved from a monkey?"

"If you are referring to the natural evolutionary process, young man, yes, of course I do."

"Have you ever observed evolution with your own eyes, sir?" [The professor makes a sucking sound with his teeth and gives his student a silent, stony stare.] "Professor. Since no-one has ever observed the process of evolution at work and cannot even prove that this process is an ongoing endeavor, are you not teaching your opinion, sir? Are you now not a scientist, but a priest?"

"I'll overlook your impudence in the light of our philosophical discussion. Now, have you quite finished?" the professor hisses.

"So you don't accept God's moral code to do what is righteous?"

"I believe in what is-that's science!"

"Ahh! SCIENCE!" the student's face splits into a grin. "Sir, you rightly state that science is the study of observed phenomena. Science too is a premise which is flawed..."

"SCIENCE IS FLAWED?" the professor splutters. The class is in uproar.

The Christian remains standing until the commotion has subsided. "To continue the point you were making earlier to the other student, may I give you an example of what I mean?" [The professor wisely keeps silent.] The Christian looks around the room. "Is there anyone in the class who has ever seen the professor's brain?" The class breaks out in laughter.The Christian points towards his elderly, crumbling tutor. "Is there anyone here who has ever heard the professor's brain...felt the professor's brain, touched or smelt the professor's brain?" No one appears to have done so. The Christian shakes his head sadly. "It appears no-one here has had any sensory perception of the professor's brain whatsoever. Well, according to the rules of empirical, stable, demonstrable protocol, science, I DECLARE that the professor has no brain."


The class is in chaos. The Christian sits... Because that is what a chair is for.

[RD2191]

:cry

[RD2191]

:tu

[xmas1997]

Looks to me that all the evidence points to the validity of evolution.
But then most critical thinkers already knew this beforehand.
Whereas creationist theory is relatively new and lacks the basic necessities of scientific method IMHO.
Having said this, this neither debunks nor proves the existence of God, nor of any of the truths which may be contained in the bible despite the claims that it is the Word of said God.
What it does do however is show what I've been saying all along and that is that the bible cannot be interpreted literally, especially the OT.
Plus IMHO, it is chock full of inconsistencies, thus why I examine it as I do any book of teachings, with a high level of skepticism, and choose to accept only what my studies have shown me to be consistently referenced by other books of the same nature.
Even then, and since replication is impossible for the most part, a critical mind needs to rely on a certain amount of intuition, thus meditation is necessary as well.
And ones experiences in life have a bearing too.
Evolution theory is pretty much a given, since it conforms to scientific methodology and to attempt to dispute it is folly.
So how does this correlate this with biblical accounts?
The answer is that it literally does not, thus if the bible, or parts of the bible are to be believed then the events are more in line with a figurative nature i.e. a day could easily be millions of years to mans' point of reference, whereas to God, Who supposedly exists under no constraints of time, it would be instantaneously.
Thus I tend to not trust an objective interpretation because that is a matter of faith, and faith, like love, and thought, are intangibles subject to each persons biases and agendas.
Rather, one has to look at it outside the box and come to their own subjective interpretation which may or may not be the same as the next persons interpretation, thus it is dubious at best.

[RandomGuy]

Biased site, let me ask you something, are you a scientist?


Fallacy: Ad Hominem



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Description of Ad Hominem
Translated from Latin to English, "Ad Hominem" means "against the man" or "against the person."

An Ad Hominem is a general category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author of or the person presenting the claim or argument. Typically, this fallacy involves two steps. First, an attack against the character of person making the claim, her circumstances, or her actions is made (or the character, circumstances, or actions of the person reporting the claim). Second, this attack is taken to be evidence against the claim or argument the person in question is making (or presenting). This type of "argument" has the following form:




Person A makes claim X.
Person B makes an attack on person A.
Therefore A's claim is false.

The reason why an Ad Hominem (of any kind) is a fallacy is that the character, circumstances, or actions of a person do not (in most cases) have a bearing on the truth or falsity of the claim being made (or the quality of the argument being made).


http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/ad-hominem.html

Person A = Talkorigins website
Claim X = that creationist claims have been debunked
Person B =robdiaz2191



Talkorigins website (Person A) claims that creationist claims have been debunked (X)
Robdiaz (Person B) says “[Talkorgins is a] biased website (attack on person A).”
Therefore TalkOrigin’s claims are false

QED.

What does it say about the strength of your reasoning, when it is relying on obviously flawed logic?


And where is the proof of evolution? A moth has always been a moth, a sparrow a sparrow, and a butterfly a butterfly. Have adaptations been observed? Yes, but not "evolution".



That isn't really an answer. You ignored this question too. I will ask it a second time.

What does it say about the strength of your reasoning, when it is relying on obviously flawed logic?


:cry

Again, that isn't really an answer.

I will assume you will not ever answer it.

The answer to that question is:

If your position relies on logically flawed arguments to sustain itself you are admitting you are not considering the topic in a rational, honest way.

[RD2191]

Logically flawed? How is it logical to believe that everything on this earth is an accident? Fish made its way to land and became a mammal? Well I'll be damned, it just so happens that plants that are edible appeared for early mammals to survive. We sure are lucky to have cows. And water? Let me guess it came from an asteroid? Scientist DO NOT know how water got to earth yet they know how life evolved? Give me a break.

[RandomGuy]

I do not know and you don't either, you are simply doing what I am doing. You are gathering your so called knowledge and information from books or the internet. Have you done any studies on the second law of thermodynamics? I highly doubt that you have. So then how do you know that you are right and that I am wrong? You don't. I have links and sources that claim the theory of evolution does violate the second law, you have sources that claim otherwise, so who is right?


The second law of thermodynamics states that the entropy of an isolated system never decreases.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_law_of_thermodynamics



The claims of creationists go like this:

"Evolution is order from chaos (entropy), therefore it violates the second law of thermodynamics, because disordered things (organic molecules) became more ordered. (long chain RNA, etc)"


The law of increasing entropy -- also known as the second law of thermodynamics -- stipulates that all systems in the real world tend to go "downhill," as it were, toward disorganization and decreased complexity.
This law of entropy is, by any measure, one of the most universal, bestproved laws of nature. It applies not only in physical and chemical systems, but also in biological and geological systems -- in fact, in all systems, without exception.

No exception to the second law of thermodynamics has ever been found -- not even a tiny one. Like conservation of energy (the "first law"), the existence of a law so precise and so independent of details of models must have a logical foundation that is independent of the fact that matter is composed of interacting particles.18



"In the natural sciences an isolated system is a physical system without any external exchange – neither matter nor energy can enter or exit, but can only move around inside."


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_law_of_thermodynamics

"Evolution is order from chaos (entropy), therefore it violates the second law of thermodynamics, because disordered things (organic molecules) became more ordered. (long chain RNA, etc)"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isolated_system

Now ask yourself:

"Is the Earth an isolated system?"

"Is the inside of a plankton cell living in the ocean an isolated system?"

Why or why not?


See, this is not difficult at all, and you don't ahve to take anybody's word for it. You can read on the subject yourself, as I have done.


That's what they all do, they all retort to name calling. They claim superiority and dismiss you as uniformed.




I have given you the information you need to answer a very basic question, about a very basic claim you have posted.

These questions don't go away, are simple to answer with less than five minutes worth of reading.

According to the second law of thermodynamics:

Is the earth an isolated system?

Is the inside of a plankton cell living in the ocean an isolated system?


You could write a book on the whole theory, everything fits into it. Why do scientist get so upset when people question evolution? Why do they automatically assume that people who don't believe in it are idiots?

Not really an answer either.

The answers to your questions are:

Because truth matters to them, and they don't, generally, that I have seen.

I don't assume you are an idiot.

I am not preaching to you, merely asking you to think for yourself. Don't take my word for anything.

I have given you the links to evaluate this one, easy to understand, claim. I am not asking for more than a few minutes of your time to read. The longer you don't answer them, the more dishonest you appear. I assume you are generally an honest person. The easy way to be true to yourself is to simply answer the questions.

Here they are for the forth time:

Is the earth an isolated system?

Is the inside of a plankton cell living in the ocean an isolated system?

[RD2191]

Evolution claims that natural selection is the "organizer" that keeps the beneficial mutations and eliminates the harmful. But, how would natural selection recognize a beneficial mutation when a series of mutations are required to produce a beneficial change? For example, evolution teaches that bones from reptiles' jaws evolved into the bones in mammals' middle ears. These bones magnify sound so natural selection would select mammalian ears when they were fully functional, but what about the generations while these bones were evolving? How would reptiles chew when their jawbones were dislocating and migrating toward the ear? How would early mammals hear before the bones in their middle ears were properly connected? Natural selection most likely would have eliminated the transitional forms long before they had developed enough to have a hearing advantage. Likewise, a reptile whose front legs were evolving into wings would be crippled and easy prey until the wings were fully functional.

[RandomGuy]

And water? Let me guess it came from an asteroid? Scientist DO NOT know how water got to earth

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/13/asteroid-earth-water_n_1670655.html


Asteroid Crashes Likely Source Of Water On Earth, Scientists Say

Asteroids from the inner solar system are the most likely source of the majority of Earth's water, a new study suggests.

The results contradict prevailing theories, which hold that most of our planet's water originated in the outer solar system and was delivered by comets or asteroids that coalesced beyond Jupiter's orbit, then migrated inward.

"Our results provide important new constraints for the origin of volatiles in the inner solar system, including the Earth," lead author Conel Alexander, of the Carnegie Institution of Washington, said in a statement. "And they have important implications for the current models of the formation and orbital evolution of the planets and smaller objects in our solar system."

Alexander and his colleagues analyzed samples from 86 carbonaceous chondrites. These primitive meteorites are thought to be key sources of the early Earth's volatile elements, such as hydrogen and nitrogen.

Water is fairly common in the universe.




Black Hole Hosts Universe's Most Massive Water Cloud

in a galaxy 12 billion light-years away resides the most distant and most massive cloud of water yet seen in the universe, astronomers say.

Weighing in at 40 billion times the mass of Earth, the giant cloud of mist swaddles a type of actively feeding supermassive black hole known as a quasar.

Among the brightest and most energetic objects in the universe, quasars are black holes at the centers of galaxies that are gravitationally consuming surrounding disks of material while burping back out powerful energy jets.

"As this disk of material is consumed by the central black hole, it releases energy in the form of x-ray and infrared radiation, which in turn can heat the surrounding material, resulting in the observed water vapor," said study co-author Eric Murphy, an astronomer with the Carnegie Observatories in Pasadena, California.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2011/07/110726-most-massive-water-cloud-quasar-black-hole-space-science/

It is not altogether difficult to fathom that water might be in the primordial solar accretion disc.

Hell, all sorts of organic compounds are floating around in space.



There are Giant Clouds of Alcohol Floating in Space

Read the full text here: http://mentalfloss.com/article/51271/there-are-giant-clouds-alcohol-floating-space#ixzz2i0O1J5nQ
--brought to you by mentl_floss! a

[RD2191]

Water is so vital to our survival, but strangely enough, we don’t know the first thing about it—literally the first. Where does water, a giver and taker of life on planet Earth, come from? When I was in junior high school, my science teacher taught us about the water cycle—evaporation from oceans and lakes, condensation forming clouds , rain refilling oceans and lakes—and it all made sense. Except for one thing: None of the details explained where the water came from to begin with. I asked, but my teacher looked as if I’d sought the sound of one hand clapping.

Read more: http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/How-Did-Water-Come-to-Earth-208340301.html#ixzz2i0PiT1mw
Follow us: @SmithsonianMag on Twitter (http://ec.tynt.com/b/rw?id=cd5NqsI_0r3Qffab7jrHtB&u=SmithsonianMag)

[RandomGuy]

I do not know and you don't either, you are simply doing what I am doing. You are gathering your so called knowledge and information from books or the internet. Have you done any studies on the second law of thermodynamics? I highly doubt that you have. So then how do you know that you are right and that I am wrong? You don't. I have links and sources that claim the theory of evolution does violate the second law, you have sources that claim otherwise, so who is right?


The second law of thermodynamics states that the entropy of an isolated system never decreases.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_law_of_thermodynamics



The claims of creationists go like this:

"Evolution is order from chaos (entropy), therefore it violates the second law of thermodynamics, because disordered things (organic molecules) became more ordered. (long chain RNA, etc)"


The law of increasing entropy -- also known as the second law of thermodynamics -- stipulates that all systems in the real world tend to go "downhill," as it were, toward disorganization and decreased complexity.
This law of entropy is, by any measure, one of the most universal, bestproved laws of nature. It applies not only in physical and chemical systems, but also in biological and geological systems -- in fact, in all systems, without exception.

No exception to the second law of thermodynamics has ever been found -- not even a tiny one. Like conservation of energy (the "first law"), the existence of a law so precise and so independent of details of models must have a logical foundation that is independent of the fact that matter is composed of interacting particles.18



"In the natural sciences an isolated system is a physical system without any external exchange – neither matter nor energy can enter or exit, but can only move around inside."


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_law_of_thermodynamics

"Evolution is order from chaos (entropy), therefore it violates the second law of thermodynamics, because disordered things (organic molecules) became more ordered. (long chain RNA, etc)"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isolated_system

Now ask yourself:

"Is the Earth an isolated system?"

