Summary:
1:
3: If anyone has a problem with science and question it's worth, I dont wank to sound harsh but you really should not exist. The table you are sitting infront of, the computer you are using, the food you eat, the car you drive, the light buld you see are all there because of science.
4: The idea that something was created out of nothing is flawed in both views. Evolution: something came out of nothing (Atoms...) Creation: Things came out of god, Where did god come out of? Evolution?
5: I will say again :
1:
2: Science is not based on proof? It is quite amazing how anyone can stand that position.
3: If anyone has a problem with science and question it's worth, I dont wank to sound harsh but you really should not exist. The table you are sitting infront of, the computer you are using, the food you eat, the car you drive, the light buld you see are all there because of science.
4: The idea that something was created out of nothing is flawed in both views. Evolution: something came out of nothing (Atoms...) Creation: Things came out of god, Where did god come out of? Evolution?
5: I will say again :
this doesnt sound right to me for some reason and i dont think it is. there were authors of these books and i believe they were carefully copied by monks whenever they were reproduced. sounds like you're mixing up native american folklore with the Bible.
ill not delve into this thread because i know i scanned over it as quickly as most other people did and didn't read. =) i believe in Jesus Christ as my personal savior tho. saving grace. coolbeans.
AT rules
[Q}2: Science is not based on proof? It is quite amazing how anyone can stand that position. [/quote]
I agree. Science is largely based on proof. Evidence, empirical data, that which is observable, testable, and repeatable. The scientific method is about gaining and analyzing results to go from hypothesis to conclusion, with the conclusion many times forming a new hypothesis.
Technology has innovated our world. No question about that. Science and technology are not the same thing. I suppose you can call technology a form of applied science. And, about not wanting to sound harsh... too bad. That's about as harsh as you can get. I don't think anyone has a problem with science, though, so you're probably ok, since your statement doesn't apply to anyone. Or perhaps it only applies to the people who don't exist and should not exist because they have a problem with science. And, furthermore, if there is a God, He is the God of science. Science is there because of Him. You're not going to sound very convincing to someone who maintains this perspective.
The Creationist's view is one in which God is a philosophically necessary being. Talk to linuxboy about metaphysics sometime. It's fun. The problem you run into is that every contingent being (i.e., everything we see now) requires a cause. The contingent things that caused these causes also themselves have causes. Up you go ad ininitum, creating the logic problem of an infinite regress of causes...
This is why the first cause must have been uncaused, something with pure actuality, something distinct from the universe itself. Creationists call this God. It is futile to question where God came from... because if something caused God, then God isn't God... by definition. So the question you have to ask yourself is whether this God exists or whether He does not. If He does not, you must come up with another explanation for the existence of your being... without creating an infinite regress of causes.
Good luck!
I agree. Science is largely based on proof. Evidence, empirical data, that which is observable, testable, and repeatable. The scientific method is about gaining and analyzing results to go from hypothesis to conclusion, with the conclusion many times forming a new hypothesis.
Technology has innovated our world. No question about that. Science and technology are not the same thing. I suppose you can call technology a form of applied science. And, about not wanting to sound harsh... too bad. That's about as harsh as you can get. I don't think anyone has a problem with science, though, so you're probably ok, since your statement doesn't apply to anyone. Or perhaps it only applies to the people who don't exist and should not exist because they have a problem with science. And, furthermore, if there is a God, He is the God of science. Science is there because of Him. You're not going to sound very convincing to someone who maintains this perspective.
The Creationist's view is one in which God is a philosophically necessary being. Talk to linuxboy about metaphysics sometime. It's fun. The problem you run into is that every contingent being (i.e., everything we see now) requires a cause. The contingent things that caused these causes also themselves have causes. Up you go ad ininitum, creating the logic problem of an infinite regress of causes...
This is why the first cause must have been uncaused, something with pure actuality, something distinct from the universe itself. Creationists call this God. It is futile to question where God came from... because if something caused God, then God isn't God... by definition. So the question you have to ask yourself is whether this God exists or whether He does not. If He does not, you must come up with another explanation for the existence of your being... without creating an infinite regress of causes.
Good luck!
