The Evolution Conflict

[Quahom1]

Evolution is a fact. There is scientific evidence today (repeated observation) to prove it. Just look at the Ebola and HIV viruses. For what is evolution but simple mutation (for the better we hope). Man, on the other hand is a mystery. Our genes are different, our DNA is different, and the very count of our chromosones is different than ANY animal on earth.

There, is the quandary. Why? The elusive missing link...is still missing.

Isn't it strange that we can teach a Chimpanzee to talk, discuss past, present and future with this intelligent animal, love it and be loved by it, grow old with it, and yet when we both die, the Chimp signs, that he/she will be in a different place than we will, and he/she will miss us...if he/she can remember us at all?

Perhaps this world is an evolved world. But I don't think we evolved with it. Every other animal on Earth has learned to live within this environment...

But since day one, Humans are the only 'animals' that "FIGHT AGAINST" nature, and attempts to force nature to conform to OUR WAY. When nature does not conform, we get sooooooo ticked off that we terraform the land in order to enforce compliance, or seed the clouds, or go into space, or harness the atom...don't you see???...

Chimps belong here. They are happy living within nature's bounty, and unmbrella.

Man is malcontent, nothing is acceptable for long. Scientifically speaking, that has all the makings of an animal out of its element.

To coin an old SCI-FI phrase...Man would rather die than be caged, even in a cage as beautiful as Earth.

That my friends is not evolution. That for lack of a better term, is Intelligent design.

v/r

Q

[Nogodnomasters]

Originally Posted by Quahom1

Evolution is a fact. There is scientific evidence today (repeated observation) to prove it. Just look at the Ebola and HIV viruses. For what is evolution but simple mutation (for the better we hope). Man, on the other hand is a mystery. Our genes are different, our DNA is different, and the very count of our chromosones is different than ANY animal on earth.

There, is the quandary. Why? The elusive missing link...is still missing.

Isn't it strange that we can teach a Chimpanzee to talk, discuss past, present and future with this intelligent animal, love it and be loved by it, grow old with it, and yet when we both die, the Chimp signs, that he/she will be in a different place than we will, and he/she will miss us...if he/she can remember us at all?

Perhaps this world is an evolved world. But I don't think we evolved with it. Every other animal on Earth has learned to live within this environment...

But since day one, Humans are the only 'animals' that "FIGHT AGAINST" nature, and attempts to force nature to conform to OUR WAY. When nature does not conform, we get sooooooo ticked off that we terraform the land in order to enforce compliance, or seed the clouds, or go into space, or harness the atom...don't you see???...

Chimps belong here. They are happy living within nature's bounty, and unmbrella.

Man is malcontent, nothing is acceptable for long. Scientifically speaking, that has all the makings of an animal out of its element.

To coin an old SCI-FI phrase...Man would rather die than be caged, even in a cage as beautiful as Earth.

That my friends is not evolution. That for lack of a better term, is Intelligent design.

v/r

Q

You seemed to have rememorized the creationist's propaganda speech incorrectly. We have the same number of chromosomes as guppies. We are so similar to chimp DNA some speculate we can breed with them.
<snip - I, Brian>


This is probably what happened during the evolution of the apes. All three species have very similar chromosomes, but humans have 23 pairs of chromosomes, while chimpanzees, gorillas, and orangutans have 24 pairs. Each end of human chromosome number 2 (the second largest human chromosome) looks very similar to the long end of a pair of gorilla or chimpanzee chromosomes, suggesting that the common ancestor of these three species had 24 chromosomes and that humans lost one chromosome due to translocation sometime in the six million years that have passed since that ancestral species lived.

Also if you have read anything on chimp language, they also indicate they do not want to be caged.

Most animals have some unique feature about them. That does not prove there is a designer by any means. I believe it was an old Greek philosopher who said, "If a horse believed in God, he would look like a horse."

[Quahom1]

Originally Posted by Nogodnomasters

You seemed to have rememorized the creationist's propaganda speech incorrectly. We have the same number of chromosomes as guppies. We are so similar to chimp DNA some speculate we can breed with them.



This is probably what happened during the evolution of the apes. All three species have very similar chromosomes, but humans have 23 pairs of chromosomes, while chimpanzees, gorillas, and orangutans have 24 pairs. Each end of human chromosome number 2 (the second largest human chromosome) looks very similar to the long end of a pair of gorilla or chimpanzee chromosomes, suggesting that the common ancestor of these three species had 24 chromosomes and that humans lost one chromosome due to translocation sometime in the six million years that have passed since that ancestral species lived.