"Is the inside of a plankton cell living in the ocean an isolated system?"

Why or why not?


See, this is not difficult at all, and you don't ahve to take anybody's word for it. You can read on the subject yourself, as I have done.


That's what they all do, they all retort to name calling. They claim superiority and dismiss you as uniformed.




I have given you the information you need to answer a very basic question, about a very basic claim you have posted.

These questions don't go away, are simple to answer with less than five minutes worth of reading.

According to the second law of thermodynamics:

Is the earth an isolated system?

Is the inside of a plankton cell living in the ocean an isolated system?


You could write a book on the whole theory, everything fits into it. Why do scientist get so upset when people question evolution? Why do they automatically assume that people who don't believe in it are idiots?


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_law_of_thermodynamics

Not really an answer either.

The answers to your questions are:

Because truth matters to them, and they don't, generally, that I have seen.

I don't assume you are an idiot.

I am not preaching to you, merely asking you to think for yourself. Don't take my word for anything.

I have given you the links to evaluate this one, easy to understand, claim. I am not asking for more than a few minutes of your time to read. The longer you don't answer them, the more dishonest you appear. I assume you are generally an honest person. The easy way to be true to yourself is to simply answer the questions.

Here they are for the forth time:

Is the earth an isolated system?

Is the inside of a plankton cell living in the ocean an isolated system?


[copy and paste quote redacted, not relevant to questions posed--RG]

Again not an answer.

Not going away.

For the fifth time:

Is the earth an isolated system?

Is the inside of a plankton cell living in the ocean an isolated system?

[RD2191]

“
Our theory of evolution has become, as Popper described, one which cannot be refuted by any possible observations. Every conceivable observation can be fitted into it. It is thus outside of empirical science but not necessarily false. No one can think of ways in which to test it. Ideas, either without basis or based on a few laboratory experiments carried out in extremely simplified systems, have become part of an evolutionary dogma accepted by most of us as part of our training. The cure seems to us not to be a discarding of the modern synthesis of evolutionary theory, but more skepticism about many of its tenets.[135] (http://www.conservapedia.com/Evolution#cite_note-134)
”

[RD2191]

No and No, and I will ask what led to plankton? Lemme guess, it came from an asteroid?

[RandomGuy]

science is wrong about evolution, science is wrong about where water on earth came from


Fallacy: Red Herring

Also Known as: Smoke Screen, Wild Goose Chase.

Description of Red Herring

A Red Herring is a fallacy in which an irrelevant topic is presented in order to divert attention from the original issue. The basic idea is to "win" an argument by leading attention away from the argument and to another topic. This sort of "reasoning" has the following form:

Topic A is under discussion.
Topic B is introduced under the guise of being relevant to topic A (when topic B is actually not relevant to topic A).
Topic A is abandoned.
This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious because merely changing the topic of discussion hardly counts as an argument against a claim.

Evolution is under discussion.
Where water comes from is introduced as relevant.
Evolution is abandoned.

The specific origin of water on earth is irrelevant to the topic of evolution.

If it makes you happy:

We are still debating about how exactly water got on the earth. There are several theories about the exact mechanics, but we have an overall general idea about how it happened.

That is two logical fallacies that I have bothered to point out. You are committing many more that I have not yet pointed out.

[RD2191]

will we ever be able to test these theories? No, because just like the theory of evolution it is unable to be tested.

[RD2191]

I'm coming into this with an open mind. But I have yet to see how anyone can believe this croc of shit.

[ChumpDumper]

I'm coming into this with an open mind.http://i31.photobucket.com/albums/c383/tomsterTJM2000/1220744440081.jpg

[Clipper Nation]

I'm coming into this with an open mind.
:lmao Total horseshit

[RD2191]

I really am. Science fascinates me. What I hate is that you are immediately discredited by the scientific community if you don't believe in evolution. Are there any scientist testing the theory or at least looking for alternative theories? No, simply because they are afraid of ridicule.

[ChumpDumper]

Gee, what other theories have the evidence to support it the way the theory of evolution does?

[cantthinkofanything]

I really am. Science fascinates me. What I hate is that you are immediately discredited by the scientific community if you don't believe in evolution. Are there any scientist testing the theory or at least looking for alternative theories? No, simply because they are afraid of ridicule.

Have you seen Patrick Ewing?

[RandomGuy]

Claim CF001:

The second law of thermodynamics says that everything tends toward disorder, making evolutionary development impossible.

Source:
Morris, Henry M., 1974. Scientific Creationism, Green Forest, AR: Master Books, pp. 38-46.


Response:

The second law of thermodynamics says no such thing. It says that heat will not spontaneously flow from a colder body to a warmer one or, equivalently, that total entropy (a measure of useful energy) in a closed system will not decrease. This does not prevent increasing order because

the earth is not a closed system; sunlight (with low entropy) shines on it and heat (with higher entropy) radiates off. This flow of energy, and the change in entropy that accompanies it, can and will power local decreases in entropy on earth.
entropy is not the same as disorder. Sometimes the two correspond, but sometimes order increases as entropy increases. (Aranda-Espinoza et al. 1999; Kestenbaum 1998) Entropy can even be used to produce order, such as in the sorting of molecules by size (Han and Craighead 2000).
even in a closed system, pockets of lower entropy can form if they are offset by increased entropy elsewhere in the system.
In short, order from disorder happens on earth all the time.

Quote Originally Posted by RandomGuy

I have given you the information you need to answer a very basic question, about a very basic claim you have posted.

These questions don't go away, are simple to answer with less than five minutes worth of reading.

According to the second law of thermodynamics:

Is the earth an isolated system?

Is the inside of a plankton cell living in the ocean an isolated system?


No and No, and I will ask what led to plankton? Lemme guess, it came from an asteroid?

You have now accepted TalkOrigins very specific rebuttal of Mr. Morris' claim. Biased or no, they were right, and you saw that for yourself.

I chose that to start with, because it is one of the easiest and most accessible claims about evolution. If you care to take my word for it, after many hours of debating this, the vast majority of them fall apart with just a little bit of objective scrutiny.

We can, and I will be happy to, march through every single one of Mr. Morris' assertions and statements, if you like.

Plankton are eukaryotes that came from prokaryotes. Two or more different species of prokaryotes merging shortly before the process of evolution kicked off.

If you are looking for a discussion of abiogenesis that is useful in understanding evolution, but not necessary to understanding it.

Evolution is not abiogenesis. Two different theories, although somewhat related.

[RandomGuy]

I really am. Science fascinates me. What I hate is that you are immediately discredited by the scientific community if you don't believe in evolution. Are there any scientist testing the theory or at least looking for alternative theories? No, simply because they are afraid of ridicule.

The reason for this is that there is no real alternative *scientific* theory at this point that is supported by any evidence.

The judges in court cases concerning this have, after looking at the evidence in court have ruled, after looking at far more evidence than we have considered here that creationism, or intelligent design, are not scientific theories.

Give me a competing scientific theory concerning the process of life on this planet.

[RD2191]

“
Our theory of evolution has become, as Popper described, one which cannot be refuted by any possible observations. Every conceivable observation can be fitted into it. It is thus outside of empirical science but not necessarily false. No one can think of ways in which to test it. Ideas, either without basis or based on a few laboratory experiments carried out in extremely simplified systems, have become part of an evolutionary dogma accepted by most of us as part of our training. The cure seems to us not to be a discarding of the modern synthesis of evolutionary theory, but more skepticism about many of its tenets.[135] (http://www.conservapedia.com/Evolution#cite_note-134)
”

[RD2191]

Post a link to a scientist looking for an alternative theory.

[ChumpDumper]

So your wiki author is upset that all the available evidence actually fits the theory of evolution?

lol

[ChumpDumper]

Post a link to a scientist looking for an alternative theory.You don't know of any after all your research?

lol

[RandomGuy]

Decision[edit]
Wikisource has original text related to this article:
Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District et al.
On December 20, 2005, Jones found for the plaintiffs and issued a 139 page decision, in which he wrote:
For the reasons that follow, we conclude that the religious nature of ID [intelligent design] would be readily apparent to an objective observer, adult or child. (page 24)

A significant aspect of the IDM [intelligent design movement] is that despite Defendants' protestations to the contrary, it describes ID as a religious argument. In that vein, the writings of leading ID proponents reveal that the designer postulated by their argument is the God of Christianity. (page 26)

The evidence at trial demonstrates that ID is nothing less than the progeny of creationism. (page 31)

The overwhelming evidence at trial established that ID is a religious view, a mere re-labeling of creationism, and not a scientific theory. (page 43)

Throughout the trial and in various submissions to the Court, Defendants vigorously argue that the reading of the statement is not 'teaching' ID but instead is merely 'making students aware of it.' In fact, one consistency among the Dover School Board members' testimony, which was marked by selective memories and outright lies under oath, as will be discussed in more detail below, is that they did not think they needed to be knowledgeable about ID because it was not being taught to the students. We disagree. .... an educator reading the disclaimer is engaged in teaching, even if it is colossally bad teaching. .... Defendants' argument is a red herring because the Establishment Clause forbids not just 'teaching' religion, but any governmental action that endorses or has the primary purpose or effect of advancing religion. (footnote 7 on page 46)

After a searching review of the record and applicable caselaw, we find that while ID arguments may be true, a proposition on which the Court takes no position, ID is not science. We find that ID fails on three different levels, any one of which is sufficient to preclude a determination that ID is science. They are: (1) ID violates the centuries-old ground rules of science by invoking and permitting supernatural causation; (2) the argument of irreducible complexity, central to ID, employs the same flawed and illogical contrived dualism that doomed creation science in the 1980s; and (3) ID's negative attacks on evolution have been refuted by the scientific community. …It is additionally important to note that ID has failed to gain acceptance in the scientific community, it has not generated peer-reviewed publications, nor has it been the subject of testing and research. Expert testimony reveals that since the scientific revolution of the 16th and 17th centuries, science has been limited to the search for natural causes to explain natural phenomena. (page 64) [for "contrived dualism", see false dilemma.]

[T]he one textbook [Pandas] to which the Dover ID Policy directs students contains outdated concepts and flawed science, as recognized by even the defense experts in this case. (pages 86–87)
ID's backers have sought to avoid the scientific scrutiny which we have now determined that it cannot withstand by advocating that the controversy, but not ID itself, should be taught in science class. This tactic is at best disingenuous, and at worst a canard. The goal of the IDM is not to encourage critical thought, but to foment a revolution which would supplant evolutionary theory with ID. (page 89)

Accordingly, we find that the secular purposes claimed by the Board amount to a pretext for the Board's real purpose, which was to promote religion in the public school classroom, in violation of the Establishment Clause. (page 132)

Again, give me a scientific theory, I would be happy to address it.

[RD2191]

I'm not a scientist. And not science?:lol Like I said before, who here has observed evolution?

[ChumpDumper]

I'm not a scientist. And not science?:lol Like I said before, who here has observed evolution?So can you just not find a different theory?

Is that why you are asking other people to look for you?

[RD2191]

How would I in any any shape or form be qualified to come up with my own theory?

[ChumpDumper]

How would I in any any shape or form be qualified to come up with my own theory?No one asked you to make up your own theory.

Enough straw man stalling.

[cantthinkofanything]

http://images.cryhavok.org/d/13191-1/Alien+Evolution.jpg

[RandomGuy]

Post a link to a scientist looking for an alternative theory.

I don't claim there are any. Should I be trying to prove things I don't claim now?



The following list gives a few of the predictions that have been made from the Theory of Evolution:



Darwin predicted that precursors to the trilobite would be found in pre-Silurian rocks. He was correct: they were subsequently found.


Similarly, Darwin predicted that Precambrian fossils would be found. He wrote in 1859 that the total absence of fossils in Precambrian rock was "inexplicable" and that the lack might "be truly urged as a valid argument" against his theory. When such fossils were found, starting in 1953, it turned out that they had been abundant all along. They were just so small that it took a microscope to see them.


There are two kinds of whales: those with teeth, and those that strain microscopic food out of seawater with baleen. It was predicted that a transitional whale must have once existed, which had both teeth and baleen. Such a fossil has since been found.


Evolution predicts that we will find fossil series.


Evolution predicts that the fossil record will show different populations of creatures at different times. For example, it predicts we will never find fossils of trilobites with fossils of dinosaurs, since their geological time-lines don't overlap. The "Cretaceous seaway" deposits in Colorado and Wyoming contain almost 90 different kinds of ammonites, but no one has ever found two different kinds of ammonite together in the same rockbed.


Evolution predicts that animals on distant islands will appear closely related to animals on the closest mainland, and that the older and more distant the island, the more distant the relationship.


Evolution predicts that features of living things will fit a hierarchical arrangement of relatedness. For example, arthropods all have chitinous exoskeleton, hemocoel, and jointed legs. Insects have all these plus head-thorax-abdomen body plan and 6 legs. Flies have all that plus two wings and halteres. Calypterate flies have all that plus a certain style of antennae, wing veins, and sutures on the face and back. You will never find the distinguishing features of calypterate flies on a non-fly, much less on a non-insect or non-arthropod.


