Impossible evolutionary steps?

UTEOTW

Perhaps your problem is that you don't read well. Just to set the record straight I quote what I said in the earlier post you referenced.

"You use a lot of fancy names in your second paragraph which most folks can't pronounce, however, none of this changes the truth that there is no scientific evidence to call evolution a theory. It is at best a hypothesis, I prefer to call it a concept. Therefore, belief in evolution falls into the realm of faith or perhaps religion would be a better word."

Please note that I did not say I could not pronounce the words, I said most folks can't pronounce them. Don't get overexcited because people on this thread reject your suppositions and the suppositions of the evolutionist doctrine, or religion, or whatever.

 

I think we need to reinstate the King James meaning of the word "science" because its modern usage is too narrow.

"O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called." (1 Tim. 6:20)

Obviously Timothy was not being pursued by people in lab coats mixing chemicals in test tubes. The Greek word is "gnosis" which means "knowledge" in its most general sense. Today we have lots of "science", in the most narrow sense, but not much knowledge.

Mike

 

"I have seen you cite a couple of types of things. One, explanations of what has been found in nature. These explanations are neither exclusive nor supported through lab re-creation."

I have cited for you examples of new information and new genes and new pathways being created in the wild.

Copley, S. D. (2000). “Evolution of a metabolic pathway for degradation of a toxic xenobiotic: the patchwork approach.” Trends Biochem Sci 25(6): 261-265.

Prijambada I. D., Negoro S., Yomo T., Urabe I. (1995). “Emergence of nylon oligomer degradation enzymes in Pseudomonas aeruginosa PAO through experimental evolution.” Appl Environ Microbiol. 61(5):2020-2.

And I have given you examples that have been observed to happen in the lab. And these are examples of things OBSERVED to have happened in the lab and not where they were trying to make something in particular happen.

Long, M., Betran, E., Thornton, K. and Wang, W. (2003). “The origin of new genes: glimpses from the young and old.” Nat Rev Genet 4(11): 865-875.

Nurminsky, D., Aguiar, D. D., Bustamante, C. D. and Hartl, D. L. (2001). “Chromosomal effects of rapid gene evolution in Drosophila melanogaster.” Science 291(5501): 128-130.

I believe that all of these qualify as things "that independently arose in the genetic code from a source other than the parents that resulted in a novel and beneficial development."

 

UTEOTW

Perhaps your problem is that you don't read well. Just to set the record straight I quote what I said in the earlier post you referenced.

"You use a lot of fancy names in your second paragraph which most folks can't pronounce, however, none of this changes the truth that there is no scientific evidence to call evolution a theory. It is at best a hypothesis, I prefer to call it a concept. Therefore, belief in evolution falls into the realm of faith or perhaps religion would be a better word."

Please note that I did not say I could not pronounce the words, I said most folks can't pronounce them. Don't get overexcited because people on this thread reject your suppositions and the suppositions of the evolutionist doctrine, or religion, or whatever. </font>[/QUOTE]I apologize for misreading that and then later misquoting you based on that.

 

"Please cite the example of one species evolving into another in a lab or in the wild."

How many do you want?

"A Breed Apart," Scientific American", Feb 1989, page 22

In the early 20th century, three species of European wildflowers called goatsbeards were introduced into America. They caught on in the wild and started expanding their territory. Sometimes the three species would find themselves in mixed populations. Breeding between the three species produced offspring but the offspring were not fertile. In the 1940's, two new species of goatsbeards appeared in Washington state. Evolution had produced two new species from the hybrids that were now capable of reproducing with themselves but not with the three parent species from which they had evolved. The reason is partially because it was a polyploidy event.

We can go well down this path. We have plants. We have animals. We have speciation in the wild. We have speciation in the lab. We have speciation by various mechanisms. I don't know how many are here. Spend some time with http://scholar.google.com/ and search on some of these and read them.

Bullini, L and Nascetti, G, 1991, Speciation by Hybridization in phasmids and other insects, Canadian Journal of Zoology, Volume 68(8), pages 1747-1760.

Sharman, G.B., Close, R.L, Maynes, G.M., 1991, Chromosome evolution, phylogeny, and speciation of rock wallabies, Australian Journal of Zoology, Volume 37(2-4), pages 351-363.

Werth, C. R., and Windham, M.D., 1991, A model for divergent, allopatric, speciation of polyploid pteridophytes resulting from silencing of duplicate- gene expression, AM-Natural, Volume 137(4):515-526.

Spooner, D.M., Sytsma, K.J., Smith, J., A Molecular reexamination of diploid hybrid speciation of Solanum raphanifolium, Evolution, Volume 45, Number 3, pages 757-764.

Arnold, M.L., Buckner, C.M., Robinson, J.J., 1991, Pollen-mediated introgression and hybrid speciation in Louisiana Irises, P-NAS-US, Volume 88, Number 4, pages 1398-1402.

Nevo, E., 1991, Evolutionary Theory and process of active speciation and adaptive radiation in subterranean mole rats, spalax-ehrenbergi superspecies, in Israel, Evolutionary Biology, Volume 25, pages 1-125.

Ahearn, J. N. 1980. Evolution of behavioral reproductive isolation in a laboratory stock of Drosophila silvestris. Experientia. 36:63-64.

