Questions for Evolutionists

[Jeff V]

1. How many fossils have been found that show transition from one species to the next?

2. Is macro-evolution science?

3. If you answered yes to #3 then where's the tangible, testible evidence?

[bluesbassman]

[ QUOTE ]


1. How many fossils have been found that show transition from one species to the next?

2. Is macro-evolution science?

3. If you answered yes to #3 then where's the tangible, testible evidence?

[/ QUOTE ]

The answers to all of these questions can be found at this Evolution FAQ, and the links it provides:

Evolution FAQ (http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-qa.html)

[Lestat]

[ QUOTE ]
1. How many fossils have been found that show transition from one species to the next?

[/ QUOTE ]

This should be left to be answered by someone trained in this field. I'm certainly not qualified.


[ QUOTE ]
2. Is macro-evolution science?

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not a biologist, but I would think it is a science.

[ QUOTE ]
3. If you answered yes to #3 then where's the tangible, testible evidence?

[/ QUOTE ]

This is question #3, but I get your point.

There are still many unanswered questions about evolution. My biggest one has to do with speciastic barriers. If man evolved from apes, then why aren't there any half man-apes around in the process of becoming fully man? Did the genus of ape we evolved from suddenly stop evolving into man? Why do we find that one species is often so clearly defined from other species?

Why can't we breed mass generations of fish for example, and slowly change their environmnet to include less and less air and water and see if they start to develop lungs?

I have some problem with the so-called Cambrian explosion too, although I can think of some logical reasons for this.

These might be horrifically stupid questions. But this is what happens when someone unqualified like myself starts contemplating a science I know little about.

Hopefully, someone will have the creditials to answer your questions. Like I said right away. It certainly isn't me, but I'm curious to learn more about it.

[imported_luckyme]

No, there is no way we'll ever get to Alpha Centura so all claims about it's composition are based on unfalsifible deduction/speculation, so it isn't science.

[Jeff V]

[ QUOTE ]
This is question #3, but I get your point.


[/ QUOTE ]

oh yea oops /images/graemlins/crazy.gif

[ QUOTE ]
My biggest one has to do with speciastic barriers. If man evolved from apes, then why aren't there any half man-apes around in the process of becoming fully man? Did the genus of ape we evolved from suddenly stop evolving into man? Why do we find that one species is often so clearly defined from other species?

[/ QUOTE ]

That's my point. The answer to question #1 is zero btw.

Yet you and others reject creation because of no "tangible evidence"?

Actually maybe I put words in your mouth there. You stated "how about some tangible evidence" when asked about your dis belief in God.

[chezlaw]

If you're really interested in evidence then species formation can be observed in living creatures.

ring species (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/05/2/l_052_05.html)

chez

[Jeff V]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


1. How many fossils have been found that show transition from one species to the next?

2. Is macro-evolution science?

3. If you answered yes to #3 then where's the tangible, testible evidence?

[/ QUOTE ]

The answers to all of these questions can be found at this Evolution FAQ, and the links it provides:

Evolution FAQ (http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-qa.html)

[/ QUOTE ]

That's it? Archaeopteryx, and many of the other links have been disproven for sometime.

[ QUOTE ]


1. How many fossils have been found that show transition from one species to the next?


[/ QUOTE ]

If you were to put ice water on the stove at what point would it make the transition from cold to hot?

[Jeff V]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


1. How many fossils have been found that show transition from one species to the next?


[/ QUOTE ]

If you were to put ice water on the stove at what point would it make the transition from cold to hot?

[/ QUOTE ]

So your saying that there is nothing missing in the fossil record?

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


1. How many fossils have been found that show transition from one species to the next?


[/ QUOTE ]

If you were to put ice water on the stove at what point would it make the transition from cold to hot?

[/ QUOTE ]

So your saying that there is nothing missing in the fossil record?

[/ QUOTE ]

Of course there is no complete fossil record. We have access to some randomly strewn about fossils from various points in time.

But your question misses the point about the theory of evolution and how species are formed. Your question is analagous to looking at 30 xrays of 1 person taken on their birthday from age 1 to 30 then asking to show you the one which shows the transition from childhood to adulthood.

[ QUOTE ]

So your saying that there is nothing missing in the fossil record?

[/ QUOTE ]

Check out the link Chezlaw provided about the California salamanders, you dont need a fossil record, there are living creatures that illustrate the point you dont understand.

[Jeff V]

From the article

[ QUOTE ]
the entire complex of populations belongs to a single taxonomic species, Ensatina escholtzii.


[/ QUOTE ]

Micro yes. Macro nope.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
From the article

[ QUOTE ]
the entire complex of populations belongs to a single taxonomic species, Ensatina escholtzii.


[/ QUOTE ]

Micro yes. Macro nope.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
In evolutionary biology today, macroevolution is used to refer to any evolutionary change at or above the level of species. It means the splitting of a species into two

[/ QUOTE ]
Definitely macro

chez

[Jeff V]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


1. How many fossils have been found that show transition from one species to the next?


[/ QUOTE ]

If you were to put ice water on the stove at what point would it make the transition from cold to hot?

[/ QUOTE ]

So your saying that there is nothing missing in the fossil record?

[/ QUOTE ]

Of course there is no complete fossil record. We have access to some randomly strewn about fossils from various points in time.

But your question misses the point about the theory of evolution and how species are formed. Your question is analagous to looking at 30 xrays of 1 person taken on their birthday from age 1 to 30 then asking to show you the one which shows the transition from childhood to adulthood.

[/ QUOTE ]

Um no. That's not it at all.

We have hundreds of times more fossils than in Darwins day, and not one that shows any speciation. So are you saying that they're out there and we haven't found them yet? Not one in millions of examples yet they exist? This thought process requires faith no?

[Jeff V]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
From the article

[ QUOTE ]
the entire complex of populations belongs to a single taxonomic species, Ensatina escholtzii.


[/ QUOTE ]

Micro yes. Macro nope.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
In evolutionary biology today, macroevolution is used to refer to any evolutionary change at or above the level of species. It means the splitting of a species into two

[/ QUOTE ]
Definitely macro

chez

[/ QUOTE ]


merriam webster's dictionary (http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/macroevolution)

Main Entry: mac·ro·evo·lu·tion
Pronunciation: 'ma-krO-"e-v&-'lü-sh&n also -"E-v&-
Function: noun
: evolution that results in relatively large and complex changes (as in species formation)
- mac·ro·evo·lu·tion·ary /-sh&-"ner-E/ adjective

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
From the article

[ QUOTE ]
the entire complex of populations belongs to a single taxonomic species, Ensatina escholtzii.


[/ QUOTE ]

Micro yes. Macro nope.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
In evolutionary biology today, macroevolution is used to refer to any evolutionary change at or above the level of species. It means the splitting of a species into two

[/ QUOTE ]
Definitely macro

chez

[/ QUOTE ]


merriam webster's dictionary (http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/macroevolution)

Main Entry: mac·ro·evo·lu·tion
Pronunciation: 'ma-krO-"e-v&-'lü-sh&n also -"E-v&-
Function: noun
: evolution that results in relatively large and complex changes (as in species formation)
- mac·ro·evo·lu·tion·ary /-sh&-"ner-E/ adjective

[/ QUOTE ]
Yes and the the link provides an example of species formation. I don't understand why you think it doesn't.

chez

[Lestat]

But wait a minute...

While there remain some unanswered questions, there is copious evidence all around us for evolution. And it is observable. And I don't need to rely on accounts of extremely unlikely events documented by people of long ago.

Now I'll grant you that once upon a time the idea that man is related to an ape would've seemed about as far-fetched as some of the (tamer) biblical stories. But that just isn't the case any more. There is a plethora of books on the subject if one is interested in learning more.

Again, I'm not a scientist and am not qualified to explain or prove to you exactly why evolution is a fact any more than I can explain or prove to you that light travels at 186,000 miles per second and nothing can move faster than it. But you should know that evolution has been very well received by virtually the entire scientific community. Evolution is not mere speculation, but a THEORY! That's pretty strong. Do you really question whether evolution is true?

[Jeff V]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
From the article

[ QUOTE ]
the entire complex of populations belongs to a single taxonomic species, Ensatina escholtzii.


[/ QUOTE ]

Micro yes. Macro nope.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
In evolutionary biology today, macroevolution is used to refer to any evolutionary change at or above the level of species. It means the splitting of a species into two

[/ QUOTE ]
Definitely macro

chez

[/ QUOTE ]


merriam webster's dictionary (http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/macroevolution)

Main Entry: mac·ro·evo·lu·tion
Pronunciation: 'ma-krO-"e-v&-'lü-sh&n also -"E-v&-
Function: noun
: evolution that results in relatively large and complex changes (as in species formation)
- mac·ro·evo·lu·tion·ary /-sh&-"ner-E/ adjective

[/ QUOTE ]
Yes and the the link provides an example of species formation. I don't understand why you think it doesn't.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

Is the salamander in your link still a salamander or not??

[Zygote]

[ QUOTE ]

1. How many fossils have been found that show transition from one species to the next?

[/ QUOTE ]

a lot.
[ QUOTE ]

2. Is macro-evolution science?


[/ QUOTE ]

2. absolutely

3. [ QUOTE ]
3. If you answered yes to #3 then where's the tangible, testible evidence?

[/ QUOTE ]

the ground, museums, education centers, and research facilities.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
From the article

[ QUOTE ]
the entire complex of populations belongs to a single taxonomic species, Ensatina escholtzii.