Evolution predicts that simple, valuable features will evolve independently, and that when they do, they will most likely have differences not relevant to function. For example, the eyes of molluscs, arthropods, and vertebrates are extremely different, and ears can appear on any of at least ten different locations on different insects.


In 1837, a Creationist reported that during a pig's fetal development, part of the incipient jawbone detaches and becomes the little bones of the middle ear. After Evolution was invented, it was predicted that there would be a transitional fossil, of a reptile with a spare jaw joint right near its ear. A whole series of such fossils has since been found - the cynodont therapsids.


It was predicted that humans must have an intermaxillary bone, since other mammals do. The adult human skull consists of bones that have fused together, so you can't tell one way or the other in an adult. An examination of human embryonic development showed that an intermaxillary bone is one of the things that fuses to become your upper jaw.


From my junk DNA example I predict that three specific DNA patterns will be found at 9 specific places in the genome of white-tailed deer, but none of the three patterns will be found anywhere in the spider monkey genome.


In 1861, the first Archaeopteryx fossil was found. It was clearly a primitive bird with reptilian features. But, the fossil's head was very badly preserved. In 1872 Ichthyornis and Hesperornis were found. Both were clearly seabirds, but to everyone's astonishment, both had teeth. It was predicted that if we found a better-preserved Archaeopteryx, it too would have teeth. In 1877, a second Archaeopteryx was found, and the prediction turned out to be correct.


Almost all animals make Vitamin C inside their bodies. It was predicted that humans are descended from creatures that could do this, and that we had lost this ability. (There was a loss-of-function mutation, which didn't matter because our high-fruit diet was rich in Vitamin C.) When human DNA was studied, scientists found a gene which is just like the Vitamin C gene in dogs and cats. However, our copy has been turned off.


In "The Origin Of Species" (1859), Darwin said:
"If it could be proved that any part of the structure of any one species had been formed for the exclusive good of another species, it would annihilate my theory, for such could not have been produced through natural selection."
Chapter VI, Difficulties Of The Theory
This challenge has not been met. In the ensuing 140 years, no such thing has been found. Plants give away nectar and fruit, but they get something in return. Taking care of other members of one's own species (kin selection) doesn't count, so ants and bees (and mammalian milk) don't count.


Darwin pointed out that the Madagascar Star orchid has a spur 30 centimeters (about a foot) long, with a puddle of nectar at the bottom. Now, evolution says that nectar isn't free. Creatures that drink it pay for it, by carrying pollen away to another orchid. For that to happen, the creature must rub against the top of the spur. So, Darwin concluded that the spur had evolved its length as an arms race. Some creature had a way to reach deeply without shoving itself hard against the pollen-producing parts. Orchids with longer spurs would be more likely to spread their pollen, so Darwin's gradualistic scenario applied. The spur would evolve to be longer and longer. From the huge size, the creature must have evolved in return, reaching deeper and deeper. So, he predicted in 1862 that Madagascar has a species of hawkmoth with a tongue just slightly shorter than 30 cm.
The creature that pollinated that orchid was not learned until 1902, forty years later. It was indeed a moth, and it had a 25 cm tongue. And in 1988 it was proven that moth-pollinated short-spurred orchids did set less seed than long ones.



A thousand years ago, just about every remote island on the planet had a species of flightless bird. Evolution explains this by saying that flying creatures are particularly able to establish themselves on remote islands. Some birds, living in a safe place where there is no need to make sudden escapes, will take the opportunity to give up on flying. Hence, Evolution predicts that each flightless bird species arose on the island that it was found on. So, Evolution predicts that no two islands would have the same species of flightless bird. Now that all the world's islands have been visited, we know that this was a correct prediction.


The "same" protein in two related species is usually slightly different. A protein is made from a sequence of amino acids, and the two species have slightly different sequences. We can measure the sequences of many species, and cladistics has a mathematical procedure which tells us if these many sequences imply one common ancestral sequence. Evolution predicts that these species are all descended from a common ancestral species, and that the ancestral species used the ancestral sequence.
This has been done for pancreatic ribonuclease in ruminants. (Cows, sheep, goats, deer and giraffes are ruminants.) Measurements were made on various ruminants. An ancestral sequence was computed, and protein molecules with that sequence were manufactured. When sequences are chosen at random, we usually wind up with a useless goo. However, the manufactured molecules were biologically active substances. Furthermore, they did exactly what a pancreatic ribonuclease is supposed to do - namely, digest ribonucleic acids.



An animal's bones contain oxygen atoms from the water it drank while growing. And, fresh water and salt water can be told apart by their slightly different mixture of oxygen isotopes. (This is because fresh water comes from water that evaporated out of the ocean. Lighter atoms evaporate more easily than heavy ones do, so fresh water has fewer of the heavy atoms.)
Therefore, it should be possible to analyze an aquatic creature's bones, and tell whether it grew up in fresh water or in the ocean. This has been done, and it worked. We can distinguish the bones of river dolphins from the bones of killer whales.

Now for the prediction. We have fossils of various early whales. Since whales are mammals, evolution predicts that they evolved from land animals. And, the very earliest of those whales would have lived in fresh water, while they were evolving their aquatic skills. Therefore, the oxygen isotope ratios in their fossils should be like the isotope ratios in modern river dolphins.

It's been measured, and the prediction was correct. The two oldest species in the fossil record - Pakicetus and Ambulocetus - lived in fresh water. Rodhocetus, Basilosaurus and the others all lived in salt water.

The point is not that these prove evolution right. The point is that these were predictions that could have turned out to be wrong predictions. So, the people who made the predictions were doing science. The Theory of Evolution was also useful, in the sense that it suggested what evidence to look for, and where.


One of the most interesting, more recent predictions that panned out from evolutionary theory:

Baterial Flagellum.

Creationists argued that this cellular structure could not be found to be a sum of its parts. It was created out of whole cloth at once.


Evolutionary science predicted that would not, and could not be the case. That structure must have evolved out of various other structures.

Care to guess what they found when they sequenced the genomes?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m2alpk8PUd4

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m2alpk8PUd4

[RD2191]

: knowledge about or study of the natural world based on facts learned through experiments and observation

[RD2191]

Your theory isn't science either so it can go screw itself

[ChumpDumper]

: knowledge about or study of the natural world based on facts learned through experiments and observationYeah, there are myriad experiments and observations concerning evolutionary change.

You've never come across any in your extensive research?

[RD2191]

lemme guess, the fruit fly is evidence?

[RandomGuy]

So your wiki author is upset that all the available evidence actually fits the theory of evolution?

lol

He is concerned, and rightly so, that various aspects of evolution not become unquestionable tenets. Dogma is for religion and creationism.

We should always question things in science.

[ChumpDumper]

lemme guess, the fruit fly is evidence?Elaborate.

[RD2191]

Okay son, who on earth today has observed evolution?

[ChumpDumper]

He is concerned, and rightly so, that various aspects of evolution not become unquestionable tenets. Dogma is for religion and creationism.

We should always question things in science.Absolutely, but if evidence fits a theory, how is that a bad thing? (question to robdiaz)

[ChumpDumper]

Okay son, who on earth today has observed evolution?You're telling me in your extensive research on this subject, you haven't seen anything about observations?

[RD2191]

Can you prove that God did not create the earth?

[RD2191]

guppies in the lab:lmao

[RD2191]

the experiment took place in 1980?:lmao

[xmas1997]

He is concerned, and rightly so, that various aspects of evolution not become unquestionable tenets. Dogma is for religion and creationism.

We should always question things in science.

Absolutely, we should always question things in science.
But we should also always question things regarding religion too if we are so inclined.
One only limits oneself if one doesn't.
Faith of the mind of a child limits understanding IMHO.

[RD2191]

But while the skull itself is spectacular, it is the implications of the discovery that have caused scientists in the field to draw breath. Over decades excavating sites in Africa, researchers have named half a dozen different species of early human ancestor, but most, if not all, are now on shaky ground.

[RD2191]

http://www.theguardian.com/science/2013/oct/17/skull-homo-erectus-human-evolution

[RD2191]

Evolution is nothing more than historical speculation.

[ChumpDumper]

Can you prove that God did not create the earth?Hey, another logical fallacy. Proving a negative!


guppies in the lab:lmao


the experiment took place in 1980?:lmaoWhat is Google telling you now?

[ChumpDumper]

Evolution is nothing more than historical speculation.Which Google search told you that?

[RD2191]

Its a fact. You are simply putting pieces of a historical puzzle together and interpreting them as you wish. The problem is that this puzzle doesn't lead to a picture. This puzzle can be whatever you want it to be and the pieces can be put together in whichever way you want.

[cantthinkofanything]

Its a fact. You are simply putting pieces of a historical puzzle together and interpreting them as you wish. The problem is that this puzzle doesn't lead to a picture. This puzzle can be whatever you want it to be and the pieces can be put together in whichever way you want.

Like cheap Hookers!

[ChumpDumper]

Its a fact.Unfortunately for you, no.

[RD2191]

1)Evolution can happen slowly.
2)Evolution can happen quickly(punctuated equilibrium)
3)Evolution as evidenced by the coelacanth,Laotian rock rat, bacteria, pygmy whales doesn't have to happen at all.


Do you know see how stupid the evolutionary "theory" really is? The cover all bases approach isn't really any form of science.

[ChumpDumper]

1)Evolution can happen slowly.
2)Evolution can happen quickly(punctuated equilibrium)
3)Evolution as evidenced by the coelacanth,Laotian rock rat, bacteria, pygmy whales doesn't have to happen at all.


Do you know see how stupid the evolutionary "theory" really is? The cover all bases approach isn't really any form of science.Again, you're just upset the evidence fits the theory.

Found those observations and experiments yet?

[RD2191]

What evidence? A couple of fruit flies and guppies?

[Clipper Nation]

Can you prove that God did not create the earth?
Can you prove there is a god? And no, Bible verses are not proof....

[ChumpDumper]

What evidence? A couple of fruit flies and guppies?Are those all Google told you about?

[RD2191]

http://www.theguardian.com/science/2013/oct/17/skull-homo-erectus-human-evolution

[RD2191]

The "facts" change everyday.

[RD2191]

It's a real problem for palaeontologists when only fragmentary fossils are found. Many of the human fossils are only known from one or two fragmentary fossils which makes it almost impossible to determine if we have specimens from a single species whose differences reflect the diversity within that population; or that the differences are a result of being distinctly different species.

[RD2191]

Yet they go on to create this elaborate story to fit their theory of evolution.

[ChumpDumper]

http://www.theguardian.com/science/2013/oct/17/skull-homo-erectus-human-evolutionSo definitions are refined with newly discovered evidence.

Nice.

Are you saying this is somehow evidence against evolution?

Is so, explain how.

[RD2191]

The "facts" change everyday.

[ChumpDumper]

So how does your article disprove evolution, rob?

Step up.

[RD2191]

“
Our theory of evolution has become, as Popper described, one which cannot be refuted by any possible observations. Every conceivable observation can be fitted into it. It is thus outside of empirical science but not necessarily false. No one can think of ways in which to test it. Ideas, either without basis or based on a few laboratory experiments carried out in extremely simplified systems, have become part of an evolutionary dogma accepted by most of us as part of our training. The cure seems to us not to be a discarding of the modern synthesis of evolutionary theory, but more skepticism about many of its tenets.[135] (http://www.conservapedia.com/Evolution#cite_note-134)
”

[ChumpDumper]

Again, you're upset all the evidence fits the evolutionary theory.

In what other scientific theory does the evidence collected so far fit?

Let me know when you got one.

[RD2191]

http://www.cnn.com/2013/10/17/world/europe/ancient-skull-human-evolution/index.html

[RD2191]

Skull of Homo erectus throws story of human evolution into disarray

[RD2191]

You must be fukin retarded chump

[RD2191]

What's more, the researchers suggest that the fossil record of what have been considered different Homo species from this time period -- such as Homo ergaster (http://www.amnh.org/exhibitions/past-exhibitions/human-origins/the-history-of-human-evolution/turkana-boy/homo-ergaster-and-early-relatives), Homo rudolfensis (http://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence/human-fossils/species/homo-rudolfensis) and Homo habilis (http://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence/human-fossils/species/homo-habilis) -- could actually be variations on a single species, Homo erectus (http://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence/human-fossils/species/homo-erectus). That defies the current understanding of how early human relatives should be classified.

[RD2191]

More shit they made up

[ChumpDumper]

http://www.cnn.com/2013/10/17/world/europe/ancient-skull-human-evolution/index.htmlAgain, does this disprove the theory of evolution?

Yes or no.

[RD2191]

Like I said, not a science.

[ChumpDumper]

Like I said, not a science.Of course it's a science. The refinement of terms and categories in the face of new evidence is a hallmark of science.

[RD2191]

http://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence/human-family-tree

[RD2191]

THIS LINK=NOW WRONG

[RD2191]

Scientist don't even know how humans evolved yet they can tell us how every species of animal came to be:lol

Like I said, it takes FAITH to believe in evolution.

[RD2191]

So if they were wrong about this, you're telling me they can't be wrong about transitional fossils?