Barton, N. H., J. S. Jones and J. Mallet. 1988. No barriers to speciation. Nature. 336:13-14.

Baum, D. 1992. Phylogenetic species concepts. Trends in Ecology and Evolution. 7:1-3.

Boraas, M. E. 1983. Predator induced evolution in chemostat culture. EOS. Transactions of the American Geophysical Union. 64:1102.

Breeuwer, J. A. J. and J. H. Werren. 1990. Microorganisms associated with chromosome destruction and reproductive isolation between two insect species. Nature. 346:558-560.

Budd, A. F. and B. D. Mishler. 1990. Species and evolution in clonal organisms -- a summary and discussion. Systematic Botany 15:166-171.

Bullini, L. and G. Nascetti. 1990. Speciation by hybridization in phasmids and other insects. Canadian Journal of Zoology. 68:1747-1760.

Butters, F. K. 1941. Hybrid Woodsias in Minnesota. Amer. Fern. J. 31:15-21.

Butters, F. K. and R. M. Tryon, jr. 1948. A fertile mutant of a Woodsia hybrid. American Journal of Botany. 35:138.

Brock, T. D. and M. T. Madigan. 1988. Biology of Microorganisms (5th edition). Prentice Hall, Englewood, NJ.

Callaghan, C. A. 1987. Instances of observed speciation. The American Biology Teacher. 49:3436.

Castenholz, R. W. 1992. Species usage, concept, and evolution in the cyanobacteria (blue-green algae). Journal of Phycology 28:737-745.

Clausen, J., D. D. Keck and W. M. Hiesey. 1945. Experimental studies on the nature of species. II. Plant evolution through amphiploidy and autoploidy, with examples from the Madiinae. Carnegie Institute Washington Publication, 564:1-174.

Cracraft, J. 1989. Speciation and its ontology: the empirical consequences of alternative species concepts for understanding patterns and processes of differentiation. In Otte, E. and J. A. Endler [eds.] Speciation and its consequences. Sinauer Associates, Sunderland, MA. pp. 28-59.

Craig, T. P., J. K. Itami, W. G. Abrahamson and J. D. Horner. 1993. Behavioral evidence for host-race fromation in Eurosta solidaginis. Evolution. 47:1696-1710.

Cronquist, A. 1978. Once again, what is a species? Biosystematics in agriculture. Beltsville Symposia in Agricultural Research 2:3-20.

Cronquist, A. 1988. The evolution and classification of flowering plants (2nd edition). The New York Botanical Garden, Bronx, NY.

Crossley, S. A. 1974. Changes in mating behavior produced by selection for ethological isolation between ebony and vestigial mutants of Drosophilia melanogaster. Evolution. 28:631-647.

de Oliveira, A. K. and A. R. Cordeiro. 1980. Adaptation of Drosophila willistoni experimental populations to extreme pH medium. II. Development of incipient reproductive isolation. Heredity. 44:123-130.

de Queiroz, K. and M. Donoghue. 1988. Phylogenetic systematics and the species problem. Cladistics. 4:317-338.

de Queiroz, K. and M. Donoghue. 1990. Phylogenetic systematics and species revisited. Cladistics. 6:83-90.

de Vries, H. 1905. Species and varieties, their origin by mutation.

de Wet, J. M. J. 1971. Polyploidy and evolution in plants. Taxon. 20:29-35.

del Solar, E. 1966. Sexual isolation caused by selection for positive and negative phototaxis and geotaxis in Drosophila pseudoobscura. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (US). 56:484-487.

Digby, L. 1912. The cytology of Primula kewensis and of other related Primula hybrids. Ann. Bot. 26:357-388.

Dobzhansky, T. 1937. Genetics and the origin of species. Columbia University Press, New York.

Dobzhansky, T. 1951. Genetics and the origin of species (3rd edition). Columbia University Press, New York.

Dobzhansky, T. and O. Pavlovsky. 1971. Experimentally created incipient species of Drosophila. Nature. 230:289-292.

Dobzhansky, T. 1972. Species of Drosophila: new excitement in an old field. Science. 177:664-669.

Dodd, D. M. B. 1989. Reproductive isolation as a consequence of adaptive divergence in Drosophila melanogaster. Evolution 43:1308-1311.

Dodd, D. M. B. and J. R. Powell. 1985. Founder-flush speciation: an update of experimental results with Drosophila. Evolution 39:1388-1392.

Donoghue, M. J. 1985. A critique of the biological species concept and recommendations for a phylogenetic alternative. Bryologist 88:172-181.

Du Rietz, G. E. 1930. The fundamental units of biological taxonomy. Svensk. Bot. Tidskr. 24:333-428.

Ehrman, E. 1971. Natural selection for the origin of reproductive isolation. The American Naturalist. 105:479-483.

Ehrman, E. 1973. More on natural selection for the origin of reproductive isolation. The American Naturalist. 107:318-319.

Feder, J. L., C. A. Chilcote and G. L. Bush. 1988. Genetic differentiation between sympatric host races of the apple maggot fly, Rhagoletis pomonella. Nature. 336:61-64.

Feder, J. L. and G. L. Bush. 1989. A field test of differential host-plant usage between two sibling species of Rhagoletis pomonella fruit flies (Diptera:Tephritidae) and its consequences for sympatric models of speciation. Evolution 43:1813-1819.

