A brilliant addition to my creationism vs. evolution collection [of articles, videos and books] ;-) Thanks a lot ;-)

___________________
Whenever you go and buy something, you are affecting someone somewhere, be it environment, a person, or a community - you're making a statement with what you buy. So make it a smart choice ... Its a big picture

Hey, if Jurassic Park can do it...

Seriously though, interesting article

___________________
"...End? No, the journey doesn't end here. Death is just another path...one that we all must take.
The grey rain-curtain of this world rolls back, and all change to silver glass...and then you see it...
...white shores...and beyond...the far green country under a swift sunrise."

I'm still waiting for a cross-species jump...

This is more like adaption at work.

___________________

...what do you think evolution is?

quote:

Originally posted by Krypton I'm still waiting for a cross-species jump...

Just wondering, do you know how taxonomy works in biology?

___________________
Indiana Clones Upcoming Sets
[ I May Upload Something Someday ]

quote:

Originally posted by Lira Just wondering, do you know how taxonomy works in biology?

classification of species. Your point sir?

The butterfly is still a damn butterfly. It's called micro evolution. Is this what we're talking about? Certainly gives no support to the false notion of macro-evolution.

___________________

Makes sense...

If all the males were killed except for the ones who got lucky and ended up immune to the bacteria, then all future generations from them would have a higher chance of aquiring that little tidbit of code.

The direct symbiosis is strange, and I wonder if it is really just chance that causes it to exist, since we are in a huge system and all share commonalities at the source.

quote:

Originally posted by Krypton classification of species. Your point sir? The butterfly is still a damn butterfly. It's called micro evolution. Is this what we're talking about? Certainly gives no support to the false notion of macro-evolution.

Not to burst your bubble, but there really is no true "macroevolution" in the sense that there's an automatic "jump" from one species to another. The changes from species to species in the definition you imply for "microevolution" is exactly what occurs in the long-term "macroevolutionary" sense. The idea of one species magically turning into another species, say a butterfly into a giraffe, would actually be evidence that directly counters evolution rather than supports it.

When researchers use the term macroevolution, they are merely referring to observable patterns that are above the species-level of evolution, i.e. that which breaks away from the lowest taxonomic level.

But if you do want to get a bit more technical, there have been numerous other instances of new species being created (or at least how we define a new species in each particular sense). For example:

1. A new species of mosquito, the molestus form isolated in London's Underground, has speciated from Culex pipiens:

Byrne, K. and R. A. Nichols, 1999. Culex pipiens in London Underground tunnels: differentiation between surface and subterranean populations. Heredity 82: 7-15.

2. Helacyton gartleri is the HeLa cell culture, which evolved from a human cervical carcinoma in 1951. The culture grows indefinitely and has become widespread:

Van Valen, Leigh M. and Virginia C. Maiorana, 1991. HeLa, a new microbial species. Evolutionary Theory 10: 71-74.

3. Sticker's sarcoma, or canine transmissible venereal tumor, is caused by an organism genetically independent from its hosts but derived from a wolf or dog tumor:

Zimmer, Carl. 2006. A dead dog lives on (inside new dogs). http://scienceblogs.com/loom/2006/0..._inside_new.php

4. Several new species of plants have arisen via polyploidy (when the chromosome count multiplies by two or more) (de Wet 1971). One example is Primula kewensis:

Newton, W. C. F. and Caroline Pellew, 1929. Primula kewensis and its derivatives. Journal of Genetics 20(3): 405-467

There's also a wealth of research on ring species, such as:

1. The salamander Ensatina, with seven different subspecies on the west coast of the United States. They form a ring around California's central valley. At the south end, adjacent subspecies klauberi and eschscholtzi do not interbreed:

Brown, Charles W., n.d. Ensatina eschscholtzi Speciation in progress: A classic example of Darwinian evolution. http://www.santarosa.edu/lifesciences2/ensatina2.htm

2. greenish warblers (Phylloscopus trochiloides), around the Himalayas. Their behavioral and genetic characteristics change gradually, starting from central Siberia, extending around the Himalayas, and back again, so two forms of the songbird coexist but do not interbreed in that part of their range

Irwin, Darren E., Staffan Bensch and Trevor D. Price, 2001. Speciation in a ring. Nature 409: 333-337.
Irwin, Darren E., Staffan Bensch, Jessica H. Irwin and Trevor D. Price. 2005. Speciation by distance in a ring species. Science 307: 414-416.
Whitehouse, David, 2001. Songbird shows how evolution works. BBC News Online, 18 Jan. 2001, http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/1123973.stm

3. the subterranean mole rat, Spalax ehrenbergi
Nevo, Eviatar, 1999. Mosaic Evolution of Subterranean Mammals: Regression, Progression and Global Convergence. Oxford University Press.

