Creationism or evolution?

[bananabrain]

what ADD said. the problem here is people not understanding the purpose and functioning of science as well as taking a daft approach to the sacred text.

and, moreover

They are Mesopotamian gods and the first chapter of Genesis is largely based on their creation myths.

yeah, whatever. or the other way round, or whatever floats your boat. as far as i'm concerned, the complexity and subtlety of the genesis account is largely lost on those who think that everything jewish is some kind of anthropological rip-off.

b'shalom

bananabrain

[Abogado del Diablo]

Originally Posted by bananabrain

as far as i'm concerned, the complexity and subtlety of the genesis account is largely lost on those who think that everything jewish is some kind of anthropological rip-off.

b'shalom

bananabrain

I agree. Genesis is a sophisticated and beautiful expression of the human experience.

[Paladin]

If it be permitted, I would like to duck in here quickly, and thank you all for seeing the scriptures in not only a metaphorical sense but also a mystical one as well. The collective unconscious is improved by the vision of persons such as yourself, and since no one else is going to say it, I will: Thank you!



Peace

Mark

[ProphetSmurf]

"And many scientists who accept the overwhelming evidence of evolution are also theists"

Present this evidence. It does not exist. I first want to see the fossils of a SLIZARD. Then I wish to see the millions of fish with legs fossils. What, none found? Repeat that? THERE ISNT ANY?? Ahh but you say overwhelming? DNA is against the THEORY, so is "Survival of the fittest". Mutations have never been good, although inevitable, in all species. Evolution is and always has been, a theory. If man has evolved it has been for the worse. Our ancestors lived hundreds of years, today we get lucky to have Willard Scott say hello to us at 100. So bring me these overwhelming species!!! I await!!!!

[Vajradhara]

Originally Posted by ProphetSmurf

"And many scientists who accept the overwhelming evidence of evolution are also theists"

Originally Posted by Smurfy

Present this evidence. It does not exist.

it seems that you have a misuse of the term "theory". science, as you may know, has nothing more solid than a "theory"... like the Theory of Gravity, for instance. it also seems that, given your request for a "slizard" that you have a misconception of what the Theory of Evolution is saying. remember, that there have been significant advances in our knowledge since Darwins original proposal. thus, the debate in the scientific community on this issue is mostly geared towards the mechanisms of Evolution, not disputing the fact of Evoloution, per se.

do you dispute that gravity exists?

can you explain why DNA invalidates the Theory of Evolution?

you do realize that the process of fossilization is quite rare, yes? more to the point, the earth is large and humans are small. we have only explored a tiny bit of our world and, since we can't see underground, we have to have the fortune to be present when fossils are uncovered through geological processes.

nevertheless.... i shall present to you a partial list of observed instances of speciation for your researching pleasure:

General
1. M Nei and J Zhang, Evolution: molecular origin of species. Science 282: 1428-1429, Nov. 20, 1998. Primary article is: CT Ting, SC Tsaur, ML We, and CE Wu, A rapidly evolving homeobox at the site of a hybrid sterility gene. Science 282: 1501-1504, Nov. 20, 1998. As the title implies, has found the genes that actually change during reproductive isolation.
2. M Turelli, The causes of Haldane's rule. Science 282: 889-891, Oct.30, 1998. Haldane's rule describes a phase every population goes thru during speciation: production of inviable and sterile hybrids. Haldane's rule states "When in the F1 [first generation] offspring of two different animal races one sex is absent, rare, or sterile, that sex is the heterozygous [heterogemetic; XY, XO, or ZW] sex."Two leading explanations are fast-male and dominance. Both get supported. X-linked incompatibilities would affect heterozygous gender more because only one gene."
3. Barton, N. H., J. S. Jones and J. Mallet. 1988. No barriers to speciation. Nature. 336:13-14.
4. Baum, D. 1992. Phylogenetic species concepts. Trends in Ecology and Evolution. 7:1-3.
5. Rice, W. R. 1985. Disruptive selection on habitat preference and the evolution of reproductive isolation: an exploratory experiment. Evolution. 39:645-646.
6. Ringo, J., D. Wood, R. Rockwell, and H. Dowse. 1989. An experiment testing two hypotheses of speciation. The American Naturalist. 126:642-661.
7. Schluter, D. and L. M. Nagel. 1995. Parallel speciation by natural selection. American Naturalist. 146:292-301.
8. Callaghan, C. A. 1987. Instances of observed speciation. The American Biology Teacher. 49:3436.
9. Cracraft, J. 1989. Speciation and its ontology: the empirical consequences of alternative species concepts for understanding patterns and processes of differentiation. In Otte, E. and J. A. Endler [eds.] Speciation and its consequences. Sinauer Associates, Sunderland, MA. pp. 28-59.