[ChumpDumper]

Galen thought venous blood was generated in the liver. He was still a scientist. Later people refined his theory on the circulatory system as new evidence was uncovered.

Science.

[ChumpDumper]

So if they were wrong about this, you're telling me they can't be wrong about transitional fossils?Again, what makes you think this disproves evolution on the whole?

[RD2191]

And NO I can not prove or disprove evolution, If I said I did or I could I was wrong. However, Evolution is not science. It is impossible to prove or disprove evolution.

[ChumpDumper]

And NO I can not prove or disprove evolution, If I said I did or I could I was wrong. However, Evolution is not science. It is impossible to prove or disprove evolution.Of course it's science.

Did Google ever tell you about the observations and experiments or are you giving up?

[DisAsTerBot]

lol even randomguy gave up on this retard

[ChumpDumper]

lol even randomguy gave up on this retardYeah, dude is just too open minded.

[RD2191]

No it is not science. Let me ask you again, have you observed evolution?

[ChumpDumper]

No it is not science. Let me ask you again, have you observed evolution?Let me ask you again, what did Google tell you about observed evolution?

[Clipper Nation]

30 pages of Jeebotardiaz melting down :lol

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Jeebotardiaz

:tu

[xmas1997]

Ok, time to recap.
1. Pigs can't fly.
2. Monkeys can fly. (see Wizard of Oz)
3. Kool can only fly when he scores some really great dro.
4. Pigs will fly once everyone in this thread agrees, but not until.
Ok, that seems pretty accurate so far! :lol

[RD2191]

Assumptions is all scientist have. Why is evolution accepted as fact when it has never been observed?

[ChumpDumper]

Assumptions is all scientist have. Why is evolution accepted as fact when it has never been observed?Who says it has never been observed?

Google?

[RD2191]

A test in 1980 prove evolution?:lol

[ChumpDumper]

A test in 1980 prove evolution?:lolIs that all Google told you?

[RD2191]

In a December 2004 interview with American journalist Bill Moyers (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Moyers), Dawkins said that "among the things that science does know, evolution is about as certain as anything we know." When Moyers questioned him on the use of the word theory (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_as_theory_and_fact), Dawkins stated that "evolution has been observed. It's just that it hasn't been observed while it's happening."

Son, just give it up already.

[ChumpDumper]

In a December 2004 interview with American journalist Bill Moyers (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Moyers), Dawkins said that "among the things that science does know, evolution is about as certain as anything we know." When Moyers questioned him on the use of the word theory (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_as_theory_and_fact), Dawkins stated that "evolution has been observed. It's just that it hasn't been observed while it's happening."

Son, just give it up already.Is that all Google has told you, son?

Has anything happened in the world of science in the past nine years, son?

[RD2191]

:lmaoOWNED

[ChumpDumper]

:lmaoOWNEDSo Google stops at 2004 for you?

[RD2191]

Where is your evidence?

[ChumpDumper]

My evidence that Google stops at 2004 for you is in your post above.

[RandomGuy]

Can you prove that God did not create the earth?

Can you prove that magic candy marshmallow unicorns did not create the earth?

[RandomGuy]

Your theory isn't science either so it can go screw itself


http://verysmartbrothas.com/images/Do-not-think-it-means.jpeg?9fe95b


Define science.

[RandomGuy]

Can you prove that God did not create the earth?

I don't have to.

I was there, and I did it.

Now, please prove that I didn't. I want links and evidence that I did not create the earth.

[RD2191]

And NO I can not prove or disprove evolution, If I said I did or I could I was wrong. However, Evolution is not science. It is impossible to prove or disprove evolution.

[RandomGuy]

Its a fact. You are simply putting pieces of a historical puzzle together and interpreting them as you wish. The problem is that this puzzle doesn't lead to a picture. This puzzle can be whatever you want it to be and the pieces can be put together in whichever way you want.

Another factually incorrect statement.

Taxonomy.
Geology.
Genetics.


They all fit together in a very specific way, and point to a very specific process that has resulted in the diversity of life that we see around us.

[RD2191]

Ahearn, J. N. 1980. Evolution of behavioral reproductive isolation in a laboratory stock of Drosophila silvestris. Experientia. 36:63-64.
Barton, N. H., J. S. Jones and J. Mallet. 1988. No barriers to speciation. Nature. 336:13-14.
Baum, D. 1992. Phylogenetic species concepts. Trends in Ecology and Evolution. 7:1-3.
Boraas, M. E. 1983. Predator induced evolution in chemostat culture. EOS. Transactions of the American Geophysical Union. 64:1102.
Breeuwer, J. A. J. and J. H. Werren. 1990. Microorganisms associated with chromosome destruction and reproductive isolation between two insect species. Nature. 346:558-560.
Budd, A. F. and B. D. Mishler. 1990. Species and evolution in clonal organisms -- a summary and discussion. Systematic Botany 15:166-171.
Bullini, L. and G. Nascetti. 1990. Speciation by hybridization in phasmids and other insects. Canadian Journal of Zoology. 68:1747-1760.
Butters, F. K. 1941. Hybrid Woodsias in Minnesota. Amer. Fern. J. 31:15-21.
Butters, F. K. and R. M. Tryon, jr. 1948. A fertile mutant of a Woodsia hybrid. American Journal of Botany. 35:138.
Brock, T. D. and M. T. Madigan. 1988. Biology of Microorganisms (5th edition). Prentice Hall, Englewood, NJ.
Callaghan, C. A. 1987. Instances of observed speciation. The American Biology Teacher. 49:3436.
Castenholz, R. W. 1992. Species usage, concept, and evolution in the cyanobacteria (blue-green algae). Journal of Phycology 28:737-745.
Clausen, J., D. D. Keck and W. M. Hiesey. 1945. Experimental studies on the nature of species. II. Plant evolution through amphiploidy and autoploidy, with examples from the Madiinae. Carnegie Institute Washington Publication, 564:1-174.
Cracraft, J. 1989. Speciation and its ontology: the empirical consequences of alternative species concepts for understanding patterns and processes of differentiation. In Otte, E. and J. A. Endler [eds.] Speciation and its consequences. Sinauer Associates, Sunderland, MA. pp. 28-59.
Craig, T. P., J. K. Itami, W. G. Abrahamson and J. D. Horner. 1993. Behavioral evidence for host-race fromation in Eurosta solidaginis. Evolution. 47:1696-1710.
Cronquist, A. 1978. Once again, what is a species? Biosystematics in agriculture. Beltsville Symposia in Agricultural Research 2:3-20.
Cronquist, A. 1988. The evolution and classification of flowering plants (2nd edition). The New York Botanical Garden, Bronx, NY.
Crossley, S. A. 1974. Changes in mating behavior produced by selection for ethological isolation between ebony and vestigial mutants of Drosophilia melanogaster. Evolution. 28:631-647.
de Oliveira, A. K. and A. R. Cordeiro. 1980. Adaptation of Drosophila willistoni experimental populations to extreme pH medium. II. Development of incipient reproductive isolation. Heredity. 44:123-130.
de Queiroz, K. and M. Donoghue. 1988. Phylogenetic systematics and the species problem. Cladistics. 4:317-338.
de Queiroz, K. and M. Donoghue. 1990. Phylogenetic systematics and species revisited. Cladistics. 6:83-90.
de Vries, H. 1905. Species and varieties, their origin by mutation.
de Wet, J. M. J. 1971. Polyploidy and evolution in plants. Taxon. 20:29-35.
del Solar, E. 1966. Sexual isolation caused by selection for positive and negative phototaxis and geotaxis in Drosophila pseudoobscura. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (US). 56:484-487.
Digby, L. 1912. The cytology of Primula kewensis and of other related Primula hybrids. Ann. Bot. 26:357-388.
Dobzhansky, T. 1937. Genetics and the origin of species. Columbia University Press, New York.
Dobzhansky, T. 1951. Genetics and the origin of species (3rd edition). Columbia University Press, New York.
Dobzhansky, T. and O. Pavlovsky. 1971. Experimentally created incipient species of Drosophila. Nature. 230:289-292.
Dobzhansky, T. 1972. Species of Drosophila: new excitement in an old field. Science. 177:664-669.
Dodd, D. M. B. 1989. Reproductive isolation as a consequence of adaptive divergence in Drosophila melanogaster. Evolution 43:1308-1311.
Dodd, D. M. B. and J. R. Powell. 1985. Founder-flush speciation: an update of experimental results with Drosophila. Evolution 39:1388-1392.
Donoghue, M. J. 1985. A critique of the biological species concept and recommendations for a phylogenetic alternative. Bryologist 88:172-181.
Du Rietz, G. E. 1930. The fundamental units of biological taxonomy. Svensk. Bot. Tidskr. 24:333-428.
Ehrman, E. 1971. Natural selection for the origin of reproductive isolation. The American Naturalist. 105:479-483.
Ehrman, E. 1973. More on natural selection for the origin of reproductive isolation. The American Naturalist. 107:318-319.
Feder, J. L., C. A. Chilcote and G. L. Bush. 1988. Genetic differentiation between sympatric host races of the apple maggot fly, Rhagoletis pomonella. Nature. 336:61-64.
Feder, J. L. and G. L. Bush. 1989. A field test of differential host-plant usage between two sibling species of Rhagoletis pomonella fruit flies (Diptera:Tephritidae) and its consequences for sympatric models of speciation. Evolution 43:1813-1819.
Frandsen, K. J. 1943. The experimental formation of Brassica juncea Czern. et Coss. Dansk. Bot. Arkiv., No. 4, 11:1-17.
Frandsen, K. J. 1947. The experimental formation of Brassica napus L. var. oleifera DC and Brassica carinata Braun. Dansk. Bot. Arkiv., No. 7, 12:1-16.
Galiana, A., A. Moya and F. J. Alaya. 1993. Founder-flush speciation in Drosophila pseudoobscura: a large scale experiment. Evolution. 47432-444.
Gottleib, L. D. 1973. Genetic differentiation, sympatric speciation, and the origin of a diploid species of Stephanomeira. American Journal of Botany. 60: 545-553.
Halliburton, R. and G. A. E. Gall. 1981. Disruptive selection and assortative mating in Tribolium castaneum. Evolution. 35:829-843.
Hurd, L. E., and R. M. Eisenberg. 1975. Divergent selection for geotactic response and evolution of reproductive isolation in sympatric and allopatric populations of houseflies. The American Naturalist. 109:353-358.
Karpchenko, G. D. 1927. Polyploid hybrids of Raphanus sativus L. X Brassica oleraceae L. Bull. Appl. Botany. 17:305-408.
Karpchenko, G. D. 1928. Polyploid hybrids of Raphanus sativus L. X Brassica oleraceae L. Z. Indukt. Abstami-a Verenbungsi. 48:1-85.
Kilias, G., S. N. Alahiotis and M. Delecanos. 1980. A multifactorial investigation of speciation theory using Drosophila melanogaster. Evolution. 34:730-737.
Knight, G. R., A. Robertson and C. H. Waddington. 1956. Selection for sexual isolation within a species. Evolution. 10:14-22.
Koopman, K. F. 1950. Natural selection for reproductive isolation between Drosophila pseudoobscura and Drosophila persimilis. Evolution. 4:135-148.
Lee, R. E. 1989. Phycology (2nd edition) Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK
Levin, D. A. 1979. The nature of plant species. Science 204:381-384.
Lokki, J. and A. Saura. 1980. Polyploidy in insect evolution. In: W. H. Lewis (ed.) Polyploidy: Biological Relevance. Plenum Press, New York.
Macnair, M. R. 1981. Tolerance of higher plants to toxic materials. In: J. A. Bishop and L. M. Cook (eds.). Genetic consequences of man made change. Pp.177-297. Academic Press, New York.
Macnair, M. R. and P. Christie. 1983. Reproductive isolation as a pleiotropic effect of copper tolerance in Mimulus guttatus. Heredity. 50:295-302.
Manhart, J. R. and R. M. McCourt. 1992. Molecular data and species concepts in the algae. Journal of Phycology. 28:730-737.
Mayr, E. 1942. Systematics and the origin of species from the viewpoint of a zoologist. Columbia University Press, New York.
Mayr, E. 1982. The growth of biological thought: diversity, evolution and inheritance. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA. McCourt, R. M. and R. W. Hoshaw. 1990. Noncorrespondence of breeding groups, morphology and monophyletic groups in Spirogyra (Zygnemataceae; Chlorophyta) and the application of species concepts. Systematic Botany. 15:69-78.
McPheron, B. A., D. C. Smith and S. H. Berlocher. 1988. Genetic differentiation between host races of Rhagoletis pomonella. Nature. 336:64-66.
Meffert, L. M. and E. H. Bryant. 1991. Mating propensity and courtship behavior in serially bottlenecked lines of the housefly. Evolution 45:293-306.
Mishler, B. D. 1985. The morphological, developmental and phylogenetic basis of species concepts in the bryophytes. Bryologist. 88:207-214.
Mishler, B. D. and M. J. Donoghue. 1982. Species concepts: a case for pluralism. Systematic Zoology. 31:491-503.
Muntzing, A. 1932. Cytogenetic investigations on the synthetic Galeopsis tetrahit. Hereditas. 16:105-154.
Nelson, G. 1989. Cladistics and evolutionary models. Cladistics. 5:275-289.
Newton, W. C. F. and C. Pellew. 1929. Primula kewensis and its derivatives. J. Genetics. 20:405-467.
Otte, E. and J. A. Endler (eds.). 1989. Speciation and its consequences. Sinauer Associates. Sunderland, MA.
Owenby, M. 1950. Natural hybridization and amphiploidy in the genus Tragopogon. Am. J. Bot. 37:487-499.
Pasterniani, E. 1969. Selection for reproductive isolation between two populations of maize, Zea mays L. Evolution. 23:534-547.
Powell, J. R. 1978. The founder-flush speciation theory: an experimental approach. Evolution. 32:465-474.
Prokopy, R. J., S. R. Diehl, and S. H. Cooley. 1988. Oecologia. 76:138.
Rabe, E. W. and C. H. Haufler. 1992. Incipient polyploid speciation in the maidenhair fern (Adiantum pedatum, adiantaceae)? American Journal of Botany. 79:701-707.
Rice, W. R. 1985. Disruptive selection on habitat preference and the evolution of reproductive isolation: an exploratory experiment. Evolution. 39:645-646.
Rice, W. R. and E. E. Hostert. 1993. Laboratory experiments on speciation: What have we learned in forty years? Evolution. 47:1637-1653.
Rice, W. R. and G. W. Salt. 1988. Speciation via disruptive selection on habitat preference: experimental evidence. The American Naturalist. 131:911-917.
Rice, W. R. and G. W. Salt. 1990. The evolution of reproductive isolation as a correlated character under sympatric conditions: experimental evidence. Evolution. 44:1140-1152.
Ringo, J., D. Wood, R. Rockwell, and H. Dowse. 1989. An experiment testing two hypotheses of speciation. The American Naturalist. 126:642-661.
Schluter, D. and L. M. Nagel. 1995. Parallel speciation by natural selection. American Naturalist. 146:292-301.
Shikano, S., L. S. Luckinbill and Y. Kurihara. 1990. Changes of traits in a bacterial population associated with protozoal predation. Microbial Ecology. 20:75-84.
Smith, D. C. 1988. Heritable divergence of Rhagoletis pomonella host races by seasonal asynchrony. Nature. 336:66-67.
Soans, A. B., D. Pimentel and J. S. Soans. 1974. Evolution of reproductive isolation in allopatric and sympatric populations. The American Naturalist. 108:117-124.
Sokal, R. R. and T. J. Crovello. 1970. The biological species concept: a critical evaluation. The American Naturalist. 104:127-153.
Soltis, D. E. and P. S. Soltis. 1989. Allopolyploid speciation in Tragopogon: Insights from chloroplast DNA. American Journal of Botany. 76:1119-1124.
Stuessy, T. F. 1990. Plant taxonomy. Columbia University Press, New York.
Thoday, J. M. and J. B. Gibson. 1962. Isolation by disruptive selection. Nature. 193:1164-1166.
Thoday, J. M. and J. B. Gibson. 1970. The probability of isolation by disruptive selection. The American Naturalist. 104:219-230.
Thompson, J. N. 1987. Symbiont-induced speciation. Biological Journal of the Linnean Society. 32:385-393.
Vrijenhoek, R. C. 1994. Unisexual fish: Model systems for studying ecology and evolution. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics. 25:71-96.
Waring, G. L., W. G. Abrahamson and D. J. Howard. 1990. Genetic differentiation in the gall former Eurosta solidaginis (Diptera:Tephritidae) along host plant lines. Evolution. 44:1648-1655.
Weinberg, J. R., V. R. Starczak and P. Jora. 1992. Evidence for rapid speciation following a founder event in the laboratory. Evolution. 46:1214-1220.
Wood, A. M. and T. Leatham. 1992. The species concept in phytoplankton ecology. Journal of Phycology. 28:723-729.
Yen, J. H. and A. R. Barr. 1971. New hypotheses of the cause of cytoplasmic incompatability in Culex pipiens L.