I havn't read any of the other posts. So I may be repeating something.
Evolution was a stuff up ever since LIVING Coelacanths were found swimming in the ocean.
Swivel on that all ignorant supporters of evolution.
Evolution was a stuff up ever since LIVING Coelacanths were found swimming in the ocean.
Swivel on that all ignorant supporters of evolution.
your right, that is ignorant. the coelacanths have nothing to do with disproving evolution.
try again."UThomas, there is, I believe, still considerable controversy over whether modern man arose out of africa or whether he arose from separate Homo Erectus popluations on different continents, or a bit of both. There is an argument that Ancient and modern Asians share considerable similar physical features."
I do not believe speciation leading to modern humans occured spontaneously and compatibly at several remote sites, that is not how speciation happens. The studies in the last 5-15 years of midocondrial DNA as well as archeological evidence strongly support the Out of Africa theory. Plus, physical features aren't as important as genetic resemblance. Dogs can look way different (due to selective breeding) but are all the same species, where as some birds look almost identical but are different species.
Thomas
I do not believe speciation leading to modern humans occured spontaneously and compatibly at several remote sites, that is not how speciation happens. The studies in the last 5-15 years of midocondrial DNA as well as archeological evidence strongly support the Out of Africa theory. Plus, physical features aren't as important as genetic resemblance. Dogs can look way different (due to selective breeding) but are all the same species, where as some birds look almost identical but are different species.
Thomas
"Evolution was a stuff up ever since LIVING Coelacanths were found swimming in the ocean. "
The basis of your view on evolution is a TV comercial. You must feel very intellectual
Thomas
The basis of your view on evolution is a TV comercial. You must feel very intellectual
Thomas
Recent scientific theories imply that the universe had no beginning. Where does that leave your infinite regression of causes except as an infinite regression. Also it's one step shorter and therefore simpler and therefore more logical and therefore preferable, and so on, to assume that a temporally originated universe needs no cause than it is to add the extra step of a God cause that needs no cause. As long as we haven't the faintest idea of what we are talking about keep it simple.
MadRat
Lifer
- Oct 14, 1999
- 11,971
- 291
- 126
<<Quote originally by udonoogen
this doesnt sound right to me for some reason and i dont think it is. there were authors of these books and i believe they were carefully copied by monks whenever they were reproduced. sounds like you're mixing up native american folklore with the Bible.
ill not delve into this thread because i know i scanned over it as quickly as most other people did and didn't read. =) i believe in Jesus Christ as my personal savior tho. saving grace. coolbeans.>>
Oral tradition was alive and well long before written language. The Old Testament was just that, an oral testament to the truth.
this doesnt sound right to me for some reason and i dont think it is. there were authors of these books and i believe they were carefully copied by monks whenever they were reproduced. sounds like you're mixing up native american folklore with the Bible.
ill not delve into this thread because i know i scanned over it as quickly as most other people did and didn't read. =) i believe in Jesus Christ as my personal savior tho. saving grace. coolbeans.>>
Oral tradition was alive and well long before written language. The Old Testament was just that, an oral testament to the truth.
UThomas, I didn't post to argue, only to inform. The theory you disagree with has many serious supporters. I prefer the African Eve theory for esthetic reasons, but I'm not going to marry her. I'm keeping an open mind. We have to take truth where it leads, not where we want it to go.
That, of course, is the trouble with the Creationist theories. They are visible only to Biblical literalists. They convince some people powerfully because they want to be convinced. But if we look deeper we see that the source of that powerful urge to believe derives from a powerful feeling of rightness, of goodness, of inner suitability, of finding or being found, a priceless treasure. Believing in God is good and it creates, inwardly, something good.
Naturally people want to defend that. It's the feeling an optomist feels around a pessimist, blind to the glory by attitude.
Going deeper still, if one has a mind that will simply not leave well enough alone, one may seek a proof that that Good is real, and not just a product of wishful thinking. The end of that rat maze, of course, is dispair. When one has searched all the rooms of the mind for Good one realizes that everything is empty. There is no truth. There is no Good. Everything is completely relative. Then one can finally lay down and die, surrender, give up, relax. And into that void will rush your beating heart shouting "Oh my God Iam love, I love you".