Chromosome numbers in various species
http://www.kean.edu/~breid/chrom2.htm

Speciation in Insects
1. G Kilias, SN Alahiotis, and M Pelecanos. A multifactorial genetic investigation of speciation theory using drosophila melanogaster Evolution 34:730-737, 1980. Got new species of fruit flies in the lab after 5 years on different diets and temperatures. Also confirmation of natural selection in the process. Lots of references to other studies that saw speciation.
2. JM Thoday, Disruptive selection. Proc. Royal Soc. London B. 182: 109-143, 1972.
Lots of references in this one to other speciation.
3. KF Koopman, Natural selection for reproductive isolation between Drosophila pseudobscura and Drosophila persimilis. Evolution 4: 135-148, 1950. Using artificial mixed poulations of D. pseudoobscura and D. persimilis, it has been possible to show,over a period of several generations, a very rapid increase in the amount of reproductive isolation between the species as a result of natural selection.
4. LE Hurd and RM Eisenberg, Divergent selection for geotactic response and evolution of reproductive isolation in sympatric and allopatric populations of houseflies. American Naturalist 109: 353-358, 1975.
5. Coyne, Jerry A. Orr, H. Allen. Patterns of speciation in Drosophila. Evolution. V43. P362(20) March, 1989.
6. Dobzhansky and Pavlovsky, 1957 An incipient species of Drosophila, Nature 23: 289- 292.
7. Ahearn, J. N. 1980. Evolution of behavioral reproductive isolation in a laboratory stock of Drosophila silvestris. Experientia. 36:63-64.
8. 10. Breeuwer, J. A. J. and J. H. Werren. 1990. Microorganisms associated with chromosome destruction and reproductive isolation between two insect species. Nature. 346:558-560.
9. Powell, J. R. 1978. The founder-flush speciation theory: an experimental approach. Evolution. 32:465-474.
10. Dodd, D. M. B. and J. R. Powell. 1985. Founder-flush speciation: an update of experimental results with Drosophila. Evolution 39:1388-1392. 37. Dobzhansky, T. 1951. Genetics and the origin of species (3rd edition). ColumbiaUniversity Press, New York.
11. Dobzhansky, T. and O. Pavlovsky. 1971. Experimentally created incipient species of Drosophila. Nature. 230:289-292.
12. Dobzhansky, T. 1972. Species of Drosophila: new excitement in an old field. Science. 177:664-669.
13. Dodd, D. M. B. 1989. Reproductive isolation as a consequence of adaptive divergence in Drosophila melanogaster. Evolution 43:1308-1311.
14. de Oliveira, A. K. and A. R. Cordeiro. 1980. Adaptation of Drosophila willistoni experimental populations to extreme pH medium. II. Development of incipient reproductive isolation. Heredity. 44:123-130.15. 29. Rice, W. R. and G. W. Salt. 1988. Speciation via disruptive selection on habitat preference: experimental evidence. The American Naturalist. 131:911-917.
30. Rice, W. R. and G. W. Salt. 1990. The evolution of reproductive isolation as a correlated character under sympatric conditions: experimental evidence. Evolution. 44:1140-1152.
31. del Solar, E. 1966. Sexual isolation caused by selection for positive and negative phototaxis and geotaxis in Drosophila pseudoobscura. Proceedings of the NationalAcademy of Sciences (US). 56:484-487.
32. Weinberg, J. R., V. R. Starczak and P. Jora. 1992. Evidence for rapid speciation following a founder event in the laboratory. Evolution. 46:1214-1220.
33. V Morell, Earth's unbounded beetlemania explained. Science 281:501-503, July 24, 1998. Evolution explains the 330,000 odd beetlespecies. Exploitation of newly evolved flowering plants.
34. B Wuethrich, Speciation: Mexican pairs show geography's role. Science 285: 1190, Aug. 20, 1999. Discusses allopatric speciation. Debate with ecological speciation on which is most prevalent.

