Microevolution & Macroevolution

DeletedUser

The evidence is that many species appeared in a relatively short period of time according to fossil records. "Micro-evolution" failed to account for this, so a new theory of "macro-evolution" was adopted to account for this. Macro-evolution is the idea the species do not slowly evolve over time but rather jump quickly from one species to another. While micro-evolution could be described as creatures adapting to their surroundings, there is not enough evidence to conclude macro-evolution; in fact the evidence strongly suggests that macro-evolution if false. You "fact" is measuring change of organisms not from one kind to another but within a kind. You cannot bread two different kinds of animals. Your theory is not supported by the evidence.

Your comments about microevolution and macroevolution are typical fare posted at creationist sites. They are, however, completely wrong. I suggest you study these issues from scientists instead of ignorant bible bloggers.

Your comments indicate microevolution as evident, yet you then claim macroevolution is not. Unfortunately, you are not aware that macroevolution is merely the compounded effects of microevolution, or basically multiple, sequential, microevolutions constitutes a macroevolution. As you indicated the validity of microevolution, you are as well validating macroevolution as the sum of its parts.

"transspecific evolution is nothing but an extrapolation and magnification of the events that take place within populations and species...it is misleading to make a distinction between the causes of micro- and macroevolution” ~ Ernst W. Mayr

As to macroevolution and evidence, there's a buttload. But, just in case you're having difficulty finding that evidence, have a minor poop of it:

Speciation in the apple maggot fly: a blend of vintages? ~ Jiggins CD, Bridle JR (2004)
Speciation by Natural and Sexual Selection: Models and Experiments ~ Mark Kirkpatrick and Virginie Ravigne (2002)
Evidence for Rapid Speciation following a Founder Event in the Laboratory ~ James R. Weingberg, Victoria R. Starczak, and Daniele Jorg (1992)
Laboratory Experiments on Speciation: What we have learned in 40 years? ~ William R. Rice and Ellen E. HOstert (1993)
Observed Instances of Speciation ~ Joseph Boxhorn (1995)
Some More Observed Speciation Events ~ Chris Stassen, James Merritt, Anneliese Lilje, L. Drew Davis (1997)
29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: The Scientific Case for Common Descent ~ Douglas Theobald Ph.D. (2007)
 
Last edited by a moderator:

DeletedUser30834

Your comments about microevolution and macroevolution are typical fare posted at creationist sites. They are, however, completely wrong. I suggest you study these issues from scientists instead of ignorant bible bloggers.
Interesting argument here. let's see if I can put a name to it. We will call it the "You are wrong because I said so, stop being like those ignorant people and hang around people I approve of". Your mental prowls are on fire here. Keep up the good work. At least is wan't a "you're wrong because I said so".

Your comments indicate microevolution as evident, yet you then claim macroevolution is not. Unfortunately, you are not aware that macroevolution is merely the compounded effects of microevolution, or basically multiple, sequential, microevolutions constitutes a macroevolution. As you indicated the validity of microevolution, you are as well validating macroevolution as the sum of its parts.
So you are saying it has to be all the way your way or nothing at all? I mean I find it funny that something could happen but stop short of what you want to happen and that would somehow be impossible. This reminds me of a dog running into the woods. How far can the dog run into the woods.

Micro evolution and macro evolution are very distinct processes and neither prove or disprove evolution over creation. One could lead to another but it doesn't make it so. There is not direct evidence of speciation through macroevolution that is not a form of semantics adulterating the definition of species. It is sort of like Pluto. When you change the definitions of something to suit your needs, you can prove anything or call anything whatever you want. BTW, halfway is the correct answer to the dog running into the woods. Because then he will be running out of the woods.

As to macroevolution and evidence, there's a buttload. But, just in case you're having difficulty finding that evidence, have a minor poop of it:
Interesting cites. However, they do not show new species as in the definition of species, it's more like a breed as in the different breeds of dogs. It does indicate that given enough time, a fruit fly might become a giraffe or cat or something completely knew and unknown to man, but until the fruit fly becomes something other then a fruit fly or the salamander becomes something other then a salamander and so on, we don't have it.

Some of the tricks used to claim speciation are laughable too. Let's take the geographical divide example and put it to practical example, is a black lab in New York a different species then a Yellow lab in England because of the separation and minor cosmetic appearances? Yet salamanders separated by a mountain is. Great consistency in logic there. I guess sometimes with a little creative thinking and closing your eyes and wishing hard enough, anything is possible.

BTW, I will not be replying to any replies to this.. Don't have time nor the desire to.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

DeletedUser16008

Some of the tricks used to claim speciation are laughable too. Let's take the geographical divide example and put it to practical example, is a black lab in New York a different species then a Yellow lab in England because of the separation and minor cosmetic appearances? Yet salamanders separated by a mountain is. Great consistency in logic there. I guess sometimes with a little creative thinking and closing your eyes and wishing hard enough, anything is possible.