[RD2191]

Where are all of the present day studies?

[xmas1997]

I don't have to.

I was there, and I did it.

Now, please prove that I didn't. I want links and evidence that I did not create the earth.

Well, I was there too, and I swear to God that I saw him do it, really!
So you have an eyewitness!
Case closed!

[RandomGuy]

In a December 2004 interview with American journalist Bill Moyers (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Moyers), Dawkins said that "among the things that science does know, evolution is about as certain as anything we know." When Moyers questioned him on the use of the word theory (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_as_theory_and_fact), Dawkins stated that "evolution has been observed. It's just that it hasn't been observed while it's happening."

Son, just give it up already.

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


"Evolution has never been observed."

Biologists define evolution as a change in the gene pool of a population over time. One example is insects developing a resistance to pesticides over the period of a few years. Even most Creationists recognize that evolution at this level is a fact. What they don't appreciate is that this rate of evolution is all that is required to produce the diversity of all living things from a common ancestor.

The origin of new species by evolution has also been observed, both in the laboratory and in the wild. See, for example, (Weinberg, J.R., V.R. Starczak, and D. Jorg, 1992, "Evidence for rapid speciation following a founder event in the laboratory." Evolution 46: 1214-1220). The "Observed Instances of Speciation" FAQ in the talk.origins archives gives several additional examples.

Even without these direct observations, it would be wrong to say that evolution hasn't been observed. Evidence isn't limited to seeing something happen before your eyes. Evolution makes predictions about what we would expect to see in the fossil record, comparative anatomy, genetic sequences, geographical distribution of species, etc., and these predictions have been verified many times over. The number of observations supporting evolution is overwhelming.

What hasn't been observed is one animal abruptly changing into a radically different one, such as a frog changing into a cow. This is not a problem for evolution because evolution doesn't propose occurrences even remotely like that. In fact, if we ever observed a frog turn into a cow, it would be very strong evidence against evolution.

[ChumpDumper]

Where are all of the present day studies?Where did Google get that list?

[RD2191]

:lmaoSo now every field of study has their own definition?

[RandomGuy]

Observed Instances of Speciation
by Joseph Boxhorn

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

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.

[ChumpDumper]

:lmaoSo now every field of study has their own definition?What is your definition?

[RandomGuy]

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.

[RandomGuy]

6.0 References
Ahearn, J. N. 1980. Evolution of behavioral reproductive isolation in a laboratory stock of Drosophila silvestris. Experientia. 36:63-64.

Barton, N. H., J. S. Jones and J. Mallet. 1988. No barriers to speciation. Nature. 336:13-14.

Baum, D. 1992. Phylogenetic species concepts. Trends in Ecology and Evolution. 7:1-3.

Boraas, M. E. 1983. Predator induced evolution in chemostat culture. EOS. Transactions of the American Geophysical Union. 64:1102.

Breeuwer, J. A. J. and J. H. Werren. 1990. Microorganisms associated with chromosome destruction and reproductive isolation between two insect species. Nature. 346:558-560.

Budd, A. F. and B. D. Mishler. 1990. Species and evolution in clonal organisms -- a summary and discussion. Systematic Botany 15:166-171.

Bullini, L. and G. Nascetti. 1990. Speciation by hybridization in phasmids and other insects. Canadian Journal of Zoology. 68:1747-1760.

Butters, F. K. 1941. Hybrid Woodsias in Minnesota. Amer. Fern. J. 31:15-21.

Butters, F. K. and R. M. Tryon, jr. 1948. A fertile mutant of a Woodsia hybrid. American Journal of Botany. 35:138.

Brock, T. D. and M. T. Madigan. 1988. Biology of Microorganisms (5th edition). Prentice Hall, Englewood, NJ.

Callaghan, C. A. 1987. Instances of observed speciation. The American Biology Teacher. 49:3436.

Castenholz, R. W. 1992. Species usage, concept, and evolution in the cyanobacteria (blue-green algae). Journal of Phycology 28:737-745.

Clausen, J., D. D. Keck and W. M. Hiesey. 1945. Experimental studies on the nature of species. II. Plant evolution through amphiploidy and autoploidy, with examples from the Madiinae. Carnegie Institute Washington Publication, 564:1-174.

Cracraft, J. 1989. Speciation and its ontology: the empirical consequences of alternative species concepts for understanding patterns and processes of differentiation. In Otte, E. and J. A. Endler [eds.] Speciation and its consequences. Sinauer Associates, Sunderland, MA. pp. 28-59.

Craig, T. P., J. K. Itami, W. G. Abrahamson and J. D. Horner. 1993. Behavioral evidence for host-race fromation in Eurosta solidaginis. Evolution. 47:1696-1710.

Cronquist, A. 1978. Once again, what is a species? Biosystematics in agriculture. Beltsville Symposia in Agricultural Research 2:3-20.

Cronquist, A. 1988. The evolution and classification of flowering plants (2nd edition). The New York Botanical Garden, Bronx, NY.

Crossley, S. A. 1974. Changes in mating behavior produced by selection for ethological isolation between ebony and vestigial mutants of Drosophilia melanogaster. Evolution. 28:631-647.

de Oliveira, A. K. and A. R. Cordeiro. 1980. Adaptation of Drosophila willistoni experimental populations to extreme pH medium. II. Development of incipient reproductive isolation. Heredity. 44:123-130.

de Queiroz, K. and M. Donoghue. 1988. Phylogenetic systematics and the species problem. Cladistics. 4:317-338.

de Queiroz, K. and M. Donoghue. 1990. Phylogenetic systematics and species revisited. Cladistics. 6:83-90.

de Vries, H. 1905. Species and varieties, their origin by mutation.

de Wet, J. M. J. 1971. Polyploidy and evolution in plants. Taxon. 20:29-35.

del Solar, E. 1966. Sexual isolation caused by selection for positive and negative phototaxis and geotaxis in Drosophila pseudoobscura. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (US). 56:484-487.

Digby, L. 1912. The cytology of Primula kewensis and of other related Primula hybrids. Ann. Bot. 26:357-388.

Dobzhansky, T. 1937. Genetics and the origin of species. Columbia University Press, New York.

Dobzhansky, T. 1951. Genetics and the origin of species (3rd edition). Columbia University Press, New York.

Dobzhansky, T. and O. Pavlovsky. 1971. Experimentally created incipient species of Drosophila. Nature. 230:289-292.

Dobzhansky, T. 1972. Species of Drosophila: new excitement in an old field. Science. 177:664-669.

Dodd, D. M. B. 1989. Reproductive isolation as a consequence of adaptive divergence in Drosophila melanogaster. Evolution 43:1308-1311.

Dodd, D. M. B. and J. R. Powell. 1985. Founder-flush speciation: an update of experimental results with Drosophila. Evolution 39:1388-1392.

Donoghue, M. J. 1985. A critique of the biological species concept and recommendations for a phylogenetic alternative. Bryologist 88:172-181.

Du Rietz, G. E. 1930. The fundamental units of biological taxonomy. Svensk. Bot. Tidskr. 24:333-428.

Ehrman, E. 1971. Natural selection for the origin of reproductive isolation. The American Naturalist. 105:479-483.

Ehrman, E. 1973. More on natural selection for the origin of reproductive isolation. The American Naturalist. 107:318-319.

Feder, J. L., C. A. Chilcote and G. L. Bush. 1988. Genetic differentiation between sympatric host races of the apple maggot fly, Rhagoletis pomonella. Nature. 336:61-64.

Feder, J. L. and G. L. Bush. 1989. A field test of differential host-plant usage between two sibling species of Rhagoletis pomonella fruit flies (Diptera:Tephritidae) and its consequences for sympatric models of speciation. Evolution 43:1813-1819.

Frandsen, K. J. 1943. The experimental formation of Brassica juncea Czern. et Coss. Dansk. Bot. Arkiv., No. 4, 11:1-17.

Frandsen, K. J. 1947. The experimental formation of Brassica napus L. var. oleifera DC and Brassica carinata Braun. Dansk. Bot. Arkiv., No. 7, 12:1-16.

Galiana, A., A. Moya and F. J. Alaya. 1993. Founder-flush speciation in Drosophila pseudoobscura: a large scale experiment. Evolution. 47432-444.

Gottleib, L. D. 1973. Genetic differentiation, sympatric speciation, and the origin of a diploid species of Stephanomeira. American Journal of Botany. 60: 545-553.

Halliburton, R. and G. A. E. Gall. 1981. Disruptive selection and assortative mating in Tribolium castaneum. Evolution. 35:829-843.

Hurd, L. E., and R. M. Eisenberg. 1975. Divergent selection for geotactic response and evolution of reproductive isolation in sympatric and allopatric populations of houseflies. The American Naturalist. 109:353-358.

Karpchenko, G. D. 1927. Polyploid hybrids of Raphanus sativus L. X Brassica oleraceae L. Bull. Appl. Botany. 17:305-408.

Karpchenko, G. D. 1928. Polyploid hybrids of Raphanus sativus L. X Brassica oleraceae L. Z. Indukt. Abstami-a Verenbungsi. 48:1-85.

Kilias, G., S. N. Alahiotis and M. Delecanos. 1980. A multifactorial investigation of speciation theory using Drosophila melanogaster. Evolution. 34:730-737.

