The Evolution Conflict

[Faithfulservant]

Thats if you believe that the earth is older than 10,000 years.. There is substantial evidence proving that you cannot get an accurate cardon date for many different reasons..which can only read in the "thousands of years" catergory the same goes for radiometric dating which is supposed to age things in the millions and billions of years.. there are too many occurances of getting "bad dates" for it to be a reliable resource for dating fossils. Something as old as a billion years gets a c-14 reading when it should not be possible for there to be a carbon reading.

All of these following things I have read about in different places and I was looking around I found them all listed in one place discussing radiometric dating.. so here it is. There are many more but I think these are the most easily understood.
Many physical evidence contradict the ‘billions of years’

Of the methods that have been used to estimate the age of the earth, 90 percent point to an age far less than the billions of years asserted by evolutionists. A few of them follow.

• Evidence for a rapid formation of geological strata, as in the biblical flood. Some of the evidence are: lack of erosion between rock layers supposedly separated in age by many millions of years; lack of disturbance of rock strata by biological activity (worms, roots, etc.); lack of soil layers; polystrate fossils (which traverse several rock layers vertically—these could not have stood vertically for eons of time while they slowly got buried); thick layers of ‘rock’ bent without fracturing, indicating that the rock was all soft when bent; and more. For more, see books by geologists Morrisand Austin.
  
• Red blood cells and hemoglobin have been found in some (unfossilized!) dinosaur bone. But these could not last more than a few thousand years—certainly not the 65 Ma since the last dinosaurs lived, according to evolutionists.
  
• The earth’s magnetic field has been decaying so fast that it looks like it is less than 10,000 years old. Rapid reversals during the flood year and fluctuations shortly after would have caused the field energy to drop even faster.
  
• Radioactive decay releases helium into the atmosphere, but not much is escaping. The total amount in the atmosphere is 1/2000th of that expected if the universe is really billions of years old. This helium originally escaped from rocks. This happens quite fast, yet so much helium is still in some rocks that it has not had time to escape—certainly not billions of years.
  
• A supernova is an explosion of a massive star—the explosion is so bright that it briefly outshines the rest of the galaxy. The supernova remnants (SNRs) should keep expanding for hundreds of thousands of years, according to physical equations. Yet there are no very old, widely expanded (Stage 3) SNRs, and few moderately old (Stage 1) ones in our galaxy, the Milky Way, or in its satellite galaxies, the Magellanic Clouds. This is just what we would expect for ‘young’ galaxies that have not existed long enough for wide expansion.
  
• The moon is slowly receding from the earth at about 4 centimeters (1.5 inches) per year, and this rate would have been greater in the past. But even if the moon had started receding from being in contact with the earth, it would have taken only 1.37 billion years to reach its present distance from the earth. This gives a maximum age of the moon, not the actual age. This is far too young for evolutionists who claim the moon is 4.6 billion years old. It is also much younger than the radiometric ‘dates’ assigned to moon rocks.
  
• Salt is entering the sea much faster than it is escaping. The sea is not nearly salty enough for this to have been happening for billions of years. Even granting generous assumptions to evolutionists, the sea could not be more than 62 Ma years old—far younger than the billions of years believed by the evolutionists. Again, this indicates a maximum age, not the actual age.

Ma = Maximum age btw

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards, path of one!

Thank you for your participation in this!

Originally Posted by path_of_one

But, Q, "finch" is a folk category, not a species designation. There are many species of finches. Species, by definition, don't interbreed and produce viable offspring. So, any population of finches that no longer breeds with the parent population is, by definition, a new species. "Human" is both a folk category and a species, only because there is only one living species of human, H. sapiens sapiens. However, something like "pine tree," is only a folk category that corresponds roughly to a genus, not a species. People are awful at making specific and varietal distinctions if they aren't trained to do so (see Brent Berlin's famous "Ethnobiological Classification"), but it doesn't mean those species distinctions don't exist.

10,000 years is not enough time to see new genera, but I have no doubt there have since been new species; we've only really been catalogueing this stuff for the last couple hundred years. The end of the Ice Age saw the rise of at least thousands of new species as the rain forests of the Americas rose. We are currently in the middle of a major extinction event, caused primarily by humans, so we'll have to see in another long bit what comes of it. So far, though, we are getting rid of natural habitats faster than their inherent species can cope with. And sometimes we're just downright exterminating species, like the buffalo wolves and passenger pidgeons.

Since I was already involved in a very lengthy discussion of this, I will simply direct the interested reader to around pages 6-8 of this thread (@ 15 posts per page, should be around post #90 - #120). That should narrow the reading down somewhat.

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards, Faithful Servant!