Frandsen, K. J. 1943. The experimental formation of Brassica juncea Czern. et Coss. Dansk. Bot. Arkiv., No. 4, 11:1-17.

Frandsen, K. J. 1947. The experimental formation of Brassica napus L. var. oleifera DC and Brassica carinata Braun. Dansk. Bot. Arkiv., No. 7, 12:1-16.

Galiana, A., A. Moya and F. J. Alaya. 1993. Founder-flush speciation in Drosophila pseudoobscura: a large scale experiment. Evolution. 47432-444.

Gottleib, L. D. 1973. Genetic differentiation, sympatric speciation, and the origin of a diploid species of Stephanomeira. American Journal of Botany. 60: 545-553.

Halliburton, R. and G. A. E. Gall. 1981. Disruptive selection and assortative mating in Tribolium castaneum. Evolution. 35:829-843.

Hurd, L. E., and R. M. Eisenberg. 1975. Divergent selection for geotactic response and evolution of reproductive isolation in sympatric and allopatric populations of houseflies. The American Naturalist. 109:353-358.

Karpchenko, G. D. 1927. Polyploid hybrids of Raphanus sativus L. X Brassica oleraceae L. Bull. Appl. Botany. 17:305-408.

Karpchenko, G. D. 1928. Polyploid hybrids of Raphanus sativus L. X Brassica oleraceae L. Z. Indukt. Abstami-a Verenbungsi. 48:1-85.

Kilias, G., S. N. Alahiotis and M. Delecanos. 1980. A multifactorial investigation of speciation theory using Drosophila melanogaster. Evolution. 34:730-737.

Knight, G. R., A. Robertson and C. H. Waddington. 1956. Selection for sexual isolation within a species. Evolution. 10:14-22.

Koopman, K. F. 1950. Natural selection for reproductive isolation between Drosophila pseudoobscura and Drosophila persimilis. Evolution. 4:135-148.

Lee, R. E. 1989. Phycology (2nd edition) Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK

Levin, D. A. 1979. The nature of plant species. Science 204:381-384.

Lokki, J. and A. Saura. 1980. Polyploidy in insect evolution. In: W. H. Lewis (ed.) Polyploidy: Biological Relevance. Plenum Press, New York.

Macnair, M. R. 1981. Tolerance of higher plants to toxic materials. In: J. A. Bishop and L. M. Cook (eds.). Genetic consequences of man made change. Pp.177-297. Academic Press, New York.

Macnair, M. R. and P. Christie. 1983. Reproductive isolation as a pleiotropic effect of copper tolerance in Mimulus guttatus. Heredity. 50:295-302.

Manhart, J. R. and R. M. McCourt. 1992. Molecular data and species concepts in the algae. Journal of Phycology. 28:730-737.

Mayr, E. 1942. Systematics and the origin of species from the viewpoint of a zoologist. Columbia University Press, New York.

Mayr, E. 1982. The growth of biological thought: diversity, evolution and inheritance. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA. McCourt, R. M. and R. W. Hoshaw. 1990. Noncorrespondence of breeding groups, morphology and monophyletic groups in Spirogyra (Zygnemataceae; Chlorophyta) and the application of species concepts. Systematic Botany. 15:69-78.

McPheron, B. A., D. C. Smith and S. H. Berlocher. 1988. Genetic differentiation between host races of Rhagoletis pomonella. Nature. 336:64-66.

Meffert, L. M. and E. H. Bryant. 1991. Mating propensity and courtship behavior in serially bottlenecked lines of the housefly. Evolution 45:293-306.

Mishler, B. D. 1985. The morphological, developmental and phylogenetic basis of species concepts in the bryophytes. Bryologist. 88:207-214.

Mishler, B. D. and M. J. Donoghue. 1982. Species concepts: a case for pluralism. Systematic Zoology. 31:491-503.

Muntzing, A. 1932. Cytogenetic investigations on the synthetic Galeopsis tetrahit. Hereditas. 16:105-154.

Nelson, G. 1989. Cladistics and evolutionary models. Cladistics. 5:275-289.

Newton, W. C. F. and C. Pellew. 1929. Primula kewensis and its derivatives. J. Genetics. 20:405-467.

Otte, E. and J. A. Endler (eds.). 1989. Speciation and its consequences. Sinauer Associates. Sunderland, MA.

Owenby, M. 1950. Natural hybridization and amphiploidy in the genus Tragopogon. Am. J. Bot. 37:487-499.

Pasterniani, E. 1969. Selection for reproductive isolation between two populations of maize, Zea mays L. Evolution. 23:534-547.

Powell, J. R. 1978. The founder-flush speciation theory: an experimental approach. Evolution. 32:465-474.

Prokopy, R. J., S. R. Diehl, and S. H. Cooley. 1988. Oecologia. 76:138.

Rabe, E. W. and C. H. Haufler. 1992. Incipient polyploid speciation in the maidenhair fern (Adiantum pedatum, adiantaceae)? American Journal of Botany. 79:701-707.

Rice, W. R. 1985. Disruptive selection on habitat preference and the evolution of reproductive isolation: an exploratory experiment. Evolution. 39:645-646.

Rice, W. R. and E. E. Hostert. 1993. Laboratory experiments on speciation: What have we learned in forty years? Evolution. 47:1637-1653.