Speciation in Plants
1. Speciation in action Science 72:700-701, 1996 A great laboratory study of the evolution of a hybrid plant species. Scientists did it in the lab, but the genetic data says it happened the same way in nature.
2. Hybrid speciation in peonies http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/061288698v1#B1
3. http://www.holysmoke.org/new-species.htm new species of groundsel by hybridization
4. Butters, F. K. 1941. Hybrid Woodsias in Minnesota. Amer. Fern. J. 31:15-21.
5. Butters, F. K. and R. M. Tryon, jr. 1948. A fertile mutant of a Woodsia hybrid. American Journal of Botany. 35:138.
6. Toxic Tailings and Tolerant Grass by RE Cook in Natural History, 90(3): 28-38, 1981 discusses selection pressure of grasses growing on mine tailings that are rich in toxic heavy metals. "When wind borne pollen carrying nontolerant genes crosses the border [between prairie and tailings] and fertilizes the gametes of tolerant females, the resultant offspring show a range of tolerances. The movement of genes from the pasture to the mine would, therefore, tend to dilute the tolerance level of seedlings. Only fully tolerant individuals survive to reproduce, however. This selective mortality, which eliminates variants, counteracts the dilution and molds a toatally tolerant population. The pasture and mine populations evolve distinctive adaptations because selective factors are dominant over the homogenizing influence of foreign genes."
7. Clausen, J., D.D. Keck and W. M. Hiesey. 1945. Experimental studies on the nature of species. II. Plant evolution through amphiploidy and autoploidy, with examples from the Madiinae. Carnegie Institute Washington Publication, 564:1-174.
8. Cronquist, A. 1988. The evolution and classification of flowering plants (2nd edition). The New YorkBotanical Garden, Bronx, NY.
9. P. H. Raven, R. F. Evert, S. E. Eichorn, Biology of Plants (Worth, New York,ed. 6, 1999).
10. M. Ownbey, Am. J. Bot. 37, 487 (1950).
11. M. Ownbey and G. D. McCollum, Am. J. Bot. 40, 788 (1953).
12. S. J. Novak, D. E. Soltis, P. S. Soltis, Am. J. Bot. 78, 1586 (1991).
13. P. S. Soltis, G. M. Plunkett, S. J. Novak, D. E. Soltis, Am. J. Bot. 82,1329 (1995).
14. Digby, L. 1912. The cytology of Primula kewensis and of other related Primula hybrids. Ann. Bot. 26:357-388.
15. Owenby, M. 1950. Natural hybridization and amphiploidy in the genus Tragopogon. Am. J. Bot. 37:487-499.
16. Pasterniani, E. 1969. Selection for reproductive isolation between two populations of maize, Zea mays L. Evolution. 23:534-547.


New Genus
1. Muntzig, A, Triticale Results and Problems, Parey, Berlin, 1979. Describes whole new *genus* of plants, Triticosecale, of several species, formed by artificial selection. These plants are important in agriculture.