Thank you for your addition to this discussion!

There is substantial evidence proving that you cannot get an accurate cardon date for many different reasons..which can only read in the "thousands of years" catergory the same goes for radiometric dating which is supposed to age things in the millions and billions of years.. there are too many occurances of getting "bad dates" for it to be a reliable resource for dating fossils. Something as old as a billion years gets a c-14 reading when it should not be possible for there to be a carbon reading.

We also covered a lot of this, I believe in the pages immediately following the ones I just listed. There is also some info, if I remember correctly, about page 11 or 12. Carbon dating is not used on fossils.

For everyone, I realize this is a long thread, but I assure it is well worth the time to read. I learned a great deal. Some of my questions were answered, some not. Some of the answers raised other questions. In the end I realized that it is all an educated guess. If it is stated as an educated guess, I don't really have any problem with it. It is when someone who doesn't really know claims it as fact and insists it as such and tries to use it as "proof" to devalue my God, my Bible and my faith that I get a bit defensive. I tried very hard to be logical and original in my presentation. This is one area I find of great interest. Perhaps evolution is how God does things, I don't know for sure, but the evolution that is preached to the common folk is rife with discrepencies, and too many people come across with it as a religious dogma of sorts.

Anyway, I hope I haven't derailed anything. Enjoy the discusson everybody!

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards, again, path of one!

But, Q, "finch" is a folk category, not a species designation. There are many species of finches. Species, by definition, don't interbreed and produce viable offspring.

I cannot speak to the specific finches in question, but I did find enough conflicting examples of species interbreeding, successfully and with viable offspring, that I seriously question the distinction. It is covered in the material I referenced.

The end of the Ice Age saw the rise of at least thousands of new species as the rain forests of the Americas rose.

In the material I have been covering pertaining to primitive human migration into America, it seems most scholars suggest these animals, or at least most of them, migrated here. The humans were simply following the herds, their source of food. I can see these creatures adapting to their new environs, but a mammoth here is closely related to a mammoth in Siberia. Likewise sloth, saber-toothed tigers (lions?) and other creatures that seem peculiar to the Americas. Even Llamas are related to camels. And often, very often, related species can and do interbreed.

"Human" is both a folk category and a species, only because there is only one living species of human, H. sapiens sapiens.

I have even heard the suggestion that humans may be able to interbreed with bonobos and/or other great apes. Of course, it was also pointed out that conducting such tests would be unethical. However, there is a well known and documented find of a Neandertal-Cro Magnon hybrid child that I referenced in this thread, and it has been extensively peer-reviewed. So even humans are not immune to this.

[lunamoth]

With regard to inter-species mating, it's more than just a matter of whether the male-female, ahem, plumbing functions between two different species. The alignment of the chromosomes is quite important because without sufficient homology (similarity in DNA sequence) from the two parents, the fertilized egg can't get through correct mitosis (required for cell division), which is needed for all further growth. There can be immunological rejections between sperm and egg from different species as well. I really am going from memory on this and don't know the amount of similarity required, but I know it is rather high. The definition of species given by Path Of One is the one I know too, although it strikes me also as rather a somewhat fuzzy thing. But, population bio is not my field. I would wager that DNA sequencing and mapping is putting new criteria to the definition, as it is to the relationships between different species and different genera. (I always found classification a bore ).

lunamoth

[juantoo3]

Welcome back, Lunamoth, you have been missed!

I agree that there is a requirement for great similarity, and typically in the examples I looked at the two "species" were closely related. I mean, one cannot expect a dog to successfully mate with a cat. But wolves are known to mate with many domestic breeds of dog, and I know from childhood experience that a wild bobcat can mate with a domestic shorthair. I still find fascinating that wild horses (the name looks Polish or at least East-European, something like Prezlewski's horse) can successfully mate with domestic horses and produce viable offspring. This is fascinating mostly because the wild horse has 66 genes, whereas the domestic horse has 64.

Pertaining to humans and bonobos, the biologists are only too anxious to note that we share in excess of 97% of our genes, so why not the possibility (other than ethics) of interbreeding? It is not something I wish to occur, but if Neandertal and Cro-Magnon have been shown to cross-breed, it is entirely possible that Neandertal did not die off after all. The Neandertal bloodline may still exist, at least in some races, in modern humans today. I find this exciting on some levels, and challenging on others.

[path_of_one]

Just will add a few thoughts, as I'm sure the debate on the relevant scientific issues were covered earlier in this massive thread...

* Yes, evolution is a theory. It isn't just a guess, because it is the best way we have currently to explain the mechanisms of adaptation and origin of species and is based on evidence. But of course, any good scientist should be open to revision as our knowledge changes. It is different from ID or creationism in that one could disprove it with concrete evidence, whereas one could never disprove God.