Have a banana.
Ameesh, it was just on the forums in the last month or so. Will look for a link later if I have time.
That, of course, is the trouble with the Creationist theories. They are visible only to Biblical literalists. They convince some people powerfully because they want to be convinced. But if we look deeper we see that the source of that powerful urge to believe derives from a powerful feeling of rightness, of goodness, of inner suitability, of finding or being found, a priceless treasure. Believing in God is good and it creates, inwardly, something good.
Naturally people want to defend that. It's the feeling an optomist feels around a pessimist, blind to the glory by attitude.
Going deeper still, if one has a mind that will simply not leave well enough alone, one may seek a proof that that Good is real, and not just a product of wishful thinking. The end of that rat maze, of course, is dispair. When one has searched all the rooms of the mind for Good one realizes that everything is empty. There is no truth. There is no Good. Everything is completely relative. Then one can finally lay down and die, surrender, give up, relax. And into that void will rush your beating heart shouting "Oh my God Iam love, I love you".
Have a banana.
Ameesh, it was just on the forums in the last month or so. Will look for a link later if I have time.
All this talk of proof and evidence is great. The problem is that evolutionary theory is based on inductive reasoning rather than deductive reasoning. Good science depends on deductive reasoning, i.e. the scientific process. Evolutionary theory is based on assumptions. Evidence is gathered, and from this very specific information, the General Theory of Evolution has been generated. This movement from the specific to the general is inductive logic.
On January 8, 2002, President Bush signed into law the H.R. 1, the "No Child Left Behind Act," into which the "Santorum Amendment" was added, only slightly modified from the following wording was included as a non-binding sense-of-the-state declaration.
"(1) good science education should prepare students to distinguish the data or testable theories of science from philosophical or religious claims that are made in the name of science;
(2) where biological evolution is taught, the curriculum should help students to understand why this subject generates so much continuing controversy, and should prepare the students to be informed participants in public discussions regarding the subject."
Evolutionists are up in arms. Why? Because they well understand that Evolutionary Theory is Philosophical in nature. It is based on assumptions, not deductions.
On January 8, 2002, President Bush signed into law the H.R. 1, the "No Child Left Behind Act," into which the "Santorum Amendment" was added, only slightly modified from the following wording was included as a non-binding sense-of-the-state declaration.
"(1) good science education should prepare students to distinguish the data or testable theories of science from philosophical or religious claims that are made in the name of science;
(2) where biological evolution is taught, the curriculum should help students to understand why this subject generates so much continuing controversy, and should prepare the students to be informed participants in public discussions regarding the subject."
Evolutionists are up in arms. Why? Because they well understand that Evolutionary Theory is Philosophical in nature. It is based on assumptions, not deductions.
Mani
Diamond Member
- Aug 9, 2001
- 4,808
- 1
- 0
Science is not beholden to any mythical diety - it is the pursuit of truth through experimentation and observation. Religion is defined as belief in a supernatural power or powers regarded as the creator of the universe. Science holds no such belief. What you have done is personified scientific objectivity, and then used it as a mythical figure to fit it into your own definition of a religion.
Moonbeam - Don't get me wrong, I apreciate your point, but I think you are mischaracterizing it by saying "considerable controversy" especially in light of the research released on midocondrial DNA in the last 5 years. There was even a large article in Time about it. I have not seen support for the other theory, and speciation doesn't really work like that.
PastorDon -
"The problem is that evolutionary theory is based on inductive reasoning rather than deductive reasoning. Good science depends on deductive reasoning, i.e. the scientific process. Evolutionary theory is based on assumptions"
This is not correct. Heredity is a testable and repeatable fact. Genetic mechanisms leading to genetic change is a testable and repeatable fact. And natural selection and relative fitness are testable and repeatable facts. These are the 3 cornerstones of evolutionary theory. All of them are testable, repeatable, quantifiable facts.