If you mean domestic dogs, then there is only one species, Canis familiaris the rest are selective breeding, or aesthetics gone humanly mad. However, there are somwhere between 300 and 400 different breeds (the particular number recognized varies from country to country). All can breed with each other they are not classed as a separate species.There is conclusive evidence the present lineage of dogs genetically diverged from their wolf ancestors at least 15,000 years ago

If you meant 'dogs' as in members of the dog family (Canidae), there are 36 species:

African wild dog (Lycaon pictus)
Arctic fox (Alopex lagopus)
Argentine grey fox (Dusicyon griseus)
Azara's fox (Dusicyon gymnocercus)
Bat-eared fox (Otocyon megalotis)
Black-backed jackal (Canis mesomelas)
Blanford's fox (Vulpes cana)
Bush dog (Speothos venaticus)
Cape fox (Vulpes chama)
Colpeo fox (Dusicyon culpaeus)
Corsac fox (Vulpes corsac)
Coyote (Canis latrans)
Crab-eating fox (Dusicyon thous)
Darwin's fox (Dusicyon fulvipes)
Dhole (Cuon alpinus)
Dingo (Canis dingo)
Domestic dog (Canis familiaris)
Ethiopian wolf (Canis simensis)
Fennec fox (Vulpes zerda)
Golden jackal (Canis aureus)
Grey fox (Urocyon cinereoargenteus)
Grey wolf (Canis lupus)
Hoary fox (Dusicyon vetulus)
Indian fox (Vulpes bengalensis)
Kit fox (Vulpes macrotis)
Maned wolf (Chrysocyon brachyurus)
Pale fox (Vulpes pallida)
Raccoon dog (Nyctereutes procyonoides)
Red fox (Vulpes vulpes)
Red wolf (Canis rufus)
Ruppell's fox (Vulpes ruppelli)
Sechuran fox (Dusicyon sechurae)
Short-eared dog (Atelocynus microtis)
Side-striped jackal (Canis adustus)
Swift fox (Vulpes velox)
Tibetan sand fox (Vulpes ferrilata)

Salamander is a common name of approximately 550 extant species of amphibians.[1] They are typically characterized by a superficially lizard-like appearance, with their slender bodies, short noses, and long tails. All known fossil salamanders and all extinct species fall under the order Caudata, while sometimes the extant species are grouped together as the Urodela. {2} Most salamanders have four toes on their front legs and five on their rear legs. Their moist skin usually makes them reliant on habitats in or near water, or under some protection (e.g., moist ground), often in a wetland. Some salamander species are fully aquatic throughout life, some take to the water intermittently, and some are entirely terrestrial as adults. Unique among vertebrates, they are capable of regenerating lost limbs, as well as other body parts. Many of the members of the family Salamandridae are known as newts.
The earliest known salamander fossils have been found in geological deposits of China and Kazakhstan, which have been dated to the middle Jurassic period, up to 164 million (plus or minus 4 million) years ago.

Physical characteristics

Mature salamanders generally have a basal tetrapod body form with a cylindrical trunk, four limbs and a long tail. Some species such as sirens and amphiumas have reduced or absent hindlimbs, giving them a more eel-like appearance. Most species have four clawless toes on the forelimbs and five on the hind limbs but not all.

Physiology

Respiration differs among the different species of salamanders. Species that lack lungs respire through gills. In most cases, these are external gills, visible as tufts on either side of the head, although the amphiumas have internal gills and gill slits. Some salamanders that are terrestrial have lungs that are used in respiration, although these are simple and sac-like, unlike the more complex organs found in mammals. Many species, such as the olm, have both lungs and gills as adults.
Some terrestrial species lack both lungs and gills and perform gas exchange through their skin, a process known as valerian respiration in which the capillary beds are spread throughout the epidermis, and inside the mouth. Even some species with lungs can respire through the skin in this manner.

Dogs dont have different anatomy bits missing or reproductive differences etc for one thing. You get the general idea comparing dogs colouring and salamanders was a great idea we can easily see the difference between a breed and a species. Thanks for that

BTW, I will not be replying to any replies to this.. Don't have time nor the desire to.

Cool, saves ripping you to bits.
 

DeletedUser17143

Micro evolution and macro evolution are very distinct processes. One could lead to another but it doesn't make it so. There is not direct evidence of macroevolution that is not a form of semantics adulterating the definition of species. It is sort of like Pluto. When you change the definitions of something to suit your needs, you can prove anything or call anything whatever you want. BTW, halfway is the correct answer to the dog running into the woods. Because then he will be running out of the woods.

He isn't changing the definition. Microevolution measures all of the tiny things that change in organisms in a population so that differences can be compiled using the short term. For instance western society humans are now developing longer and more defined thumbs due to how prominent it is becoming in day to day life. (From phones, computer games ect.) whereas those in countries where this technology is not a common are not experiencing the same evolutionary change. Whereas Macro evolution looks at how all of the small things that evolve over time can change a whole species in the long term. Such as the many stages of homosapien before the human as we know it came into being.

Interesting cites. However, they do not show new species as in the definition of species, it's more like a breed as in the different breeds of dogs. It does indicate that given enough time, a fruit fly might become a giraffe or cat or something completely knew and unknown to man, but until the fruit fly becomes something other then a fruit fly or the salamander becomes something other then a salamander and so on, we don't have it.

Some of the tricks used to claim speciation are laughable too. Let's take the geographical divide example and put it to practical example, is a black lab in New York a different species then a Yellow lab in England because of the separation and minor cosmetic appearances? Yet salamanders separated by a mountain is. Great consistency in logic there. I guess sometimes with a little creative thinking and closing your eyes and wishing hard enough, anything is possible.

BTW, I will not be replying to any replies to this.. Don't have time nor the desire to.

Evolution on a major scale happens over millions of years. A fruit fly doesn't just wake up one day and realise it is a giraffe. This is honestly the most ridiculous argument against evolution I have ever heard. Were you born in a room with not a lot of oxygen? Or at least dropped a number of times from a considerable height as a baby? You used different breeds of dog as an argument against evolution? Seriously. They are one of the best arguments to show evolution.

Definition of Evolution:

"A gradual process in which something changes into a different and usually more complex or better form."

Why your argument is completely stupid.

There are three key factors that influence evolution. They are:

- genetic variation between individuals
- natural selection
- sexual recombination.

