Discussion in 'Belief and Spirituality' started by Mohsin, Mar 18, 2004.
If memory serves correctly, this postulated planet was originally named "Phaeton".
Kindest regards to all.
If one needs to prove something as a fact, one must satisfy its critics. Now I know that Vajradhara has got some issues against Harun Yahya, but I still say that you should reffer to the scientific aspects and knowledge provided to prove a point. These guys have gathered a lot of stuff to prove the theroy of evolution wrong and one should concider these points before making big statements.
I have seen that some people are concidering this theory as a fact. Please satisfy these comments before concidering this.
Firstly, as I mentioned earlier, the structure of an eye is very complex as a million chemical reactions take place in less then twentieth of a second to form one image in our brain. Thus, the eye is useless without complete interaction with the brain. An uncomplete eye structure is useless. What use can it be of? One of the earliest fossil record of an animal is that of TRILOBITE. This creature is still present at it's original state without any change. An artical was released about this creature.
THE EYE OF THE TRILOBITE
The trilobites that appeared in the Cambrian period all of a sudden have an extremely complex eye structure. Consisting of millions of honeycomb-shaped tiny particles and a double-lens system, this eye "has an optimal design which would require a well-trained and imaginative optical engineer to develop today" in the words of David Raup, a professor of geology.
'This eye emerged 530 million years ago in a perfect state. No doubt, the sudden appearance of such a wondrous design cannot be explained by evolution and it proves the actuality of creation. Moreover, the honeycomb eye structure of the trilobite has survived to our own day without a single change. Some insects such as bees and dragon flies have the same eye structure as did the trilobite.* This situation disproves the evolutionary thesis that living things evolved progressively from the primitive to the complex.'
(*) R. L. Gregory, Eye and Brain: The Physiology of Seeing,
Oxford University Press, 1995, s. 31.
Apart from the eye, any other sence or any other organ is useless if it is uncomplete. Does it not show that these things inside living organisms are actually created completely rather then in small changes as the evolutionests claim.
Next, I want you to concider the butterfly. Researches have shown that there are, infact no colour pigments present on the wings of the butterfly, but the surface of the butterfly's wings reflects light in such a manner that it forms the colours. This property is somewhat similar to the reflected colours from a soup bubble. There are many kinds of butterflies. There are some which actually have eye markings on their wings. These markings resembles the eyes of an owl. A butterfly uses these markings as a camouflage. When a small bird or any other predeter approaches these butterflies, they spread their wings. The attacker gets scared because they are scared of owls, and thus flies off. This technique has also been video recorded by some biologests. Now, a butterfly is a small creature who by itself cannot design its wings. It cannot know that owl is these attacter's enemy and It cannot know that the markings on it's wings can be used to scare it's attackers away. Does this not point a Creater who created it as a whole with great wisdom and knowledge.
Further more, if you look at a dragonfly, it's body looks like a helical structure wrapped with metal. Two wings are cross-placed on a body that displays a colour gradation from ice blue to maroon. Because of this structure, the dragonfly is equipped with superb manoeuvrability. No matter at what speed or direction it is already moving, it can immediately stop and start flying in the opposite direction. Alternatively, it can remain suspended in air for the purpose of hunting. At that position, it can move quite swiftly towards its prey. It can accelerate up to a speed that is quite surprising for an insect: 25mph (40km/h), which would be identical to an athlete running 100 metres in the Olympics at 24.4mph (39km/h). At this speed, it collides with its prey. The shock of the impact is quite strong. However, the armoury of the dragonfly is both very resistant and very flexible. The flexible structure of its body absorbs the impact of collision. However, the same cannot be said for its prey. The dragonfly's prey would pass out or even be killed by the impact. Following the collision, the rear legs of dragonfly take on the role of its most lethal weapons. The legs stretch forward and capture the shocked prey, which is then swiftly dismembered and consumed by powerful jaws. The sight of the dragonfly is as impressive as is its ability to perform sudden manoeuvres at high speed. The eye of the dragonfly is accepted as the best example among all the insects. It has a pair of eyes, each of which features approximately thirty thousand different lenses. Two semi-spherical eyes, each nearly half the size of the head, provide the insect a very wide visual field. Because of these eyes, the dragonfly can almost keep an eye on its back. Can any evolutionest prove that all these abilities came about by chance or in steps?
Evolutionists claim that insects started flying 300 million years ago. Nonetheless, they are not able to provide any conclusive answers to fundamental questions such as: how did the first insect develop wings, take flight or keep suspended in the air?