* The age of the earth isn't just about carbon dating. In fact, C-14 dating is only good for dating certain kinds of materials (they had to be alive once) and for a certain time-frame (relatively recent). I'm not sure if dating methods were already covered extensively, but I'd be happy to give an overview if anybody's interested. There are other methods we use to date volcanic rock, ceramics, etc. Furthermore, it isn't just about dating methods, it's also about looking at the processes in nature currently and thus having some idea that the geological deposits had to have more than 10,000 years- uniformitarianism. Yes, catastrophes happen, but it is clearly not enough to account for many geologic deposits that show gradual sedimentation rather than flood activity.

* Yes, indeed, species is a fuzzy category. It is not only about what can interbreed, but also about what will interbreed. We can sometimes get offspring from species that are actually separate due to behavioral barriers, that would never in nature mate, but we can artificially get them to do so. And some things we think of as separate species (like domestic dogs and wolves), aren't. The domestic dog is a wolf whose development is essentially arrested at the puppy stage, making them less intelligent and safer. Then we selectively bred varieties that have higher or lower prey drives, herding drives, etc. But yes, everyone should know that scientists fight all the time about if things are different species or not, how we can tell, etc. The biggest schism is between cladists and traditional Linnean folks- do you classify things based on phenotypic characteristics or genetics, now that we can look at both? And what do you do with the odd ones- platypus? The weird fish in Africa that can walk on leg-like fins out of water and hibernate in mud?

* My original point is that none of this should really matter much for people's faith in God, in my opinion. It makes no sense to me that people use it to devalue God or the Bible. I've "believed" in evolution for years, it's the best idea we currently have in science, but I love God a lot and the Bible is invaluable. I just don't think the Bible is a science textbook. If someone else wants to base their ideas about natural world on the Bible, doesn't bother me a bit. It does bother me that the general public is not well educated in science and thus rarely knows what they dismiss or misunderstand, but as long as they aren't condemning me for being both scientist and believer, it doesn't much matter.

[lunamoth]

Hi Juantoo3, thank you for the welcome back. I wasn't really gone that long, but I did miss getting my fix of CR while away.

Originally Posted by juantoo3

The Neandertal bloodline may still exist, at least in some races, in modern humans today.

Despite my suspicions that I've known (and dated) Neanderthal's, I highly doubt the idea that any meaningful contribution of Neaderthal "bloodline" would be found in different human populations today. I'm going to intentionally avoid saying races because the idea that there are different human races is debatable and contentious these days. The idea that there is any basis for saying that there are different human races is obsolete. If you think species is problematic, just try to define race.

Well, I must backpedal just a bit. I did read recently that new genetic evidence does suggest that the traditionally held race classes exhibit distinctive patterns of DNA sequences, but to me this simply means that the different phenotypes that characterize the traditional races (skin, eye color, etc) is reflected in the genotype. However, to my understanding this does not mean there is much significance to keeping the distinction of race.

Please correct me because it's very possible my info is out of date, but the existence of the "mitochondrial Eve" suggests that any Neanderthal DNA making it to present day Homo Sapiens would be found in all of us.

lunamoth

[Bandit]

i will jump in for just a minute here first I am thankful for those with an interest in this, especially the bible believers because it is far from one of my biggest interests, especially after being taught in school that my Great Aunt Lucy & Uncle Billy were tadpoles. So, they pretty much had to find new definitions for it.

Yet when i see the charts, I still hear the distant drum beat of Aunt Lucy being a tadpole trying to be proven, even today, AND taught & these things lead to other imaginations, & this is why it is a conflict for many Christians.

Maybe God does not want us to know how old the earth is & how & when & what & how much goop there is in us. Because if we knew all that, then we would be God.?.
& maybe he does not want us trying to create new species?

it is all estimates & maybe & possibly & could be & suggests & what if, & what if we are not as smart as we think we are with our big thick glasses we look through.
i read some of the science mags, just enough to be rational.
any rate, I say go for it, have fun & let me know what you find.

just one question on the chimp studies. did not they come to learn that the dna is like way less than the original studies of 98%?

[Vajradhara]

but, you see, Bandit, that is not what the theory of evolution actually asserts...


in point of fact, were you able to demonstrate that humans did come from tadpoles, you'd falsify evolution as it is currently understood!

evolution asserts that humans and apes had a common ancestor, not that humans came from tadpoles or that lizards turn into cats. generally speaking, those sorts of views are put forth by those that feel that evolution is an affront to their religious sensibilities.

needless to say, a great many theists, Christians as well, find no conflict between a Creator God and the explanation of diversity by evolution.