Now genetic variation between individuals comes about by mutation. When DNA duplicates random mutations can occur. This is proven. These mutations can cause a nucleotide base to be inserted, deleted or substituted in the DNA sequence. Factors in our environment, such as UV light, radiation and some chemicals, can increase the number of random mutations.

Natural Selection is also proven. All organisms respond to changes in their environment. If it gets sunny, you get a tan which will help prevent burns in the future. Individuals will respond in different ways depending on their genes. Those individuals whose genes are best suited to the environment are more likely to survive and pass on their genes to the next generation. This is natural selection. Gradually, favourable genes will start to predominate in the population and less favourable genes will decline.

And finally the one that is most relevant to your ridiculous argument. Sexual Recombination. During sexual recombination, the genes from each parent are recombined and shuffled to produce new combinations in the offspring.

These are the three steps that increase genetic variation in a population:

- crossing over
- independent assortment
- fertilisation.

rossing over occurs when the chromosomes of the two parents break and the and they rejoin, trading some of their genes. The chromosomes now have genes from either parent in a unique order to how they were previously. Because of this each child has some attributes physically and possibly mentally to that of their parents depending on the strength of the genes.

Independent assortment is the process where the chromosomes segregate randomly into separate gametes during meiosis. (Gametes are the reproductive cells, by the way. Meiosis is the cell division that occurs to make the egg or sperm cells or rather Gametes.)

Fertilisation, is when the gametes from each parent join randomly, which produces a unique combination of genes.

With dogs humans have used what we know about the above to create new breeds of dog designed specifically for the jobs they do.

This is a link to Rottweiler Kennel India. ( http://www.xcellsakennels.com/rottweilerevolution.php ) It states stage by stage the evolutionary differences that have been bred into the Rottweiler since 1907. Yes bred into them. Humans have forced them to evolve rather than waiting for natural selection. Istead they have chose the Rottweilers with the specific genes they want (so those with mutations that have caused them to become smaller, or larger. Or have stronger bones ect.) to be bred with another Rottweiler that has more genes that they like to produce offspring which have a mix of both parents DNA.

We consider all dogs to just be dogs, and have different breeds, but the truth is that most of them are so completely different in DNA that they are pretty much different species. They are from the same family, sure. But other than their ability to reproduce with each other. They are no more similar to each other than we are to monkeys. Or than the Hippo is to the Whale.

Before you go running your mouth and making rubbish up to suit your argument, why don't you actually try doing some research, learning the facts and just generally try to get a clue. You're hopelessly terrible at any sort of debate because you lack the intellect to actually find out what you are talking about.

P.S. I don't care if what I said just then is rude. Putting a comment into a D&D thread just to let people know your opinion, and then stating that you don't care enough to reply is rude. If you're going to enter the debate then at least have the balls to continue and listen to what others have to say about your opinion.
 

DeletedUser

I suppose I'll jump on the sumdumass bashing bandwagon.

Interesting argument here. let's see if I can put a name to it. We will call it the "You are wrong because I said so, stop being like those ignorant people and hang around people I approve of". Your mental prowls are on fire here. Keep up the good work. At least is wan't a "you're wrong because I said so".
Nice try, but it's actually: "do not ignore the professors and instead rely on the gas station attendant for your answers."

It's actually very simple Sumdumass. If undergoing surgery for your heart, would you rather have the scalpel held by a guy toting the bible and screaming, "the end is near" or from an educated and licensed heart surgeon?

When it comes to receiving services, or obtaining information, it is simple common sense to obtain such from experts in their respective fields, and it is also common sense to rely on an expert in heart surgery to perform open-heart surgery than an expert in carpentry to perform open-heart surgery.

WillyPete is relying upon bible-toting internet bloggers, with little to no education in biology, for his erroneous information regarding micro-evolution and macro-evolution. But you seem to be more offended that I bothered to correct him, than with any of the information presented. Fixated again are we?

Micro evolution and macro evolution are very distinct processes. One could lead to another but it doesn't make it so. There is not direct evidence of macroevolution that is not a form of semantics adulterating the definition of species.
Would you like to provide evidence to support your erroneous statements?

Interesting cites. However, they do not show new species as in the definition of species
What are you rambling about, of course it does. Perhaps it doesn't satisfy your interpretation of what constitutes a species, but then again you're no scientist, just some fallacy-driven debater who is more inclined to argue semantics than facts. And yes, they are interesting citations. They are peer-reviewed reports and studies on evidence of speciation (i.e., macroevolution), which trumps your "doesn't show species as the definition of species" line of crap.

Some of the tricks used to claim speciation are laughable too.
Please demonstrate to us where, in any of the reports and studies I provided, these so-called tricks were presented. It's obvious you're merely creating a strawman argument (logical fallacy), something that is not presented in any of the reports or studies and "claiming" a trick was implemented, but not directly indicating that they were implemented in any of these reports/studies just to give the false impression that your strawman was related to the topic at hand.
 

DeletedUser

So, when a species of insect develops an immunity to a particular pesticide when those who have a natural resistance to that chemical survive and pass on their genes to future generations, and those with no resistance die without reproducing, that isn't evolution via natural selection, but it's God screwing with agribusiness or trying to save his beloved Anopheles mosquitoes?
 

DeletedUser

Some of the tricks used to claim speciation are laughable too. Let's take the geographical divide example and put it to practical example, is a black lab in New York a different species then a Yellow lab in England because of the separation and minor cosmetic appearances? Yet salamanders separated by a mountain is. Great consistency in logic there.
Oh wow, I think this is the lamest argument I've ever seen, even on this forum.
Look at it again
.....is a black lab in New York a different species then a Yellow lab in England because of the separation and minor cosmetic appearances? Yet salamanders separated by a mountain is. Great consistency in logic there.
This guy must think a cow and a horse are the same species because he's seen them in the same field! You can't even discuss with people like that, you just have to laugh and turn the page.
 