Also if you have read anything on chimp language, they also indicate they do not want to be caged.

Most animals have some unique feature about them. That does not prove there is a designer by any means. I believe it was an old Greek philosopher who said, "If a horse believed in God, he would look like a horse."

Thankyou for your response Nogo...definitely food for thought.

As you are aware from my thoughts, I do believe in evolution. I also believe in Intelligent design. I think the two go hand in hand.

To me however, a 97 to 99% similarity in DNA is not the same as 100%. 23 does not equal 24. And our DNA is different in many other respects...more so than similar. That makes our DNA unique from the other two. Therefore I stand by my original statement.

Unlike creationists who claim we haven't been around for more than 7000 to 10,000 years, I believe man has been around for 10 to 100 times that amount of time...as a homosapien sapien (man who knows he knows). Plato spoke often of people who died off 40,000 years before his time.

Similarity ('homology') is not an absolute indication of common ancestry (Evolution) but certainly points to a common designer (creation). Think about a Porsche and Volkswagen 'beetle' car. They both have air-cooled, flat, horizontally-opposed, 4-cylinder engines in the rear, independent suspension, two doors, boot (trunk) in the front, and many other similarities ('homologies'). Why do these two very different cars have so many similarities? Because they had the same designer! Whether similarity is morphological (appearance), or biochemical, is of no consequence to the lack of logic in this argument for evolution.

What of the 97% (or 98% or 99%!) similarity claimed between humans and chimps? The figures published do not mean quite what is claimed in the popular publications (and even some respectable science journals). DNA contains its information in the sequence of four chemical compounds known as nucleotides, abbreviated C,G,A,T. Groups of three of these at a time are 'read' by complex translation machinery in the cell to determine the sequence of 20 different types of amino acids to be incorporated into proteins. The human DNA has at least 3,000,000,000 nucleotides in sequence. A proper comparison has not been made. Chimp DNA has not been fully sequenced..


Where did the "97% similarity" come from then? It was inferred from a fairly crude technique called DNA hybridization where small parts of human DNA are split into single strands and allowed to re-form double strands (duplex) with chimp DNA. However, there are various reasons why DNA does or does not hybridize, only one of which is degree of similarity (homology). Consequently, this somewhat arbitrary figure is not used by those working in molecular homology (other parameters, derived from the shape of the 'melting' curve, are used). Why has the 97% figure been popularised then? One can only guess that it served the purpose of evolutionary indoctrination of the scientifically illiterate.



Interestingly, the original papers did not contain the basic data and the reader had to accept the interpretation of the data 'on faith'. Sarich et al. obtained the original data and used them in their discussion of which parameters should be used in homology studies. Sarich discovered considerable sloppiness in Sibley and Ahlquist's generation of their data as well as their statistical analysis. Upon inspecting the data, I discovered that, even if everything else was above criticism, the 97% figure came from making a very basic statistical error - averaging two figures without taking into account differences in the number of observations contributing to each figure. When a proper mean is calculated it is 96.2%, not 97%. However, there is no true replication in the data, so no confidence can be attached to the figures published by Sibley and Ahlquist.

What if human and chimp DNA was even 96% homologous? What would that mean? Would it mean that humans could have 'evolved' from a common ancestor with chimps? Not at all! The amount of information in the 3 billion base pairs in the DNA in every human cell has been estimated to be equivalent to that in 1,000 books of encyclopaedia size. If humans were 'only' 4% different this still amounts to 120 million base pairs, equivalent to approximately 12 million words, or 40 large books of information. This is surely an impossible barrier for mutations (random changes) to cross.

A Pig has more in common with a Human than an ape. A Horse has more in common with a Human than an ape (primate). At least Man and Horse have sweat glands throughout our epidermus. No other animal has that...not even a primate. A Pig's heart will keep a Human alive longer than a primate's, with less chance of rejection.

The bottom line is you are not wrong, and neither am I. We simply place creedence (or priority if you wish), on different parts of the same thought. You say there is evolution, and I say yes and "Someone Started it".

But it is all good. You have a great weekend. I look forward to more of your thoughts.

v/r

Q

[Nogodnomasters]

A pig may have more in common with a human than an ape where you are at, but not where I am from.