Knight, G. R., A. Robertson and C. H. Waddington. 1956. Selection for sexual isolation within a species. Evolution. 10:14-22.

Koopman, K. F. 1950. Natural selection for reproductive isolation between Drosophila pseudoobscura and Drosophila persimilis. Evolution. 4:135-148.

Lee, R. E. 1989. Phycology (2nd edition) Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK

Levin, D. A. 1979. The nature of plant species. Science 204:381-384.

Lokki, J. and A. Saura. 1980. Polyploidy in insect evolution. In: W. H. Lewis (ed.) Polyploidy: Biological Relevance. Plenum Press, New York.

Macnair, M. R. 1981. Tolerance of higher plants to toxic materials. In: J. A. Bishop and L. M. Cook (eds.). Genetic consequences of man made change. Pp.177-297. Academic Press, New York.

Macnair, M. R. and P. Christie. 1983. Reproductive isolation as a pleiotropic effect of copper tolerance in Mimulus guttatus. Heredity. 50:295-302.

Manhart, J. R. and R. M. McCourt. 1992. Molecular data and species concepts in the algae. Journal of Phycology. 28:730-737.

Mayr, E. 1942. Systematics and the origin of species from the viewpoint of a zoologist. Columbia University Press, New York.

Mayr, E. 1982. The growth of biological thought: diversity, evolution and inheritance. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA. McCourt, R. M. and R. W. Hoshaw. 1990. Noncorrespondence of breeding groups, morphology and monophyletic groups in Spirogyra (Zygnemataceae; Chlorophyta) and the application of species concepts. Systematic Botany. 15:69-78.

McPheron, B. A., D. C. Smith and S. H. Berlocher. 1988. Genetic differentiation between host races of Rhagoletis pomonella. Nature. 336:64-66.

Meffert, L. M. and E. H. Bryant. 1991. Mating propensity and courtship behavior in serially bottlenecked lines of the housefly. Evolution 45:293-306.

Mishler, B. D. 1985. The morphological, developmental and phylogenetic basis of species concepts in the bryophytes. Bryologist. 88:207-214.

Mishler, B. D. and M. J. Donoghue. 1982. Species concepts: a case for pluralism. Systematic Zoology. 31:491-503.

Muntzing, A. 1932. Cytogenetic investigations on the synthetic Galeopsis tetrahit. Hereditas. 16:105-154.

Nelson, G. 1989. Cladistics and evolutionary models. Cladistics. 5:275-289.

Newton, W. C. F. and C. Pellew. 1929. Primula kewensis and its derivatives. J. Genetics. 20:405-467.

Otte, E. and J. A. Endler (eds.). 1989. Speciation and its consequences. Sinauer Associates. Sunderland, MA.

Owenby, M. 1950. Natural hybridization and amphiploidy in the genus Tragopogon. Am. J. Bot. 37:487-499.

Pasterniani, E. 1969. Selection for reproductive isolation between two populations of maize, Zea mays L. Evolution. 23:534-547.

Powell, J. R. 1978. The founder-flush speciation theory: an experimental approach. Evolution. 32:465-474.

Prokopy, R. J., S. R. Diehl, and S. H. Cooley. 1988. Oecologia. 76:138.

Rabe, E. W. and C. H. Haufler. 1992. Incipient polyploid speciation in the maidenhair fern (Adiantum pedatum, adiantaceae)? American Journal of Botany. 79:701-707.

Rice, W. R. 1985. Disruptive selection on habitat preference and the evolution of reproductive isolation: an exploratory experiment. Evolution. 39:645-646.

Rice, W. R. and E. E. Hostert. 1993. Laboratory experiments on speciation: What have we learned in forty years? Evolution. 47:1637-1653.

Rice, W. R. and G. W. Salt. 1988. Speciation via disruptive selection on habitat preference: experimental evidence. The American Naturalist. 131:911-917.

Rice, W. R. and G. W. Salt. 1990. The evolution of reproductive isolation as a correlated character under sympatric conditions: experimental evidence. Evolution. 44:1140-1152.

Ringo, J., D. Wood, R. Rockwell, and H. Dowse. 1989. An experiment testing two hypotheses of speciation. The American Naturalist. 126:642-661.

Schluter, D. and L. M. Nagel. 1995. Parallel speciation by natural selection. American Naturalist. 146:292-301.

Shikano, S., L. S. Luckinbill and Y. Kurihara. 1990. Changes of traits in a bacterial population associated with protozoal predation. Microbial Ecology. 20:75-84.

Smith, D. C. 1988. Heritable divergence of Rhagoletis pomonella host races by seasonal asynchrony. Nature. 336:66-67.

Soans, A. B., D. Pimentel and J. S. Soans. 1974. Evolution of reproductive isolation in allopatric and sympatric populations. The American Naturalist. 108:117-124.

Sokal, R. R. and T. J. Crovello. 1970. The biological species concept: a critical evaluation. The American Naturalist. 104:127-153.

Soltis, D. E. and P. S. Soltis. 1989. Allopolyploid speciation in Tragopogon: Insights from chloroplast DNA. American Journal of Botany. 76:1119-1124.

Stuessy, T. F. 1990. Plant taxonomy. Columbia University Press, New York.

Thoday, J. M. and J. B. Gibson. 1962. Isolation by disruptive selection. Nature. 193:1164-1166.

Thoday, J. M. and J. B. Gibson. 1970. The probability of isolation by disruptive selection. The American Naturalist. 104:219-230.

Thompson, J. N. 1987. Symbiont-induced speciation. Biological Journal of the Linnean Society. 32:385-393.

Vrijenhoek, R. C. 1994. Unisexual fish: Model systems for studying ecology and evolution. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics. 25:71-96.

Waring, G. L., W. G. Abrahamson and D. J. Howard. 1990. Genetic differentiation in the gall former Eurosta solidaginis (Diptera:Tephritidae) along host plant lines. Evolution. 44:1648-1655.

Weinberg, J. R., V. R. Starczak and P. Jora. 1992. Evidence for rapid speciation following a founder event in the laboratory. Evolution. 46:1214-1220.

Wood, A. M. and T. Leatham. 1992. The species concept in phytoplankton ecology. Journal of Phycology. 28:723-729.

Yen, J. H. and A. R. Barr. 1971. New hypotheses of the cause of cytoplasmic incompatability in Culex pipiens L.

[RD2191]

:lmaoThe dates, back when Nebraska Man was real.

[RD2191]

So subspecies at best, but no new species correct?

[RandomGuy]

Of course that sort of ended at 2004, much like your misrepresented quote.

http://listverse.com/2011/11/19/8-examples-of-evolution-in-action/


Ring Species & Evolution

There is a specific type of species that bears some discussion: ring species. Imagine a straight line across some significant sized geographical region. There are two distinct but closely related species at either end, say point A and point B. These species do not typically interbreed, but there is a continuum of organisms along the line that stretches between them. These organisms are such that the closer you are to point A the more like the species at point A the organisms on the line are, and the closer you are to point B the more like the species at point B the organisms are.

Now, imagine bending this line such that the two endpoints are in the same location and a "ring" is formed. This is the basic description of a ring species. You have two nonbreeding and distinct species living in the same area and strung out over some area a succession of creatures such that, at the "farthest" point on the ring, the creatures are largely hybrids of the two distinct species at the starting points. This is significant because it shows that intra-species differences can be large enough to produce an interspecies difference. Differences between species are therefore the same kind (though not in degree) as the differences between individuals and population within a species.

Nature only appears to be divided up into discrete types at any one time and place. If you look at the biosphere as whole throughout time, the "barriers" between species appears much more fluid. Ring species are an example of this reality. Given our understanding of the genetic mechanisms of life, it is reasonable to think that this fluidity extends beyond the species level to higher order taxonomic differences between species.

http://atheism.about.com/od/evolutionexplained/a/ObservedEvolution.htm

Ring species are a particular phenomenon that is predicted by evolution.

This is generally a huge problem for creationists, who have to admit these exist, when, if evolution were not true, would not be the case.

We know of large numbers of ring species and they are fun to learn about IMO, as they really do teach one of the most important concepts in biology, i.e. "just what IS a species?".

[RandomGuy]

:lmaoThe dates, back when Nebraska Man was real.

This is, actually another logical fallacy, by the way.

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-ridicule.html

I won't bother outlining them anymore, but I will point them out as you make them. You can see for yourself how you are committing them.

[RandomGuy]

So subspecies at best, but no new species correct?

Nope, all new species.

As noted in my previous post though, the concept of "species" in and of itself is a complex one.

[ChumpDumper]

If evolution is real, how come I can't understand it?

[RandomGuy]

Where are all of the present day studies?

I am very glad you asked. I will get to the more recent stuff shortly, the first list was simply to be as comprehensive as possible.

Some of it is very interesting, and exciting, IMO. Patience, padawan.

[xmas1997]

I am very glad you asked. I will get to the more recent stuff shortly, the first list was simply to be as comprehensive as possible.

Some of it is very interesting, and exciting, IMO. Patience, padawan.

Man, RG, this is some pretty comprehensive shit. You've really done your homework on this subject.
I commend you!

[RD2191]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xIHMnD2FDeY

[ChumpDumper]

You didn't watch that.

[RD2191]

Be back in a bit gonna watch the game

[RandomGuy]

http://mentalfloss.com/article/30795/5-signs-humans-are-still-evolving

5 Signs Humans Are Still Evolving
'
That is short of the tip of the iceberg when it comes to humans. Genetics has outlined some very fascinating other aspects of our recent genetic movement.

Evolution explains the following about observed human genetic groupings:


Modern European resistance to AIDS
http://qjmed.oxfordjournals.org/content/99/8/497.full

The natural selection of the black death in Europe left that population with genes that coincidentally can resist AIDS.



Europeans also can drink milk, and tolerate alchohol to a much greater degree than other populations, both aspect

[RandomGuy]

You didn't watch that.

Probably not.

He didn't watch the foundational flaws of creationism either.

http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLF5F8871638AC52CC

Some of it is a bit preachy and pointed, but it is chock full of solid science.

Weighing in at a grand 3 hours, I doubt most would bother.

I have gone through most of it, but mostly because I put it on as background while I game.

[RandomGuy]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dm277H3ot6Y

That is the one that deals with the "we haven't observed evolution" bullshit.

(edit)

Wow... dude talks fast, and it is only ten minutes long, but wow... a lot of information there. just finished listening.

[RandomGuy]

Be back in a bit gonna watch the game

The legless lizards of LAX
October 2013

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/news/131005_leglesslizards

[RandomGuy]

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/news/130501_superbugs


Antibiotic resistant bacteria at the meat counter
May 2013

[xmas1997]

Probably not.

He didn't watch the foundational flaws of creationism either.

http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLF5F8871638AC52CC

Some of it is a bit preachy and pointed, but it is chock full of solid science.

Weighing in at a grand 3 hours, I doubt most would bother.j

I have gone through most of it, but mostly because I put it on as background while I game.

More than most would take the time to bother with. I've noticed most just rather trash talk, than attempt to educate.
And that is probably apropos considering the great majority here just like to ridicule.
But it is rather impressive. I will only go so far and then just wash my hands of it because why waste time if someone really doesn't give a shit?
Again it is commendable.

[RandomGuy]

Acidic oceans prompt evolution
October 2012

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/news/121001_acidicoceans

[ChumpDumper]

Most people balk when they see someone has done his homework.

Here, 9/11 threads, climate change, etc.

[RandomGuy]

More than most would take the time to bother with. I've noticed most just rather trash talk, than attempt to educate.
And that is probably apropos considering the great majority here just like to ridicule.
But it is rather impressive. I will only go so far and then just wash my hands of it because why waste time if someone really doesn't give a shit?
Again it is commendable.

Yeah, you have to sift through it to get the science. That is pretty solid.

He does tear creationism apart extremely thoroughly for the intellectually dishonest, ignorant mass of assertions and ideas that it is.

[xmas1997]

Yeah, you have to sift through it to get the science. That is pretty solid.

He does tear creationism apart extremely thoroughly for the intellectually dishonest, ignorant mass of assertions and ideas that it is.

To tear apart any theory is a task, much less creation theory, but still you have to have your shit together.

[Woo Bum-kon]

robdiaz is mouse-tier when it comes to debating. He'll throw shit to the wall to see if it sticks over and over again. He won't even pretend to read or understand his opponent's responses.

[RandomGuy]

Man, RG, this is some pretty comprehensive shit. You've really done your homework on this subject.
I commend you!

Thanks.

I read a lot on it. :)

I got to sit in once or twice when my wife was taking a genetics class and really learned a lot about the mechanics of mutation and how that works to drive evolution. Hard to follow, and I had to chunk through her textbooks, but hey... a hobby is a hobby.

[RandomGuy]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2TkY7HrJOhc&list=PLF5F8871638AC52CC

Good definition of "science" at 5:18 mark, and the chunks after that deal with how to tell what is true and what is not, and why we should care.

[RandomGuy]

To tear apart any theory is a task, much less creation theory, but still you have to have your shit together.

That dude does. It is very, very thorough.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/about/faith


By definition, no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the scriptural record.


They cannot, by definition, accept any evidence that contradicts their worldview.