DeletedUser

This subject is well addressed here.
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_absolute_proof_is_there_for_the_theory_of_evolution

"This guy must think a cow and a horse are the same species because he's seen them in the same field! You can't even discuss with people like that, you just have to laugh and turn the page".-Eli

Actually he was arguing the exact opposite...

The evidence of there being different "kinds" of animals that are well defined is proven. You cannot breed two different kinds of animals and you can only breed traits to a point. The idea that micro evolution adds up to macro evolution is debatable to say the least. The so called evidence that the beaks of some bird getting bigger adds up to a lizard some time down the road is false, and if you look at those Galápagos finches their beaks actually very from large to small and there are limits to the variation.http://www.truthinscience.org.uk/tis2/index.php/component/content/article/53.html "It can therefore be argued that the study shows natural limits to evolutionary change. Variation in a species is a good thing, as it gives them the ability to cope with environmental change, but variation does have limits." Obviously animals can adapt to their environments but this does not mean they don't have set limits.
 

DeletedUser

This subject is well addressed here.
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_absolute_proof_is_there_for_the_theory_of_evolution

"This guy must think a cow and a horse are the same species because he's seen them in the same field! You can't even discuss with people like that, you just have to laugh and turn the page".-Eli

Actually he was arguing the exact opposite...
Read the post again - he said it was illogical for geographically separated dogs to be the same species if neighbouring reptiles weren't. It's such a silly point I won't spend any more time on it.

The evidence of there being different "kinds" of animals that are well defined is proven. You cannot breed two different kinds of animals and you can only breed traits to a point. The idea that micro evolution adds up to macro evolution is debatable to say the least. The so called evidence that the beaks of some bird getting bigger adds up to a lizard some time down the road is false, and if you look at those Galápagos finches their beaks actually very from large to small and there are limits to the variation.http://www.truthinscience.org.uk/tis2/index.php/component/content/article/53.html "It can therefore be argued that the study shows natural limits to evolutionary change. Variation in a species is a good thing, as it gives them the ability to cope with environmental change, but variation does have limits." Obviously animals can adapt to their environments but this does not mean they don't have set limits.
You haven't grasped Darwin. Those finches were separate species, not varieties. No one ever claimed that birds could evolve into lizards. Oh, reallly, these are basic mistakes, please let's not go over what's been said a million times.
Sure the universe could have been created 6,000 years ago with all the fossils in their correct geological strata to look like evolution had happened over millions of years, but there again the universe might have been created this morning with all my (false) memories put in place just as though it were there yesterday. So the universe can be any age you jolly well please - it's just that all the lines converge at about 14 billion years ago, so that's a more natural and explanatory powerful framework.
Anyone can believe anything they like, but if they choose to believe fairy stories they will never experience how amazing life really is.
 

DeletedUser30834

Read the post again - he said it was illogical for geographically separated dogs to be the same species if neighbouring reptiles weren't. It's such a silly point I won't spend any more time on it.
Maybe you should read the post again yourself. I did say what willypete repeated to you and the dog and lizzard comment was using a breed of dog to show the purposeful manipulation of a definition in order to claim a speciation even in lizards. No conflict between types of animals there outside the tactics being employed to claim evolution does not hold up to simple criticizing.

But maybe I can understand your confusion if you are ignorant of what is posted in various places on the reference site. However, you should not be able to make the same mistake now.


You haven't grasped Darwin. Those finches were separate species, not varieties. No one ever claimed that birds could evolve into lizards. Oh, reallly, these are basic mistakes, please let's not go over what's been said a million times.
Sure the universe could have been created 6,000 years ago with all the fossils in their correct geological strata to look like evolution had happened over millions of years, but there again the universe might have been created this morning with all my (false) memories put in place just as though it were there yesterday. So the universe can be any age you jolly well please - it's just that all the lines converge at about 14 billion years ago, so that's a more natural and explanatory powerful framework.
Anyone can believe anything they like, but if they choose to believe fairy stories they will never experience how amazing life really is.
At this point now and then, species is a semantics game. Darwin's claim of evolution was no more then an observations of changes within a species of bird (finch to be exact). The dog example lives strong here where dogs look very different and are not considered a different species.

There was a running joke about this a while back where someone postulated how many different species we would have if dogs were as diverse as they are now but dies off before humans were around and all we had to go by was the fossil record.

Talkorigins, which is the site mainly cited by the opening post is a site dedicated to pushing evolution over creation. On it, you find lots of wild claims like one supposed speciation even where two otherwise identical gulls are consider a different species just because their migratory habits separate them by a hundred miles or so and their paths never normally cross. You will see claims based around a flow that looked different after genetic manipulation by forced pollination but it ignores the fact that it reverted to it's original form in as little as a 4 life cycles when left unattended.

The bottom line is, we have never observed speciation or evolution in the way needed to actually prove the theory of evolution when used to describe the gap between initial abiogenesis, Orthogenesis, biogeneses, or even panspermia and what we see today. We have observed evolution within a species to a point a logical inference can be drawn indicating a mechanism possible for it to happen, but that doesn't prove it fact nor disprove any other theory or statement of creation. It just gives a working model that allows the understanding to be exploited. BTW, there are plenty of perfectly fine scientific theories where evolution can be explained without a transspecies speciation event ever needing to take place.

Ask yourself a question, can evolution between species ever be proven false. If you answered no, you are outside of the realm of science.
 