[/ QUOTE ]

Micro yes. Macro nope.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
In evolutionary biology today, macroevolution is used to refer to any evolutionary change at or above the level of species. It means the splitting of a species into two

[/ QUOTE ]
Definitely macro

chez

[/ QUOTE ]


merriam webster's dictionary (http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/macroevolution)

Main Entry: mac·ro·evo·lu·tion
Pronunciation: 'ma-krO-"e-v&-'lü-sh&n also -"E-v&-
Function: noun
: evolution that results in relatively large and complex changes (as in species formation)
- mac·ro·evo·lu·tion·ary /-sh&-"ner-E/ adjective

[/ QUOTE ]
Yes and the the link provides an example of species formation. I don't understand why you think it doesn't.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

Is the salamander in your link still a salamander or not??

[/ QUOTE ]
Jeff, you can call the things whatever you like but here you have a series of creatures that can all reproduce with their neighbors but at the same time those furthest apart cannot reproduce with each other.

This is evidence of species formation. Normally its spread out over time and so difficult to observe but here its spread over geographical space and you can see the whole thing in all its glory.

chez

[Jeff V]

[ QUOTE ]
a lot.

[/ QUOTE ]

Where?

[hmkpoker]

Is it a salamander because it has salamander-like qualities, or does it have salamander-like qualities because it is a salamander?

This confusion seems to be the basis of many arguments against evolution.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
From the article

[ QUOTE ]
the entire complex of populations belongs to a single taxonomic species, Ensatina escholtzii.


[/ QUOTE ]

Micro yes. Macro nope.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
In evolutionary biology today, macroevolution is used to refer to any evolutionary change at or above the level of species. It means the splitting of a species into two

[/ QUOTE ]
Definitely macro

chez

[/ QUOTE ]


merriam webster's dictionary (http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/macroevolution)

Main Entry: mac·ro·evo·lu·tion
Pronunciation: 'ma-krO-"e-v&-'lü-sh&n also -"E-v&-
Function: noun
: evolution that results in relatively large and complex changes (as in species formation)
- mac·ro·evo·lu·tion·ary /-sh&-"ner-E/ adjective

[/ QUOTE ]
Yes and the the link provides an example of species formation. I don't understand why you think it doesn't.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

Is the salamander in your link still a salamander or not??

[/ QUOTE ]

They are 2 seperate species of the genus Ensatina. Ensatina eschscholtzii is the plain western species and Ensatina klauberi is the blotched eastern one.

But these salamanders show why your question completly miss the point. Just as there is a definate difference between cold and hot water, you still can not show me the point at which the transformation is made. Similarly with the salamanders, allthough they are 2 seperate species who can not mate with one another, if you work your way around the ring of the valley in which they live you can not point to any point where the transition is made from plain to blotched.

[Jeff V]

So this proves a fish becomes a dinosaur becomes a bird becomes an ape becomes a man?

My question was, and still is where are the links in the fossil record that shows the above?

[David Steele]

5.0 Observed Instances of Speciation

The following are several examples of observations of speciation.
5.1 Speciations Involving Polyploidy, Hybridization or Hybridization Followed by Polyploidization.

5.1.1 Plants

(See also the discussion in de Wet 1971).
5.1.1.1 Evening Primrose (Oenothera gigas)

While studying the genetics of the evening primrose, Oenothera lamarckiana, de Vries (1905) found an unusual variant among his plants. O. lamarckiana has a chromosome number of 2N = 14. The variant had a chromosome number of 2N = 28. He found that he was unable to breed this variant with O. lamarckiana. He named this new species O. gigas.
5.1.1.2 Kew Primrose (Primula kewensis)

Digby (1912) crossed the primrose species Primula verticillata and P. floribunda to produce a sterile hybrid. Polyploidization occurred in a few of these plants to produce fertile offspring. The new species was named P. kewensis. Newton and Pellew (1929) note that spontaneous hybrids of P. verticillata and P. floribunda set tetraploid seed on at least three occasions. These happened in 1905, 1923 and 1926.
5.1.1.3 Tragopogon

Owenby (1950) demonstrated that two species in this genus were produced by polyploidization from hybrids. He showed that Tragopogon miscellus found in a colony in Moscow, Idaho was produced by hybridization of T. dubius and T. pratensis. He also showed that T. mirus found in a colony near Pullman, Washington was produced by hybridization of T. dubius and T. porrifolius. Evidence from chloroplast DNA suggests that T. mirus has originated independently by hybridization in eastern Washington and western Idaho at least three times (Soltis and Soltis 1989). The same study also shows multiple origins for T. micellus.
5.1.1.4 Raphanobrassica

The Russian cytologist Karpchenko (1927, 1928) crossed the radish, Raphanus sativus, with the cabbage, Brassica oleracea. Despite the fact that the plants were in different genera, he got a sterile hybrid. Some unreduced gametes were formed in the hybrids. This allowed for the production of seed. Plants grown from the seeds were interfertile with each other. They were not interfertile with either parental species. Unfortunately the new plant (genus Raphanobrassica) had the foliage of a radish and the root of a cabbage.
5.1.1.5 Hemp Nettle (Galeopsis tetrahit)

A species of hemp nettle, Galeopsis tetrahit, was hypothesized to be the result of a natural hybridization of two other species, G. pubescens and G. speciosa (Muntzing 1932). The two species were crossed. The hybrids matched G. tetrahit in both visible features and chromosome morphology.
5.1.1.6 Madia citrigracilis

Along similar lines, Clausen et al. (1945) hypothesized that Madia citrigracilis was a hexaploid hybrid of M. gracilis and M. citriodora As evidence they noted that the species have gametic chromosome numbers of n = 24, 16 and 8 respectively. Crossing M. gracilis and M. citriodora resulted in a highly sterile triploid with n = 24. The chromosomes formed almost no bivalents during meiosis. Artificially doubling the chromosome number using colchecine produced a hexaploid hybrid which closely resembled M. citrigracilis and was fertile.
5.1.1.7 Brassica

Frandsen (1943, 1947) was able to do this same sort of recreation of species in the genus Brassica (cabbage, etc.). His experiments showed that B. carinata (n = 17) may be recreated by hybridizing B. nigra (n = 8) and B. oleracea, B. juncea (n = 18) may be recreated by hybridizing B. nigra and B. campestris (n = 10), and B. napus (n = 19) may be recreated by hybridizing B. oleracea and B. campestris.
5.1.1.8 Maidenhair Fern (Adiantum pedatum)

Rabe and Haufler (1992) found a naturally occurring diploid sporophyte of maidenhair fern which produced unreduced (2N) spores. These spores resulted from a failure of the paired chromosomes to dissociate during the first division of meiosis. The spores germinated normally and grew into diploid gametophytes. These did not appear to produce antheridia. Nonetheless, a subsequent generation of tetraploid sporophytes was produced. When grown in the lab, the tetraploid sporophytes appear to be less vigorous than the normal diploid sporophytes. The 4N individuals were found near Baldwin City, Kansas.
5.1.1.9 Woodsia Fern (Woodsia abbeae)

Woodsia abbeae was described as a hybrid of W. cathcariana and W. ilvensis (Butters 1941). Plants of this hybrid normally produce abortive sporangia containing inviable spores. In 1944 Butters found a W. abbeae plant near Grand Portage, Minn. that had one fertile frond (Butters and Tryon 1948). The apical portion of this frond had fertile sporangia. Spores from this frond germinated and grew into prothallia. About six months after germination sporophytes were produced. They survived for about one year. Based on cytological evidence, Butters and Tryon concluded that the frond that produced the viable spores had gone tetraploid. They made no statement as to whether the sporophytes grown produced viable spores.
5.1.2 Animals

Speciation through hybridization and/or polyploidy has long been considered much less important in animals than in plants [[[refs.]]]. A number of reviews suggest that this view may be mistaken. (Lokki and Saura 1980; Bullini and Nascetti 1990; Vrijenhoek 1994). Bullini and Nasceti (1990) review chromosomal and genetic evidence that suggest that speciation through hybridization may occur in a number of insect species, including walking sticks, grasshoppers, blackflies and cucurlionid beetles. Lokki and Saura (1980) discuss the role of polyploidy in insect evolution. Vrijenhoek (1994) reviews the literature on parthenogenesis and hybridogenesis in fish. I will tackle this topic in greater depth in the next version of this document.
5.2 Speciations in Plant Species not Involving Hybridization or Polyploidy

5.2.1 Stephanomeira malheurensis

Gottlieb (1973) documented the speciation of Stephanomeira malheurensis. He found a single small population (< 250 plants) among a much larger population (> 25,000 plants) of S. exigua in Harney Co., Oregon. Both species are diploid and have the same number of chromosomes (N = 8). S. exigua is an obligate outcrosser exhibiting sporophytic self-incompatibility. S. malheurensis exhibits no self-incompatibility and self-pollinates. Though the two species look very similar, Gottlieb was able to document morphological differences in five characters plus chromosomal differences. F1 hybrids between the species produces only 50% of the seeds and 24% of the pollen that conspecific crosses produced. F2 hybrids showed various developmental abnormalities.
5.2.2 Maize (Zea mays)