The problem I have with "intelligent design" is the lack of intelligence that is sometimes exhibited. Vestiges for example. Why would a designer give 5% or 10% of a species a piece of a muscle or tissue that does not work?

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards to all!

What do you get when you cross a rhinoceros with an elephant?
Elephino.

There are over 3 billion letters in the human genome sequence. With DNA, tiny numbers make huge differences. It has been noted that ALL of us humans share about 99.5% of our genes. Our uniqueness as individuals stems from a mere 1/2 of 1 percent, or one in a two hundred genes, across an estimated 6 billion individuals. This from Eric Lander, Whitehead institute, MIT. Mr. Lander also states that chimpanzees share 97.5-98% of their genes between each other, that is, the two most divergent individuals are separated by 2-2.5% of their genes, in a population estimated by the Jane Goodall institute at 200,000 individuals in the wild. Humans <.5% across 6,000,000,000; chimpanzees >2% across 200,000.

Biologists claim we share over 97% of our genes with chimpanzees. Humans are unique in having an opposable thumb. But chimpanzees don't have opposable thumbs; instead they have dexterous big toes. Did we grow chimp feet for hands?

Humans share in excess of 90% of our genes with bears, wolves, mice, squirrels and other mammals. The same biologists also know, but are not as quick to point out, that we also share in excess of 50% of our genes with yeast, a single celled organism, as well as 50% of our genes with a banana, according to the researchers responsible for the DNA mapping project, Drs. Collins and Venter.

There have been a lot of different gene manipulations, from strawberries and tomatoes with flounder (fish) genes inserted, to rabbits and monkeys with jellyfish genes inserted. Lifeforms adapt, that is a given that is demonstrated. I have yet to see evidence of progression from one "species" into another. From selective breeding, dogs have become several distinct breeds, but they are all still canines. Similar could be said about so many of the things man has cultured and cultivated through the centuries. So, while I am impressed on speciation of fruit flies, in the end they are still fruit flies.

I have also long thought it curious why terrapins (turtles/tortoises), crocodilians, and cockroaches haven't changed significantly in "millions" of years, as though evolution simply passed them right on by? Perhaps because they have reached the pinnacle of evolutionary perfection?

All life shares DNA. This is something Native Americans (and surely other traditions) have acknowledged long before science verified such claims. But this in no way implies linear evolution from one species into another.

“When you get into science, you realize most scientists are stupid.”
-Jim Watson, discoverer (with Francis Crick), of the double helix structure of DNA

[louis]

Hi, I'm new here...
I don't have a university education and I'm probably not
as smart as most of the people here. Maybe that's why I
don't see a "conflict" between religion and evolution.
As I understand it, religion proposes that a non-material
"force" acted upon some inanimate material and changed
it to animate-LIVING material... which eventualy became
us humans. That sounds like quite a change. Some say
it happened instantly - others say it happened gradualy,
involving many trials and errors.
I have never heard any scientists speculate about what
CAUSED that change - they're interested only in making
a catalogue of the trials and errors.
What does that have to do with religion ?

Louis...

[I, Brian]

Quite right, Louis - what does it have to do with religion? The process of how life began is entirely conjectural in the worlds of science. How it might have developed after - ah, now that's the basis of evolutionary theory.

But, hey, I'm just a dumbass who dropped out of a chemistry degree to seek life as a writer.

[juantoo3]

Brian, FWIW, I don't think anybody here considers you a dumbass. But, I must say, a chemistry degree?

[gluadys]

Hi. New here. Just found this forum today---well actually yesteday now that it is past midnight.

I've been reading this thread and noticed many common errors about the theory of evolution. Just to note the ones on the final page:

Substitution of part for the whole

"For what is evolution but simple mutation" Quahom 1

No, evolution is not simple mutation. It involves mutation + variation + natural selection + speciation.

Failure to keep up to date on scientific discovery

"The elusive missing link...is still missing. " Quahom 1

many transitional forms have been found. A few of the best-known are archeopteryx (dinosaur to bird), ambulocetus natans (land mammal to whale) australopithecines (many species: ape to human) Of course, many have yet to be found, but which did you have in mind?

Confusion about the different meanings of "may" and "must"

"Similarity ('homology') is not an absolute indication of common ancestry (Evolution) but certainly points to a common designer (creation)." Quahom 1


[aside: homology is only one kind of similarity. It is true that similarity is not necessarily an indication of common ancestry. But the particular similarities called homologies are.]