DeletedUser

Talkorigins, which is the site mainly cited by the opening post is a site dedicated to pushing evolution over creation. On it, you find lots of wild claims
Rather than argue the facts presented in the reports and studies provided, you once again use another fallacy in trying to discredit the hosting site of three of the reports/studies I linked.

First, Talkorigins is not a site dedicated to pushing anything. It's a site providing facts and evidence and focuses heavily on providing facts/evidence directed at all the "Intelligent Design" crap being spewed out by fundamentalists.

Second, the links I provided were directly to reports/studies from credible, credentialed, authors. For example, the detailed FAQ was written by Dr. Joseph Boxhorn, who studied entomology at Michigan State University and received a B.S. degree in Biology and Science Education and a Ph.D. in Aquatic Ecology from the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee. He has taught Biology, Botany, and Environmental Science at the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee, the University of Wisconsin-Whitewater, and the Milwaukee Institute of Art and Design. When he wrote the FAQ, he cited:
  1. Ahearn, J. N. 1980. Evolution of behavioral reproductive isolation in a laboratory stock of Drosophila silvestris. Experientia. 36:63-64.
  2. Barton, N. H., J. S. Jones and J. Mallet. 1988. No barriers to speciation. Nature. 336:13-14.
  3. Baum, D. 1992. Phylogenetic species concepts. Trends in Ecology and Evolution. 7:1-3.
  4. Boraas, M. E. 1983. Predator induced evolution in chemostat culture. EOS. Transactions of the American Geophysical Union. 64:1102.
  5. 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.
  6. Budd, A. F. and B. D. Mishler. 1990. Species and evolution in clonal organisms -- a summary and discussion. Systematic Botany 15:166-171.
  7. Bullini, L. and G. Nascetti. 1990. Speciation by hybridization in phasmids and other insects. Canadian Journal of Zoology. 68:1747-1760.
  8. Butters, F. K. 1941. Hybrid Woodsias in Minnesota. Amer. Fern. J. 31:15-21.
  9. Butters, F. K. and R. M. Tryon, jr. 1948. A fertile mutant of a Woodsia hybrid. American Journal of Botany. 35:138.
  10. Brock, T. D. and M. T. Madigan. 1988. Biology of Microorganisms (5th edition). Prentice Hall, Englewood, NJ.
  11. Callaghan, C. A. 1987. Instances of observed speciation. The American Biology Teacher. 49:3436.
  12. Castenholz, R. W. 1992. Species usage, concept, and evolution in the cyanobacteria (blue-green algae). Journal of Phycology 28:737-745.
  13. 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.
  14. 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.
  15. 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.
  16. Cronquist, A. 1978. Once again, what is a species? Biosystematics in agriculture. Beltsville Symposia in Agricultural Research 2:3-20.
  17. Cronquist, A. 1988. The evolution and classification of flowering plants (2nd edition). The New York Botanical Garden, Bronx, NY.
  18. 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.
  19. 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.
  20. de Queiroz, K. and M. Donoghue. 1988. Phylogenetic systematics and the species problem. Cladistics. 4:317-338.
  21. de Queiroz, K. and M. Donoghue. 1990. Phylogenetic systematics and species revisited. Cladistics. 6:83-90.
  22. de Vries, H. 1905. Species and varieties, their origin by mutation.
  23. de Wet, J. M. J. 1971. Polyploidy and evolution in plants. Taxon. 20:29-35.
  24. 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.
  25. Digby, L. 1912. The cytology of Primula kewensis and of other related Primula hybrids. Ann. Bot. 26:357-388.
  26. Dobzhansky, T. 1937. Genetics and the origin of species. Columbia University Press, New York.
  27. Dobzhansky, T. 1951. Genetics and the origin of species (3rd edition). Columbia University Press, New York.
  28. Dobzhansky, T. and O. Pavlovsky. 1971. Experimentally created incipient species of Drosophila. Nature. 230:289-292.
  29. Dobzhansky, T. 1972. Species of Drosophila: new excitement in an old field. Science. 177:664-669.
  30. Dodd, D. M. B. 1989. Reproductive isolation as a consequence of adaptive divergence in Drosophila melanogaster. Evolution 43:1308-1311.
  31. Dodd, D. M. B. and J. R. Powell. 1985. Founder-flush speciation: an update of experimental results with Drosophila. Evolution 39:1388-1392.
  32. Donoghue, M. J. 1985. A critique of the biological species concept and recommendations for a phylogenetic alternative. Bryologist 88:172-181.
  33. Du Rietz, G. E. 1930. The fundamental units of biological taxonomy. Svensk. Bot. Tidskr. 24:333-428.
  34. Ehrman, E. 1971. Natural selection for the origin of reproductive isolation. The American Naturalist. 105:479-483.
  35. Ehrman, E. 1973. More on natural selection for the origin of reproductive isolation. The American Naturalist. 107:318-319.
  36. 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.
  37. 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.
  38. Frandsen, K. J. 1943. The experimental formation of Brassica juncea Czern. et Coss. Dansk. Bot. Arkiv., No. 4, 11:1-17.
  39. 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.
  40. Galiana, A., A. Moya and F. J. Alaya. 1993. Founder-flush speciation in Drosophila pseudoobscura: a large scale experiment. Evolution. 47432-444.
  41. Gottleib, L. D. 1973. Genetic differentiation, sympatric speciation, and the origin of a diploid species of Stephanomeira. American Journal of Botany. 60: 545-553.