Pasterniani (1969) produced almost complete reproductive isolation between two varieties of maize. The varieties were distinguishable by seed color, white versus yellow. Other genetic markers allowed him to identify hybrids. The two varieties were planted in a common field. Any plant's nearest neighbors were always plants of the other strain. Selection was applied against hybridization by using only those ears of corn that showed a low degree of hybridization as the source of the next years seed. Only parental type kernels from these ears were planted. The strength of selection was increased each year. In the first year, only ears with less than 30% intercrossed seed were used. In the fifth year, only ears with less than 1% intercrossed seed were used. After five years the average percentage of intercrossed matings dropped from 35.8% to 4.9% in the white strain and from 46.7% to 3.4% in the yellow strain.
5.2.3 Speciation as a Result of Selection for Tolerance to a Toxin: Yellow Monkey Flower (Mimulus guttatus)

At reasonably low concentrations, copper is toxic to many plant species. Several plants have been seen to develop a tolerance to this metal (Macnair 1981). Macnair and Christie (1983) used this to examine the genetic basis of a postmating isolating mechanism in yellow monkey flower. When they crossed plants from the copper tolerant "Copperopolis" population with plants from the nontolerant "Cerig" population, they found that many of the hybrids were inviable. During early growth, just after the four leaf stage, the leaves of many of the hybrids turned yellow and became necrotic. Death followed this. This was seen only in hybrids between the two populations. Through mapping studies, the authors were able to show that the copper tolerance gene and the gene responsible for hybrid inviability were either the same gene or were very tightly linked. These results suggest that reproductive isolation may require changes in only a small number of genes.
5.3 The Fruit Fly Literature

5.3.1 Drosophila paulistorum

Dobzhansky and Pavlovsky (1971) reported a speciation event that occurred in a laboratory culture of Drosophila paulistorum sometime between 1958 and 1963. The culture was descended from a single inseminated female that was captured in the Llanos of Colombia. In 1958 this strain produced fertile hybrids when crossed with conspecifics of different strains from Orinocan. From 1963 onward crosses with Orinocan strains produced only sterile males. Initially no assortative mating or behavioral isolation was seen between the Llanos strain and the Orinocan strains. Later on Dobzhansky produced assortative mating (Dobzhansky 1972).
5.3.2 Disruptive Selection on Drosophila melanogaster

Thoday and Gibson (1962) established a population of Drosophila melanogaster from four gravid females. They applied selection on this population for flies with the highest and lowest numbers of sternoplural chaetae (hairs). In each generation, eight flies with high numbers of chaetae were allowed to interbreed and eight flies with low numbers of chaetae were allowed to interbreed. Periodically they performed mate choice experiments on the two lines. They found that they had produced a high degree of positive assortative mating between the two groups. In the decade or so following this, eighteen labs attempted unsuccessfully to reproduce these results. References are given in Thoday and Gibson 1970.
5.3.3 Selection on Courtship Behavior in Drosophila melanogaster

Crossley (1974) was able to produce changes in mating behavior in two mutant strains of D. melanogaster. Four treatments were used. In each treatment, 55 virgin males and 55 virgin females of both ebony body mutant flies and vestigial wing mutant flies (220 flies total) were put into a jar and allowed to mate for 20 hours. The females were collected and each was put into a separate vial. The phenotypes of the offspring were recorded. Wild type offspring were hybrids between the mutants. In two of the four treatments, mating was carried out in the light. In one of these treatments all hybrid offspring were destroyed. This was repeated for 40 generations. Mating was carried out in the dark in the other two treatments. Again, in one of these all hybrids were destroyed. This was repeated for 49 generations. Crossley ran mate choice tests and observed mating behavior. Positive assortative mating was found in the treatment which had mated in the light and had been subject to strong selection against hybridization. The basis of this was changes in the courtship behaviors of both sexes. Similar experiments, without observation of mating behavior, were performed by Knight, et al. (1956).
5.3.4 Sexual Isolation as a Byproduct of Adaptation to Environmental Conditions in Drosophila melanogaster

Kilias, et al. (1980) exposed D. melanogaster populations to different temperature and humidity regimes for several years. They performed mating tests to check for reproductive isolation. They found some sterility in crosses among populations raised under different conditions. They also showed some positive assortative mating. These things were not observed in populations which were separated but raised under the same conditions. They concluded that sexual isolation was produced as a byproduct of selection.
5.3.5 Sympatric Speciation in Drosophila melanogaster

In a series of papers (Rice 1985, Rice and Salt 1988 and Rice and Salt 1990) Rice and Salt presented experimental evidence for the possibility of sympatric speciation. They started from the premise that whenever organisms sort themselves into the environment first and then mate locally, individuals with the same habitat preferences will necessarily mate assortatively. They established a stock population of D. melanogaster with flies collected in an orchard near Davis, California. Pupae from the culture were placed into a habitat maze. Newly emerged flies had to negotiate the maze to find food. The maze simulated several environmental gradients simultaneously. The flies had to make three choices of which way to go. The first was between light and dark (phototaxis). The second was between up and down (geotaxis). The last was between the scent of acetaldehyde and the scent of ethanol (chemotaxis). This divided the flies among eight habitats. The flies were further divided by the time of day of emergence. In total the flies were divided among 24 spatio-temporal habitats.

They next cultured two strains of flies that had chosen opposite habitats. One strain emerged early, flew upward and was attracted to dark and acetaldehyde. The other emerged late, flew downward and was attracted to light and ethanol. Pupae from these two strains were placed together in the maze. They were allowed to mate at the food site and were collected. Eye color differences between the strains allowed Rice and Salt to distinguish between the two strains. A selective penalty was imposed on flies that switched habitats. Females that switched habitats were destroyed. None of their gametes passed into the next generation. Males that switched habitats received no penalty. After 25 generations of this mating tests showed reproductive isolation between the two strains. Habitat specialization was also produced.

They next repeated the experiment without the penalty against habitat switching. The result was the same -- reproductive isolation was produced. They argued that a switching penalty is not necessary to produce reproductive isolation. Their results, they stated, show the possibility of sympatric speciation.
5.3.6 Isolation Produced as an Incidental Effect of Selection on several Drosophila species

In a series of experiments, del Solar (1966) derived positively and negatively geotactic and phototactic strains of D. pseudoobscura from the same population by running the flies through mazes. Flies from different strains were then introduced into mating chambers (10 males and 10 females from each strain). Matings were recorded. Statistically significant positive assortative mating was found.

In a separate series of experiments Dodd (1989) raised eight populations derived from a single population of D. Pseudoobscura on stressful media. Four populations were raised on a starch based medium, the other four were raised on a maltose based medium. The fly populations in both treatments took several months to get established, implying that they were under strong selection. Dodd found some evidence of genetic divergence between flies in the two treatments. He performed mate choice tests among experimental populations. He found statistically significant assortative mating between populations raised on different media, but no assortative mating among populations raised within the same medium regime. He argued that since there was no direct selection for reproductive isolation, the behavioral isolation results from a pleiotropic by-product to adaptation to the two media. Schluter and Nagel (1995) have argued that these results provide experimental support for the hypothesis of parallel speciation.

Less dramatic results were obtained by growing D. willistoni on media of different pH levels (de Oliveira and Cordeiro 1980). Mate choice tests after 26, 32, 52 and 69 generations of growth showed statistically significant assortative mating between some populations grown in different pH treatments. This ethological isolation did not always persist over time. They also found that some crosses made after 106 and 122 generations showed significant hybrid inferiority, but only when grown in acid medium.
5.3.7 Selection for Reinforcement in Drosophila melanogaster

Some proposed models of speciation rely on a process called reinforcement to complete the speciation process. Reinforcement occurs when to partially isolated allopatric populations come into contact. Lower relative fitness of hybrids between the two populations results in increased selection for isolating mechanisms. I should note that a recent review (Rice and Hostert 1993) argues that there is little experimental evidence to support reinforcement models. Two experiments in which the authors argue that their results provide support are discussed below.

Ehrman (1971) established strains of wild-type and mutant (black body) D. melanogaster. These flies were derived from compound autosome strains such that heterotypic matings would produce no progeny. The two strains were reared together in common fly cages. After two years, the isolation index generated from mate choice experiments had increased from 0.04 to 0.43, indicating the appearance of considerable assortative mating. After four years this index had risen to 0.64 (Ehrman 1973).

Along the same lines, Koopman (1950) was able to increase the degree of reproductive isolation between two partially isolated species, D. pseudoobscura and D. persimilis.
5.3.8 Tests of the Founder-flush Speciation Hypothesis Using Drosophila

The founder-flush (a.k.a. flush-crash) hypothesis posits that genetic drift and founder effects play a major role in speciation (Powell 1978). During a founder-flush cycle a new habitat is colonized by a small number of individuals (e.g. one inseminated female). The population rapidly expands (the flush phase). This is followed by the population crashing. During this crash period the population experiences strong genetic drift. The population undergoes another rapid expansion followed by another crash. This cycle repeats several times. Reproductive isolation is produced as a byproduct of genetic drift.

Dodd and Powell (1985) tested this hypothesis using D. pseudoobscura. A large, heterogeneous population was allowed to grow rapidly in a very large population cage. Twelve experimental populations were derived from this population from single pair matings. These populations were allowed to flush. Fourteen months later, mating tests were performed among the twelve populations. No postmating isolation was seen. One cross showed strong behavioral isolation. The populations underwent three more flush-crash cycles. Forty-four months after the start of the experiment (and fifteen months after the last flush) the populations were again tested. Once again, no postmating isolation was seen. Three populations showed behavioral isolation in the form of positive assortative mating. Later tests between 1980 and 1984 showed that the isolation persisted, though it was weaker in some cases.