Vertebrate Speciation
1. N Barton Ecology: the rapid origin of reproductive isolation Science 290:462-463, Oct. 20, 2000. www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/290/5491/462 Natural selection of reproductive isolation observed in two cases. Full papers are: AP Hendry, JK Wenburg, P Bentzen, EC Volk, TP Quinn, Rapid evolution of reproductive isolation in the wild: evidence from introduced salmon. Science 290: 516-519, Oct. 20, 2000. and M Higgie, S Chenoweth, MWBlows, Natural selection and the reinforcement of mate recognition. Science290: 519-521, Oct. 20, 2000
2. G Vogel, African elephant species splits in two. Science 293: 1414, Aug. 24, 2001. www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/293/5534/1414
3. C Vila` , P Savolainen, JE. Maldonado, IR. Amorim, JE. Rice, RL. Honeycutt, KA. Crandall, JLundeberg, RK. Wayne, Multiple and Ancient Origins of the Domestic Dog Science 276: 1687-1689, 13 JUNE 1997. Dogs no longer one species but 4 according to the genetics. http://www.idir.net/~wolf2dog/wayne1.htm
4. Barrowclough, George F.. Speciation and Geographic Variation in Black-tailed Gnatcatchers. (book reviews) The Condor. V94. P555(2) May, 1992
5. Kluger, Jeffrey. Go fish. Rapid fish speciation in African lakes. Discover. V13. P18(1) March, 1992.
Formation of five new species of cichlid fishes which formed since they were isolated from the parent stock, Lake Nagubago. (These fish have complex mating rituals and different coloration.) See also Mayr, E., 1970. _Populations, Species, and Evolution_, Massachusetts, Harvard University Press. p. 348
6. Genus _Rattus_ currently consists of 137 species [1,2] and is known to have originally developed in Indonesia and Malaysia during and prior to the Middle Ages[3].
[1] T. Yosida. Cytogenetics of the Black Rat. University Park Press, Baltimore, 1980.
[2] D. Morris. The Mammals. Hodder and Stoughton, London, 1965.
[3] G. H. H. Tate. "Some Muridae of the Indo-Australian region," Bull. Amer. Museum Nat. Hist. 72: 501-728, 1963.
7. Stanley, S., 1979. _Macroevolution: Pattern and Process_, San Francisco,
W.H. Freeman and Company. p. 41
Rapid speciation of the Faeroe Island house mouse, which occurred in less than 250 years after man brought the creature to the island.


indebted to Dr. P. Lucas for the concise list.

metta,

~v

[Quahom1]

Originally Posted by ProphetSmurf

"And many scientists who accept the overwhelming evidence of evolution are also theists"

Present this evidence. It does not exist. I first want to see the fossils of a SLIZARD. Then I wish to see the millions of fish with legs fossils. What, none found? Repeat that? THERE ISNT ANY?? Ahh but you say overwhelming? DNA is against the THEORY, so is "Survival of the fittest". Mutations have never been good, although inevitable, in all species. Evolution is and always has been, a theory. If man has evolved it has been for the worse. Our ancestors lived hundreds of years, today we get lucky to have Willard Scott say hello to us at 100. So bring me these overwhelming species!!! I await!!!!

Coelacanth. It is not only a fish with "proto-legs", it is a alive today. It is considered to be over 400 million years old as a species.

http://www.dinofish.com/

It also has prototype lungs, not an air bladder.

Platypus. The platypus has a flat, streamlined body. They have a muzzle shaped like the bill of a duck, webbed feet, and a tail like that of a beaver. The bill is not hard like that of a bird. It is actually an elongated muzzle covered with a leathery skin. The bill and feet of a platypus are black while the fur is usually a dark brown color. The platypus also possesses a spur on it hind legs that can be used to inject venom into another creature. In man this usually causes agonizing pain but can be fatal to smaller creatures. The platypus forages for food by diving underwater for up to 1.5 minutes and searching for food. While underwater, it stores any food it finds in cheek pouches. On surfacing, it sorts out what it found and eats it. When searching for food, the platypus is relying solely on its electrically sensitive bill to find food. The bill of a platypus can detect small electrical currents put out by the creatures that it eats. The platypus is a strong swimmer though not very fast. It swims by alternating movements of its front feet only. When out of the water, the webbing folds between its toes. The fur of the platypus is some of the most waterproof in the animal kingdom and the tail is used to store fat.