That is not what anyone would call an "open" mind, is it?

[xmas1997]

Thanks.

I read a lot on it. :)

I got to sit in once or twice when my wife was taking a genetics class and really learned a lot about the mechanics of mutation and how that works to drive evolution. Hard to follow, and I had to chunk through her textbooks, but hey... a hobby is a hobby.

Yes, we all have our hobbies. Mine as you have probably read has been to study most of the great and not so great religions and faiths. It has made me pretty unorthodox in my beliefs especially with my background in physics. It is probably a carry over from my minor in philosophy and because I was raised a Catholic. However I found it ironic to be criticized for cherry picking the bible by a self proclaimed atheist. I would have expected that from another Christian.
Go figure!
Being a musician probably has nothing to do with it. Noooooo! :lol
But that part allows me to approach things with an open mind.
It also allows me to criticize my own follies and as Pop says, not take myself too seriously for my own good.
Having worn many hats while paying my way through college including a stint as a stand up comic, I dearly love everything with a healthy dose of humor.

[RandomGuy]

Yes, we all have our hobbies. Mine as you have probably read has been to study most of the great and not so great religions and faiths. It has made me pretty unorthodox in my beliefs especially with my background in physics. It is probably a carry over from my minor in philosophy and because I was raised a Catholic. However I found it ironic to be criticized for cherry picking the bible by a self proclaimed atheist. I would have expected that from another Christian.
Go figure!
Being a musician probably has nothing to do with it. Noooooo! :lol
But that part allows me to approach things with an open mind.
It also allows me to criticize my own follies and as Pop says, not take myself too seriously for my own good.
Having worn many hats while paying my way through college including a stint as a stand up comic, I dearly love everything with a healthy dose of humor.

Well I was never really raised with much religion. I decided to give it a shot in my 20's, then really found it to be silly. In the last year I really took another look at the whole thing and really decided I belonged in the atheist camp. I feel like a weight has been lifted. I allow for the possibility that there may be some God out there, but am 100% sure it is not the God/Allah/Jehovah thing.

[xmas1997]

Well I was never really raised with much religion. I decided to give it a shot in my 20's, then really found it to be silly. In the last year I really took another look at the whole thing and really decided I belonged in the atheist camp. I feel like a weight has been lifted. I allow for the possibility that there may be some God out there, but am 100% sure it is not the God/Allah/Jehovah thing.

Actually I think you are a lot closer to the truth than maybe you give yourself credit for. I don't consider myself religious either, rather spiritual is a better definition for me.
But to each his or her own. I do believe in God, but I try my best not to be led astray by modern day witch doctors, if you catch my drift. :lol

[TE]

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/news/130501_superbugs


Antibiotic resistant bacteria at the meat counter
May 2013
This is just one of the MANY examples of "evolution" in microbiology. One of my many fascinations is how living systems evolved to perpetuate their existence and address their nutritional needs.

I really do believe robdiaz is just trolling at this point. I'm sure he's seen the light even way before you came on board. Either that or he just doesn't want to try and understand evolution and it's workings in the natural world.

[xmas1997]

This is just one of the MANY examples of "evolution" in microbiology. One of my many fascinations is how living systems evolved to perpetuate their existence and address their nutritional needs.

I really do believe robdiaz is just trolling at this point. I'm sure he's seen the light even way before you came on board. Either that or he just doesn't want to try and understand evolution and it's workings in the natural world.

I also agree with you. Rob is intelligent and maybe a little too prideful to admit it. He doesn't impress me as being unreasonable, or like you say he was trolling. Or another reason may be that he is very religious and it goes against his beliefs.

[xmas1997]

I guess RG isn't here so I'll step in.

Shit from the ocean evolved into apes. Aliens back bred the apes with jellyfish and this became the blacks.
Then the Aliens inserted their superior DNA into dolphins and then bred with apes and this became the whites.

:lmao

[Spur|n|Austin]

robdiaz is mouse-tier when it comes to debating. He'll throw shit to the wall to see if it sticks over and over again. He won't even pretend to read or understand his opponent's responses.

Mouse seems to be annoyed with http://www.homefacts.com/images/offenders/texas/thumb/02553737.jpg at this point.. I don't think there is a comparison in their debating skills or habits anymore.

[Woo Bum-kon]

Rob is intelligent

:lmao Best laugh I had in this thread so far.


He doesn't impress me as being unreasonable

You must not have been reading this thread at all. He asks a stupid question, ignores the answer he gets, then asks another stupid question. He never admits to being wrong, nor does he even answer the questions others ask him.


Or another reason may be that he is very religious and it goes against his beliefs.

Ding, ding, ding, ding! He thinks evolution threatens the religious beliefs that he's too chickenshit to actually defend.

[xmas1997]

:lmao Best laugh I had in this thread so far.



You must not have been reading this thread at all. He asks a stupid question, ignores the answer he gets, then asks another stupid question. He never admits to being wrong, nor does he even answer the questions others ask him.



Ding, ding, ding, ding! He thinks evolution threatens the religious beliefs that he's too chickenshit to actually defend.

:lol
There is always a first time for everything, even that.
I know I have been wrong many times on this site and have no qualms against admitting it.
Why should I? It won't change anything one way or another, nor do I take myself that seriously.

[RandomGuy]

This is just one of the MANY examples of "evolution" in microbiology. One of my many fascinations is how living systems evolved to perpetuate their existence and address their nutritional needs.

I really do believe robdiaz is just trolling at this point. I'm sure he's seen the light even way before you came on board. Either that or he just doesn't want to try and understand evolution and it's workings in the natural world.

its ok, even if he is trolling.

I don't mind. I learn stuff just researching.

At this point, I have seen all the "arguments" presented by creationists, so it isn't hard to debunk it, either.

Mouse on the other hand... I gave up on him a long time ago. He is too incompetent to teach. Look up "donning kroger".

[RandomGuy]

:lmao Best laugh I had in this thread so far.

You must not have been reading this thread at all. He asks a stupid question, ignores the answer he gets, then asks another stupid question. He never admits to being wrong, nor does he even answer the questions others ask him.

Ding, ding, ding, ding! He thinks evolution threatens the religious beliefs that he's too chickenshit to actually defend.

Don't be so hard on him.

Everyone has to begin somewhere, and it is hard to challenge the assumptions one grows up with, especially if you have been, in essence, brainwashed for hours every sunday growing up.

I think the base mistake a lot of people that profession creationism make is that they fail to ask themselves if creationist ideas are required to be a good Christian.

To paraphrase from memory a good quote I read somewhere:

"I fail to see that a Creator who has so loved us as to endow us with the faculty of logic and reason, would frown on their use." or something close to that.

[xmas1997]

Don't be so hard on him.

Everyone has to begin somewhere, and it is hard to challenge the assumptions one grows up with, especially if you have been, in essence, brainwashed for hours every sunday growing up.

I think the base mistake a lot of people that profession creationism make is that they fail to ask themselves if creationist ideas are required to be a good Christian.

To paraphrase from memory a good quote I read somewhere:

"I fail to see that a Creator who has so loved us as to endow us with the faculty of logic and reason, would frown on their use." or something close to that.


I especially agree with the last part.
I am criticized on here for my beliefs simply because I not only believe in God, but also that I use science methodology and do not see a contradiction in the belief in theories like evolution.
I am not a literalist when it comes to things like the bible and don't see how any critical thinker can be.
So I am accused of cherry picking.
Go figure!

[mouse]

http://documentaryaddict.com/A+War+on+Science-1429-documentary.html

[DMC]

I'm not a scientist. And not science?:lol Like I said before, who here has observed evolution?

I haven't observed fossilization but I accept it occurs.

[xmas1997]

I have never observed love, but I know it exists.
I have never observed thought, but I know it exists too.
In fact I have never observed an idea, but I know it exists as well.
And I have never observed atomic theory either, but I know that exists too.
And on a lighter note, I've never observed a bear shitting in the woods, but I am practically positive that exists too! :lol

[mouse]

I haven't observed fossilization but I accept it occurs.

Translation: until I see a fossil that proves me wrong.


http://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p55/RackTheMouse/MIT-on-Evolution/mouse-MIT-Fossil-12_zps2cffac60.jpg

[xmas1997]

Translation: until I see a fossil that proves me wrong.


http://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p55/RackTheMouse/MIT-on-Evolution/mouse-MIT-Fossil-12_zps2cffac60.jpg

:lol

I have seen some fossils lately, and take my word for it, they should not have been behind the wheel of a car!

[RD2191]

mouse puttin in work, :toast

[mouse]

The Truth is Science and all the TV shows you see like Discovery. TLC .and Natural Geographic are owned and produced by Atheist and they won't allow any new evidence that may contradict thier agendas.

In fact Discovery channel did a Show about dinosaurs and there was a man who discovered a Dinosaur print on top of a human print. And get this, the Discovery channel purposely edited that footage from the show. If you do the research the largest fossil museum in the world fired the director of the Museum for trying to introduce the fossil.

http://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p55/RackTheMouse/MIT-on-Evolution/fig11pal_zps77464b6d.jpg

[RD2191]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r-AyDtD6sPA

[DMC]

Translation: until I see a fossil that proves me wrong.


http://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p55/RackTheMouse/MIT-on-Evolution/mouse-MIT-Fossil-12_zps2cffac60.jpg

Did you see it fossilize? I see animals and humans every day. That doesn't prove they evolved.

[mouse]

I see animals and humans every day. That doesn't prove they evolved.

Then how did they get here?

http://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p55/RackTheMouse/MIT-on-Evolution/foot87.jpg

[DMC]

Then how did they get here?

http://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p55/RackTheMouse/MIT-on-Evolution/foot87.jpg

That's a question for another thread. The fact they exist and you did not seem them fossilize means you don't have to see it happen to conclude it did.

[mouse]

That's a question for another thread.

post a link to that "thread"


The fact they exist and you did not seem them fossilize means you don't have to see it happen to conclude it did.

and what "thread" is that reply approved for?

[DMC]

post a link to that "thread"

You'll have to start that one.


and what "thread" is that reply approved for?
This one.

[RandomGuy]

mouse puttin in work, :toast

I see you have given up.

Sad.

[RD2191]

Not really, I'm still looking for proof but have yet to find any.

[RandomGuy]

Translation: until I see a fossil that proves me wrong.


http://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p55/RackTheMouse/MIT-on-Evolution/mouse-MIT-Fossil-12_zps2cffac60.jpg

um.. that isn't a fossil. You know that right?

It is also a really, really bad fake.

Shockingly enough the guy who found it is now trying to sell it, and creationists are falling all over themselves trying to buy it and play it up.

How exactly does this fossil speak to the genetic phylogeny we have developed after sequencing the genes of various creatures today?

In your own words, please.

[clambake]

i don't think wings would help (considering your weight)

[RandomGuy]

Not really, I'm still looking for proof but have yet to find any.

What kind of proof are you looking for?

[Clipper Nation]

What kind of proof are you looking for?
Bible verses :lol

[RD2191]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U0u3-2CGOMQ

[RandomGuy]

http://www.answersingenesis.org/about/faith


By definition, no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the scriptural record.


They cannot, by definition, accept any evidence that contradicts their worldview.

That is not what anyone would call an "open" mind, is it?

[RandomGuy]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U0u3-2CGOMQ

Not watching it.

You won't watch what I post.

Put it in your own words.

[RD2191]

:lmao

[ohmwrecker]

At this point, I am more concerned with devolution tbh.

[RandomGuy]

We could go back and forth all day posting yootoobs. I generally don't find that productive, especially since people who think that the theory of evolution is some evil conspiracy tend to not watch material that contradicts their world view.


Confirmation bias (also called confirmatory bias or myside bias) is a tendency of people to favor information that confirms their beliefs or hypotheses.[Note 1][1] People display this bias when they gather or remember information selectively, or when they interpret it in a biased way. The effect is stronger for emotionally charged issues and for deeply entrenched beliefs. They also tend to interpret ambiguous evidence as supporting their existing position. Biased search, interpretation and memory have been invoked to explain attitude polarization (when a disagreement becomes more extreme even though the different parties are exposed to the same evidence), belief perseverance (when beliefs persist after the evidence for them is shown to be false), the irrational primacy effect (a greater reliance on information encountered early in a series) and illusory correlation (when people falsely perceive an association between two events or situations).
A series of experiments in the 1960s suggested that people are biased toward confirming their existing beliefs. Later work re-interpreted these results as a tendency to test ideas in a one-sided way, focusing on one possibility and ignoring alternatives. In certain situations, this tendency can bias people's conclusions. Explanations for the observed biases include wishful thinking and the limited human capacity to process information. Another explanation is that people show confirmation bias because they are weighing up the costs of being wrong, rather than investigating in a neutral, scientific way.
Confirmation biases contribute to overconfidence in personal beliefs and can maintain or strengthen beliefs in the face of contrary evidence. Poor decisions due to these biases have been found in political and organizational contexts.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias

This is the reason why you do not actually look at the evidence supporting evolution, nor do you bother watching or really reading anything I post.

Doesn't it bother you that you have been lied to so consistently and purposefully?

[RandomGuy]

:lmao

???