Just to name a few. We also have evidence of speciation occurring in environments who did not exist in the past. For example:

1. In several Canadian lakes, which originated in the last 10,000 years following the last ice age, stickleback fish have diversified into separate species for shallow and deep water:

Schilthuizen, Menno., 2001. Frogs, Flies, and Dandelions: the Making of Species, Oxford Univ. Press, esp. chap. 1.

2. Cichlids in Lake Malawi and Lake Victoria have diversified into hundreds of species. Parts of Lake Malawi which originated in the nineteenth century have species indigenous to those parts

Schilthuizen, ibid

3. A Mimulus species adapted for soils high in copper exists only on the tailings of a copper mine that did not exist before 1859

Macnair, M. R., 1989. A new species of Mimulus endemic to copper mines in California. Botanical Journal of the Linnean Society 100: 1-14.

So the creationist claim of "no macroevolution occurring" is misleading and misguided at best with very little understanding of the evolutionary process over very long periods of time.]

___________________
Whence September dusk grows crisper still,
with leaves all crimson conquered,
I yearn to shout,
and dance about,
and stick pickles in my honker...

Oh, so macro-evolution in the sense that whales come from wolf-like land animals? Come on, there is a limit to adaption, and it stops at the species level. Darwin was correct in the notion that species develop diversity, but he was wrong when trying to apply this diversity from one common ancestor to the entire animal kingdom coming from one ancestor.

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by Krypton Oh, so macro-evolution in the sense that whales come from wolf-like land animals? Come on, there is a limit to adaption, and it stops at the species level. Darwin was correct in the notion that species develop diversity, but he was wrong when trying to apply this diversity from one common ancestor to the entire animal kingdom coming from one ancestor.

yeah, just because you say so

did you even read any books like "The Ancestor's Tale" which describe how evolution happens?

any ignorant moron can talk out of his asshole

___________________
"The favorite American pastime is not baseball, it's moral crusades."

quote:

Originally posted by Krypton Oh, so macro-evolution in the sense that whales come from wolf-like land animals? Come on, there is a limit to adaption, and it stops at the species level.

Are you wanting to actually have a conversation on whale evolution? Because it would behoove you to hold your creationist-like skepticism aside and examine the well-documented evidence by paleontologists if you truly have an interest in doing so. You can start here:

http://www.edwardtbabinski.us/babin..._evolution.html

Evidence ranging from the skull structure and function, the spine, pelvis, foot symmetry, the ear, vestigial, embryological, molecular, and geochemical studies demonstrate the chronological ancestry well.

What evidence do you have to present an alternative? Do you have supporting, verifiable, and falsifiable evidence that an all-encompassing Being created them all by themselves? If so, please present it. If not, what about other alternative theories, if you have them?

quote:

Darwin was correct in the notion that species develop diversity, but he was wrong when trying to apply this diversity from one common ancestor to the entire animal kingdom coming from one ancestor.

Because you say so? Funny how the paleontological, geological, genetic, molecular, and biological evidence says otherwise.

I like your quote, BTW:

quote:

"All paleontologists know that the fossil record contains precious little in the way of intermediate forms; transitions between major groups are characteristically abrupt. The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology. We fancy ourselves as the only true students of life's history, yet to preserve our favored account of evolution by natural selection we view our data as so bad that we never see the very process we profess to study." -Evolutionist/paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould

Actually, this is a mesh of two quotes together. Let's break them down together, shall we? The first quote is:

quote:

"All paleontologists know that the fossil record contains precious little in the way of intermediate forms; transitions between major groups are characteristically abrupt."

This is from "The Return of Hopeful Monsters" in Panda's Thumb, Gould's 1980 book (which I once had but gave it away). We need to finish the quote here, because this sentence does NOT stand alone. Gould opines further:

quote:

"Although I reject this argument (for reasons discussed in ["The Episodic Nature of Evolutionary Change"]), let us grant the traditional escape and ask a different question. Even though we have no direct evidence for smooth transitions, can we invent a reasonable sequence of intermediate forms -- that is, viable, functioning organisms -- between ancestors and descendants in major structural transitions? Of what possible use are the imperfect incipient stages of useful structures? What good is half a jaw or half a wing? The concept of preadaptation provides the conventional answer by permitting us to argue that incipient stages performed different functions. The half jaw worked perfectly well as a series of gill-supporting bones; the half wing may have trapped prey or controlled body temperature. I regard preadaptation as an important, even an indispensable, concept. But a plausible story is not necessarily true. I do not doubt that preadaptation can save gradualism in some cases, but does it permit us to invent a tale of continuity in most or all cases? I submit, although it may only reflect my lack of imagination, that the answer is no, and I invoke two recently supported cases of discontinuous change in my defense.

He then talks about a few species in question, and he then states:

quote:

"If we must accept many cases of discontinuous transition in macroevolution, does Darwinism collapse to survive only as a theory of minor adaptive change within species? . . .