Evolutionists only claim that some layers of skin on the body probably could have turned into wings. Aware of the unsoundness of their claim, they also assert that the fossil specimens to verify this assertion are not available yet. Nevertheless, the flawless design of insect wings leaves no room for coincidence. In an article entitled "The Mechanical Design of Insect Wings" the English biologist Robin Wootton writes:
'The better we understand the functioning of insect wings, the more subtle and beautiful their designs appear... Structures are traditionally designed to deform as little as possible; mechanisms are designed to move component parts in predictable ways. Insect wings combine both in one, using components with a wide range of elastic properties, elegantly assembled to allow appropriate deformations in response to appropriate forces and to make the best possible use of the air. They have few if any technological parallels-yet.'
On the other hand, there is not a single fossil evidence for the imaginary evolution of insects. That is what the famous French zoologist Pierre Paul Grassé referred to when he stated, "We are in the dark concerning the origin of insects."
The cell is the most complex and most elegantly designed system man has ever witnessed. Professor of biology Michael Denton, in his book entitled Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, explains this complexity with an example:
"To grasp the reality of life as it has been revealed by molecular biology, we must magnify a cell a thousand million times until it is twenty kilometers in diameter and resembles a giant airship large enough to cover a great city like London or New York. What we would then see would be an object of unparalelled complexity and adaptive design. On the surface of the cell we would see millions of openings, like port holes of a vast space ship, opening and closing to allow a continual stream of materials to flow in and out. If we were to enter one of these openings we would find ourselves in a
world of supreme technology and bewildering complexity... (a complexity) beyond our own creative capacities, a reality which is the very antithesis of chance, which excels in every sense anything produced by the intelligence of man..."
I would also like to say that there is no good statement about the first living cell or the first living organism on the planet. Many claims are placed forward but cannot be proved. Even a unicellular creature is very complex as it too have several mechanisms which cannot be self created or created by chance. The second and most fundamental thing is by what manner does evolution takes place. Natural selection is proven to be wrong by development in the field of genetics. The scientests resorted to mutation but cannot prove by a single experiment that it can be used in a positive way. As I siad in an earlier post, radioactive waves damage the useful data in the DNA and thus turns a creatue into a freak of nature.
Concidering all the above facts, can you still hold this theory as more then just a theory? These are the points which are also the basis of evolution and they must satisfied. The statements that evolutionests use are probably, may have, somehow, would have e.t.c. No good evidance. The skulls presented, are of apes, some extince ones and some of the modern man with racial differances. They cannot be held as evidance for evolution. For further information, again have a visit to the theory's greatest critics http://www.harunyahya.com/evolution_introduction.php
About Adam(P.B.U.H), many stories originate from the Bibal, but not from the Quran. Again, we cannot go back in time to view for ourself what actually happened. It is true that the modren day Bible has got contradictions and shows incompatibilaty with science. If I would have said this few years earlier then it would have really offended many Christians, but there are threads going on even in this site about these contradictions. As far as miracles are concerned, when science fails to explain something, it is a miracle. If you say that having miracles makes a religion incompatible with science, know this; science cannot satisfy many complexities and these point to a Being who created everything. That Being is Allah(the Almighty God). When you say that there can be no miracles, you are doubting the powers of Allah(the Almighty God). The greatest miracle that I can put forward today is the Holy Quran. Know this, no established scientific fact goes against the Quran. Evolution is nothing more then a theory and is totally unaccepted by the Quran.
just another point of view
This is by far the most interesting discussion about the evolution "debate" i've come across on the internet. Thank you all for such great and well-thought-out observations.
I'm in the same camp as those who take a non-literal, but nevertheless God-inspired and -protected, view of the Bible (I've never read the Quran, but I can believe it is also the Word of God). It is holy and can tell us how to lead holy lives, but it is not trying to tell us literal facts about how humans came into being. I guess that thought is for another thread.
Thank you V. for S. Gould's essay on recent attempts to debunk evolutionary theory. I don't think of evolution as fact, but as theory supported by an overwhelming number of facts (observations and experimental outcomes). It is the best working hypothesis scientists have to date to 1) explain what we observe around us now (and in the archeological record) and 2) to predict the outcome of ongoing and future experiments. That is the purpose of any scientific hypothesis. Others have pointed out many of the nuances of this same idea, but I just wanted to contend that thing about evolution as fact. Now, as to the mechanism(s) driving evolution, that's where it gets interesting, and as someone else (Phi? Brian?) pointed out. Does anyone really want to throw out the theory of evolution that has allowed us to understand the nature of genetic disease and to predict the possible outcome of overuse of antibiotics and how viruses might mutate to change hosts? (pardon my poor grammar--it's late for me).