Common design is merely permissive. Therefore it is non-predictive, non-explanatory and scientifically useless.
Common ancestry necessitates homology, predicts it and explains it, including those homologies which are less-than-optimum design. This is what makes it a useful scientific tool for further research.

Confusion of personal incredulity with scientific evidence

"What if human and chimp DNA was even 96% homologous? What would that mean? Would it mean that humans could have 'evolved' from a common ancestor with chimps? Not at all! The amount of information in the 3 billion base pairs in the DNA in every human cell has been estimated to be equivalent to that in 1,000 books of encyclopaedia size. If humans were 'only' 4% different this still amounts to 120 million base pairs, equivalent to approximately 12 million words, or 40 large books of information. This is surely an impossible barrier for mutations (random changes) to cross." Quahom1

Just because it is hard to believe doesn't mean it didn't happen.

outdated notion of evolution as a progression to perfection

"I have yet to see evidence of progression from one "species" into another."

"I have also long thought it curious why terrapins (turtles/tortoises), crocodilians, and cockroaches haven't changed significantly in "millions" of years, as though evolution simply passed them right on by? Perhaps because they have reached the pinnacle of evolutionary perfection?" juantoo3

In fact there are many observed instances of speciation, both in laboratory experiments and in nature. A particularly vivid one in the news a few months ago was the Nylon bug. A single nucleotide insertion with frameshift created a new bacterium with the never-before-seen capacity to digest nylon---an artificial fibre created in the late 1930s.

No species, including our own has reached a pinnacle of evolutionary perfection, because there is no such thing. Evolution is change in response to environmental conditions. When environmental conditions change little, or when a species is able to function in a number of different environments, there is no pressure to change. Mutations still occur, offering novel possibilities, but they are not fixed into the species by natural selection.

So it is a little surprising to find juantoo3 also saying:
"But this in no way implies linear evolution from one species into another."

You bet! Evolution is in no way linear, and once that is grasped, questions about missing links, crocodiles that haven't changed and fruit flies that are still fruit flies are seen for the red herrings they are. Evolution produces a branched network of relationships in which no species is more evolved than another, and in which there is no jumping from branch to branch.

So much for the science. Now for theology

Quahom1 said:

" You say there is evolution, and I say yes and "Someone Started it". "

I'll go further. Someone not only started it, but stayed with it and sustained the process and included humans in it.

"... that he/she [chimp] will be in a different place than we will, ..."

Why would s/he be? I don't know your faith, but as a Christian, it is my belief that God's intention is to redeem the whole of creation from the effects of sin and restore it to its original perfection. Animals and plants are part of that. The prophets of the Old Testament/Tanakh presented images of the kingdom of God which included animal and plant life. So why do you say the chimp will be in a different place than we will?

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards, gluadys, and welcome to CR!

Originally Posted by gluadys

No, evolution is not simple mutation. It involves mutation + variation + natural selection + speciation.

I accept that evolution encompasses more than simple mutation, but would you be kind enough to differentiate between mutation and variation. Is not a mutation a variation? Further, aren't most mutations hindrances, what when applied to humans we often call "birth defects?" Natural selection is arbitrary, the "strong survive" is probably more accurately the "promiscuous survive", and birth defects are most generally a hindrance to promiscuity. While a different color coat may not be a hindrance to mating (the moths that shifted color from light to dark in industrial England, adaptation), an extra leg growing out of your back (Ripley's museum, St. Augustine, FL, birth defect) is a definite sexual turn-off.

many transitional forms have been found. A few of the best-known are archeopteryx (dinosaur to bird), ambulocetus natans (land mammal to whale) australopithecines (many species: ape to human)

Agreed, many forms of life that no longer exist are contained in the fossil record. As I recall from a recent article (I believe it was by Gould), something on the order of 90% of the creatures that have existed on this planet are no longer here.

Weren't the only two examples of Archeoperyx recently dismissed as (very clever) forgeries?

Common design is merely permissive. Therefore it is non-predictive, non-explanatory and scientifically useless.
Common ancestry necessitates homology, predicts it and explains it, including those homologies which are less-than-optimum design. This is what makes it a useful scientific tool for further research.

I believe I see your point, and it is valid.