To which he answers a few paragraphs later:

quote:

"But all theories of discontinuous change are not anti-Darwinian, as Huxley pointed out nearly 120 years ago. Suppose that a discontinuous change in adult form arises from a small genetic alteration. Problems of discordance with other members of the species do not arise, and the large, favorable variant can spread through a population in Darwinian fashion. Suppose also that this large change does not produce a perfected form all at once, but rather serves as a "key" adaptation to shift its possessor toward a new mode of life. Continued success in this new mode may require a large set of collateral alterations, morphological and behavioral; these may arise by a more traditional, gradual route once the key adaptation forces a profound shift in selective pressures.

So putting that quote in FULL context, you see a wee bit of a different picture as to what Gould was actually stating.

Your second quote:

quote:

The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology. We fancy ourselves as the only true students of life's history, yet to preserve our favored account of evolution by natural selection we view our data as so bad that we never see the very process we profess to study."

This quote was originally from Gould in "Evolution's Erratic Pace" in Natural History 86(5):12-16. He restated this in his Panda's Thumb in the chapter "The Episodic Nature of Evolutionary Change", pp. 179-185. In that chapter, however, we see the quote in full context:

quote:

The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology. The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches; the rest is inference, however reasonable, not the evidence of fossils. Yet Darwin was so wedded to gradualism that he wagered his entire theory on a denial of this literal record: quote: The geological record is extremely imperfect and this fact will to a large extent explain why we do not find interminable varieties, connecting together all the extinct and existing forms of life by the finest graduated steps. He who rejects these views on the nature of the geological record, will rightly reject my whole theory. Darwin's argument still persists as the favored escape of most paleontologists from the embarrassment of a record that seems to show so little of evolution [directly]. In exposing its cultural and methodological roots, I wish in no way to impugn the potential validity of gradualism (for all general views have similar roots). I only wish to point out that it is never "seen" in the rocks. Paleontologists have paid an exorbitant price for Darwin's argument. We fancy ourselves as the only true students of life's history, yet to preserve our favored account of evolution by natural selection we view our data as so bad that we never see the very process we profess to study. For several years, Niles Eldredge of the American Museum of Natural History and I have been advocating a resolution to this uncomfortable paradox. We believe that Huxley was right in his warning [1]. The modern theory of evolution does not require gradual change. In fact, the operation of Darwinian processes should yield exactly what we see in the fossil record. [It is gradualism we should reject, not Darwinism.]

So again in the full context, Gould does not have difficulty with what is seen in the fossil record. He feels that there is a paucity of transitional species in the record, but he also fully acknowledges that there is no lack of evidence of transitions between the major groups. Here Gould states it more succinctly than I could:

quote:

[T]ransitions are often found in the fossil record. Preserved transitions are not common -- and should not be, according to our understanding of evolution (see next section) but they are not entirely wanting, as creationists often claim. [He then discusses two examples: therapsid intermediaries between reptiles and mammals, and the half-dozen human species - found as of 1981 - that appear in an unbroken temporal sequence of progressively more modern features.] Faced with these facts of evolution and the philosophical bankruptcy of their own position, creationists rely upon distortion and innuendo to buttress their rhetorical claim. If I sound sharp or bitter, indeed I am -- for I have become a major target of these practices. I count myself among the evolutionists who argue for a jerky, or episodic, rather than a smoothly gradual, pace of change. In 1972 my colleague Niles Eldredge and I developed the theory of punctuated equilibrium. We argued that two outstanding facts of the fossil record -- geologically "sudden" origin of new species and failure to change thereafter (stasis) -- reflect the predictions of evolutionary theory, not the imperfections of the fossil record. In most theories, small isolated populations are the source of new species, and the process of speciation takes thousands or tens of thousands of years. This amount of time, so long when measured against our lives, is a geological microsecond . . . Since we proposed punctuated equilibria to explain trends, it is infuriating to be quoted again and again by creationists -- whether through design or stupidity, I do not know -- as admitting that the fossil record includes no transitional forms. Transitional forms are generally lacking at the species level, but they are abundant between larger groups. http://www.stephenjaygould.org/libr...and-theory.html

So what's obvious is twofold:

1. You or your sources have no clue about Gould's views

2. You or your sources do have a clue about his views and have deliberately obfuscated those views in hopes to bolster your own claims by discrediting such sources (i.e. creating an argument via false dichotomy in the process).

Now I don't know you well enough to believe that you are doing so deliberately, although I'm sure we've argued on this and similar topics ad nauseum in the past, but I DO know, however, that your sources are willfully abusing and deliberately quote mining in hopes to obfuscate a well-documented theory that counters their preconceived and unfounded beliefs on species origins. There is no explanation as to why your sources would go out of their way to read Gould and cite small snippet quotes that are completely out of context in hopes to somehow undermine his central tenet other than they are deliberately lying and misleading others.

And often times, these very same authors have the audacity to call themselves "Christians." I guess that bearing false witness against thy neighbor Commandment continues to be quite elusive to them.

___________________
Whence September dusk grows crisper still,
with leaves all crimson conquered,
I yearn to shout,
and dance about,
and stick pickles in my honker...