Rice, W. R. and G. W. Salt. 1988. Speciation via disruptive selection on habitat preference: experimental evidence. The American Naturalist. 131:911-917.

Rice, W. R. and G. W. Salt. 1990. The evolution of reproductive isolation as a correlated character under sympatric conditions: experimental evidence. Evolution. 44:1140-1152.

Ringo, J., D. Wood, R. Rockwell, and H. Dowse. 1989. An experiment testing two hypotheses of speciation. The American Naturalist. 126:642-661.

Schluter, D. and L. M. Nagel. 1995. Parallel speciation by natural selection. American Naturalist. 146:292-301.

Shikano, S., L. S. Luckinbill and Y. Kurihara. 1990. Changes of traits in a bacterial population associated with protozoal predation. Microbial Ecology. 20:75-84.

Smith, D. C. 1988. Heritable divergence of Rhagoletis pomonella host races by seasonal asynchrony. Nature. 336:66-67.

Soans, A. B., D. Pimentel and J. S. Soans. 1974. Evolution of reproductive isolation in allopatric and sympatric populations. The American Naturalist. 108:117-124.

Sokal, R. R. and T. J. Crovello. 1970. The biological species concept: a critical evaluation. The American Naturalist. 104:127-153.

Soltis, D. E. and P. S. Soltis. 1989. Allopolyploid speciation in Tragopogon: Insights from chloroplast DNA. American Journal of Botany. 76:1119-1124.

Stuessy, T. F. 1990. Plant taxonomy. Columbia University Press, New York.

Thoday, J. M. and J. B. Gibson. 1962. Isolation by disruptive selection. Nature. 193:1164-1166.

Thoday, J. M. and J. B. Gibson. 1970. The probability of isolation by disruptive selection. The American Naturalist. 104:219-230.

Thompson, J. N. 1987. Symbiont-induced speciation. Biological Journal of the Linnean Society. 32:385-393.

Vrijenhoek, R. C. 1994. Unisexual fish: Model systems for studying ecology and evolution. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics. 25:71-96.

Waring, G. L., W. G. Abrahamson and D. J. Howard. 1990. Genetic differentiation in the gall former Eurosta solidaginis (Diptera:Tephritidae) along host plant lines. Evolution. 44:1648-1655.

Weinberg, J. R., V. R. Starczak and P. Jora. 1992. Evidence for rapid speciation following a founder event in the laboratory. Evolution. 46:1214-1220.

Wood, A. M. and T. Leatham. 1992. The species concept in phytoplankton ecology. Journal of Phycology. 28:723-729.

Yen, J. H. and A. R. Barr. 1971. New hypotheses of the cause of cytoplasmic incompatability in Culex pipiens L.

 

UT, Which of these examples involved animals acquiring genetic information from a source other than the parent that directly led to speciation?

All you have done is give examples of my idea of "descent". You have not supported your idea of "ascent" whatsoever. In fact, this is exactly the type of thing I have argued for in the past and you declared that it was "ad hoc" and speculation without support. Thank you for providing me with real world examples.

 

I searched for "Why the epidemic of fraud exists in science today" and it didn't give any results. Then I searched for the same thing in www.answersingenesis.org and I got a paper by Jerry Bergman, published in TJ 18(3)2004.

I guess these "scholars" who work for Google must have missed something.

Mike

 

Scott, your objection is that that the speciation events produce creatures that are not very different from the parent species. But if you are going to insist on actual observation of the speciation event, isn't it true that the slow pace of evolution makes it fundamentally impossible to have the degree of variation that you are insisting we personally observe? Isn't it true, however, that we also have evidence that such larger degrees of speciation have occurred in the past? I cite, for example, the development of tail flukes on whales from a formerly flukeless land dwelling creature with four legs. Evidence for this former state of the body in the ancestors is seen in the embryonic forms of whales, which sprout legs, which are then absorbed.

 

What Evolutionists Think Ebout Evolution.

There are scientists all over the world who know that evolutionary theory is bankrupt. Such men as *Charles Darwin, *Thomas and *Julian Huxley, and *Steven Jay Gould have admitted it. But you will not find these statements in the popular press. Such admissions are only made to fellow professionals. {source: http://www.pathlights.com/ce_encyclopedia/01-evol2.htm]

An asterisk ( * ) by a name indicates that person is not known to be a creationist. Of over 4,000 quotations in the set of books this Encyclopedia is based on only 164 statements are by creationists.

"Paleontologists [fossil experts] 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 almost never see the very process we profess to study."—* Steven Jay Gould, The Panda's Thumb (1982), pp. 181-182 [Harvard professor and the leading evolutionary spokesman of the latter half of the twentieth century].

"The problem of the origin of species has not advanced in the last 150 years. One hundred and fifty years have already passed during which it has been said that the evolution of the species is a fact but, without giving real proofs of it and without even a principle of explaining it. During the last one hundred and fifty years of research that has been carried out along this line [in order to prove the theory], there has been no discovery of anything. It is simply a repetition in different ways of what Darwin said in 1859. This lack of results is unforgivable in a day when molecular biology has really opened the veil covering the mystery of reproduction and heredity . .

"Finally, there is only one attitude which is possible as I have just shown: It consists in affirming that intelligence comes before life. Many people will say this is not science, it is philosophy. The only thing I am interested in is fact, and this conclusion comes out of an analysis and observation of the facts."—* G. Salet, Hasard et Certitude: Le Transformisme devant la Biologie Actuelle (1973), p. 331.