Just because it is hard to believe doesn't mean it didn't happen.

Ah, but isn't Ockham's razor the traditional scientific standard? That is, if it sounds too good to be true, odds are exeedingly great that it is too good to be true?

In fact there are many observed instances of speciation, both in laboratory experiments and in nature. A particularly vivid one in the news a few months ago was the Nylon bug. A single nucleotide insertion with frameshift created a new bacterium with the never-before-seen capacity to digest nylon---an artificial fibre created in the late 1930s.

Was this natural, or synthetic, adaptation? I am aware of man-made bacterium created in the lab specifically to digest plastics as much as 15 years ago. Further, can this bacterium reproduce with "related" bacterium, specifically those from which it was derived? Not to mention, using single-celled creatures to denote how more complex creatures "speciate" is stretching the point. Even as simple as fruit flies, I still have not seen evidence that the new species is anything but fruit fly, or that the new species cannot mate with other fruit flies. This coordinates with what I was trying to express with hybridization and deliberate manipulation by selective breeding. And while fruit flies are used I presume because of the high turnover, at least among plants and domestic animals there is a distinct benefit to society. "Natural" selection, as it were.

I just thought of a good example, Broccoli. Broccoli was developed by the Italian family that bears the name. (Aside, the James Bond films were produced by decendents of the Broccoli family and fortune.) Broccoli was derived from the Cole family, which includes cabbages. The difference being, while cabbage is generally grown for its leaves and/or heads, broccoli is grown for its flowers. Broccoli is a distinct species, no other Cole crop is anything like it. Yet all Cole crops (pick a member, any member) freely cross-pollinate with broccoli. Such seed is not considered by the backyard gardener to be worth saving.

Another example, nectarines. They are a cross between plums and peaches (both of the rosacea family). Yet, like a mule, they are sterile.

Now, with the current technology to splice genes and introduce components that are not inherent to a given species, is cheating. That could adequately be described as "un-natural" selection. For example, Alba the rabbit glows in black light. Alba is an albino rabbit, but she was genetically engineered by inserting a certain gene from a luminescent jelly fish into the embryo she was grown from. She is a truly beautiful creature, but to imply she is a new species, after deliberate tinkering by directly inserting what would not have come directly from her "normal" environment, is manipulation, not evolution, and not even adaptation. I understand a monkey has been created using the same technique.

No species, including our own has reached a pinnacle of evolutionary perfection, because there is no such thing. Evolution is change in response to environmental conditions. When environmental conditions change little, or when a species is able to function in a number of different environments, there is no pressure to change. Mutations still occur, offering novel possibilities, but they are not fixed into the species by natural selection.

I don't see evolution as change in response to environmental conditions, adaptation is. Further, as cold-blooded reptiles, how did crocodilians and terrapins survive the natural disaster and pervasive ice-age(s) that killed off the other, "stronger" reptilians? Size? Smaller dinosaurs than crocs died. Environment? Other amphibious and water dwelling dinosaurs died. Crocs not only survived, they haven't changed. At least sharks changed (thank goodness!).

Evolution is in no way linear, and once that is grasped, questions about missing links, crocodiles that haven't changed and fruit flies that are still fruit flies are seen for the red herrings they are. Evolution produces a branched network of relationships in which no species is more evolved than another, and in which there is no jumping from branch to branch.

Yet, along any given branch, the progress is linear. You are correct, jumping from limb to limb is not possible. The "progression" of man from an "apelike" ancestor however, is linear. I have heard much of speciation from time to time, and with all due respect to Vaj whom I hold in very high esteem, the "proof of the pudding" of no longer being able to breed within that family of creatures has not ever been demonstrated. At least no example that I am aware of. It has been conjectured, but it has not been demonstrated.

I don't know your faith, but as a Christian, it is my belief that God's intention is to redeem the whole of creation from the effects of sin and restore it to its original perfection. Animals and plants are part of that. The prophets of the Old Testament/Tanakh presented images of the kingdom of God which included animal and plant life.

Very good. This is in accord with my understanding.

[I, Brian]

Hi gluadys, and welcome to CR.

[gluadys]

Originally Posted by juantoo3

Kindest Regards, gluadys, and welcome to CR!

Thanks, juantoo. And thank you for a very comprehensive and thoughtful reply. I'll do the best I can with your questions.

I accept that evolution encompasses more than simple mutation, but would you be kind enough to differentiate between mutation and variation. Is not a mutation a variation?