Galina, et al. (1993) performed similar experiments with D. pseudoobscura. Mating tests between populations that underwent flush-crash cycles and their ancestral populations showed 8 cases of positive assortative mating out of 118 crosses. They also showed 5 cases of negative assortative mating (i.e. the flies preferred to mate with flies of the other strain). Tests among the founder-flush populations showed 36 cases of positive assortative mating out of 370 crosses. These tests also found 4 cases of negative assortative mating. Most of these mating preferences did not persist over time. Galina, et al. concluded that the founder-flush protocol yields reproductive isolation only as a rare and erratic event.

Ahearn (1980) applied the founder-flush protocol to D. silvestris. Flies from a line of this species underwent several flush-crash cycles. They were tested in mate choice experiments against flies from a continuously large population. Female flies from both strains preferred to mate with males from the large population. Females from the large population would not mate with males from the founder flush population. An asymmetric reproductive isolation was produced.

In a three year experiment, Ringo, et al. (1985) compared the effects of a founder-flush protocol to the effects of selection on various traits. A large population of D. simulans was created from flies from 69 wild caught stocks from several locations. Founder-flush lines and selection lines were derived from this population. The founder-flush lines went through six flush-crash cycles. The selection lines experienced equal intensities of selection for various traits. Mating test were performed between strains within a treatment and between treatment strains and the source population. Crosses were also checked for postmating isolation. In the selection lines, 10 out of 216 crosses showed positive assortative mating (2 crosses showed negative assortative mating). They also found that 25 out of 216 crosses showed postmating isolation. Of these, 9 cases involved crosses with the source population. In the founder-flush lines 12 out of 216 crosses showed positive assortative mating (3 crosses showed negative assortative mating). Postmating isolation was found in 15 out of 216 crosses, 11 involving the source population. They concluded that only weak isolation was found and that there was little difference between the effects of natural selection and the effects of genetic drift.

A final test of the founder-flush hypothesis will be described with the housefly cases below.
5.4 Housefly Speciation Experiments

5.4.1 A Test of the Founder-flush Hypothesis Using Houseflies

Meffert and Bryant (1991) used houseflies to test whether bottlenecks in populations can cause permanent alterations in courtship behavior that lead to premating isolation. They collected over 100 flies of each sex from a landfill near Alvin, Texas. These were used to initiate an ancestral population. From this ancestral population they established six lines. Two of these lines were started with one pair of flies, two lines were started with four pairs of flies and two lines were started with sixteen pairs of flies. These populations were flushed to about 2,000 flies each. They then went through five bottlenecks followed by flushes. This took 35 generations. Mate choice tests were performed. One case of positive assortative mating was found. One case of negative assortative mating was also found.
5.4.2 Selection for Geotaxis with and without Gene Flow

Soans, et al. (1974) used houseflies to test Pimentel's model of speciation. This model posits that speciation requires two steps. The first is the formation of races in subpopulations. This is followed by the establishment of reproductive isolation. Houseflies were subjected to intense divergent selection on the basis of positive and negative geotaxis. In some treatments no gene flow was allowed, while in others there was 30% gene flow. Selection was imposed by placing 1000 flies into the center of a 108 cm vertical tube. The first 50 flies that reached the top and the first 50 flies that reached the bottom were used to found positively and negatively geotactic populations. Four populations were established:
Population A + geotaxis, no gene flow
Population B - geotaxis, no gene flow
Population C + geotaxis, 30% gene flow
Population D - geotaxis, 30% gene flow

Selection was repeated within these populations each generations. After 38 generations the time to collect 50 flies had dropped from 6 hours to 2 hours in Pop A, from 4 hours to 4 minutes in Pop B, from 6 hours to 2 hours in Pop C and from 4 hours to 45 minutes in Pop D. Mate choice tests were performed. Positive assortative mating was found in all crosses. They concluded that reproductive isolation occurred under both allopatric and sympatric conditions when very strong selection was present.

Hurd and Eisenberg (1975) performed a similar experiment on houseflies using 50% gene flow and got the same results.
5.5 Speciation Through Host Race Differentiation

Recently there has been a lot of interest in whether the differentiation of an herbivorous or parasitic species into races living on different hosts can lead to sympatric speciation. It has been argued that in animals that mate on (or in) their preferred hosts, positive assortative mating is an inevitable byproduct of habitat selection (Rice 1985; Barton, et al. 1988). This would suggest that differentiated host races may represent incipient species.
5.5.1 Apple Maggot Fly (Rhagoletis pomonella)

Rhagoletis pomonella is a fly that is native to North America. Its normal host is the hawthorn tree. Sometime during the nineteenth century it began to infest apple trees. Since then it has begun to infest cherries, roses, pears and possibly other members of the rosaceae. Quite a bit of work has been done on the differences between flies infesting hawthorn and flies infesting apple. There appear to be differences in host preferences among populations. Offspring of females collected from on of these two hosts are more likely to select that host for oviposition (Prokopy et al. 1988). Genetic differences between flies on these two hosts have been found at 6 out of 13 allozyme loci (Feder et al. 1988, see also McPheron et al. 1988). Laboratory studies have shown an asynchrony in emergence time of adults between these two host races (Smith 1988). Flies from apple trees take about 40 days to mature, whereas flies from hawthorn trees take 54-60 days to mature. This makes sense when we consider that hawthorn fruit tends to mature later in the season that apples. Hybridization studies show that host preferences are inherited, but give no evidence of barriers to mating. This is a very exciting case. It may represent the early stages of a sympatric speciation event (considering the dispersal of R. pomonella to other plants it may even represent the beginning of an adaptive radiation). It is important to note that some of the leading researchers on this question are urging caution in interpreting it. Feder and Bush (1989) stated:

"Hawthorn and apple "host races" of R. pomonella may therefore represent incipient species. However, it remains to be seen whether host-associated traits can evolve into effective enough barriers to gene flow to result eventually in the complete reproductive isolation of R. pomonella populations."

5.5.2 Gall Former Fly (Eurosta solidaginis)

Eurosta solidaginis is a gall forming fly that is associated with goldenrod plants. It has two hosts: over most of its range it lays its eggs in Solidago altissima, but in some areas it uses S. gigantea as its host. Recent electrophoretic work has shown that the genetic distances among flies from different sympatric hosts species are greater than the distances among flies on the same host in different geographic areas (Waring et al. 1990). This same study also found reduced variability in flies on S. gigantea. This suggests that some E. solidaginis have recently shifted hosts to this species. A recent study has compared reproductive behavior of the flies associated with the two hosts (Craig et al. 1993). They found that flies associated with S. gigantea emerge earlier in the season than flies associated with S. altissima. In host choice experiments, each fly strain ovipunctured its own host much more frequently than the other host. Craig et al. (1993) also performed several mating experiments. When no host was present and females mated with males from either strain, if males from only one strain were present. When males of both strains were present, statistically significant positive assortative mating was seen. In the presence of a host, assortative mating was also seen. When both hosts and flies from both populations were present, females waited on the buds of the host that they are normally associated with. The males fly to the host to mate. Like the Rhagoletis case above, this may represent the beginning of a sympatric speciation.
5.6 Flour Beetles (Tribolium castaneum)

Halliburton and Gall (1981) established a population of flour beetles collected in Davis, California. In each generation they selected the 8 lightest and the 8 heaviest pupae of each sex. When these 32 beetles had emerged, they were placed together and allowed to mate for 24 hours. Eggs were collected for 48 hours. The pupae that developed from these eggs were weighed at 19 days. This was repeated for 15 generations. The results of mate choice tests between heavy and light beetles was compared to tests among control lines derived from randomly chosen pupae. Positive assortative mating on the basis of size was found in 2 out of 4 experimental lines.
5.7 Speciation in a Lab Rat Worm, Nereis acuminata

In 1964 five or six individuals of the polychaete worm, Nereis acuminata, were collected in Long Beach Harbor, California. These were allowed to grow into a population of thousands of individuals. Four pairs from this population were transferred to the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute. For over 20 years these worms were used as test organisms in environmental toxicology. From 1986 to 1991 the Long Beach area was searched for populations of the worm. Two populations, P1 and P2, were found. Weinberg, et al. (1992) performed tests on these two populations and the Woods Hole population (WH) for both postmating and premating isolation. To test for postmating isolation, they looked at whether broods from crosses were successfully reared. The results below give the percentage of successful rearings for each group of crosses.
WH × WH - 75%
P1 × P1 - 95%
P2 × P2 - 80%
P1 × P2 - 77%
WH × P1 - 0%
WH × P2 - 0%

They also found statistically significant premating isolation between the WH population and the field populations. Finally, the Woods Hole population showed slightly different karyotypes from the field populations.
5.8 Speciation Through Cytoplasmic Incompatability Resulting from the Presence of a Parasite or Symbiont

In some species the presence of intracellular bacterial parasites (or symbionts) is associated with postmating isolation. This results from a cytoplasmic incompatability between gametes from strains that have the parasite (or symbiont) and stains that don't. An example of this is seen in the mosquito Culex pipiens (Yen and Barr 1971). Compared to within strain matings, matings between strains from different geographic regions may may have any of three results: These matings may produce a normal number of offspring, they may produce a reduced number of offspring or they may produce no offspring. Reciprocal crosses may give the same or different results. In an incompatible cross, the egg and sperm nuclei fail to unite during fertilization. The egg dies during embryogenesis. In some of these strains, Yen and Barr (1971) found substantial numbers of Rickettsia-like microbes in adults, eggs and embryos. Compatibility of mosquito strains seems to be correlated with the strain of the microbe present. Mosquitoes that carry different strains of the microbe exhibit cytoplasmic incompatibility; those that carry the same strain of microbe are interfertile.