[Vajradhara]

Originally Posted by juantoo3

Even Llamas are related to camels. And often, very often, related species can and do interbreed.

The camelid family includes the camel, the llama, the alpaca, the vicuna and the guanaco.

fyi

[Vajradhara]

Originally Posted by Quahom1

Actually Faithful is correct. Not one "new" species of animal, plant or microbe has developed (that can be proven) in the past 10,000 years.

Namaste Quahom,

allow me to present a very small and incomplete list of observed instances of speciation:

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). Columbia University 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 National Academy 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 York Botanical 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.

Speciation in microorganisms
1. Canine parovirus, a lethal disease of dogs, evolved from feline parovirus in the 1970s.
2. Budd, A. F. and B. D. Mishler. 1990. Species and evolution in clonal organisms -- a summary and discussion. Systematic Botany 15:166-171.
3. Bullini, L. and G. Nascetti. 1990. Speciation by hybridization in phasmids and other insects. Canadian Journal of Zoology. 68:1747-1760.
4. Boraas, M. E. 1983. Predator induced evolution in chemostat culture. EOS. Transactions of the American Geophysical Union. 64:1102.
5. Brock, T. D. and M. T. Madigan. 1988. Biology of Microorganisms (5th edition). Prentice Hall, Englewood, NJ.
6. Castenholz, R. W. 1992. Species usage, concept, and evolution in the cyanobacteria (blue-green algae). Journal of Phycology 28:737-745.
7. Boraas, M. E. The speciation of algal clusters by flagellate predation. EOS. Transactions of the American Geophysical Union. 64:1102.
8. Castenholz, R. W. 1992. Speciation, usage, concept, and evolution in the cyanobacteria (blue-green algae). Journal of Phycology 28:737-745.
9. 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.

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.

Invertebrate not insect
1. ME Heliberg, DP Balch, K Roy, Climate-driven range expansion and morphological evolution in a marine gastropod. Science 292: 1707-1710, June1, 2001. Documents mrorphological change due to disruptive selection over time. Northerna and southern populations of A spirata off California from Pleistocene to present.
2. Weinberg, J. R., V. R. Starczak and P. Jora. 1992. Evidence for rapid speciation following a founder event with a polychaete worm. . Evolution. 46:1214-1220.

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.

Speciation in the Fossil Record
1. Paleontological documentation of speciation in cenozoic molluscs from Turkana basin. Williamson, PG, Nature 293:437-443, 1981. Excellent study of "gradual" evolution in an extremely find fossil record.
2. A trilobite odyssey. Niles Eldredge and Michelle J. Eldredge. Natural History 81:53-59, 1972. A discussion of "gradual" evolution of trilobites in one small area and then migration and replacement over a wide area. Is lay discussion of punctuated equilibria, and does not overthrow Darwinian gradual change of form. Describes transitionals.


this is a very small list of observed speciation, so, perhaps you would be willing to reconsider your assertion that there are no instances of speciation which can be proven in the last 10,000 years?

[Bandit]

Originally Posted by Vajradhara

but, you see, Bandit, that is not what the theory of evolution actually asserts...


in point of fact, were you able to demonstrate that humans did come from tadpoles, you'd falsify evolution as it is currently understood!

evolution asserts that humans and apes had a common ancestor, not that humans came from tadpoles or that lizards turn into cats. generally speaking, those sorts of views are put forth by those that feel that evolution is an affront to their religious sensibilities.

needless to say, a great many theists, Christians as well, find no conflict between a Creator God and the explanation of diversity by evolution.

currently understood, is not exactly the same way it was taught to us in school. big difference there & it is no wonder why the Christians refused to uphold it then.
one little girl gets her test score wrong because one scientist & one teacher tells her Aunt Lucy came from a tadpole & that is the answer she was made to put down even when she did not believe it & those people are still alive as we speak.

i am not against the theory of it Vajradhara, so you see, if they had not fought against it, then at that time, we would have been denying things & believing a lie & I am sorry there, but if you wish to believe that Aunt Lucy was an ape as a common ancestor, that is up to you as well, but that answer is also not going down very well with Christians even to this day & is not an obligated fact or answer as far as I can see.

i know this is your specialty & a belief, so I am not going to try to hinder your efforts on this & i think you should search it out for yourself.

many great claimed christians also destroyed bibles & murdered thousands of people which is not very Christ-Like. IMO

Carry on my brother

[Faithfulservant]

I wanted to list inconsistancies in various dating methods after reading the pages jt3 suggested.. it seemed everyone was ahead of me but I still did not read any.. pardon the cut and pasting please.