The platypus is one of only two mammals that do not give birth to live young but lays eggs instead (the other is the echidna.) After birth, the young live on milk provided by the mother. However, the platypus does not have nipples. Instead, glands along the side of the mother secrete milk and the young platypus will lap it up. After six weeks the young have fur and may leave the nest for short periods. They are weaned by five months old.

Chinese Snake head fish. Can walk for miles from one pool of water to another, currently a bain in the United States East Coast waterways, due to its aggresive nature.

Mud Skipper. Can walk for miles and remain alive for days out of a pool of water.

v/r

Q

[juantoo3]

Not sure what is meant by "slizard," but snakes have residual legs and hips. There is even a species of snake with two short front legs.

[stevemb88]

Originally Posted by Quahom1

Coelacanth. It is not only a fish with "proto-legs", it is a alive today. It is considered to be over 400 million years old as a species.

http://www.dinofish.com/

It also has prototype lungs, not an air bladder.

Q

Sorry, Q I don't mean to disrespect you in any way but the Dino fish thing seems like the biggest and most desperate attempt to sell T-shirts that i have ever heard.
But, back to the topic, I do not belive in evolution 1st of all because of my religion but don't get me wrong I am open minded, 2nd as far as I have read on Evolution vs. Creation etc. every person for evolution starts out with a semi good opening mind set and idea and then usually USUALLY not always, creationists discredit the source of back up or find evidence against it then instead of trying to push evolution forward evolutionists start to attack creation they try to find everything against creation instead of finding evidence that supports their ideas, but thats only what I've read. And i read them at a Christian school so bias may have been added, but i have to say i belived it.

[Quahom1]

Originally Posted by stevemb88

Sorry, Q I don't mean to disrespect you in any way but the Dino fish thing seems like the biggest and most desperate attempt to sell T-shirts that i have ever heard....

That's ok. I for one do not discredit either theory. In fact I bet it's a bit of both. The evolution theory or the creation theory isn't what causes conflict. It is the intent of some people that use such theories for what ever purposes they wish to advance, that causes conflicts.

Personally, I think it is nice to try to know one's past, but I have no intention of living their...

v/r

Q

[Dor]

By evolution it all depends on what one means. If you are saying that some things have evolved I can understand that. If you are saying things popped out of the primordial soup through "Spontaneous Generation" with no help then I would like to see any evidence of that also.

[Quahom1]

Originally Posted by Dor

By evolution it all depends on what one means. If you are saying that some things have evolved I can understand that. If you are saying things popped out of the primordial soup through "Spontaneous Generation" with no help then I would like to see any evidence of that also.

Yep, that about sums it up!

[Vajradhara]

Namaste Dor,

thank you for the post.

Originally Posted by Dor

By evolution it all depends on what one means.

typically, it means that there are different allele frequencies in a genetic population.

If you are saying that some things have evolved I can understand that.

only biological things. often the term is used in other disciplines, though.

If you are saying things popped out of the primordial soup through "Spontaneous Generation" with no help then I would like to see any evidence of that also.

nope... no spontaneous generation at all.

metta,

~v

[arthra]

I think this issue of creationism or evolution has roots in the historic controversy between religion and science in Europe and the US/Canada.

The issue in education in some areas is that creationsim or a divine design should be taught alongside classic darwinian evolution in schools or that one or either should be dropped..

I don't see such an issue in scientific circles though, that is with the exception of a small group or minority of scientists who support maybe a creationism.

Baha'is are generaally in between or betwixt in this issue. We don't agree with classic creationists or a short lived universe anyway say that's about six thgousand years old. We believe man has been aroiund for millions of years and is very ancient...We also agree that the shape and form of man has changed in much the same way the embryo to the later foetus has changed in form but we believe man has always been in potential man rather than say a ape or monkey ..that man is a separate specie even though he may have an appearance say of other primates.

We also believe there should be more harmony between science and religion and that religious people can benefit from a more scientific attitude and scientists can benefit from a more spiritual attitude.

We accept I think the role of science and respect it's findings.

- Art