Similar phenomena have been seen in a number of other insects. Microoganisms are seen in the eggs of both Nasonia vitripennis and N. giraulti. These two species do not normally hybridize. Following treatment with antibiotics, hybrids occur between them (Breeuwer and Werren 1990). In this case, the symbiont is associated with improper condensation of host chromosomes.

For more examples and a critical review of this topic, see Thompson 1987.
5.9 A Couple of Ambiguous Cases

So far the BSC has applied to all of the experiments discussed. The following are a couple of major morphological changes produced in asexual species. Do these represent speciation events? The answer depends on how species is defined.
5.9.1 Coloniality in Chlorella vulgaris

Boraas (1983) reported the induction of multicellularity in a strain of Chlorella pyrenoidosa (since reclassified as C. vulgaris) by predation. He was growing the unicellular green alga in the first stage of a two stage continuous culture system as for food for a flagellate predator, Ochromonas sp., that was growing in the second stage. Due to the failure of a pump, flagellates washed back into the first stage. Within five days a colonial form of the Chlorella appeared. It rapidly came to dominate the culture. The colony size ranged from 4 cells to 32 cells. Eventually it stabilized at 8 cells. This colonial form has persisted in culture for about a decade. The new form has been keyed out using a number of algal taxonomic keys. They key out now as being in the genus Coelosphaerium, which is in a different family from Chlorella.
5.9.2 Morphological Changes in Bacteria

Shikano, et al. (1990) reported that an unidentified bacterium underwent a major morphological change when grown in the presence of a ciliate predator. This bacterium's normal morphology is a short (1.5 um) rod. After 8 - 10 weeks of growing with the predator it assumed the form of long (20 um) cells. These cells have no cross walls. Filaments of this type have also been produced under circumstances similar to Boraas' induction of multicellularity in Chlorella. Microscopic examination of these filaments is described in Gillott et al. (1993). Multicellularity has also been produced in unicellular bacterial by predation

[Lestat]

<font color="blue"> This thought process requires faith no? </font>

It doesn't require faith so much as it requires logical conjecture. It is possible to form conjecture even if *some* info is missing.

If your end result is to try and compare this to one believing in gods and religion, I think you'll fail miserably. Despite some people's claim, there is not one single shred of evidence for the existence of any god. All you have is an ancient book with some very unlikely stories in it. To complicate matters other people have written different books with different claims about "their" gods and religions, etc.

Like I said before. Evolution is a "theory" !! It is scientifically testable. Religion doesn't even come close to being a theory.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
So this proves a fish becomes a dinosaur becomes a bird becomes an ape becomes a man?

My question was, and still is where are the links in the fossil record that shows the above?

[/ QUOTE ]
So, can we take it that you now accept there is evidence of macro and micro evolution and that its just some particular instances that you aren't sure about?

chez

[tomdemaine]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
a lot.

[/ QUOTE ]

Where?

[/ QUOTE ]

the ground, museums, education centers, and research facilities.

[Jeff V]

No I didn't miss it.

Speciation through hybridization has no real relavence when it comes to natural selection. Even some ligers can reproduce, but that's still no proof of evolution.

[Jeff V]

is the exact opposite of natural selection

[KeysrSoze]

Grunching

[ QUOTE ]


1. How many fossils have been found that show transition from one species to the next?

[/ QUOTE ]

All of them. Every creature is in fact a transition between its parents species and its childrens species. You guys look at everything in black and white; a dog doesn't suddenly birth a half-dog/half-cat, who then births a cat.

[ QUOTE ]
2. Is macro-evolution science?

[/ QUOTE ]

Macro-evolution is a misnomer, I believe. It's just the product of a whole bunch of changes brought about by what you call micro-evolution. How many micro-evolutions does a macro-evolution require? Its like if you shovel sand into a pile, when is it a hill? on the 100th scoop? the 101st?

[ QUOTE ]
3. If you answered yes to #3 then where's the tangible, testible evidence?

[/ QUOTE ]

Evolution is heavily documented, tangible, observed and tested even (for instance you can show that bacteria will select, mutate and adapt to their environment to resist penicillin). Just plug in your arbitrary number of changes needed to count as macro-evolution. X number of these adaptations, and there you go.

[Jeff V]

[ QUOTE ]
Grunching


[/ QUOTE ]

I grunced once...it's not all it's cracked up to be.

[ QUOTE ]
All of them. Every creature is in fact a transition between its parents species and its childrens species.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yawn. Then we should have a fossil of a scale through air resistance becoming a feather right? How bout a scale with some serious frayed edges?

They just don't exist.

Hello Jeff V,

In the last 150 years hundreds of thousands of new (unknown at the time of Darwin) discoveries, have consistently confirmed the theory. And there still are gaps in the evidence, and there are still dicoveries that will continue to be made (my prognostic) conforming it, and there probably will be gaps in the footseps that will be there forever. After all, it is just a trail. There has not been any evidence contradicting it that has not been subsequently explained.

I must commend you on your skepticism. It suits a scientific and rational approach to life understanding.

By the way, the theory of god has been around a lot more than 150 years, yet in that time, there has been not been a single shred of evidence found supporting it. I am sure that you must be at the very least an agnostic with your intellectually rigourous approach to facts and theories.

I think there should be more people like you on this forum, it may make the debates a bit different from the farce that it usually is when people come in here, tooting statements, about loving god, id and mystery and how true that is.

I can see that you will be a great addition to this forum and to the levels of debates encountered here. Welcome as one of the few. Keep on being vocal, because after a little while you will noticed that all your statements will be ignored by religionists who would rather sweep rationality under the carpet and leave it out of sight.


Again, welcome bro /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[wadea]

[ QUOTE ]
3. If you answered yes to #3 then where's the tangible, testible evidence?

[/ QUOTE ]

The evidence is in your DNA, bro, and it's very testable. Luckily, we no longer need to resort to dark-age science (i.e. looking at bones next to each other). By comparing similarities and differences between DNA sequences of many organisms, one can determine fairly accurately the order in which they drifted away from a common ancestor. B/c the physical form of an organism is determined primarily by its genes, true evolution happens at a DNA level.

It is also worth reminding everyone that the historical ancestors often no longer exist after the split. It is very difficult to survive without evolving and very few species are able to do it. Both sides of the split usually evolve divergently.

[tolbiny]

While not an expert i do have some background in this.

"If man evolved from apes, then why aren't there any half man-apes around in the process of becoming fully man?"

The simple answer to your first questionis that the half man half apes were out competed by humans. Around 200,000k yrs ago we find evidence of what are considered the first anatomically modern [censored] sapiens. At this time there exists a different species, [censored] neanderthalensis. There are also the last survivors of a species know as [censored] erectus. erectus is probably the "apeman" you are thinking off- he walked upright, had an average brain size of around 1000ccs (humas average around 1400, chimps around 450 iirc), made and used stone tools and controlled fire. His skeleton diffeered from H. sapiens in a couple of ways- 1 obviously he had a smally skull (smaller brain)- but it was shaped differently as well. It is longer than it is high (in humans its higher than it is long) and it is wider at the base of the cranium than it is at the top (in humans it is widest just above the ears) and erectus exhibits strongly prounounced double arched brow ridges (humans are unnoticible by comparison). There are also dental differences is the size of teeth, and no erectus specimin has been found exhibiting a chin. They are clearly a different species from sapiens. Otherwise they were very similar to anatomically modern [censored] sapiens (AMHS), shared the same diet and habitat. Once they eveolved AMHS outcompeted erectus. Where would you find such apemen? Anywhere they might have lived humans have moved into and driven them to extinction.

"Did the genus of ape we evolved from suddenly stop evolving into man?"

Apes and humans split from a common ancestor around 6 million years ago. Apes have evolved since then, our common ancestor probably looked as different from chimps as we look different from chimps. There were many steps between this common ancestor and us. Adaptations that allowed us to walk upright, carry things more efficiently, communicate, larger brains ect. A million years ago the hominids that walked around weren't human, they were a different species, different from what came before them, and different from what was to follow. We don't show up until around 200k years ago.

"Why do we find that one species is often so clearly defined from other species?"
I can never describe this one well- the easy answer is time. Stuff has been around long enough to specialize into a specific habitat.

"I have some problem with the so-called Cambrian explosion too"
Ask away, while i am not very strong in PE thoery, i can probably answer a question or two.

[Borodog]

[ QUOTE ]
1. How many fossils have been found that show transition from one species to the next?

[/ QUOTE ]

Here's one of my absolute favorites:

http://i27.photobucket.com/albums/c153/Borodog/CreationistFossilClassification.jpg (http://talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/compare.html)

"Creationists . . . assert that apes and humans are separated by a wide gap. If this is true, deciding on which side of that gap individual fossils lie should be trivially easy. Clearly, that is not the case."