I like the idea that humans became true humans at some point along the evolutionary continuum, and this was the day of our creation. While the seven days of creation may have been billions of years, this event could have been in one day, even one instant.
I also like the multiverse theory, which I will probably misexplain here since I read it in New York Times column a while ago and do not have it on hand. My understanding is that at least one theory of physics allows for the idea that at every moment our universe splits into all the possible outcome universes imaginable from the incalculable number of variable changes constantly being made. OK, let me try again. I type this word, then I decide I don't like it, so i either backspace over it or keep it and a new universe comes into existence. Somewhere on the other side of the earth a butterfly escapes or does not escape the notice of a hungry bird and the universe splits to accomadate both outcomes. In every instant all possible outcomes are made, but it appears that things go one way or the other because that is the universe our counsiousness is residing in, except for all of our other consiousnesses in all the other universes that are also constantly splitting into inumerable universes...OK, now one of you physicists is going to have to bail me out on this one. And don't ask me about my soul in all those other universes!
Where was I going with that? oh yeah. First, the conclusion of that article was that since we can not test that theory (of the multiverse), there might as well be God (or maybe it was more like, if you can accept the untestable idea of a multiverse whaich is based upon scientific reasoning, then why not accept the equally untestable existence of God?). Second, think of the awsomeness of God who can test out the mechanisms of evolution in an infinite number of universes (the evolution of evolution). And the universe that we regard as a success is of course the one we are conscious of. It is humbling.
Mohsin, a big problem with your argument is that it's simply a general polemic against the Theory of Evolution. But making a statement against something does not make a statement correct. Nor does somebody - such as Harun Yahya - making a collection of statements against a thing therefore imply any form of authority on such a topic.
This is all the more complicated by the fact that you are not arguing against just evolutionary theory, but also Reductionism - and you are using Argument from Design to try and make your point.
This confuses your entire message.
Allow me to clear up a few possible misconceptions:
acceptance of the principles of evolutionary theory does not imply that reductionism must therefore be accepted
acceptance of the principles of evolutionary theory are entirely with keeping within a model of Argument by Design
To really make an argument against the Theory of Evolution you'll have to present small aspects of evolutionary theory in isolation, and then present why evolution fails here implicitly. You will also need to do this with full awareness of how Argument from Design and Reductionism apply to the argument - otherwise you are in danger of flawing your own arguments.
Arguing that evolution cannot be true because of the development of the eye is not to argue against evolutionary principles, but merely against reductionism. To argue that some form of Divine Will was involved at some level is not to directly contradict evolutionary theory, merely add to it.
To many people evolution simply shows how life developed on earth according to Divine principles.
to further Brians comments a bit...
where life came from and how it got there is not part of the TOE. it's a seperate thing called Abiogenesis and is covered in it's own theories and postulates.
the issue with using Haryun Yahya as a scientific resources is he's not a scientist. he has no training in molecular biology, geology, chemistry, astrophysics or any of the other scientific disciplines that he critiques. his claims are not peer reviewed by a group of scientists to ascertain the veracity of his claims, thus, he is a layperson like myself and his opinions mean as much as mine, which is to say that my opinions, though based on as much research as i can do, are by no means conclusive on this issue.
of course, any layperson should feel free to examine what scientists claim and purport to be the facts, however, one needs to refute the facts and not the philosophy of the theory to debunk it.
evolution is a fact. we've seen it happen! heck, we've made in happen! the theory part of evolution is "how" the changes are selected, passed on, gotten to begin with and so forth. we've witnessed speciation, in point of fact. here's some references for those that are interested:
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.
10. Callaghan, C. A. 1987. Instances of observed speciation. The American BiologyTeacher. 49:3436.
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.
15. 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.
16. 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.
17. 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.
18. 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.
19. 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.
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.
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 haveoriginally developed in Indonesia and Malaysia during and prior to the Middle Ages.
 T. Yosida. Cytogenetics of the Black Rat. University Park Press, Baltimore, 1980.
 D. Morris. The Mammals. Hodder and Stoughton, London, 1965.
 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.