"The theories of evolution, with which our studious youth have been deceived, constitute actually a dogma that all the world continues to teach; but each, in his specialty, the zoologist or the botanist, ascertains that none of the explanations furnished is adequate . . It results from this summary, that the theory of evolution is impossible."—* P. Lemoine, "Introduction: De L' Evolution?" Encyclopedie Francaise, Vol. 5 (1937), p. 6.

"Darwinism is a creed not only with scientists committed to document the all-purpose role of natural selection. It is a creed with masses of people who have at best a vague notion of the mechanism of evolution as proposed by Darwin, let alone as further complicated by his successors. Clearly, the appeal cannot be that of a scientific truth but of a philosophical belief which is not difficult to identify. Darwinism is a belief in the meaninglessness of existence."—* R. Kirk, "The Rediscovery of Creation," in National Review, (May 27, 1983), p. 641.

"I have always been slightly suspicious of the theory of evolution because of its ability to account for any property of living beings (the long neck of the giraffe, for example). I have therefore tried to see whether biological discoveries over the last thirty years or so fit in with Darwin's theory. I do not think that they do. To my mind, the theory does not stand up at all."—* H. Lipson, "A Physicist Looks at Evolution," Physic Bulletin, 31 (1980), p. 138.

"Evolution is baseless and quite incredible."—* John Ambrose Fleming, President, British Association for Advancement of Science, in The Unleashing of Evolutionary Thought.

"Unfortunately, in the field of evolution most explanations are not good. As a matter of fact, they hardly qualify as explanations at all; they are suggestions, hunches, pipe dreams, hardly worthy of being called hypotheses."— * Norman Macbeth, Darwin Retried (1971), p. 147.

"This general tendency to eliminate, by means of unverifiable speculations, the limits of the categories Nature presents to us, is the inheritance of biology from The Origin of Species. To establish the continuity required by theory, historical arguments are invoked, even though historical evidence is lacking. Thus are engendered those fragile towers of hypothesis based on hypothesis, where fact and fiction intermingle in an inextricable confusion."—* W.R. Thompson, "Introduction," to Everyman's Library issue of *Charles Darwin's, Origin of Species (1956 edition).

" `Scientists who go about teaching that evolution is a fact of life are great con men, and the story they are telling may be the greatest hoax ever. In explaining evolution we do not have one iota of fact.' A tangled mishmash of guessing games and figure juggling [Tahmisian called it]."—* The Fresno Bee, August 20, 1959, p. 1-B [quoting T.N. Tahmisian, physiologist for the Atomic Energy Commission].

" `The theory [of evolution] is a scientific mistake.' "—* Louis Agassiz, quoted in H. Enoch, Evolution or Creation, (1966), p. 139. [Agassiz was a Harvard University professor and the pioneer in glaciation.]

"[In Darwin's writings] possibilities were assumed to add up to probability, and probabilities then were promoted to certitudes."—* Agassiz, op. cit., p. 335.

"The origin of all diversity among living beings remains a mystery as totally unexplained as if the book of Mr. Darwin had never been written, for no theory unsupported by fact, however plausible it may appear, can be admitted in science."—* L. Agassiz on the Origin of Species, American Journal of Science, 30 (1860), p. 154. [Darwin's book was published in 1859.]

"[Darwin could] summon up enough general, vague and conjectural reasons to account for this fact, and if these were not taken seriously, he could come up with a different, but equally general, vague and conjectural set of reasons."—* Gertrude Himmelfarb, Darwin and Darwinian Revolution (1968), p. 319.

"Ultimately the Darwinian theory of evolution is no more nor less than the great cosmogenic myth of the twentieth century . . the origin of life and of new beings on earth is still largely as enigmatic as when Darwin set sail on the [ship] Beagle."—* Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis (1986), p. 358.

"It has been estimated that no fewer than 800 phrases in the subjunctive mood (such as `Let us assume,' or `We may well suppose,' etc.) are to be found between the covers of Darwin's Origin of Species alone."—L. Merson Davies [British scientist], Modern Science (1953), p. 7.

"I can envision observations and experiments that would disprove any evolutionary theory I know."—* Stephen Jay Gould, "Evolution as Fact and Theory," Discover 2(5):34-37 (1981).


"Unfortunately for Darwin's future reputation, his life was spent on the problem of evolution which is deductive by nature . . It is absurd to expect that many facts will not always be irreconcilable with any theory of evolution and, today, every one of his theories is contradicted by facts."—* P.T. Mora, The Dogma of Evolution, p. 194.

"Darwinism is a creed not only with scientists committed to document the all-purpose role of natural selection. It is a creed with masses of people who have, at best, a vague notion of the mechanism of evolution as proposed by Darwin, let alone as further complicated by his successors."—* S. Jaki, Cosmos and Creator (1982).

"In essence, we contend that neo-Darwinism is a theory of differential survival and not one of origin . .