This is a very important distinction that is often overlooked. By "variation" I mean, as Darwin did, a variation in the actual morphology, physiology, and/or behaviour, etc, of an organism, such as a difference in colour, a difference in skeletal structure, a difference in dietary preference or whatever.

Prior to the discovery of genetics and DNA, such variants, especially if they were startling and unusual, were called mutations. But today the term "mutation" is used mostly for a change in the DNA structure (genes or chromosomes) of the organism.

Variation of the first sort is produced by genetic mutations. But not all genetic mutations produce variation. Many mutations occur in non-coding segments of the DNA and have no effect at all on the organism (though these are very useful for tracing genetic relationships). Others occur as new recessive genes and do not affect any organism which has only one copy of the mutated gene. It will show up as a variation only when it has spread far enough into the population that two organisms, both containing the recessive gene, mate and provide at least one of their offspring with two copies of the gene. Mendel noted that the phenomenon of recessive genes meant that two organisms of identical outward appearance could have differing genetic composition. He distinguished the genetic structure "genotype" from the outward appearance "phenotype".

Now, what is most important to understand is that natural selection is not able to operate directly on genetic material. It operates only on actually existing organic variation--which relates to only a fraction of the genetic variation.

Hence the need to distinguish mutation (genetic) from variation (organic).

Further, aren't most mutations hindrances, what when applied to humans we often call "birth defects?"

Not at all. Again, many mutations affect non-coding parts of the genome and have no effect one way or the other. Many other mutations are trivial in terms of fitness and also have no effect one way or another. (Such as the mutations which gave rise to variations in eye-colour in humans.) Some mutations are indeed harmful--but the range of harm can cover the gamut from mildly annoying to lethal. Some, for example, may do no actual harm to an individual but may make him/her less attractive as a mate. Studies have shown, for example, that other things being equal, a person has a better chance of being hired for a job if they are above average height. And since success as a provider tends to lead to sexual success as well, ... see what I mean? Birth defects are sometimes a result of a mutation, but they can be the result of other causes as well.

An item to note. Any characteristic of any species which can occur in more than one form indicates an inherited mutation. That applies to eye-colour, hair texture, the shape of your nose, your blood-type, and many more varying characteristics.

Natural selection is arbitrary, the "strong survive" is probably more accurately the "promiscuous survive", and birth defects are most generally a hindrance to promiscuity.

No, promiscuity doesn't help to ensure the survival of one's offspring. For one thing, we each provide our offspring with only half of their genetic make-up. The other half comes from their other parent. So even if we give them all great genes, we can't guarantee the other parent will.

And worse, we can't even guarantee that we will give them great genes. For we have two copies of each gene, but we give only one copy to each of our offspring. And we have no control over which copy goes to which offspring. If you are of African origin, you have a higher chance than other humans of carrying a gene which can confer sickle-cell anemia. As long as you carry only one copy of this gene, it has no negative effect on you. But you will pass it on to about 50% of your offspring. Should one of them also inherit the same gene from the other parent, they will be distinctly less fit than their siblings.

In short the random sorting of alleles in sexually-reproducing species negates most of the advantage that promiscuity might give to preserving the genes of a particular person.

That's not to say it never has a role, but it becomes important only in specific cases such as a genetic bottleneck with founder effect.

Agreed, many forms of life that no longer exist are contained in the fossil record. As I recall from a recent article (I believe it was by Gould), something on the order of 90% of the creatures that have existed on this planet are no longer here.

Actually, I have heard it is closer to 99%.

Weren't the only two examples of Archeoperyx recently dismissed as (very clever) forgeries?

I believe there are actually four. The question of forgery was raised and investigated. The investigation showed the allegation of forgery was not upheld by the evidence. Having been burned by a very famous scandal some years ago, the British Museum took no chances on another.

Ah, but isn't Ockham's razor the traditional scientific standard? That is, if it sounds too good to be true, odds are exeedingly great that it is too good to be true?

It is a traditional standard, but it is not what you have described. Occam's thesis was that "entities ought not to be multiplied without necessity". Rendered in more modern terms, this means roughly that a simple explanation using fewer causes is to be preferred over a more complicated explanation demanding more causes----provided of course, that the simpler explanation does cover all the bases.