Evolution is simply a change in a genetic population. that is all. we've seen it happen so we know it exists. we have theories about the "how" of it... how certain traits are selected and passed on and so forth, however, none of those competing theories does anything to change the evidence.
besides... one doesn't need to accept TOE as accurate or correct. they can believe as they wish as it doesn't impact a theological undestanding of creation in the least. i realize that some people believe that it does, but they are mistaken
Kindest Regards, NGNM!
Is this not arguing against a faith based religious text with another faith based religious text, neither of which can be verified with absolute certainty? From what little I gather of Hittite (and Sumerian) religion, the practices were diametrically opposed to the embryonic Judaism.
Yet, somehow, a "wife" of a "storm god" is more believable? At least snakes have residual limbs and hips.
Thank you for the info on Phaeton and the asteroid belt, I knew there were other postulations out there, but only the one stuck in my mind.
And before anyone asks, there was another planet supposedly observed briefly in the 19th century within Mercury's orbit - only to vanish. It was speculated that it had entered the sun and vapourised. Of course, there is the possibility of some form of body behaving so, but as to it being a planet is a claim not favoured by the astrophysics community. And it's name - btw - was given as Vulcan.
I'm still catching up, so I just wanted to say I finally came across some of the other posts on evolution in the philosophy section, including from Vajradhara:
"Evolution theory will never make any attempt to describe or explain Why or How life started. Evolution theory is a theory that deals specifically with how biological forms change.
As you may know, a good scientific theory is one that, according to Karl Popper has three elements. it must be based on your observations. it must make a definite prediction and it must be falseifiable.
Since Evolution is a Theory that meets those criteria, it is called a "fact of science". which simply means that if we observed something that would invalidate the theory, we'd have to scrap it and get a new one.
in any event, i think that there is plenty of solid evidence to support evolution."
Thank you for helping me clarify my thinking on this.
Kindest Regards, Brian!
Hadn't heard of this, although a few years back I read about two planetesimals beyond Pluto, one named Charon I believe, and the other name escapes me. This came from The Old Farmer's Almanac, not gospel, but I don't think they make a habit of telling untrue tales. Any confirmation, yea or nay?
Kindest Regards, Vajradhara!
Your last post on this thread sure presented a lot of info. much more than I have time for just now. I did notice one thing though, perhaps you might clarify something for me? What is "speciation?" Or, maybe better stated, what differentiates between adaptation and speciation. How much adaptation before a "new species" comes about? Thanks.
speciation is, essentially, the creation of a species through the splitting of one species into two or more, through descent.
the "proof" of the pudding, so to speak, is that the new species cannot reproduce with the original species.
How well the heart of the argument is so succintly spelled out.
Good call, lunamoth.
Charon is actually Pluto's very large moon - about 1/3 it's size (which isn't great in the first place - just over 1000km diamater). A number of relatively large planetoids outside Pluto's orbit (in the Kuiper Belt and even Oort Cloud) have been recently discovered.
Kindest Regards, Vajradhara!
I've been mulling over this the last couple of days. I am having some problems squaring it with some real life observations. Like hybrids. Particularly in gardening, plants have been deliberately hybridized for centuries, but seldom does such deliberate breeding create a new species, at least by the guide presented. A lot of times cultivars are taken from a different species of plant, but from the same family. A good one is that of not planting carrots where Queen Anne's Lace or fennel grows, they will cross, and the results are not to the gardener's benefit.
Another hybrid conflict came to mind as well, mules. Surely because donkeys and horses are distinctly different species, they should not be able to interbreed? Granted, mules are sterile (so I'm told), but that donkeys and horses are able to cross-breed would by the same guide declare them sufficiently similar to not be distinct species.
Something else that crossed my path recently, certainly from no authority and I don't recall where, but I heard that domestic dogs are from 4 distinct lineages (species), yet all are able to interbreed (with some rather interesting results). I could stand to be corrected on this one, I haven't time right now to pursue it further.
Just a few thoughts, in between a major project on the home front.
There was a great article in New Scientist last year that made a point of highlighting how common hybridisation actually is. The surprisingly difficult problem of defining a "species" was also raised.
IMO "speciation" is the real achilles heel of evolutionary theory, because we are still lacking a proper description of the vectors in this process. Random mutation cannot account for this because IMO this alone is inconsistent with observation.
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.
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."
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.
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?
Kindest Regards to all!
What do you get when you cross a rhinoceros with an elephant?
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
Separate names with a comma.