And:

"As this table shows, although creationists are adamant that none of these are transitional and all are either apes or humans, they are not able to tell which are which. In fact, there are a number of creationists who have changed their opinion on some fossils. They do not even appear to be converging towards a consistent opinion. Gish and Taylor both used to consider Peking Man an ape and 1470 a human, but now Gish says they are both apes, and Taylor says they were both humans. Interestingly, widely differing views are held by two of the most prominent creationist researchers on human origins, Gish and Lubenow. Bowden, who has also written a book on human evolution, agrees with neither of them, and Mehlert, who has written a number of articles on human evolution in creationist journals, has yet another opinion, as does Cuozzo in his 1998 book on Neandertals. Cuozzo has taken the most extreme stance yet for a young-earth creationist, saying that even H. erectus fossils (in which he includes the Turkana Boy) should not be considered human. (Old-earth creationist Hugh Ross takes an even more extreme stance, claiming that not even Neandertals should be classified as human.)"

[joel2006]

[ QUOTE ]


1. How many fossils have been found that show transition from one species to the next?

[/ QUOTE ]

Although the above question appears to be a legitimate one it is in fact a trick question with either none, or many answers. It is one of many tricks employed by religionists (mostly Christians), for example like the questions about the fossil proof that man evolved from apes. There is none, because man didn't evolve from apes (nor did Darwin ever state that they did) Man and apes evolved from a common ancestor, but that doesn't mean that the common ancestor was an ape. In fact it most likely was a lemur. The idea that man evolved from apes was created, propagated, and is continued by opponents of evolution. The reason why the above question is a trick one becomes clear when we examine it closely. Let us say we are looking for a fossil that shows a transition from Species A and Species B, by definition said fossil cannot belong to either species. This means that it would have to be a different species that shows characteristics of both. Many such intermediate species have previously and currently exist. There are also many places in the fossil record where new species that are similar to existing species pop up (like [censored] Sapiens 200k years ago) But how does one prove that any one specific species led to another? Especially when there are several candidate species? Outside of DNA there is no way of doing this, and since fossils are made of stone they contain no DNA.

[Borodog]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


1. How many fossils have been found that show transition from one species to the next?

[/ QUOTE ]

Although the above question appears to be a legitimate one it is in fact a trick question with either none, or many answers. It is one of many tricks employed by religionists (mostly Christians), for example like the questions about the fossil proof that man evolved from apes. There is none, because man didn't evolve from apes (nor did Darwin ever state that they did) Man and apes evolved from a common ancestor, but that doesn't mean that the common ancestor was an ape. In fact it most likely was a lemur. The idea that man evolved from apes was created, propagated, and is continued by opponents of evolution.

[/ QUOTE ]

You're not helping. This is totally incorrect. Man in fact did evolve from an ape, as did the modern apes. The dirty little secret is that . . . we're all apes. You can't call chimpanzees "apes" and gorillas "apes" without calling humans "apes," because we are more closely related to chimps than chimps are to gorillas. The most recent common ancestor with lemurs is long, long, long. long, long before the most recent common ancestor between apes like us and the rest of the apes.

[BluffTHIS!]

Actually joel is helping. This was his key statement:

[ QUOTE ]
The reason why the above question is a trick one becomes clear when we examine it closely. Let us say we are looking for a fossil that shows a transition from Species A and Species B, by definition said fossil cannot belong to either species. This means that it would have to be a different species that shows characteristics of both. Many such intermediate species have previously and currently exist. There are also many places in the fossil record where new species that are similar to existing species pop up (like [censored] Sapiens 200k years ago) But how does one prove that any one specific species led to another? Especially when there are several candidate species? Outside of DNA there is no way of doing this, and since fossils are made of stone they contain no DNA.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is indeed the trick of creationists in trying to frame the question with a scientifically wrong premise, namely that for evolution of species to be true then there must shown an unbroken line of fossil evidence, which of course is not necessarily all extant. And the real trick is their trying to poke holes in evolution by saying it is not continuous when they are the ones making it a chain of discrete instances of antecedant and descendant species when in fact their is no precise point of differentiation, although one can point to a time when a new one existed and a time when it did not.

The solution is that each individual biological specimen in the chain from one species to another is the "missing link". And one only has to look at evidence of early hom.o sapiens to see that Cro Magnon man was different in many ways than we who are the same species, though with a smaller brain capacity than Cro Magnon.

There are also two other points wrong with the OP's arguments in this thread. Firstly, he falsely has tried to limit the discussion to macro evolution, with the implication that micro evolution is not a sufficient proof of a common biological process, which if continued for a long enough time would eventually produce a macro result if there were not occasional cross-breeding within variations of a species to prevent the divergence of the gene pool into first subspecies and then differing species.

And secondly, he rejected David Steele's entire quotation of instances of speciation as only due to hybrydization and not natural selection. This is not true if one will look closely at all the studies on house flies.

[Lestat]

Wow thanks tobiny! That was interesting.

I guess my mistake was looking at the evolution off species like some kind of weed. Even if [censored] sapiens killed of the neanderthals, I expected they would keep trying to evolve from our common ancestor. I mean, why wouldn't they? I understand we drove them to extinction, but is was our common ancestor also extinct at the time?

The other thing I often overlook is the random mutation part. It seemed to me that it's not that important, but in fact it must be. As species randomly develop features and keep those of benefit, I guess I can see how a species like [censored] sapien may never evolve again.

But do we see current species in current states of development? The fact that the process takes so long and our technology is so young makes it so hard to tell. But is it possible there will be some apes in Africa that will learn how to use fire? Will dogs one day evolve the brain power to watch TV and understand our language? Will certain humans one day become intolerant of any type of weather outside that of room temperature? Etc. etc.

I want to see (or at least understand the process in action). It's a fascinating subject. btw- How do you come to have a background in this? Thanks again.

[tolbiny]

"but is was our common ancestor also extinct at the time?"
Our common ancestor with neanderthalensis was probably erectus which was spread throughout Africa asia and parts of europe- The european population gave rise to neaderthals (there is an intermediary step in here though)and the African population gave rise to humans. When sapeins moved from africa to europe they out competed neaderthals. The youngest neanderthal fossils are around 27,000 years old, and sapiens moved into europe around 120-150k years ago, so it wasn't immediate at all.

"I guess I can see how a species like [censored] sapien may never evolve again."

There are two schools of thought on evolution. One is gradualism, that is species evolve slowly over time and at some difficult to determine period they eventually become a new species. The other is puntuated equilibrium (PE)- where an event "triggers" massive changes in a species over a short period of time. The trigger is usually an environmental stres- drought, or a wether pattern change, or a new predator. Something that won't kill of the species immediately, but will alter their habitat so they are no longer super efficient and any wierdos in the herd will have the opportunity to experience better reproductive fitness. Humans are a lot less suceptible to these stresses, so it is less likely that you will see dramatic changes in the population. (i personally suscribe to the belief that both effect evolution).

"But is it possible there will be some apes in Africa that will learn how to use fire?"

Not likely- the use of fire (in fact our entire evolution) was percipitated by bipedality- that is walking on two legs. That niche is filled now, there isn't any advantage to chimps coming down from the trees again.
Dogs aren't likely to evolve bigger brains either- their birth canal wouldhave to be much wider to pas out a bigger head- something very difficult (actually virtually impossible for a quadraped to give birth to a child with a body to brain ratio that we have) for a quadraped.

My background- my dad teaches and does reasearch on genetics so i grew up around biology alot. As for human evolution i just finished a class called "human evolution, the physical evidence" which is focused on the physical changes that took place to get from our common ancestor with chimps to where we are now.

[joel2006]

Borodog, you're right, but what i meant was that we didn't evolve from chimps, orangs, bonobos, or gorillas, which is what creationists have led most people to think that evolution says hapened.

[Lestat]

Fascinating stuff! I wish I knew what you knew. I still have one nagging question:

Why did our anscestor erectus become instinct? And if he didn't... Would he still be churning out versions of early man? In other words, (and I think this is what Jeff V is asking), why is there no defined demarcation point? If the lemur gave rise to erectus, and erectus gave rise to homosapiens and neanderthals, why aren't they still doing do? Or did you answer this in your previous post. Sorry, I'll have to re-read it. This stuff is new to me.

I do understand your point about giving birth to a large head. It is my understanding that this is why humans are born so pre-mature and animals are basically born ready to go. It's a trade off. An animal can't wait 9 months to learn how to walk. But if the human incubation period were long enough so that we could walk on day one, the female body would not be able to give birth due to our large craniums. Do I have that at least partially right?

But domestic dogs (in time), will not need to be so fully developed if they continue living in domestication. This should allow for the evolution of a larger brain if that somehow became beneficial to the species, no?

I'd also like to understand more about the bipedal niche you talked about. Why is it filled? There are certainly enough quadropeds on the planet. Isn't their room for a few more bipeds if it facilitated the species? Monkeys seem almost in the midst of transition to me. How awkard to be trapped between a biped and a quadroped. They certainly seem to be more biped (to a layman). They don't run on all fours like a lion or deer, or even a bear might. Any idea where I can learn more about this? I used to watch Discovery, but they don't have a lot of science on there any more.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
I'd also like to understand more about the bipedal niche you talked about. Why is it filled? There are certainly enough quadropeds on the planet. Isn't their room for a few more bipeds if it facilitated the species? Monkeys seem almost in the midst of transition to me. How awkard to be trapped between a biped and a quadroped. They certainly seem to be more biped (to a layman). They don't run on all fours like a lion or deer, or even a bear might. Any idea where I can learn more about this? I used to watch Discovery, but they don't have a lot of science on there any more.