It has nothing to do with the probability of an event. And, of course, the probability of an event which has occurred is 1, no matter how improbable the event may be in theory.

[re: nylon-eating bacterium] Was this natural, or synthetic, adaptation? I am aware of man-made bacterium created in the lab specifically to digest plastics as much as 15 years ago. Further, can this bacterium reproduce with "related" bacterium, specifically those from which it was derived? Not to mention, using single-celled creatures to denote how more complex creatures "speciate" is stretching the point.

It was a natural occurrence. The new bacterium was found by accident in the waste pool of a Japanese factory. Genetic comparison identified it as a flavobacterium and the single mutation which provided it with the capacity to use a new food source. And yes, even before finding this bacterium, others had been synthetically produced to digest plastics and oil. So this type of speciation has occurred both through human manipulation and naturally.

Since bacteria reproduce asexually, it does not reproduce with related bacteria. It would be interesting to know if it ever exchanges genetic material with related bacteria (a process known as conjugation) and with what success, but I have no information on that.


I got a message that this post is too long, so I am breaking it in two here. See my next post for a continuation of the discussion.

[gluadys]

Originally Posted by juantoo3

Even as simple as fruit flies, I still have not seen evidence that the new species is anything but fruit fly,

The question is, given the processes used by evolution, why would you expect any other result? This goes back to understanding the branching nature of evolution. Once that is firmly in mind, this becomes a red herring question.

or that the new species cannot mate with other fruit flies.

Whether they cannot, I am not sure, but the results of some experiments have produced, from a single starting population, a variety of populations that will not mate with their sibling species. In terms of evolutionary mechanisms the refusal to mate is equally effective as an isolating mechanism as the inability to mate. Populations which do not inter-breed are effectively separate species.

If you go to www.talkorigins.org and type "speciation" into their search engine, you can bring up a document called "Observed Instances of Speciation" which gives more detail on fruit fly speciation and speciation in other organisms. Part of the document called "29+ Evidences for Macro-evolution also gives details of field and labratory instances of speciation."

This coordinates with what I was trying to express with hybridization and deliberate manipulation by selective breeding. And while fruit flies are used I presume because of the high turnover, at least among plants and domestic animals there is a distinct benefit to society. "Natural" selection, as it were.

Actually, as Darwin correctly observed in the first chapter of Origin of Species, if you want to get a new species, hybridization is not the best way to go about it. Mendel's work confirmed this. The first generation may be quite uniform and have all the good qualities you want to combine. But when you mate the individuals in the first generation to produce the next, genetic sorting re-aligns the characteristics so that you get a variety of results. And eventually, without careful control of the stock, it tends to revert to its wild form.

The more effective way to get new species is through allopatric speciation. Start with one species. Divide it into groups. Put each group into a different environment. Let it remain there for several generations until it is adapted to that environment. Chances are that when you compare them with each other and with the original, you will find you now have several different species, each with its own distinct characteristics.

It is true that hybridization sometimes gives a new species, but it is a rarer occurrence.

I just thought of a good example, Broccoli. Broccoli was developed by the Italian family that bears the name. (Aside, the James Bond films were produced by decendents of the Broccoli family and fortune.) Broccoli was derived from the Cole family, which includes cabbages. The difference being, while cabbage is generally grown for its leaves and/or heads, broccoli is grown for its flowers. Broccoli is a distinct species, no other Cole crop is anything like it. Yet all Cole crops (pick a member, any member) freely cross-pollinate with broccoli. Such seed is not considered by the backyard gardener to be worth saving.

Actually, the fact that they freely cross-pollinate means they are NOT separate species, but varieties of the same species, just as terriers and poodles are varieties of one canine species: the domestic dog.

As the taxonomy below shows, cabbage, broccoli, kale, kohlrabi and brussel sprouts are all varieties of Brassica oleracea a species of mustard. Each has been bred by human gardeners for its particular characteristics.


Brassica oleracea
Brassica oleracea var. acephala (kale)
Brassica oleracea var. alboglabra (Chinese kale)
Brassica oleracea var. botrytis (cauliflower)
Brassica oleracea var. capitata (cabbage)
Brassica oleracea var. gemmifera (brussel sprouts)
Brassica oleracea var. gongylodes (kohlrabi)
Brassica oleracea var. italica (asparagus broccoli)
Brassica oleracea var. medullosa (marrow-stem kale)
Brassica oleracea var. oleracea
Brassica oleracea var. ramosa (perennial kale)


http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/Taxonomy...hmode=1&unlock

Another example, nectarines. They are a cross between plums and peaches (both of the rosacea family). Yet, like a mule, they are sterile.