There are many examples where the dating methods give ‘dates’ that are wrong for rocks of known age. One example is K-Ar ‘dating’ of five historical andesite lava flows from Mount Nguaruhoe in New Zealand. Although one lava flow occurred in 1949, three in 1954, and one in 1975, the ‘dates’ range from less than 0.27 to 3.5 mega annum (million years)
Again, using hindsight, it is argued that ‘excess’ argon from the magma (molten rock) was retained in the rock when it solidified. The secular scientific literature lists many examples of excess argon causing dates of millions of years in rocks of known historical age. This excess appears to have come from the upper mantle, below the earth’s crust. This is consistent with a young world—the argon has had too little time to escape. If excess argon can cause exaggerated dates for rocks of known age, then why should we trust the method for rocks of unknown age?

Other techniques, such as the use of isochrons, make different assumptions about starting conditions, but there is a growing recognition that such ‘foolproof’ techniques can also give ‘bad’ dates. So data are again selected according to what the researcher already believes about the age of the rock.

Geologist Dr Steve Austin sampled basalt from the base of the Grand Canyon strata and from the lava that spilled over the edge of the canyon. By evolutionary reckoning, the latter should be a billion years younger than the basalt from the bottom. Standard laboratories analyzed the isotopes. The rubidium-strontium isochron technique suggested that the recent lava flow was 270 Mega annum older than the basalts beneath the Grand Canyon—an impossibility.

Im not a scientist.. but wouldnt it be necessary for different dating methods to show the same results in order to prove that the methods were correct?

If the dating methods are an objective and reliable means of determining ages, they should agree. If a chemist were measuring the sugar content of blood, all valid methods for the determination would give the same answer (within the limits of experimental error). However, with radiometric dating, the different techniques often give quite different results.
In the study of the Grand Canyon rocks by Austin, different techniques gave different results. Again, all sorts of reasons can be suggested for the ‘bad’ dates, but this is again posterior reasoning. Techniques that give results that can be dismissed just because they don’t agree with what we already believe cannot be considered objective.

In Australia, some wood found in Tertiary basalt was clearly buried in the lava flow that formed the basalt, as can be seen from the charring. The wood was ‘dated’ by radiocarbon (14C) analysis at about 45,000 years old, but the basalt was ‘dated’ by potassium-argon method at 45 million years old.

Isotope ratios or uraninite crystals from the Koongarra uranium body in the Northern Territory of Australia gave lead-lead isochron ages of 841 Mega annum, plus or minus 140 Mega annum.This contrasts with an age of 1550-1650 Mega annum based on other isotope ratios, and ages of 275, 61, 0,0, and 0 Mega annum for thorium/lead (232Th/208Pb) ratios in five uraninite grains. The latter figures are significant because thorium-derived dates should be the more reliable, since thorium is less mobile than the uranium minerals that are the parents of the lead isotopes in lead-lead system. The ‘zero’ ages in this case are consistent with the Bible

http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs...bon_dating.asp

lol this thread gives me one of those "thinking" headaches.. This is not a subject where I am in any way comfortable. I have to say that anytime someone brings up a subject that tries to disprove the bible or God as creator I try to learn.. so Im not a blind person trying to lead other blind people.. I hate giving answers like "I dont know why that is I just trust God" Even though I do trust God people want to know the why's and hows of it. I believe that the bible has answers to everything either in whats written or whats not written and I believe evolution is one of those.

Earlier in this thread someone brought up the fact that Adam was created from dust which has molecules that are also found in Man.. I thought that was interesting.. I would like to add that Eve was formed from one of Adams ribs...Women still have the extra rib..but doesnt that also show that the female evolved from male? If evolved is even the right word.

[lunamoth]

Dear Friends,

Really there is little that can be said in a thread like this that will do anything more than stir up passions. I've read so many endless threads on this it makes my head spin, too, Faithfulservant. Nevertheless, I am compelled to say that the study of evolution, speciation and abiogenesis has never been about disproving the Bible or negating God. It is not about belittling our origins by implying that we emerged from some mucky swamp, and it is not denigrating our ancestors by saying that our Aunts were ameobas and our Grandparents were gorillas. Those are red herrings and do not have anything to do with science or the things our children learn in school. A biology teacher teaching those things would and should lose her job.

My belief is that we were created by God, to know God and to worship Him. We are charged to love one another and doing this will lead to God's Kingdom here on earth. The Bible says we were created from clay, science says we were created from clay, and to clay we shall all return. There is no conflict between being a Christian and accepting our God given ability to reason and understand the workings of the natural world, including the model of evolution. It is all a gift.

peace,
lunamoth