[/ QUOTE ]
I'm repeating myself but I think you would really enjoy the Ancestors tale by Richard Dawkins.

chez

[ QUOTE ]
I'm repeating myself but I think you would really enjoy the Ancestors tale by Richard Dawkins.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

/images/graemlins/smile.gif I just picked it up this morning, it is working its way in my "TO READ" stack.

I'll let you know

MidGe

[Lestat]

You convinced me! I'll read it. I also want to re-read The Blind Watchmaker in detail. Any suggestion on which to read first?

[tolbiny]

"Or did you answer this in your previous post"

I have tried to answer this- we filled the same niche as erectus, and so we ate all his food and drank all his wine and he decided that existance just wasn't worth it without those finer things and faded away.

"I'd also like to understand more about the bipedal niche you talked about. Why is it filled? There are certainly enough quadropeds on the planet. Isn't their room for a few more bipeds if it facilitated the species? Monkeys seem almost in the midst of transition to me. How awkard to be trapped between a biped and a quadroped. They certainly seem to be more biped (to a layman)."

This is a hefty topic. Firstly the apes are quadrapeds, you are correct.
Secondly we are the only stridngly bipedal mammels (knangaroos are bipedal but the hop) and there is a reason for this. Being bipedal SUCKS ASS!!! Its slow, we are much slower than quadrapeds. Its inefficient- we use more energy to travel the same distance. And you are much more likely to trip and not be able to regain balance when being chased by a predator. So why are we bipedal? a couple of thoeries, the best i have heard (imo) that seems to have other evidence to support it goes like this-
8mya primates spread across the globe- they were highly successful, largly because of oppasble thumbs (and in some cases big toes as well). Very adaptable creatures were all over Europe, africa, asia, south america, north america. All over the place. The climate waas perfect for them- tropical jungles all around. Then the climate changed as it was want to do, and vast tracks of the forests died off, and food became scare in a lot of areas.
The vast majority of male apes don't help with child rearing at all, male chimps don't even know which kid is theirs. The apes that could survive in the low food environment were the ones where both the male and female provided for their young. This is the beginning of monogomy in humans. Primates already had opposable thumbs which helped them to carry food, but the males who were the best providers were the ones who could walk upright further than the others, using their hands to carry more food at a time, and having to make fewer trips.

"But domestic dogs (in time), will not need to be so fully developed if they continue living in domestication. This should allow for the evolution of a larger brain if that somehow became beneficial to the species, no?"

A large brain requires a ton of adaptations to occur- most of which occured in humans for other reasons, but eventually allowed for a large brain, and it also requires a huge amount of energy to run.

Regarding my earlier post mentionning having just gotten Dawkins The Ancestor's Tale on my "TO READ" stack, given the number of discussions on this topic on OOT, I decided to re-prioritze a bit and at least read the introduction titled "The conceit of hindsight". It is so well written, makes a case that should NOT be obnoxious to theists, albeit it probably will be to creationists, that I really wished I could post just that intro here. Unfortunatly Amazon did not have the full intro, only the first page. However looking at Orion, the original publishers, there is a dwonloadable pdf of the firsts 105 pages of the book which includes and goes well beyond the intro. So here is the link for those that think they may, and those that thing they may not, be interested, and want some form of confirmation.

On this Orion - Dawkins - The Ancestor's tale (http://www.orionbooks.co.uk/MP-32989/The-Ancestor's-Tale.htm) page, just click the "extract" link (top left of page) and you will have a 105 pages pdf available.

Enjoy and thanks again, Chez,

MidGe

[maurile]

[ QUOTE ]
1. How many fossils have been found that show transition from one species to the next?

[/ QUOTE ]
Thousands. You can start just with horses (and their ancestors) here (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/horses/horse_evol.html).

[ QUOTE ]
2. Is macro-evolution science?

[/ QUOTE ]
Are waterfalls science? The question doesn't make sense.

[ QUOTE ]
3. If you answered yes to #3 then where's the tangible, testible evidence?

[/ QUOTE ]
You can start here: 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/).

[Jeff V]

I was just asking questions. It's funny that the fact I asked means I have a "religionist" agenda to some people- It works both ways I s'pose.

Why is evolution still theory, and not fact? If the case for evolution is so strong, as some claim here why is ID given a second thought by anyone in any school system anywhere??

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
Regarding my earlier post mentionning having just gotten Dawkins The Ancestor's Tale on my "TO READ" stack, given the number of discussions on this topic on OOT, I decided to re-prioritze a bit and at least read the introduction titled "The conceit of hindsight". It is so well written, makes a case that should NOT be obnoxious to theists, albeit it probably will be to creationists, that I really wished I could post just that intro here. Unfortunatly Amazon did not have the full intro, only the first page. However looking at Orion, the original publishers, there is a dwonloadable pdf of the firsts 105 pages of the book which includes and goes well beyond the intro. So here is the link for those that think they may, and those that thing they may not, be interested, and want some form of confirmation.

On this Orion - Dawkins - The Ancestor's tale (http://www.orionbooks.co.uk/MP-32989/The-Ancestor's-Tale.htm) page, just click the "extract" link (top left of page) and you will have a 105 pages pdf available.

Enjoy and thanks again, Chez,

MidGe

[/ QUOTE ]

Your welcome. Many theists have no problem with this stuff and I'm sure the literal chaps will be fascinated by the elaborate fantasies.

chez

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
You convinced me! I'll read it. I also want to re-read The Blind Watchmaker in detail. Any suggestion on which to read first?

[/ QUOTE ]

Toughie. I'd go with Ancestor's tale just because its contemporary and refers to lots of other current work.

chez

[ QUOTE ]

Why is evolution still theory, and not fact? If the case for evolution is so strong, as some claim here why is ID given a second thought by anyone in any school system anywhere??

[/ QUOTE ]

Because claasical physic is still theory and wiil be so until every one of its formulae, including the one for acceleration, until every value has been tested for every possible variable /images/graemlins/smile.gif LOL

As far as ID is concerned, it probably is because very few people understand what science is, and they keep on confusing it with the realm of belief or religion. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[Jeff V]

[ QUOTE ]
8mya primates spread across the globe- they were highly successful, largly because of oppasble thumbs (and in some cases big toes as well). Very adaptable creatures were all over Europe, africa, asia, south america, north america. All over the place. The climate waas perfect for them- tropical jungles all around. Then the climate changed as it was want to do, and vast tracks of the forests died off, and food became scare in a lot of areas.
The vast majority of male apes don't help with child rearing at all, male chimps don't even know which kid is theirs. The apes that could survive in the low food environment were the ones where both the male and female provided for their young. This is the beginning of monogomy in humans. Primates already had opposable thumbs which helped them to carry food, but the males who were the best providers were the ones who could walk upright further than the others, using their hands to carry more food at a time, and having to make fewer trips.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is not a stretch? For so many reasons?

[Lestat]

I think you might be misunderstanding just how strong a theory is. Gravitation is still a theory. As is relativity, etc. Strong theories are rarely disproved, they are mainly added upon or slightly altered in some way (Newtonian theory for example). But the basic premise of a scientific theory is almost ALWAYS correct! ID is nowhere even near theory status.

[Borodog]

[ QUOTE ]
Why is evolution still theory, and not fact? If the case for evolution is so strong, as some claim here why is ID given a second thought by anyone in any school system anywhere??

[/ QUOTE ]

You don't understand what a scientific theory is. Evolution, like gravity, is both a theory and a fact. Evolution is an observable fact that demands explanation (at least of rational people interested in their world). We explain the observable fact of evolution with the theory of evolution, just as we explain the observable fact of gravity with the theory of gravity.

See, for example:

Evolution is a Fact and a Theory (http://talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-fact.html).

[Borodog]

By the way, Jeff. What are your thoughts now on "transitional fossils" in light of the chart I posted?

[joel2006]

[ QUOTE ]
I was just asking questions. It's funny that the fact I asked means I have a "religionist" agenda to some people- It works both ways I s'pose.

You missed my point here Jeff, I never said that u have any kind of agenda (although u appear to have outed yourself), I was talking about the question itself, which predates all of us, and was posed by religionists in their battle against Evo.

Why is evolution still theory, and not fact?

This question is another of the clever tricks to confuse the ignorant. In Science the word 'Theory' is not used to mean an unproven hypothesis, but rather a body of interconnecting observations that explain some complex phenomenom, like for example the 'Theory of Gravity' or 'Theory of Relativity' most of the tenets of Special Relativity have been emperically verified, but that doesn't mean that it is no longer a 'Theory', the same is true of Evolution.

If the case for evolution is so strong, as some claim here why is ID given a second thought by anyone in any school system anywhere??

Because people who hold strong religious beliefs are often willing to ignore any and all evidence that contradicts what they want to believe. This is because at the root of all belief is faith, and faith is the willingness to believe without any evidence at all. ID was hijacked by creationists as an alternative to Evolution, despite the little known fact that ID and Evolution are not necessarily mutually contradictory, it is in fact entirely possible that both are true. The problem is that ID isn't science, it contains no testable hypotheses, and is grounded on a hypothesis (that man is too complex to have evolved at random) that must be accepted on faith, since there is no evidence one way or the other. I was raised in a Christian Fundamentalist family and it is just this type of intellectual dishonesty in much that they do that turned me off at a very young age. If one is in possesion of the Truth, then why is it necessary to mislead or deceive people?