  42. Halliburton, R. and G. A. E. Gall. 1981. Disruptive selection and assortative mating in Tribolium castaneum. Evolution. 35:829-843.
  43. 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.
  44. Karpchenko, G. D. 1927. Polyploid hybrids of Raphanus sativus L. X Brassica oleraceae L. Bull. Appl. Botany. 17:305-408.
  45. Karpchenko, G. D. 1928. Polyploid hybrids of Raphanus sativus L. X Brassica oleraceae L. Z. Indukt. Abstami-a Verenbungsi. 48:1-85.
  46. Kilias, G., S. N. Alahiotis and M. Delecanos. 1980. A multifactorial investigation of speciation theory using Drosophila melanogaster. Evolution. 34:730-737.
  47. Knight, G. R., A. Robertson and C. H. Waddington. 1956. Selection for sexual isolation within a species. Evolution. 10:14-22.
  48. Koopman, K. F. 1950. Natural selection for reproductive isolation between Drosophila pseudoobscura and Drosophila persimilis. Evolution. 4:135-148.
  49. Lee, R. E. 1989. Phycology (2nd edition) Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK
  50. Levin, D. A. 1979. The nature of plant species. Science 204:381-384.
  51. Lokki, J. and A. Saura. 1980. Polyploidy in insect evolution. In: W. H. Lewis (ed.) Polyploidy: Biological Relevance. Plenum Press, New York.
  52. 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.
  53. Macnair, M. R. and P. Christie. 1983. Reproductive isolation as a pleiotropic effect of copper tolerance in Mimulus guttatus. Heredity. 50:295-302.
  54. Manhart, J. R. and R. M. McCourt. 1992. Molecular data and species concepts in the algae. Journal of Phycology. 28:730-737.
  55. Mayr, E. 1942. Systematics and the origin of species from the viewpoint of a zoologist. Columbia University Press, New York.
  56. 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.
  57. McPheron, B. A., D. C. Smith and S. H. Berlocher. 1988. Genetic differentiation between host races of Rhagoletis pomonella. Nature. 336:64-66.
  58. Meffert, L. M. and E. H. Bryant. 1991. Mating propensity and courtship behavior in serially bottlenecked lines of the housefly. Evolution 45:293-306.
  59. Mishler, B. D. 1985. The morphological, developmental and phylogenetic basis of species concepts in the bryophytes. Bryologist. 88:207-214.
  60. Mishler, B. D. and M. J. Donoghue. 1982. Species concepts: a case for pluralism. Systematic Zoology. 31:491-503.
  61. Muntzing, A. 1932. Cytogenetic investigations on the synthetic Galeopsis tetrahit. Hereditas. 16:105-154.
  62. Nelson, G. 1989. Cladistics and evolutionary models. Cladistics. 5:275-289.
  63. Newton, W. C. F. and C. Pellew. 1929. Primula kewensis and its derivatives. J. Genetics. 20:405-467.
  64. Otte, E. and J. A. Endler (eds.). 1989. Speciation and its consequences. Sinauer Associates. Sunderland, MA.
  65. Owenby, M. 1950. Natural hybridization and amphiploidy in the genus Tragopogon. Am. J. Bot. 37:487-499.
  66. Pasterniani, E. 1969. Selection for reproductive isolation between two populations of maize, Zea mays L. Evolution. 23:534-547.
  67. Powell, J. R. 1978. The founder-flush speciation theory: an experimental approach. Evolution. 32:465-474.
  68. Prokopy, R. J., S. R. Diehl, and S. H. Cooley. 1988. Oecologia. 76:138.
  69. 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.
  70. Rice, W. R. 1985. Disruptive selection on habitat preference and the evolution of reproductive isolation: an exploratory experiment. Evolution. 39:645-646.
  71. Rice, W. R. and E. E. Hostert. 1993. Laboratory experiments on speciation: What have we learned in forty years? Evolution. 47:1637-1653.
  72. Rice, W. R. and G. W. Salt. 1988. Speciation via disruptive selection on habitat preference: experimental evidence. The American Naturalist. 131:911-917.
  73. 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.
  74. Ringo, J., D. Wood, R. Rockwell, and H. Dowse. 1989. An experiment testing two hypotheses of speciation. The American Naturalist. 126:642-661.
  75. Schluter, D. and L. M. Nagel. 1995. Parallel speciation by natural selection. American Naturalist. 146:292-301.
  76. 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.
  77. Smith, D. C. 1988. Heritable divergence of Rhagoletis pomonella host races by seasonal asynchrony. Nature. 336:66-67.
  78. 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.
  79. Sokal, R. R. and T. J. Crovello. 1970. The biological species concept: a critical evaluation. The American Naturalist. 104:127-153.
  80. Soltis, D. E. and P. S. Soltis. 1989. Allopolyploid speciation in Tragopogon: Insights from chloroplast DNA. American Journal of Botany. 76:1119-1124.
  81. Stuessy, T. F. 1990. Plant taxonomy. Columbia University Press, New York.
  82. Thoday, J. M. and J. B. Gibson. 1962. Isolation by disruptive selection. Nature. 193:1164-1166.
  83. Thoday, J. M. and J. B. Gibson. 1970. The probability of isolation by disruptive selection. The American Naturalist. 104:219-230.
  84. Thompson, J. N. 1987. Symbiont-induced speciation. Biological Journal of the Linnean Society. 32:385-393.
  85. Vrijenhoek, R. C. 1994. Unisexual fish: Model systems for studying ecology and evolution. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics. 25:71-96.
  86. 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.
  87. 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.
  88. Wood, A. M. and T. Leatham. 1992. The species concept in phytoplankton ecology. Journal of Phycology. 28:723-729.
  89. Yen, J. H. and A. R. Barr. 1971. New hypotheses of the cause of cytoplasmic incompatability in Culex pipiens L.