"We are certainly not arguing here that differential survival of whole organisms does not occur. This must inevitably happen [i.e. some species become extinct]. The question that we must ask is, does this represent the controlling dynamic of organic evolution? Cannot a similar argument be equally well-constructed to `explain' any frequency distribution? For example, consider rocks which vary in hardness and also persist through time. Clearly the harder rocks are better `adapted' to survive harsh climatic conditions. As Lewontin points out, a similar story can be told about political parties, rumors, jokes, stars, and discarded soft drink containers."—* A.J. Hughes and *D. Lambert, "Functionalism, Structuralism, `Ways of Seeing,' " Journal of Theoretical Biology, 787 (1984), pp. 796-797.

"Biologists have indeed built their advances in evolutionary theory on the Darwinian foundation, not realizing that the foundation is about to topple because of Darwin's three mistakes.

"George Bernard Shaw wisecracked once that Darwin had the luck to please everybody who had an axe to grind. Well, I also have an axe to grind, but I am not pleased. We have suffered through two world wars and are threatened by an Armageddon. We have had enough of the Darwinian fallacy."—* Kenneth Hsu, "Reply," Geology, 15 (1987), p. 177.

"Therefore, a grotesque account of a period some thousands of years ago is taken seriously though it be built by piling special assumptions on special assumptions, ad hoc hypothesis [invented for a purpose] on ad hoc hypothesis, and tearing apart the fabric of science whenever it appears convenient. The result is a fantasia which is neither history nor science."—* James Conant [chemist and former president, Harvard University], quoted in Origins Research, Vol. 5, No. 2, 1982, p. 2.

"It is inherent in any definition of science that statements that cannot be checked by observation are not really saying anything—or at least they are not science."—* George G. Simpson, "The Nonprevalence of Humanoids," in Science, 143 (1964) p. 770.

"In accepting evolution as fact, how many biologists pause to reflect that science is built upon theories that have been proved by experiment to be correct or remember that the theory of animal evolution has never been thus approved."—* L.H. Matthews, "Introduction," Origin of Species, Charles Darwin (1971 edition).

"Present-day ultra-Darwinism, which is so sure of itself, impresses incompletely informed biologists, misleads them, and inspires fallacious interpretations . .

"Through use and abuse of hidden postulates, of bold, often ill-founded extrapolations, a pseudoscience has been created. It is taking root in the very heart of biology and is leading astray many biochemists and biologists, who sincerely believe that the accuracy of fundamental concepts has been demonstrated, which is not the case."—* Pierre P. de Grasse, The Evolution of Living Organisms (1977), p. 202.

"The over-riding supremacy of the myth [of evolution] has created a widespread illusion that the theory of evolution was all but proved one hundred years ago and that all subsequent biological research—paleontological, zoological and in the newer branches of genetics and molecular biology—has provided ever-increasing evidence for Darwinian ideas. Nothing could be further from the truth.

[In a letter to Asa Gray, a Harvard professor of biology, Darwin wrote:] "I am quite conscious that my speculations run quite beyond the bounds of true science."—* Charles Darwin, quoted in *N.C. Gillespie, Charles Darwin and the Problem of Creation (1979), p. 2 [University of Chicago book].

"The fact is that the evidence was so patchy one hundred years ago that even Darwin himself had increasing doubts as to the validity of his views, and the only aspect of his theory which has received any support over the past century is where it applies to micro-evolutionary phenomena. His general theory, that all life on earth had originated and evolved by a gradual successive accumulation of fortuitous mutations, is still, as it was in Darwin's time, a highly speculative hypothesis entirely without direct factual support and very far from that self-evident axiom some of its more aggressive advocates would have us believe."—* Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis (1986), p. 77.

 

"An interesting point Scott. Another falsehood that evolutionists try to pawn on us is that of evolution of bacteria becoming immune to an antibiotic. In reality, Darwin's theory is closer than they realize in that the bacteria do NOT mutate. Only the bacteria that have a natural capability already in their genes survive, thus leaving a culture grown from genetically immune bacteria. This is even very clear in two of my upper level microbiology text books.

It was also clear to point out that bacteria found frozen for thousands of years also shows the exact same rate of immunity, indicating that there has been absolutely no increase in immunity in bacteria since the discovery of penicillin (since that is the antibiotic I will use should I have to provide proof of the data from my microbiology books). I am hoping these guys will take my word, but I don't expect they will."

Well there are a few things to respond to here. One is that you seem to have stumbled accidentally upon one of the mechanisms of evolution. But we will return to that shortly.

First, I challenge you to provide evidence that bacteria have not acquired immunity to antibiotics since their introduction. Evidence from medicine should quite clearly demonstrate that when new antibiotics are introduced, they will often work well for a time until resistance begins to appear.

But back to the main point. The mutations of evolution ARE random. An organism does not go through a choice where the environment has a new widget that is causing problems so it looks for a cahnge that can be made to give a new gadget to counter it.

Evolution will provide adaptation to a change in environment, but there is the element of luck in having a fortuitous mutation(s) that allow it.

Now, even when things are stable, there are still mutations accumulating. Some are harmful and removed. Others are neutral. However when the environment changes, some of these formerly neutral mutations become advantageous. This is part of the logic behind punctuated equilibrium. The accumulated mutations of the stasis times allow for rapid adaptation when the environment changes.

Now, a mutation that leads to antibiotic resistance cannot be one that disables the cell in the process. So it should not be surprising that some bacteria will show resistance to antibiotics to which they have never been exposed while others will acquire resistance once the environment changes.