Thomas
PastorDon -
"The problem is that evolutionary theory is based on inductive reasoning rather than deductive reasoning. Good science depends on deductive reasoning, i.e. the scientific process. Evolutionary theory is based on assumptions"
This is not correct. Heredity is a testable and repeatable fact. Genetic mechanisms leading to genetic change is a testable and repeatable fact. And natural selection and relative fitness are testable and repeatable facts. These are the 3 cornerstones of evolutionary theory. All of them are testable, repeatable, quantifiable facts.
Thomas
This is not correct. Heredity is a testable and repeatable fact. Genetic mechanisms leading to genetic change is a testable and repeatable fact. And natural selection and relative fitness are testable and repeatable facts. These are the 3 cornerstones of evolutionary theory. All of them are testable, repeatable, quantifiable facts.
UThomas,
Sincerest apologies. I was not clear in what I was saying. When I mentioned the General Theory of Evolution, I was specifically intending the generation of new Phyla - what is often referred to as macroevolution (as opposed to microevolution).
The last time I mentioned macroevolution the thread became a semantic chaos, with people denying that there is any difference between micro- and macro- evolution.
In what I was saying previously, microevolution would be the specific and macroevolution would be the general - using the terms basically as listed @ webster.com.
Thanks for the appropriate correction. Evolution certainly occurs. However deductive reasoning is not sufficient to the tast (at the moment) of declaring evolutionary forces responsible for the generation of new phyla. This is a product of inductive reasoning, i.e. Philosophy.
UThomas,
Sincerest apologies. I was not clear in what I was saying. When I mentioned the General Theory of Evolution, I was specifically intending the generation of new Phyla - what is often referred to as macroevolution (as opposed to microevolution).
The last time I mentioned macroevolution the thread became a semantic chaos, with people denying that there is any difference between micro- and macro- evolution.
In what I was saying previously, microevolution would be the specific and macroevolution would be the general - using the terms basically as listed @ webster.com.
Thanks for the appropriate correction. Evolution certainly occurs. However deductive reasoning is not sufficient to the tast (at the moment) of declaring evolutionary forces responsible for the generation of new phyla. This is a product of inductive reasoning, i.e. Philosophy.
Actually you don't have to believe in the 7 day stuff in the bible. Hell, the Pope even accepts both the big bang and evolution.
Mani Quote: Science is not beholden to any mythical diety - it is the pursuit of truth through experimentation and observation. Religion is defined as belief in a supernatural power or powers regarded as the creator of the universe. Science holds no such belief. What you have done is personified scientific objectivity, and then used it as a mythical figure to fit it into your own definition of a religion.
________________________________________________________________________________________________________
I didn't actually say that the scientist often thinks of himself as a deity although I suppose that does happen, so no science isn't beholden. And yes it is the persuit of truth as you describe. I wouldn't give such a confining definition to religion as you do. I would call myself religious but don't particularly think any proof can be given that God exists separate from humanity. There is nothing, in short, supernatural about Him. My claim that the objective observer is not real in the sense that science implies rests on my contention that there is no scientist who is not a part of his experiment. You would do better, in my opinion to attempt to minimize the connection than deny the fact. On the facts I think I win.
________________________________________________________________________________________________________
I didn't actually say that the scientist often thinks of himself as a deity although I suppose that does happen, so no science isn't beholden. And yes it is the persuit of truth as you describe. I wouldn't give such a confining definition to religion as you do. I would call myself religious but don't particularly think any proof can be given that God exists separate from humanity. There is nothing, in short, supernatural about Him. My claim that the objective observer is not real in the sense that science implies rests on my contention that there is no scientist who is not a part of his experiment. You would do better, in my opinion to attempt to minimize the connection than deny the fact. On the facts I think I win.
UThomas, a good description of the three competing theories can be had here.
Relevant to our discussion, note that the late breaking news favors the alternative interpretation I offered:
LATE BREAKING NEWS: Part of the mitochondrial DNA was extracted recently from the bones of a 60,000 year old modern Homo sapiens skeleton found in 1974 on the shores of Lake Mungo in Southeastern Australia. This is the oldest DNA that has been extracted from a human so far. Comparison of this DNA with that of nine other ancient Australian skeletons, 2 Neandertals, and 3,453 contemporary people from around the world indicates that "Mungo Man" had a unique genetic marker. This indicates that a now lost genetic line of modern Homo sapiens existed in Australia prior to the arrival of later Australian Aborigines. This evidence provides significant support for rejecting the "out of Africa" complete replacement model of modern Homo sapiens evolution.