[tolbiny]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
8mya primates spread across the globe- they were highly successful, largly because of oppasble thumbs (and in some cases big toes as well). Very adaptable creatures were all over Europe, africa, asia, south america, north america. All over the place. The climate waas perfect for them- tropical jungles all around. Then the climate changed as it was want to do, and vast tracks of the forests died off, and food became scare in a lot of areas.
The vast majority of male apes don't help with child rearing at all, male chimps don't even know which kid is theirs. The apes that could survive in the low food environment were the ones where both the male and female provided for their young. This is the beginning of monogomy in humans. Primates already had opposable thumbs which helped them to carry food, but the males who were the best providers were the ones who could walk upright further than the others, using their hands to carry more food at a time, and having to make fewer trips.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is not a stretch? For so many reasons?

[/ QUOTE ]

1- there is evidence of a massive spread of primates ~8 mill years ago (it starts around 16 miilion years ago)
2- there is evidence of a severe decline in the total numbers of primates and primate species around 6 mya.
3- there is evidence of signifigant climate change - esp in the east african rift system where the earliest hominid specimeins are found.
4- the fossil evidence of humans shows that bipedality comes first, before large brains, before the femoral/humeral index of modern humans, bofre changes in dentition.

[Jeff V]

The graph was supposed to prove what?

[Borodog]

[ QUOTE ]
The graph was supposed to prove what?

[/ QUOTE ]

Can't you just answer the question? I simply asked for your thoughts.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Why is evolution still theory, and not fact? If the case for evolution is so strong, as some claim here why is ID given a second thought by anyone in any school system anywhere??

[/ QUOTE ]

You don't understand what a scientific theory is.

[/ QUOTE ]

I concur. Colloquially, a theory is a motivated but uncertain provisional explanation. If the theory becomes certain, it ceases to be a theory and simply becomes fact. "Who broke the vase?" "I have a theory - it was the dog." "Yup... here's the pawprint." At this point, it would be odd to continue to speak about the culpability of the dog in terms of a "theory."

The idea of a scientific theory, while closely related, is different.

Exactly, Jeff doesn't understand what a scientific theory is.

Scientific theories don't graduate to facts. That's not how science works.

"What about the germ theory of disease? If it's so strong, why hasn't it become a fact yet."

"What about the theory of gravity?"

Jeff I think you've demonstrated that you don't have much scientific knowledge at all- you don't even know what a scientific theory is, so how can you have any kind of informed opinion on anything scientific? Go learn how science works and why it is practiced that way, then come back and ask all the questions you want.

[maurile]

[ QUOTE ]
Why is evolution still theory, and not fact?

[/ QUOTE ]
Usually when a person says that evolution is "just a theory," it's because he or she doesn't know what "theory" means in a scientific context. As Stephen J. Gould explained (http://www.stephenjaygould.org/library/gould_fact-and-theory.html), "In the American vernacular, 'theory' often means 'imperfect fact'—part of a hierarchy of confidence running downhill from fact to theory to hypothesis to guess." Not so in science. While usage among scientists isn't always consistent (http://cosmicvariance.com/2005/09/19/theories-laws-facts/), the essential difference between theories and facts might be framed thus:

theory: an idea that is testable
fact: an idea that is correct

It should be obvious that an idea's testability says nothing about its correctness. Some testable ideas are correct; some are incorrect. Saying that evolution is "a theory, not a fact" is like saying that King Kong Bundy (http://austinwm.club.fr/HTLM/Photos/K/King_Kong_Bundy/King_Kong_Bundy_-_Christopher_Pailles_01.jpg) is "bald, not fat." It is possible to be both.

The difference between evolutionary theory and Intelligent Design creationism -- what makes evolution scientific and Intelligent Design unscientific -- is that evolutionary theory is testable. It is in fact being tested all the time. New observations are constantly being made, new experiments being done, that could falsify evolutionary theory as we know it. Many observations would be inconsistent with current evolutionary theory (e.g., "fossil rabbits in the Precambrian" -- J.B.S. Haldane), but no possible observation could ever falsify Intelligent Design creationism.

So evolution is a theory. Is it a fact? Scientists really don't speak much of facts (as opposed to data, observations, measurements, or the like), so that's kind of a funny word to use in this context. But evolutionary theory has been tested with great rigor for over a century, and it is the only theory of the origin of species we have that has not yet been falsified. Nothing in science can ever be proven beyond all doubt, but the correctness of evolutionary theory is about as sure a thing as the correctness of atomic theory or of the germ theory of disease.

In other words, yes. It is a fact.

[siegfriedandroy]

please explain to me how evolutionary theory and atomic theory are on equal plains? what is the primary evidence? I have read a lot on evolutionary theory but am not convinced. Please direct me to the proper sources of info that will put my inquisitiveness to rest.

[siegfriedandroy]

Why must theories be 'testable' (whatever that truly means) to be science? I guess b/c posters like this one are told that science is so simply b/c it's testable. whatever. most are not bright, but fancy themselves so. maybe that will be my new signature statement.

[siegfriedandroy]

I read your info. I am not convinced by that. No intelligent person could be. Where is the evidence that establishes with clear and convincing evidence that [censored] sapiens and chimpanzees share a common ancestor? please direct me. why do 'evolutionists' defend their dogma with religious zealotry?
there is no god - atheism reigns. why should i vigorously defend the 'truth' of evolution? no reason. all of this such a joke, but fools will never understand. whatever. joke

[siegfriedandroy]

tsai you are clearly a douchebag. but i do not feel like explaining why

[bluesbassman]

[ QUOTE ]
I read your info. I am not convinced by that. No intelligent person could be. Where is the evidence that establishes with clear and convincing evidence that [censored] sapiens and chimpanzees share a common ancestor? please direct me. why do 'evolutionists' defend their dogma with religious zealotry?
there is no god - atheism reigns. why should i vigorously defend the 'truth' of evolution? no reason. all of this such a joke, but fools will never understand. whatever. joke

[/ QUOTE ]

Evidence for common descent (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/)

Human evolution (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/)

[bocablkr]

[ QUOTE ]
I read your info. I am not convinced by that. No intelligent person could be.

[/ QUOTE ]

I doubt you have ever met one - yourself included.

[diebitter]

[ QUOTE ]
Why must theories be 'testable' (whatever that truly means) to be science? I guess b/c posters like this one are told that science is so simply b/c it's testable. whatever. most are not bright, but fancy themselves so. maybe that will be my new signature statement.

[/ QUOTE ]

Science is actually defined AND confined to the testable. The scientific process is to propose a theory that can be tested, and then come up with ways to test it, and then test it (and broadcast this information so others can test it themselves and confirm or refute your theory).

This isn't going in, is it.

[hmkpoker]

[ QUOTE ]

This isn't going in, is it.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, no it isn't.

Why do we even bother trying? /images/graemlins/tongue.gif

[Rduke55]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

This isn't going in, is it.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, no it isn't.

Why do we even bother trying? /images/graemlins/tongue.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

At first I was peeved I missed this discussion. Then I read it and am glad I did.
I'm constantly entertained by people saying "I've looked at the data and am not convinced." etc when they actually have no idea what they're looking for (or at in many cases and why in many others).

[Rduke55]

The star-nosed mole has a complex sensory organ (the...um...star on it's nose) that was just used in a creation magazine as an example of the "too complex to have evolved" idea creationists like to use (they usually use the primate eye). However, there's terrific evidence of transition from a normal snout, to a snout having the mechanoreceptors at various levels of complexity, to a protostar (in the coast mole), to the full blown star. If you look at the phylogeny this sequence fits in perfectly with the order of divergence.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

This isn't going in, is it.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, no it isn't.

Why do we even bother trying? /images/graemlins/tongue.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

Evolution vs. Creationism is the ONLINE POKER IS RIGGED!!!! of this forum.

[diebitter]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

This isn't going in, is it.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, no it isn't.

Why do we even bother trying? /images/graemlins/tongue.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

Just so you guys know, I said that without even reading the rest of the thread, just the last message to which I was responding.

I just know the type /images/graemlins/mad.gif

[hmkpoker]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

This isn't going in, is it.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, no it isn't.

Why do we even bother trying? /images/graemlins/tongue.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

Evolution vs. Creationism is the ONLINE POKER IS RIGGED!!!! of this forum.

[/ QUOTE ]


Yes, except both sides think the other is the one claiming it's rigged /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[ QUOTE ]
It should be obvious that an idea's testability says nothing about its correctness. Some testable ideas are correct; some are incorrect. Saying that evolution is "a theory, not a fact" is like saying that King Kong Bundy is "bald, not fat." It is possible to be both.

[/ QUOTE ]

ROFLMAO in a public library over King Kong Bundy

[maurile]

[ QUOTE ]
Why must theories be 'testable' (whatever that truly means) to be science?

[/ QUOTE ]
Because science uses the scientific method, which includes experimental testing.

[maurile]

[ QUOTE ]
Where is the evidence that establishes with clear and convincing evidence that [censored] sapiens and chimpanzees share a common ancestor?

[/ QUOTE ]
Here's some (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showflat.php?Cat=0&amp;Board=scimathphil&amp;Number=405406 6&amp;Searchpage=1&amp;Main=3997192&amp;Words=chimp+maurile&amp;to pic=&amp;Search=true#Post4054066). And here's some more (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showflat.php?Cat=0&amp;Board=scimathphil&amp;Number=405410 5&amp;Searchpage=1&amp;Main=3997192&amp;Words=chimp+maurile&amp;to pic=&amp;Search=true#Post4054105).