 

OR

You seem like an honest fellow. Please do not get caught up in the trap of quote mining. It is one of the most despicable tactics of the YE movement. It is one that gets the most ridicule, deservingly I might add, from those who do not agree with you. Let me give an example of the quality of most of these. Imagine you were in a debate with an atheist. He quoted the Bible to you as saying "There is no God." Would you find that convinving? I seriously doubt that you would. And for good reason. The quote has been removed from its context. When placed in context, it means something completely different plus it is at odds with the rest of the Bible.

Now the same can be applied to these lists of quotes you see. Generally they are out of context. Usually the meaning changes when the context is replaced and the implied meaning differs from the normal thoughts of the individual. Furthermore, the validity of the science does not rest on one man's opinion but on the data.

Now, your first quote is from Gould. Let's look at something else Gould said that seems germane.

from Hen's Teeth and Horse's Toes (1994).

Read a larger segment here.

http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/gould_fact-and-theory.html

I encourage everyone to read the larger essay. It touches on many things we discuss here. I don't really expect anyone to do so, but it would be nice.

But look more closely at that quote. Do you think he would be infuriated if he were being quoted accurately? Of course not.

Further, look at what else he says. It is transitions between species that we do not get so often. But between higher taxa, we have abundant examples of transitions. I assume that since you quoted him as an expert, that you trust his opinion on the matter. This is just the opposite of what young earthers would predict. They generally allow for a little speciation but not for "macroevolution." Yet we see just the opposite. Large changes are what we can best document, you know those that YEers say should not be there at all! Small changes, you know the only ones that YEers say should be seen, are not seen very often because they happen too quickly.

The data is exactly the opposite of what a young earther should expect.

 

Let's see how far we get down the list...

G. Salet - WHo was this fellow? How can we judge his stement if we don't know who he even is?

P. Lemoine - This is a fallacious appeal to authority since he is not a biologist. Now being a biologist, his opinion of biology is no more valid than yours or mine. Your source deceived you by telling you he was an "evolutionists."

Lipson - This is a fallacious appeal to authority since he is not a biologist. Now being a biologist, his opinion of biology is no more valid than yours or mine. Your source deceived you by telling you he was an "evolutionists."

I think you can apply the appeal to authority to most of these. Let's see what else we can find.

Michael Denton - Did your source tell you that he followed this book up with another in which he disavowed everything from his first book as being false? Didn't think so.

"I can envision observations and experiments that would disprove any evolutionary theory I know." - absolutely true. Evolution is falsifiable. WHy in the world would you include this quote! What would falsify YE in your mind?

That is enough to get the picture. Out of context quotes and a whole bunch that your source falsely claims are "evolutionists." You really out to worry about a source that would include those Denton quotes. Or Gould. Oh just be safe and stay away from quotes unless you have read either the source material or at least a few paragraphs before and after the quoted bit. And you should also try to look for quotes that are germane. Quotes from non-biologists about biology are fallacious by definition.

 

UTEOTW,

How many hours per day do you spend on Baptist Board, and how do you find time for your job in coal gasification research, plus all the interests you mention in your profile (exercise, swimming, snow skiing, ballroom dancing), plus your church...?

Mike

 

UT

You are quick to deny the credentials of anyone who disputes the atheistic philosophy of evolution, yet you continue to cut and paste evolutionary dogma as if you were a biologist, a physicist, a cosmologist, a geologist, ad infinitum.

 

On September 14, 1972, the following letter written by Wernher von Braun was read to the California State Board of Education by Dr. John Ford.


Dear Mr. Grose:


In response to your inquiry about my personal views concerning the "Case for DESIGN" as a viable scientific theory for the origin of the universe, life and man, I am pleased to make the following observations.


For me, the idea of a creation is not conceivable without invoking the necessity of design. One cannot be exposed to the law and order of the universe without concluding that there must be design and purpose behind it all. In the world around us, we can behold the obvious manifestations of an ordered, structured plan or design. We can see the will of the species to live and propagate. And we are humbled by the powerful forces at work on a galactic scale, and the purposeful orderliness of nature that endows a tiny and ungainly seed with the ability to develop into a beautiful flower. The better we understand the intricacies of the universe and all it harbors, the more reason we have found to marvel at the inherent design upon which it is based.


While the admission of a design for the universe ultimately raises the question of a Designer (a subject outside of science), the scientific method does not allow us to exclude data which lead to the conclusion that the universe, life and man are based on design. To be forced to believe only one conclusion - that everything in the universe happened by chance - would violate the very objectivity of science itself. Certainly there are those who argue that the universe evolved out of a random process, but what random process could produce the brain of a man or the system of the human eye?


Some people say that science has been unable to prove the existence of a Designer. They admit that many of the miracles in the world around us are hard to understand, and they do not deny that the universe, as modern science sees it, is indeed a far more wondrous thing than the creation medieval man could perceive. But they still maintain that since science has provided us with so many answers, the day will soon arrive when we will be able to understand even the creation of the fundamental laws of nature with a Divine Intent. They challenge science to prove the existence of God. But, must we really light a candle to see the sun?