(New Scientist January 2001)
MORE LATE BREAKING NEWS: In a March 7, 2002 article in Nature , Alan Templeton, a geneticist at Washington University, reported that a new computer based analysis of 10 different human DNA sequences indicate that there has been interbreeding between people living in Asia, Europe, and Africa for at least 600,000 years. These data suggest that the complete replacement model of Homo sapiens origin is incorrect. According to Templeton, "humans expanded again and again out of Africa, but these expansions resulted in interbreeding, not replacement, and thereby strengthened the genetic ties between human populations throughout the world." This view is gaining support among paleoanthropologists, but critics say that Templeton's sample is still too small to be conclusive.
Edit for faulty link
Relevant to our discussion, note that the late breaking news favors the alternative interpretation I offered:
LATE BREAKING NEWS: Part of the mitochondrial DNA was extracted recently from the bones of a 60,000 year old modern Homo sapiens skeleton found in 1974 on the shores of Lake Mungo in Southeastern Australia. This is the oldest DNA that has been extracted from a human so far. Comparison of this DNA with that of nine other ancient Australian skeletons, 2 Neandertals, and 3,453 contemporary people from around the world indicates that "Mungo Man" had a unique genetic marker. This indicates that a now lost genetic line of modern Homo sapiens existed in Australia prior to the arrival of later Australian Aborigines. This evidence provides significant support for rejecting the "out of Africa" complete replacement model of modern Homo sapiens evolution.
(New Scientist January 2001)
MORE LATE BREAKING NEWS: In a March 7, 2002 article in Nature , Alan Templeton, a geneticist at Washington University, reported that a new computer based analysis of 10 different human DNA sequences indicate that there has been interbreeding between people living in Asia, Europe, and Africa for at least 600,000 years. These data suggest that the complete replacement model of Homo sapiens origin is incorrect. According to Templeton, "humans expanded again and again out of Africa, but these expansions resulted in interbreeding, not replacement, and thereby strengthened the genetic ties between human populations throughout the world." This view is gaining support among paleoanthropologists, but critics say that Templeton's sample is still too small to be conclusive.
Edit for faulty link
PastorDon-
But the issue is, phyla are man made distinctions. The edges blur very closely between phyla. It is not extrapolation to assume that microevolution leads to macroevolution. Macroevolution is microevolution compounded over time, they differ only in degree, not type. For this not to be the case there has to be a distinct mechanism that prevents this. None has ever been shown.
Its not like microevolution is an engine, and macroevolution is a car. Its like microevolution is an engine, and macroevolution is a bunch of engines lined up together.
Many branches of science use deductive reasoning, it is not less valid a method. The difference between inductive and deducative reasoning is mostly in the way the arguments are expressed.
Thomas
But the issue is, phyla are man made distinctions. The edges blur very closely between phyla. It is not extrapolation to assume that microevolution leads to macroevolution. Macroevolution is microevolution compounded over time, they differ only in degree, not type. For this not to be the case there has to be a distinct mechanism that prevents this. None has ever been shown.
Its not like microevolution is an engine, and macroevolution is a car. Its like microevolution is an engine, and macroevolution is a bunch of engines lined up together.
Many branches of science use deductive reasoning, it is not less valid a method. The difference between inductive and deducative reasoning is mostly in the way the arguments are expressed.
Thomas
Moonbeam, that is interesting. Thanks for the link. I used the African Eve theory and the Out of Africa theory interchangably as terms and should not have. There does seem to have been a bit of controversy of whether the neanderthals were bred out, etc, since a single species of man is a relatively new occurance in history.
Thomas
Thomas
But the issue is, phyla are man made distinctions. The edges blur very closely between phyla.
Any system which we can use for discussion is man made. This does not invalidate the system.
Macroevolution is microevolution compounded over time, they differ only in degree, not type. For this not to be the case there has to be a distinct mechanism that prevents this. None has ever been shown.