I have already watched enough creationist lies to be familiar with them, and am not inclined to spend my time watching something when the favor is not returned.

If you actually watched what I posted on a minute for minute basis, I would be happy to entertain however much you want to post.

Quid pro quo.

[RD2191]

No my friend, it is you who has been lied to. I have watched all of your links and have yet to find any proof that we evolved from fish.

[ohmwrecker]

tadpoles, yo.

[RandomGuy]

No my friend, it is you who has been lied to. I have watched all of your links and have yet to find any proof that we evolved from fish.

Now you are just lying to *me*.

jwywMP4Sxgo


By the way, this shreds the "nebraska man" myth you noted earlier.

It is very emblematic about how creations lie about evolution.

[ohmwrecker]

Can you find a video that explains evolution instead of debunking creationism? Atheists are every bit as annoying as religious zealots.

[RD2191]

My point is this RandomGuy, both take faith to believe in. If you deny that then you are simply lying to yourself.

[ChumpDumper]

Not watching it.He didn't either.

[RandomGuy]

Can you find a video that explains evolution instead of debunking creationism? Atheists are every bit as annoying as religious zealots.

Indeed. It isn't all that hard.

The problem in talking about the subject is that there is no small amount of dis-information out there.

lii2x6Nk8Bg

Short place to start.

A bit longer, in more detail:

K7tQIB4UdiY

If you go to the particlur page for the video above, it provides links of elaborating evidence:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K7tQIB4UdiY

[ohmwrecker]

Indeed. It isn't all that hard.

I didn't say it was hard. I'm not the one with something to prove.

[RD2191]

Blind watchmaker? :lol

[RandomGuy]

My point is this RandomGuy, both take faith to believe in. If you deny that then you are simply lying to yourself.

Already addressed that.

Creationism, by definition, requires faith.

Evolution does not. The mountains of evidence supporting it in multiple fields of science are all readily observable, and verifiable.

Therein lies the difference. I can go out and find for myself. I have done so.



Creationists commonly argue against evolution on the grounds that "evolution is a religion; it is not a science".[29] The purpose of this criticism is to undermine the higher ground biologists claim in debating creationists, and to reframe the debate from being between science (evolution) and religion (creationism) to being between two equally religious beliefs – or even to argue that evolution is religious while intelligent design is not.[30][31] Those that oppose evolution frequently refer to supporters of evolution as "evolutionists" or "Darwinists".[29]
The arguments for evolution being a religion generally amount to arguments by analogy: it is argued that evolution and religion have one or more things in common, and that therefore evolution is a religion. Examples of claims made in such arguments are statements that evolution is based on faith, that supporters of evolution revere Darwin as a prophet, and that supporters of evolution dogmatically reject alternative suggestions out-of-hand.[18][32] These claims have become more popular in recent years as the neocreationist movement has sought to distance itself from religion, thus giving it more reason to make use of a seemingly anti-religious analogy.[25]
In response, supporters of evolution have argued that no scientist's claims, including Darwin's, are treated as sacrosanct, as shown by the aspects of Darwin's theory that have been rejected or revised by scientists over the years, to form first Neo-Darwinism and later the modern evolutionary synthesis.[33][34] The claim that evolution relies on faith, often based on the creationist belief that evolution has never been observed, is likewise rejected on the grounds that evolution has strong supporting evidence, and therefore does not require faith.
In general, the argument that evolution is religious has been rejected on the grounds that religion is not defined by how dogmatic or zealous its adherents are, but by its spiritual or supernatural beliefs. Evolutionary supporters point out evolution is neither dogmatic nor based on faith, and they accuse creationists of equivocating between the strict definition of religion and its colloquial usage to refer to anything that is enthusiastically or dogmatically engaged in. U.S. courts have also rejected this objection:
Assuming for the purposes of argument, however, that evolution is a religion or religious tenet, the remedy is to stop the teaching of evolution, not establish another religion in opposition to it. Yet it is clearly established in the case law, and perhaps also in common sense, that evolution is not a religion and that teaching evolution does not violate the Establishment Clause.[35]
A related claim is that evolution is atheistic; creationists sometimes merge the two claims and describe evolution as an "atheistic religion" (cf. humanism).[31] This argument against evolution is also frequently generalized into a criticism of all science; it is argued that "science is an atheistic religion", on the grounds that its methodological naturalism is as unproven, and thus as "faith-based", as the supernatural and theistic beliefs of creationism.[36]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objections_to_evolution

[RandomGuy]

Blind watchmaker? :lol

Define:

Evolution.

Define:

Science.


If you can do neither, you do not understand the topic well enough to have your own opinion.

I have asked you to explain them.

Doesnt' it bother you that all you have in response is smileys?

Do you care about what is true and what is not?

[RD2191]

:lmaoMountains of evidence

[RD2191]

I will ask once again, when did you observe evolution?

[RD2191]

All you're doing is taking someone else's word for it. Watch the video that I posted.

[ohmwrecker]

I said "tadpoles, yo."

[ohmwrecker]

All you're doing is taking someone else's word for it.

You are doing the same thing, bub.

[RD2191]

You are doing the same thing, bub.
I never denied this, my point has always been that both take faith to believe in.

[ohmwrecker]

I never denied this, my point has always been that both take faith to believe in.

One certainly does.

[johnsmith]

I don't have a horse in this race. If God exists, great, if not, great. I don't really care one way or the other.

Having said that, just from the outside looking in, Robdiaz is possibly the worst debater I've ever seen on this site. He gives up far too easily, and then just trys to be funny (at which he's failed every single time). It's a good thing no one takes this site serious because if they did and they were undecided as to what to believe, they'd all end up hating religion just based on the piss poor job rob does arguing it.

[RandomGuy]

I will ask once again, when did you observe evolution?

My direct observation is not required for the theory of evolution to be true.

Did you observe your motorcycle being built?

The answer to your question:

I have not directly observed evolution taking place. It is not my field of study, nor do I deal with biology professionally.

Your question is itself a "red herring" logical fallacy.

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/red-herring.html

[RD2191]

I don't have a horse in this race. If God exists, great, if not, great. I don't really care one way or the other.

Having said that, just from the outside looking in, Robdiaz is possibly the worst debater I've ever seen on this site. He gives up far too easily, and then just trys to be funny (at which he's failed every single time). It's a good thing no one takes this site serious because if they did and they were undecided as to what to believe, they'd all end up hating religion just based on the piss poor job rob does arguing it.
Who said I was religious?

[RD2191]

My direct observation is not required for the theory of evolution to be true.

Did you observe your motorcycle being built?

The answer to your question:

I have not directly observed evolution taking place. It is not my field of study, nor do I deal with biology professionally.

Your question is itself a "red herring" logical fallacy.

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/red-herring.html
In other words you have faith. :toast

[johnsmith]

Here comes the "I was trolling" card.

[RD2191]

And no, I did not observe my motorcycle being built. I KNOW it had a creator. I am not claiming that an engine somehow crawled into the frame and turned itself into a motorcycle.

[RandomGuy]

I don't have a horse in this race. If God exists, great, if not, great. I don't really care one way or the other.

Having said that, just from the outside looking in, Robdiaz is possibly the worst debater I've ever seen on this site. He gives up far too easily, and then just trys to be funny (at which he's failed every single time). It's a good thing no one takes this site serious because if they did and they were undecided as to what to believe, they'd all end up hating religion just based on the piss poor job rob does arguing it.

That is actually one of the more tongue-in-cheek observations of some. "Even if I didn't know anything about evolution, I could tell a lot about how true it is by the quality of the idiots trying to argue against it." or something similar. Ad hominem to be sure, but funny.

Ken Hovind is a good example. Homeslice got himself put in jail for some of his more crackpot ideas concerning taxation, and got actively caught lying and falsifying evidence where it really counted, i.e. a court of law.

[RandomGuy]

In other words you have faith. :toast

Nope. Debunked and addressed already.

I am ready at any time to consider new evidence as it is presented to me, and will change my mind any time sufficient evidence is provided. I admit when I am wrong.

You can say it a million times, and it will not be any more true on the millionth than it was the first. Sorry.

Why do you want so badly for this to be true?

[RandomGuy]

And no, I did not observe my motorcycle being built. I KNOW it had a creator. I am not claiming that an engine somehow crawled into the frame and turned itself into a motorcycle.

This is a strawman logical fallacy.

No scientist claims that is how evolution works.

If you understood it, you might know that already.

[RD2191]

By the way I don't believe in hell or all that crap he is talking about at the end of the video.

[Blake]

Who said I was religious?

You did.


I simply believe that God created the heavens and the earth.

[mouse]

um.. that isn't a fossil. You know that right?

It is also a really, really bad fake.
.

Link?


Footprints of a dinosaur living in the Cretaceous period found in riverbed interleaved with a human footprint!

http://www.zhengjian.org/sci/sci/images/052602footprint_3.jpghttp://www.zhengjian.org/sci/sci/images/052602footprint_4.jpg


A TV Program that Caused Passionate Criticism

In 1996, NBC aired a one-hour prime-time special, The Mysterious Origins of Man. It cited a number of anthropological discoveries, including the footprints mentioned in a prior section, 320 million year old metallic spheres, 2.8 billion year old human femur bones, and the like. The public reaction to the producer of the film came mostly from anthropologists and ranged from fanatical to accusatory and even irrational. The responses included “a group of swindlers,' “the whole film is garbage,' “not any value,” and so on. Predictably, given the conspiracy of silence in the scientific community, none of the scientists were willing to discuss the subject matter in-depth or agreed to conduct further research into the subject matter. The general public believes scientists to be rational and realistic with respect to scientific theory and research. Yet, the subject under discussion proves without a doubt that the scientific community stubbornly holds to a popular theory and is not willing to apply logic and proper reasoning even in face of irrefutable facts.

The man-made hammer of dinosaur age

http://www.zhengjian.org/sci/sci/images/052602footprint_5.jpg

Given comprehensive research on these and other archeological findings, one might ponder deeply on the implications of these findings on the present day view of human evolution. We certainly should ask ourselves as to why these findings contradict what we have been taught since childhood. Haven’t our textbooks taught us that the earliest humans appeared around 30 thousand years ago and that man had evolved from an ancestor in common with the apes? How can we explain anthropological findings such as fossil footprints and metal tools, carbon dated from several hundred of millions of years ago, in light of a human history of only several thousand years? What are the consequences for today’s textbooks?

[RD2191]

Nope. Debunked and addressed already.

I am ready at any time to consider new evidence as it is presented to me, and will change my mind any time sufficient evidence is provided. I admit when I am wrong.

You can say it a million times, and it will not be any more true on the millionth than it was the first. Sorry.

Why do you want so badly for this to be true?
I can ask you the exact same question. And there is no proof of evolution because evolution cannot be observed.

[RandomGuy]

In other words you have faith. :toast

Faith is the excuse people use when they don't have good reasons to believe something.

I have trust in the self-correcting methodology of science to get things right.

The trust that the scientists whose work I read have earned comes from my understanding of that work, and of the people themselves.

There is a vast gulf between earned trust and faith, my friend, a very vast gulf indeed.

[RD2191]

You did.
Reading the Bible is religious? What religion am I a part of Blake?

[johnsmith]

I can ask you the exact same question. And there is no proof of evolution because evolution cannot be observed.

Nice, the "I know you are but what am I" tactic. Now you're in complete control.

[ohmwrecker]

I can ask you the exact same question. And there is no proof of evolution because evolution cannot be observed.

Fruit flies, yo.

[RD2191]

Faith is the excuse people use when they don't have good reasons to believe something.

I have trust in the self-correcting methodology of science to get things right.

The trust that the scientists whose work I read have earned comes from my understanding of that work, and of the people themselves.

There is a vast gulf between earned trust and faith, my friend, a very vast gulf indeed.
:lolIn other words, you have faith.

[RD2191]

faith
fāTH/
noun



1.
complete trust or confidence in someone or something.

[mouse]

A TV Program that Caused Passionate Criticism

In 1996, NBC aired a one-hour prime-time special, The Mysterious Origins of Man. It cited a number of anthropological discoveries, including the footprints mentioned in a prior section, 320 million year old metallic spheres, 2.8 billion year old human femur bones, and the like. The public reaction to the producer of the film came mostly from anthropologists and ranged from fanatical to accusatory and even irrational. The responses included “a group of swindlers,' “the whole film is garbage,' “not any value,” and so on. Predictably, given the conspiracy of silence in the scientific community, none of the scientists were willing to discuss the subject matter in-depth or agreed to conduct further research into the subject matter. The general public believes scientists to be rational and realistic with respect to scientific theory and research. Yet, the subject under discussion proves without a doubt that the scientific community stubbornly holds to a popular theory and is not willing to apply logic and proper reasoning even in face of irrefutable facts.


6oGqPc6poS4

[ohmwrecker]

:lolIn other words, you have faith.

Could you look up the definitions for faith, and science, and then let us know how they are the same?

[RandomGuy]

I can ask you the exact same question. And there is no proof of evolution because evolution cannot be observed.

I have already provided you with quite a few examples where it has.

Also already debunked.

I have read through a few of the interesting studies myself in college biology.

You ever taken any college-level biology courses?