Many men who are intelligent and of good faith say they cannot visualize an electron? The electron is materially inconceivable and yet, it is so perfectly known through its effects that we us it to illuminate our cities, guide our airliners through the night skies and take the most accurate measurements. What strange rationale makes some physicists accept the inconceivable electron as real while refusing to accept the reality of a Designer on the ground that they cannot conceive Him? I am afraid that, although they really do not understand the electron either, they are ready to accept it because they managed to produce a rather clumsy mechanical model of it borrowed from rather limited experience in other fields, but they would not know how to begin building a model of God.


I have discussed the aspect of a Designer at some length because it might be that the primary resistance to acknowledging the "Case for DESIGN" as a viable scientific alternative to the current "Case for CHANCE" lies in the inconceivability, in some scientists' minds, of a Designer. The inconceivability of some ultimate issue (which will always lie outside scientific resolution) should not be allowed to rule out any theory that explains the interrelationship of observed data and is useful for prediction.


We in NASA were often asked what the real reason was for the amazing string of successes we had with our Apollo flights to the Moon. I think the only honest answer we could give was that we tried to never overlook anything. It is in that same sense of scientific honesty that I endorse the presentation of alternative theories for the origin of the universe, life and man in the science classroom. It would be an error to overlook the possibility that the universe was planned rather than happening by chance.


With kindest regards.


Sincerely,


(signed) Wernher von Braun


___________________________________________________________________________


Dear Dr. Lavender,
I have your kind letter inviting me to send you a note regarding the particular verse or passage of the Bible which has been most helpful or challenging to me.

I submit the following,‘Be thou exalted, O God, above the heaven; let thy glory be above all the earth’ (Psalm 57:5).

I feel the universal validity of God’s law, on earth and other worlds, is expressed in this passage. Space travelers will not trespass on forbidden regions when they set foot on other worlds, but will be in God’s realm wherever they go.Thank you very much for your kind letter and interest.


Sincerely yours,


Wernher Von Braun

 

It is simple.

It is a fallacy to use someone as an authority who is not an expert in the field.

You want to question evolution with quotes, then use someone who is an expert. Otherwise their opinion does not matter.

You want to question astronomy, that is the place to use an astronomer.

You want to question geology, that is the place to use a geologist.

Otherwise you are using people to give opinions from outside their field of expertice. Their opinion outside their field of expertice is no better than my opinion or yours. You do not go to a geologists when you are sick, do you? YOu do not go to an astronomer when your car won't start.

If I cut and paste from someone who is an expert in the field, it is legitimate. If they are not, you should rightly point out my fallacious appeals.

And, again, evolution is no more atheistic than chemistry. Do you doubt all of chemistry?

Edit to add: I think I do very little actual copt and paste.

[ February 10, 2005, 11:15 AM: Message edited by: UTEOTW ]

 

Scott, your objection is that that the speciation events produce creatures that are not very different from the parent species.</font>[/QUOTE] Actually no. My objection is that the adaptation that we witness in nature that is claimed by macroevolutionists as the tiny steps of evolution is the result of genetic traits inherited from the parents. God gave the original types of animals the genome necessary for survival. I believe that since the beginning of creation these genomes have been specializing, speciating, and trending toward simplicity. I believe that the early parent species were more highly adaptable than later species. The more a line adapts, the more fixed and cut off from the original line or parallel lines it becomes.

Like evolution, the blanks have to be filled in and adjustments made but I believe that this framework covers the general trends in the evidence. It starts from a premise of intentional, intelligent, "perfect" design and proceeds in a general direction of decay and deterioration.

Absolutely. That's what makes macroevolution unfalsifiable and therefore by the naturalists' own definition- it is a matter of faith, not science.

Yes. See above.

Having done a little more research on supposed whale evolution, it seems to be one of those "honesty" things we seem to be discussing.

The actual evidence for this process is weak in critical ways. For instance, the early supposed "amphibian" ancestor of the whale was constructed from a skull cap, jaw fragments, and teeth that were found intermingled with known land animals. In other words, the main ingredients for the appearance of this animal in the whale's evolutionary line are imagination, bias, and an arbitrary choice.

Of course, when evolutionary scientists discuss the whale's evolution, they don't mention weaknesses like this. They lead people to believe that conclusive, rock solid "fact" supports their proposition.

Evolution persistently intermingles facts and assumptions in a way that blurs the distinction without warning... and usually with great resistance to acknowledging such (witness the GA case). I understand how this is rationalized. If one starts with a premise of naturalism then the most likely naturalistic explanation will be treated as fact even without direct evidence.

Such rationalization though is a mark of self-deception, not science.

 

Not true. Nowhere in chemistry are you required to assume how reality came to be much less required to assume naturalistic causes for the laws/realities governing chemistry.

IOW, chemistry works whether God created the world or it came about by some other mechanism. Evolution only works if God was not involved.

 

"The actual evidence for this process is weak in critical ways. For instance, the early supposed "amphibian" ancestor of the whale was constructed from a skull cap, jaw fragments, and teeth that were found intermingled with known land animals. In other words, the main ingredients for the appearance of this animal in the whale's evolutionary line are imagination, bias, and an arbitrary choice."

You have been misled by your sources yet again. THis should not be surprising at this point. YE leaders have maintained this line for years dispite it being untrue for years.

Ambulocetus is the animal in question. "The post-cranial skeleton of ambulocetids is well known thanks to a nearly complete skeleton of the species Ambulocetus natans that was found in northern Pakistan."

http://darla.neoucom.edu/DEPTS/ANAT/Ambulocet.html