And then we have Douglas Theobald Ph.D., professor of Biochemistry, Brandeis University who obtained his bachelor's at University of Tennessee and his Ph.D. at University of Colorado. He received the Alberta Gotthardt Strage and Henry Strage Award, the Camille and Henry Dreyfus New Faculty Award and is an American Cancer Society Postdoctoral Fellow. Oh, and he listed 376 citations, which is more than I can post on 4 posts on this thread, and 4 times more than are presented for Dr. Boxhorn's report noted above (click here for Dr. Theobald's list of citations).

There really is no point in bogging down this discussion with repeatedly responding to Sumdumass' continued efforts at posing fallacious arguments (rather than what he should be doing, which is to present facts and evidence in support of his posturings), I'll merely reiterate that Sumdumass hasn't presented any evidence in this thread (in fact, I can't recall him "ever" presenting evidence in "any" discussion).

So by all means Sum, keep tossing the poo...

monkey10.png
 
Last edited by a moderator:

DeletedUser30834

Talk origins is a site specifically set up for the purpose of refuting creation.

From their homepage:

Talk.origins is a Usenet newsgroup devoted to the discussion and debate of biological and physical origins. Most discussions in the newsgroup center on the creation/evolution controversy, but other topics of discussion include the origin of life, geology, biology, catastrophism, cosmology and theology.
The TalkOrigins Archive is a collection of articles and essays, most of which have appeared in talk.origins at one time or another. The primary reason for this archive's existence is to provide mainstream scientific responses to the many frequently asked questions (FAQs) that appear in the talk.origins newsgroup and the frequently rebutted assertions of those advocating intelligent design or other creationist pseudosciences.

I'm sorry you haven't taken the time to both looking.

As for your list, I already addressed that. There is no direct evidence of speciation through macroevolution that is not a form of semantics adulterating the definition of species. Not even in the links you presented. Look up the definition of species, you will find about 4 in use today, they are slightly different from the definitions used 30 years ago, and none of the claimed speciation observations can conform to a single definition without adding to or subtracting from one of the definitions of species.

It is wishful thinking, perhaps even logical to assume that with the evidence we have available that speciation through evolution is possible, but it in no way disproves any other way. Science does not do that and anyone who thinks it does is not familiar with science. Science at best can prove something doesn't work when it can test it, but it cannot test an omnipotent being creating something. Science simply cannot disprove creation, the best it can do is present an alternate path.

Sorry to be the bearer of bad news for you.
 

DeletedUser

Science does not prove anything, ever.
It is an open-ended, open-minded approach that creates theories in order to better understand the universe we live in.
The Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection could be disproved a billion times a day. It would only take a cat to give birth to a puppy or any new species to falsify it. In all the countless billions of scientific observations over centuries not one has failed to fall within its ambit.
Not bad, as theories go.
 

DeletedUser30834

Science does not prove anything, ever.
It is an open-ended, open-minded approach that creates theories in order to better understand the universe we live in.
The Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection could be disproved a billion times a day. It would only take a cat to give birth to a puppy or any new species to falsify it. In all the countless billions of scientific observations over centuries not one has failed to fall within its ambit.
Not bad, as theories go.
Actually, it could not be disproved. Only specific observations could be falsified. You started off pretty good then failed with that comment. You see, the scope of the claim encompasses so much that even if you find something that looks like it would have evolved from a common ancestor then later determined it to of been a completely separate liniage not connected at all, it would only count to that one thing. Furthermore, the theory of evolution through natural selection has been wrong several times in the past but because it is a best guess based on evidences around us, all it being wrong does is change the theory a bit. In fact, Darwin, who isn't the first to purpose an evolutionary theory, actually got it wrong and the modern day version of evolutions is quite different from his initial assumptions and claims.

Think of it this way, Newton's laws of physics did not disappear when when Einstein's theory of relativity was created. It had to explain or incorporate the observations and claims made by Newton and it did that quite well. If Evolution is ever proven wrong by a ca giving birth to a puppy, it will not prove evolution wrong, it will just prove the connections between cats and dogs wrong.

I know you were being funny with the cat birthing a puppy, but lets think about this a little more. We have created new species in labs that actually do follow the complete definition of species through direct genetic manipulation of existing life forms. In short, we have "created" new species in the literal sense of both species and "creation". We cannot create life though, but this new creation of species does not disprove evolution in favor of creation. It doesn't even prove creation despite that being exactly what it is- the creation of new species. What it does is shows that another way is possible.
 

DeletedUser

Actually, it could not be disproved. Only specific observations could be falsified. You started off pretty good then failed with that comment.
Normally you would be right, but I specifically used the wording I did in response to your question:

"Ask yourself a question, can evolution between species ever be proven false."[?]

Of course, you should have used "falsified" yourself, but since you didn't, and I had no reason to think that you were posing a trick question, I thought it would be more polite and that you would understand my answer better if I phrased it in the way you chose.

That's the thanks I get for not pointing out your mistake. :)
 
Last edited by a moderator:

DeletedUser

Talk origins is a site specifically set up for the purpose of refuting creation.
Wrong. You are intentionally distorting what was presented on their homepage. Refutation of Creation is not possible (as there is no evidence for or against), but literal interpretation of Bible passages is easily debunked.

So... refutation is merely the process of defending against false logic attacks by Creationists. Creationism has no basis, has no evidence, has no supporting data. Instead of presenting facts and evidence, they attempt to dethrone the prevailing scientific theories and usurp that throne. Couch potato science, but science is not a video game --- not played with an Xbox controller. There is ample evidence to support both the facts and theories of evolution precisely because of the extensive "work" committed by countless researchers, which consists of warehouses of evidence, libraries of reports and studies requiring ample formal education to comprehend (which is why there are people like Dr. Theobald and Dr. Boxhorn who are courteous enough to present such information in lay terminology).