Yes, good example both of the possibility of hybridization between closely related species, and of the limitations.

Now, with the current technology to splice genes and introduce components that are not inherent to a given species, is cheating. That could adequately be described as "un-natural" selection. For example, Alba the rabbit glows in black light. Alba is an albino rabbit, but she was genetically engineered by inserting a certain gene from a luminescent jelly fish into the embryo she was grown from. She is a truly beautiful creature, but to imply she is a new species, after deliberate tinkering by directly inserting what would not have come directly from her "normal" environment, is manipulation, not evolution, and not even adaptation. I understand a monkey has been created using the same technique.

Of course, biotechnology could not even be conceived without the fact of common descent. And you are right in saying that one new gene does not necessarily make a new species. That can happen, but rarely. For sexually reproducing species, the definition of species is related to the ability to mate and reproduce. If Alba can mate and reproduce with other rabbits of her species, then Alba is not a new species.

I don't see evolution as change in response to environmental conditions, adaptation is.

Again this is a confusion of a part with the whole. Adaptation is a consequence of natural selection. Adaptation does not generally occur all at once in a single generation. It takes place through the accumulation of successive variations by natural selection. A species which has become fully adapted to its environment may have become a different species than the one that first migrated into the same environment.

Adaptation, in and of itself requires a change in the distribution of gene alleles in the population. And that is the classic definition of evolution used today "A change in the distribution of alleles in a population that transcends generations." When such changes also lead to speciation, that is unquestionably evolution.

Further, as cold-blooded reptiles, how did crocodilians and terrapins survive the natural disaster and pervasive ice-age(s) that killed off the other, "stronger" reptilians? Size? Smaller dinosaurs than crocs died. Environment? Other amphibious and water dwelling dinosaurs died. Crocs not only survived, they haven't changed. At least sharks changed (thank goodness!).

One would have to be far more knowledgeable than I am about the environment in which crocodiles lived and of their behaviour patterns in response to cooler weather. The worst ice age, which killed off 98% of all species at the time, occurred long before crocodiles (or any vertebrates) came into existence. Also the great Permian-Triassic extinction occurred, I believe, before crocodiles existed, though I could be wrong on that one. I don't know off-hand the presumed date for the appearance of terrapins.

So we are looking primarily at the Pleistocene ice ages. These were never as severe and never produced as much extinction as the earlier ones. If crocodiles lived primarily in the tropics, they would have survived ok. And even in temperate areas the ice ages were interspersed with warmer inter-glacial periods. So the extinction patterns of the Pleistocene were quite varied.

Yet, along any given branch, the progress is linear. You are correct, jumping from limb to limb is not possible. The "progression" of man from an "apelike" ancestor however, is linear.

No, even a branch is not linear, as it can divide into smaller branches which further divide into still smaller branches, and then divide again. The transition (not progression) from ape to human (a species, btw, that has two genders and is very incorrectly referred to by the name of just one of them) is not linear, as any examination of the hominid fossil record will show. Do a google search on hominids or homonid fossils and see what turns up.

I have heard much of speciation from time to time, and with all due respect to Vaj whom I hold in very high esteem, the "proof of the pudding" of no longer being able to breed within that family of creatures has not ever been demonstrated. At least no example that I am aware of. It has been conjectured, but it has not been demonstrated.

Are you still speaking of hominids or humans? You may be right. We cannot test, of course, for the possibility of a mating with viable offspring between a Homo sapiens and a Homo erectus, as we have no extant Homo erectus to participate. And it has been suggested that a mating of a human and a bonobo (the chimp species closest to human) might be possible. I very much doubt, however, that that supposition will be put to the test. Not ethical.

[gluadys]

Originally Posted by I, Brian

Hi gluadys, and welcome to CR.

Thanks, Brian. Have enjoyed your posts.

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards, gluadys!

You have given me some very interesting things to consider, thank you.

BTW,

human (a species, btw, that has two genders and is very incorrectly referred to by the name of just one of them

You are right, political correctness is not my strong suit. My apologies if any offense was incurred. I was taught "old school,", and I tend to thoughtlessly use those old traditional terms when my concentration is elsewhere.