You assume that macroevolution is microevolution compounded over time. In fact, macroevolution has never been observed. The only things we know of macroevolution are those things we assume to be true. Your statement that macroevolution in inevitable is way off. This has been submitted before, denying the observable median around which evolution occurs. In fruit flies, we have induced many known mutations. When a population is no longer exposed to the mutagens (radiation for example) the population returns to "normal". This is observable and must be taken as the norm until some other observable behavior is identified.
Many branches of science use deductive reasoning, it is not less valid a method. The difference between inductive and deductive reasoning is mostly in the way the arguments are expressed.
I'm sure that you intended to defend inductive reasoning, as what I advocated was deductive reason. Inductive reason is valid, as is Philosophy. However, you cannot declare any theory induced as having the weight of a theory deduced.
The differences are greater than you assume. One goes from the general to the specific, and one goes from the specific to the general.
Deductive Reasoning: All people are mortal, therefore I am mortal.
Inductive Reasoning: Plato is mortal, Aristotle is mortal, PastorDon is mortal. Therefore, all people are mortal.
A conclusion drawn from Inductive Reasoning MIGHT be true. But that is as strong a statement as one can make.
The fact that naturalist will not acknowledge this distinction shows that this is more political than it is intellectual.
Any system which we can use for discussion is man made. This does not invalidate the system.
But my point is that it is not like "this is a table and this is a chair" Defining species and seperating phyla are to some extent arbitrary. It is not table and chairs, pens and pencils. There are exceptions, and they blur together. Like many man made classification systems to define natural phenomenon.
You assume that macroevolution is microevolution compounded over time. In fact, macroevolution has never been observed. The only things we know of macroevolution are those things we assume to be true. Your statement that macroevolution in inevitable is way off. This has been submitted before, denying the observable median around which evolution occurs. In fruit flies, we have induced many known mutations. When a population is no longer exposed to the mutagens (radiation for example) the population returns to "normal". This is observable and must be taken as the norm until some other observable behavior is identified.
This is incorrect. What is the difference between microevolution and macroevolution? Specifically? Macroevolution (speciation) has been observed both in the lab and in nature on numerous occasions. It can be repeated in any college biology lab in about 2 weeks. Fruit flys (as well as beetles, many types of plants, etc) have demonstrated speciation in the lab before. Not just selecting against specific traits like peppered moths. Speciation. If there is speciation then there is macroevolution, bottom line. Unless you specifically show a mechanism that prevents it.
The differences are greater than you assume. One goes from the general to the specific, and one goes from the specific to the general.
Any inductive argument can also be expressed deductively, and any deductive argument can also be expressed inductively. They just require different types of evidence. At any rate, this is moot, since evolutionary theory uses both, as do many branches of science. Which makes sense, since you can inductively go from observation to theory, and then deductively go from theory to confirmation.
Thomas
But my point is that it is not like "this is a table and this is a chair" Defining species and seperating phyla are to some extent arbitrary. It is not table and chairs, pens and pencils. There are exceptions, and they blur together. Like many man made classification systems to define natural phenomenon.
You assume that macroevolution is microevolution compounded over time. In fact, macroevolution has never been observed. The only things we know of macroevolution are those things we assume to be true. Your statement that macroevolution in inevitable is way off. This has been submitted before, denying the observable median around which evolution occurs. In fruit flies, we have induced many known mutations. When a population is no longer exposed to the mutagens (radiation for example) the population returns to "normal". This is observable and must be taken as the norm until some other observable behavior is identified.
This is incorrect. What is the difference between microevolution and macroevolution? Specifically? Macroevolution (speciation) has been observed both in the lab and in nature on numerous occasions. It can be repeated in any college biology lab in about 2 weeks. Fruit flys (as well as beetles, many types of plants, etc) have demonstrated speciation in the lab before. Not just selecting against specific traits like peppered moths. Speciation. If there is speciation then there is macroevolution, bottom line. Unless you specifically show a mechanism that prevents it.
The differences are greater than you assume. One goes from the general to the specific, and one goes from the specific to the general.