Anyway, the basis to Creationist arguments is on placing belief on the same footing as scientific analysis. But for "science" being grounded whilst "belief" is groundless, we find the 'created' battlefield.

Creationists do not perform a scientific analysis of Creationism, but an unscientific assault on evolution. Ultimately, they fail to address the indisputable facts and fail to present 'any' evidence to support Creationism, nor is it even remotely feasible for such to occur.

Evolution is both concrete evidence (fact) and supported conclusion (theory), while Creationism is neither. There are not facts to Creationism (saying something exists does not make it so, and thus the Bible is not 'fact'), nor are there theories (because there is no evidentiary support).

Also, Creationists argue with straw men, creating the labels of Darwinians and Evolutionists. In doing so, Creationists attempt to redefine evolution, not as a scientific field of study, but as people with 'beliefs.' In this tactic, they attempt to redefine evolution not as science, but as religion, and those with 'knowledge' in the field of evolution as priests of a flawed belief system.

However, we all know evolution is not a belief system, nor is it a religion. It is no more a religion than the broader, yet intersecting, fields of cosmology, physics, or biology. The thing is, it is easier to attack 'someone' than it is to attack 'something,' and infinitely easier than to provide scientific analysis and evidence in support of thier "feelings," i.e., beliefs.

So, the Creationist argument is, "It's in the Book!" And the Creationist' argument against all the research and supporting evidence on evolution is, "It's the Devil!"

And we are left with Sumdumass using excerpts from a book, of less than 775,000 words, to pose fallacious arguments in an effort to discredit tens of thousands of scientific researchers, each with at least one doctoral degree, a requisite of at least 8 years of indepth study each, constituting an absolute minimum of 80,000 years of educational mass.

Kinda silly when you put it into perspective...
 

DeletedUser

Wrong. You are intentionally distorting what was presented on their homepage. Refutation of Creation is not possible (as there is no evidence for or against), but literal interpretation of Bible passages is easily debunked.

So... refutation is merely the process of defending against false logic attacks by Creationists. Creationism has no basis, has no evidence, has no supporting data. Instead of presenting facts and evidence, they attempt to dethrone the prevailing scientific theories and usurp that throne. Couch potato science, but science is not a video game --- not played with an Xbox controller. There is ample evidence to support both the facts and theories of evolution precisely because of the extensive "work" committed by countless researchers, which consists of warehouses of evidence, libraries of reports and studies requiring ample formal education to comprehend (which is why there are people like Dr. Theobald and Dr. Boxhorn who are courteous enough to present such information in lay terminology).

Anyway, the basis to Creationist arguments is on placing belief on the same footing as scientific analysis. But for "science" being grounded whilst "belief" is groundless, we find the 'created' battlefield.

Creationists do not perform a scientific analysis of Creationism, but an unscientific assault on evolution. Ultimately, they fail to address the indisputable facts and fail to present 'any' evidence to support Creationism, nor is it even remotely feasible for such to occur.

Evolution is both concrete evidence (fact) and supported conclusion (theory), while Creationism is neither. There are not facts to Creationism (saying something exists does not make it so, and thus the Bible is not 'fact'), nor are there theories (because there is no evidentiary support).

Also, Creationists argue with straw men, creating the labels of Darwinians and Evolutionists. In doing so, Creationists attempt to redefine evolution, not as a scientific field of study, but as people with 'beliefs.' In this tactic, they attempt to redefine evolution not as science, but as religion, and those with 'knowledge' in the field of evolution as priests of a flawed belief system.

However, we all know evolution is not a belief system, nor is it a religion. It is no more a religion than the broader, yet intersecting, fields of cosmology, physics, or biology. The thing is, it is easier to attack 'someone' than it is to attack 'something,' and infinitely easier than to provide scientific analysis and evidence in support of thier "feelings," i.e., beliefs.

So, the Creationist argument is, "It's in the Book!" And the Creationist' argument against all the research and supporting evidence on evolution is, "It's the Devil!"

And we are left with Sumdumass using excerpts from a book, of less than 775,000 words, to pose fallacious arguments in an effort to discredit tens of thousands of scientific researchers, each with at least one doctoral degree, a requisite of at least 8 years of indepth study each, constituting an absolute minimum of 80,000 years of educational mass.

Kinda silly when you put it into perspective...

Romans 1:20
New International Version (NIV)
20 For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.

The complexity and design of the universe is the evidence. The more scientist learn the more they realize what they do not know.
 

DeletedUser

Romans 1:20
New International Version (NIV)
20 For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.
And we are left with Sumdumass (and WillyPete) using excerpts from a book, of less than 775,000 words, to pose fallacious arguments in an effort to discredit tens of thousands of scientific researchers, each with at least one doctoral degree, a requisite of at least 8 years of indepth study each, constituting an absolute minimum of 80,000 years of educational mass.

Kinda silly when you put it into perspective...
Btw, you shameless pagan, you took that passage completely out of context. It was in reference to idolizing and worship of other gods, particularly in reference to the sin of such actions according to the Old Testament.

The complexity and design of the universe is the evidence. The more scientist learn the more they realize what they do not know.
Actually, the more they (scientists) realize you (ignorant masses) don't know. At least they're bothering to get an education. You're still busy hiding behind text written by primitive sheepherders from the bronze age to bother to obtain an education and instead blaspheme the very people who devised means to save lives, created technologies to house, to transport, to feed, and discovered how to manage electricity so you can bother us with your inane ramblings via the internetz.

But thank you for sharing your silly thoughts...
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Top