Any inductive argument can also be expressed deductively, and any deductive argument can also be expressed inductively. They just require different types of evidence. At any rate, this is moot, since evolutionary theory uses both, as do many branches of science. Which makes sense, since you can inductively go from observation to theory, and then deductively go from theory to confirmation.
Thomas
These are all common knowledge (among those in the field) examples of speciation, and by no means do they encompass all or most of the available examples.
Example one:
Two strains of Drosophila paulistorum developed hybrid sterility of male offspring between 1958 and 1963. Artificial selection induced strong intra-strain mating preferences.
(Test for speciation: sterile offspring and lack of interbreeding affinity.)
Dobzhansky, Th., and O. Pavlovsky, 1971. "An experimentally created incipient species of Drosophila", Nature 23:289-292.
Example two:
Evidence that a species of fireweed formed by doubling of the chromosome count, from the original stock. (Note that polyploids are generally considered to be a separate "race" of the same species as the original stock, but they do meet the criteria which you suggested.)
(Test for speciation: cannot produce offspring with the original stock.)
Mosquin, T., 1967. "Evidence for autopolyploidy in Epilobium angustifolium (Onaagraceae)", Evolution 21:713-719
Example three:
Rapid speciation of the Faeroe Island house mouse, which occurred in less than 250 years after man brought the creature to the island.
(Test for speciation in this case is based on morphology. It is unlikely that forced breeding experiments have been performed with the parent stock.)
Stanley, S., 1979. Macroevolution: Pattern and Process, San Francisco, W.H. Freeman and Company. p. 41
Example four:
Formation of five new species of cichlid fishes which formed since they were isolated less than 4000 years ago from the parent stock, Lake Nagubago.
(Test for speciation in this case is by morphology and lack of natural interbreeding. These fish have complex mating rituals and different coloration. While it might be possible that different species are inter-fertile, they cannot be convinced to mate.)
Mayr, E., 1970. Populations, Species, and Evolution, Massachusetts, Harvard University Press. p. 348 )
Most of the current interest in speciation concerns theoretical issues. The large majority of biologists are convinced that speciation occurs. What they want to know more of is how it occurs. One relatively recent book on speciation (Otte and Endler 1989) has few examples of observed speciation, but a lot of discussion of theory and mechanisms.
Thomas
Example one:
Two strains of Drosophila paulistorum developed hybrid sterility of male offspring between 1958 and 1963. Artificial selection induced strong intra-strain mating preferences.
(Test for speciation: sterile offspring and lack of interbreeding affinity.)
Dobzhansky, Th., and O. Pavlovsky, 1971. "An experimentally created incipient species of Drosophila", Nature 23:289-292.
Example two:
Evidence that a species of fireweed formed by doubling of the chromosome count, from the original stock. (Note that polyploids are generally considered to be a separate "race" of the same species as the original stock, but they do meet the criteria which you suggested.)
(Test for speciation: cannot produce offspring with the original stock.)
Mosquin, T., 1967. "Evidence for autopolyploidy in Epilobium angustifolium (Onaagraceae)", Evolution 21:713-719
Example three:
Rapid speciation of the Faeroe Island house mouse, which occurred in less than 250 years after man brought the creature to the island.
(Test for speciation in this case is based on morphology. It is unlikely that forced breeding experiments have been performed with the parent stock.)
Stanley, S., 1979. Macroevolution: Pattern and Process, San Francisco, W.H. Freeman and Company. p. 41
Example four:
Formation of five new species of cichlid fishes which formed since they were isolated less than 4000 years ago from the parent stock, Lake Nagubago.
(Test for speciation in this case is by morphology and lack of natural interbreeding. These fish have complex mating rituals and different coloration. While it might be possible that different species are inter-fertile, they cannot be convinced to mate.)
Mayr, E., 1970. Populations, Species, and Evolution, Massachusetts, Harvard University Press. p. 348 )
Most of the current interest in speciation concerns theoretical issues. The large majority of biologists are convinced that speciation occurs. What they want to know more of is how it occurs. One relatively recent book on speciation (Otte and Endler 1989) has few examples of observed speciation, but a lot of discussion of theory and mechanisms.
Thomas
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 21K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter