Religious Debate... Again...

i don't see how it has a small probability of being what got us to where we are.

the only other option is intelligent design, which just disregards all science in favor of fairy tales.

we know the universe has macro evolved to have asteroids, and then planets, and so forth. its the same chaos that caused life to start, and prosper.

Just because it's the only thing we've thought of, and the one we are most likely to chose from a scientific perspective, does not mean that it is the only possibility. Humans, despite what we'd like to think, have not seen everything there is to see in the world. Not even close.

The probability of macro-evolution working out is an astronomically unlikely scenario, but it is the most simple and plausible of scenarios that science has offered so far.

If it wasn't an abnormality, pretty much every plant would have sentient aliens on them and Earth's variety would be substantially greater.

So much for Rapture.... Do you think it will ever happen?

I'm really not sure about this Harold Camping guy. I mean, the rapture itself is only mentioned once or twice in the Bible, and not everyone even agrees whether it will be before or after the millennial reign of Christ on Earth. How some guy manages to determine the specific date and time of the rapture is rather foolish, if you ask me. And, more importantly, stating that the destruction of Earth will take place five months after the rapture when the Bible seems to indicate that it will take place over the course of seven years is also rather silly.

I guess on Sunday when the #Rapture people feel really upset, we can't console them by saying "Cheer up, it's not the end of the world". - Kieran Healy

Why is thinking the rapture will occur on a specific date any more foolish then thinking the rapture will occur at all? In both cases there's a complete lack of evidence, so...

Just because it's the only thing we've thought of, and the one we are most likely to chose from a scientific perspective, does not mean that it is the only possibility. Humans, despite what we'd like to think, have not seen everything there is to see in the world. Not even close.

The only thing we thought of? Er, not quite, first we thought the wind and the earth were gods/creators and that was that, then we thought the sun and moon were gods, and then finally, because the previous postulations were shown not to be true by basic science and common sense, god became something that was so intangible, it could never really be proven wrong, so, home safe I guess? No wait, then we discovered science.

I mean, yeah, we haven't observed everything in the universe, but do you really think we'll ever discover something that shows the earth is really on the back of a giant turtle? Or that the earth was created by a celestial bearded entity in the sky based on a 2000+ year old collection of desert manuscripts? Or that everything we've ever discovered is some elaborate ruse made by the creator of the universe to make belief in him more difficult, thereby dooming the more reasonable people to burn in a lake of fire forever?

Saying "We don't know everything" is a pretty poor argument against everything we know. You know, the veritable mountains of collective knowledge that has made everything in our civilization possible?

Plus, you're REALLY underselling our understanding in the matter of origins, origin of the earth, the development of life, science in general. Not so much what we think into existence, but rather what we observe and measure, and draw conclusions upon. I mean, the way you say it it's almost like you think Charles Darwin said to himself one day: "Hey, I know!, All life evolved from more primitive forms to better take advantage of the environment!" While he laid back in a hammock aboard the Beagle. I mean, that's how it sounds to me when you say: "Think up".

The probability of macro-evolution working out is an astronomically unlikely scenario, but it is the most simple and plausible of scenarios that science has offered so far.

Probability of macro-evolution working is an astronomically unlikely scenario? What? How did you determine this? What evidence can you cite in support of this? Please answer this Civ, I'm dying to hear how you, in spite of every ounce of scientific knowledge compiled ever, reached this conclusion.

Also, the simplest scenario is: Big bearded man in sky willed the universe, and everything in it's current form, into existence.

That wasn't the argument, though. The argument was whether or not macroevolution was proven fact or not. Whether or not people who don't absolutely believe in macroevolution as absolute fact are stupid.

It's not right to equate the support of Macroevolutionary theory as a "belief", in the same way the support of Christianity or Islam or Judaism or Hinduism is a belief. Evolutionary theory is a precept derived from facts, not the other way around. Whether or not you think it's true doesn't weigh down in the slightest on whether or not the facts are true, whereas if you don't think Islam is true, it ceases to be true or exist as there are no facts that support it in the real world. If everyones memory was erased, Islam, Christianity, and every other faith based ideology is lost forever, while we can relearn round earth theory and radiometric dating.

FYI, Macroevolutionary theory is an absolute fact, facts support it, and we observe it.

faith   
[feyth] Show IPA
–noun
1.
confidence or trust in a person or thing: faith in another's ability.
2.
belief that is not based on proof: He had faith that the hypothesis would be substantiated by fact.
3.
belief in god or in the doctrines or teachings of religion: the firm faith of the Pilgrims.

People don't necessarily 'believe' in facts, they know them, they understand them, or they don't, their reality isn't tied to whether or not bipedal talking apes think it's true. Think about it this way, if our entire population was destroyed by a disease, except for a remote pocket tribesmen in the Amazon, who later developed science and technology and reclaimed the earth, would they be able to come to the same conclusions as we did based on what they could observe? If they developed geometry, and space travel, they would probably be able to see the earth as a round sphere rotating and revolving around the sun, if they re-invented microscopes, they would probably see that microorganisms cause diseases, and not evil spirits, and if they invented chemistry, they would probably observe nuclear decay as we do now, and because the rate at which isotopes decay is quantitative, they would conclude that the earth is 4.6 billion years old.

On the other hand, if our population was wiped out except for this small remote group, they wouldn't be able to relearn or reobserve Christianity or Islam. The entire magisteria of modern religion would be completely lost with us as I'm sure happened to many ancient civilizations in the past already.

I kind of feel that RL, although crazy almost all the time, also isn't arguing that its complete fact, but only that to think it unlikely or improbable is fairly ignorant.

Well, I have provided evidence on how it's a fact (whereas my opponents have failed to do this entirely), so I would say I have in fact been arguing for it's factuality.















































Also, I don't think I ever got your response to my point on radiocarbon dating Rot, or are we just going to forget that now?

I don't follow you're voodoo stuff but I have come across this verse in your necronomicon thing


Matthew 24:36
"But of that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels
of heaven, nor the Son, but the Father alone."



If the angels and Jesus Fucking Christ (as i've been led to believe his name is by the various times i've heard the name yelled during sporting events) don't know when the Rapture is coming then im rather sure we aren't going to get the one up on ol' Jesus.

Yeah, so does that mean God doesn't know everything and is therefore not omniscient and thereby omnipotent?

Means Jesus don't know so some guy in a funny hat sure as shit won't.

Ringleader wrote:Yeah, so does that mean God doesn't know everything and is therefore not omniscient and thereby omnipotent?

"But of that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels
of heaven, nor the Son, but the Father alone."

durp

Ringleader wrote:

Just because it's the only thing we've thought of, and the one we are most likely to chose from a scientific perspective, does not mean that it is the only possibility. Humans, despite what we'd like to think, have not seen everything there is to see in the world. Not even close.

The only thing we thought of? Er, not quite, first we thought the wind and the earth were gods/creators and that was that, then we thought the sun and moon were gods, and then finally, because the previous postulations were shown not to be true by basic science and common sense, god became something that was so intangible, it could never really be proven wrong, so, home safe I guess? No wait, then we discovered science.

I mean, yeah, we haven't observed everything in the universe, but do you really think we'll ever discover something that shows the earth is really on the back of a giant turtle? Or that the earth was created by a celestial bearded entity in the sky based on a 2000+ year old collection of desert manuscripts? Or that everything we've ever discovered is some elaborate ruse made by the creator of the universe to make belief in him more difficult, thereby dooming the more reasonable people to burn in a lake of fire forever?

Saying "We don't know everything" is a pretty poor argument against everything we know. You know, the veritable mountains of collective knowledge that has made everything in our civilization possible?

Plus, you're REALLY underselling our understanding in the matter of origins, origin of the earth, the development of life, science in general. Not so much what we think into existence, but rather what we observe and measure, and draw conclusions upon. I mean, the way you say it it's almost like you think Charles Darwin said to himself one day: "Hey, I know!, All life evolved from more primitive forms to better take advantage of the environment!" While he laid back in a hammock aboard the Beagle. I mean, that's how it sounds to me when you say: "Think up".

You've effectively ignored my point. I said that, with the knowledge that humanity has accumulated, evolution is the only non-divine answer that we've thought of. Evolution is not fact; it's just an idea that fits the model.

You have a twisted idea of what creationists think. We don't want science to start using divine intervention as conclusion in the face of difficult situations. What we want is for "scientific" people to stop bad-mouthing us because they think they've provided enough evidence to disprove all religion.

Ringleader wrote:

The probability of macro-evolution working out is an astronomically unlikely scenario, but it is the most simple and plausible of scenarios that science has offered so far.

Probability of macro-evolution working is an astronomically unlikely scenario? What? How did you determine this? What evidence can you cite in support of this? Please answer this Civ, I'm dying to hear how you, in spite of every ounce of scientific knowledge compiled ever, reached this conclusion.

I'm sorry, Mr. Scientist. I didn't know we had to run elaborate experiments to prove common sense.

Tell me: How many planets do you know of that have sentient life? How many new species have you seen naturally created in your lifetime? How much life have you seen spawning out of rocks, water, and lightning?

I love how you completely ignored my next phrase, which explained that. "If it wasn't an abnormality, pretty much every plant would have sentient aliens on them and Earth's variety would be substantially greater."

Ringleader wrote:Also, the simplest scenario is: Big bearded man in sky willed the universe, and everything in it's current form, into existence.

Ring. Just because I believe in God doesn't mean I'm ignorant to how science works. Why is it that you are providing me with "God did it" as a plausible answer when you know very well that it is one we cannot use from a scientific outlook?

Kasrkin Seath wrote:

Ringleader wrote:Yeah, so does that mean God doesn't know everything and is therefore not omniscient and thereby omnipotent?

"But of that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels
of heaven, nor the Son, but the Father alone."

durp

Aren't God and Jesus one though?

That's a pure Catholic belief I think

CivBase wrote:

Ringleader wrote:

Just because it's the only thing we've thought of, and the one we are most likely to chose from a scientific perspective, does not mean that it is the only possibility. Humans, despite what we'd like to think, have not seen everything there is to see in the world. Not even close.

The only thing we thought of? Er, not quite, first we thought the wind and the earth were gods/creators and that was that, then we thought the sun and moon were gods, and then finally, because the previous postulations were shown not to be true by basic science and common sense, god became something that was so intangible, it could never really be proven wrong, so, home safe I guess? No wait, then we discovered science.

I mean, yeah, we haven't observed everything in the universe, but do you really think we'll ever discover something that shows the earth is really on the back of a giant turtle? Or that the earth was created by a celestial bearded entity in the sky based on a 2000+ year old collection of desert manuscripts? Or that everything we've ever discovered is some elaborate ruse made by the creator of the universe to make belief in him more difficult, thereby dooming the more reasonable people to burn in a lake of fire forever?

Saying "We don't know everything" is a pretty poor argument against everything we know. You know, the veritable mountains of collective knowledge that has made everything in our civilization possible?

Plus, you're REALLY underselling our understanding in the matter of origins, origin of the earth, the development of life, science in general. Not so much what we think into existence, but rather what we observe and measure, and draw conclusions upon. I mean, the way you say it it's almost like you think Charles Darwin said to himself one day: "Hey, I know!, All life evolved from more primitive forms to better take advantage of the environment!" While he laid back in a hammock aboard the Beagle. I mean, that's how it sounds to me when you say: "Think up".

You've effectively ignored my point.


I said that, with the knowledge that humanity has accumulated, evolution is the only non-divine answer that we've thought of. Evolution is not fact; it's just an idea that fits the model.

The Hysterical part is, you don't address ANY of my rebuttals except what you perceive to be some mistake, how many of my actual points have you even considered?

The religious response method: Ignore 99% of the points, sources and evidences shown, find a chink in the veritable mountain of proof presented and expound hugely upon it while ignoring everything else while not providing sources of my own and claiming the need not to as it's common sense.

It's like, that's what your used to, and what you feel is actually valid and acceptable, to say things like: I don't need to show proof of how macroevolution is astronomically improbable, because it's common sense to me, and if it wasn't an abnormality, every plant would have sentient organisms living on them! Like these claims are made real by you saying them.

Like, ROT still hasn't even addressed my point on radiometric dating, and how several different isotopes are used to acquire just one date, and I don't expect him to either. That's what I expect now, and that's sad.

And, no, religion was humanities first shot at explaining things, like science, it was the formation of models in response to observing the natural world. To someone alive 4,000 years ago that didn't know anything about fossils, radiometric dating, round earth theory, they filled in all the blanks with: Goddunit, now be a good boy, treat women and slaves like how how our society condones, and give the temple your hard earned coin.

You have a twisted idea of what creationists think. We don't want science to start using divine intervention as conclusion in the face of difficult situations.

Wrong, that's exactly what's going on and you know it.

We already have the conclusions, we already have the facts, the FACT that you don't know about them enough to even make logical claims about it shows that yes, you DO wan't to start using divine intervention to explain 'difficult' situations. Difficult in what sense? In the sense that it goes against your preconceived notions? Meaning it's bad for you if it's true? Meaning if there were any alternatives to accepting the facts, even pretending that you know them and still think their fallacious while not even caring to address the points I've already made and the evidence I've shown with respects to radiometric dating, fossil evidence, law of super-positioning, gene trees?

We hear in the news: Local group want's schools to 'teach the controversy'... WHAT CONTROVERSY?! Like there's some big room debate going on amongst the scientific academia. Created hysteria to make science LOOK like it doesn't have the answers or that the answers aren't strong enough to hold up as teaching material in schools, which is just total bullshit. The fact that were allowing this retardation of learning in schools, or that were actually even CONSIDERING it is disgusting, but that's OK, because even if our future generations are so handicapped that they can't even compete in the modern world, they'll still go to heaven when they die!

What we want is for "scientific" people to stop bad-mouthing us because they think they've provided enough evidence to disprove all religion.

Oh, the quote-unquote SCIENTIFIC people, those bastards! What did they ever do besides giving us everything we use on a daily basis! How dare they present something that makes me feel sad and it doesn't even make like easier, what a jip!

FYI, they have provided plenty of evidence, more then enough, WAY more then enough, here's but a taste:

http://records.viu.ca/~johnstoi/essays/courtenay1.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peppered_moth_evolution
http://www.dinosaurjungle.com/dinosaur_facts_familytree.php
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cladistics
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-misconceptions.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html
http://darwiniana.org/transitionals.htm
http://phylointelligence.org/observed.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speciation
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_of_common_descent <------------- Read entire thing (if you're actually serious about learning stuff.)

I posted it, see, but I'm almost certain your just going to skip over this, or completely ignore it.

Ringleader wrote:

The probability of macro-evolution working out is an astronomically unlikely scenario, but it is the most simple and plausible of scenarios that science has offered so far.

Probability of macro-evolution working is an astronomically unlikely scenario? What? How did you determine this? What evidence can you cite in support of this? Please answer this Civ, I'm dying to hear how you, in spite of every ounce of scientific knowledge compiled ever, reached this conclusion.

I'm sorry, Mr. Scientist. I didn't know we had to run elaborate experiments to prove common sense.

Well, yes, yes you do, lol. That's kinda how this thing works!

You would have to find some reason (a darn good one) why every scrap of evidence compiled flew in the face of Macroevolutionary theory, and by all means, don't hold back, if the probability is indeed astronomical, you should have no trouble in doing so, na?

Since this is such a make or break point on your part, I will ask the question no less then 4 more times:


How is it common sense?

How is it common sense?

How is it common sense?

How is it common sense?


It must be common sense in the sense that you get it and 95% of biologists, the people that actually study and LEARN the stuff don't, oh...

Tell me: How many planets do you know of that have sentient life? How many new species have you seen naturally created in your lifetime? How much life have you seen spawning out of rocks, water, and lightning?

Dood,

Abiogenesis =/= Macroevolution.

That's like, the original ID straw man, that's been answered how many thousands of times in the past I wonder...

We haven't thoroughly explored any planets except for our own (barely), and our telescopes aren't powerful enough to see anything on planets in other solar systems, but again, abiogenesis has little to do with macroevolution. We can't see the surface of other planets, which is why it's still up in the air, and why no serious scientist is absolutely committed to the idea one way or the other despite it being a strong likelihood based on recent discoveries of exoplanets with comparable conditions as earth, quite opposite to the priests and pastors that say things with absolute conviction despite the complete lack of evidence.

The first self replicating strand of life would have been so basic compared to even the simplest bacteria today, we wouldn't see any more generate as each niche in which an organic chain of molecules could possibly form and replicate is already chock full of far more advanced organisms.

As for examples of new organisms forming due to macroevolutionary process, please refer to my previous posts which gives many examples of new species forming within our own period of observation.

I love how you completely ignored my next phrase, which explained that. "If it wasn't an abnormality, pretty much every plant would have sentient aliens on them and Earth's variety would be substantially greater."

Well, you just made a ridiculous claim without even saying why it should be this way, then asked me to address it, like if I said: If Allah is real, how come we don't see trees that are over 5000 miles tall?! PS, I love you how just ignored the vast majority of points I made, props.

You said that without providing any evidence to why it's true. You just said: "If it wasn't an abnormality, pretty much every plant would have sentient aliens on them and Earth's variety would be substantially greater." This only demonstrates how little you actually know ABOUT evolution in general. The process doesn't work with the underlaying intention of creating sentient intelligent life as the terminus, it's merely a process by which genes which are subject to mutations with potential positive and negative effects, make copies of themselves in organic vessels that are able to facilitate the process of duplication in their environment.

Thinking about it in a linear fashion that's only function is to ultimately end up with intelligent life is simply not what Evolutionary theory claims, which is why I implore you to actually look it up.

So is man the latest end product of evolution since the beginning of life on earth? Well, yes, so are the ants crawling around in your backyard right now. Both are modern organisms and the culmination of eons worth of natural selection.

Ringleader wrote:Also, the simplest scenario is: Big bearded man in sky willed the universe, and everything in it's current form, into existence.

Ring. Just because I believe in God doesn't mean I'm ignorant to how science works.

Right, only the science that makes you feel uncomfortable. Isn't that the simpler explanation though?

Why is it that you are providing me with "God did it" as a plausible answer when you know very well that it is one we cannot use from a scientific outlook?

Huh? What?

Well, because it's the one you imply when you say Macroevolution is the only theory science has produced, then say it's astronomically unlikely (without any proof or explanation of why this is true).

If I understand this statement correctly, your asking me why I posited creation of the universe by an all-father figure as a possibility, a slim one albeit, knowing it's the one we cannot use from a scientific outlook? Well, because I'm agnostic to whether or not God is real in the same sense that I'm agnostic to whether or not there's a celestial teapot in orbit over Mars, but there very well may be both, and it's not my contention to try and refute either, but, CLAIMING them in spite of everything we observe in the world now, everything we act based on, every shred of factual evidence ever gathered, claiming something something so obscenely beyond what we can see with our own eyes, and feel with our own hands, just to entertain some thought that we never die, but go to paradise for eternity is just insulting to everything mankind has achieved and everything we are capable of achieving.

Plus, I also know that the foundation by which science is capable of answering the big questions, and the astronomical probabilities you claim, is quite literally mountain sized, if you were to print out everything, every observation we've taken note of, the resulting stack of paper would no doubt ascend to nauseating heights. AND, I'm very confident the scientific community will find the answers to such questions as: Is there life on other planets? and, Can life spawn from organic compounds? In the near distant future as we all should.










































































Also, I don't think I ever got your response to my point on radiocarbon/radiometric dating Rot, or are we just going to forget that now?

Civ wrote:You have a twisted idea of what creationists think. We don't want science to start using divine intervention as conclusion in the face of difficult situations. What we want is for "scientific" people to stop bad-mouthing us because they think they've provided enough evidence to disprove all religion.

No intelligent person thinks that Civ. The point is not that the idea of a God is stupid, or implausible. The point is that actively BELIEVING that there ABSOLUTELY is an all-powerful creator, as described in the Bible, watching our every move is just fucking silly.

No scientist will ever tell you that a theory needs "Proof" to be valid. What a theory needs is a solid amount of evidence to back it up. INTELLIGENT DESIGN DOES NOT HAVE THAT. It is a possibility, but it is not a legitimate theory, as there is not a shred of evidence that suggests it.

There is nothing wrong with looking up at the sky, and daydreaming about the all the different possibilities. There's nothing wrong with hoping that you won't one day simply cease to exist.

There IS something wrong with claiming to know, with absolute or even relative certainty, that there is a Heaven. YOU DON'T KNOW THAT, and there's no rational reason for you to even think that.

Ringleader wrote:The Hysterical part is, you don't address ANY of my rebuttals except what you perceive to be some mistake, how many of my actual points have you even considered?

To be honest, I skimmed most of it because you made it very clear in your first few sentences that you ignored what I said and just wanted to sound intelligent by talking about random off-topic crap.

Ringleader wrote:The religious response method: Ignore 99% of the points, sources and evidences shown, find a chink in the veritable mountain of proof presented and expound hugely upon it while ignoring everything else while not providing sources of my own and claiming the need not to as it's common sense.

....I didn't target a small chunk of information that you gave me. I just said "you ignored what I said" and chose to instead re-affirm my previous statement.

Ringleader wrote:It's like, that's what your used to, and what you feel is actually valid and acceptable, to say things like: I don't need to show proof of how macroevolution is astronomically improbable, because it's common sense to me, and if it wasn't an abnormality, every plant would have sentient organisms living on them! Like these claims are made real by you saying them.

Are you suggesting that every planet has sentient organisms living on them?

Ringleader wrote:Like, ROT still hasn't even addressed my point on radiometric dating, and how several different isotopes are used to acquire just one date, and I don't expect him to either. That's what I expect now, and that's sad.

I'm not Rot, nor have I read what he posted.

Ringleader wrote:And, no, religion was humanities first shot at explaining things, like science, it was the formation of models in response to observing the natural world. To someone alive 4,000 years ago that didn't know anything about fossils, radiometric dating, round earth theory, they filled in all the blanks with: Goddunit, now be a good boy, treat women and slaves like how how our society condones, and give the temple your hard earned coin.

This is why I went back and bolded "from a scientific perspective." Again, you ignored what I said and tried to sound smart by spitting about a bunch of crap that has nothing to do with the argument. I realism evolution wasn't the first attempt at explaining our creation. What I said was that it is the only scientifically-accepted attempt (to my knowledge) that has been produced.

Ringleader wrote:Wrong, that's exactly what's going on and you know it.

...

You DO realize that I'm looking down the barrel of a degree in physics, computer engineering, and actuary science... right? Don't make irrational claims like that.

Ringleader wrote:We already have the conclusions, we already have the facts, the FACT that you don't know about them enough to even make logical claims about it shows that yes, you DO wan't to start using divine intervention to explain 'difficult' situations. Difficult in what sense? In the sense that it goes against your preconceived notions? Meaning it's bad for you if it's true? Meaning if there were any alternatives to accepting the facts, even pretending that you know them and still think their fallacious while not even caring to address the points I've already made and the evidence I've shown with respects to radiometric dating, fossil evidence, law of super-positioning, gene trees?

This might shock you, but I don't think divine intervention should be an answer that scientists should accept for any situation. Why exactly are we arguing about what I believe? Do you seriously think you know what I think better than I do just because I believe in God? That, sir, is ignorance at its greatest.

Ringleader wrote:We hear in the news: Local group want's schools to 'teach the controversy'... WHAT CONTROVERSY?! Like there's some big room debate going on amongst the scientific academia. Created hysteria to make science LOOK like it doesn't have the answers or that the answers aren't strong enough to hold up as teaching material in schools, which is just total bullshit. The fact that were allowing this retardation of learning in schools, or that were actually even CONSIDERING it is disgusting, but that's OK, because even if our future generations are so handicapped that they can't even compete in the modern world, they'll still go to heaven when they die!

This might also shock you, but I believe that microevolution should be taught in public schools. However, students stand nothing to gain from learning either macroevolution or creationist beliefs, so I see no reason to teach either in school.

Ringleader wrote:Oh, the quote-unquote SCIENTIFIC people, those bastards! What did they ever do besides giving us everything we use on a daily basis! How dare they present something that makes me feel sad and it doesn't even make like easier, what a jip!

I put scientific in quotes because actual scientific people, for the most part, do not bad-mouth religious people. Atheists use science as a false identity to make them seem more credible, but the only true scientific opinion on creation is total agnosticism. Creation is not something that can be observed nor is it important to know so there is no reason to choose to believe in the presence or lack-there-of of a divine being.

Ringleader wrote:FYI, they have provided plenty of evidence, more then enough, WAY more then enough, here's but a taste:

http://records.viu.ca/~johnstoi/essays/courtenay1.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peppered_moth_evolution
http://www.dinosaurjungle.com/dinosaur_facts_familytree.php
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cladistics
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-misconceptions.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html
http://darwiniana.org/transitionals.htm
http://phylointelligence.org/observed.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speciation
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_of_common_descent <------------- Read entire thing (if you're actually serious about learning stuff.)

I posted it, see, but I'm almost certain your just going to skip over this, or completely ignore it.

I'm guessing you didn't actually read any of it. You just remembered some stuff that you read about in the past and looked for a billion wikipedia links to post on here so that I would be deterred from reading it all you and could feel good about yourself because you correctly predicted I wouldn't actually read it all.

News flash: None of these articles disprove religion. They provide evidence for macroevolution, though most of the articles either provide similar evidence for a common creator or can be explained by other events by creationists.

Ringleader wrote:Well, yes, yes you do, lol. That's kinda how this thing works!

No... no, it's kinda not. They're called observations.

Ringleader wrote:You would have to find some reason (a darn good one) why every scrap of evidence compiled flew in the face of Macroevolutionary theory, and by all means, don't hold back, if the probability is indeed astronomical, you should have no trouble in doing so, na?

... the probability is not for Macroevolution being the correct theory. It would be irrational to assign a probability to that because there are only two possibilities: correct or incorrect. The astronomical probability is for life on earth to have successfully been created via the ideas of Macroevolution. Any scientist, including those who subscribe to the theory, would agree with that.

In fact, would someone from the evolution side please back me up on this? (the large, red lettering is to catch their attention, not to create emphasis)

Ringleader wrote:Since this is such a make or break point on your part, I will ask the question no less then 4 more times:

How is it common sense?

How is it common sense?

How is it common sense?

How is it common sense?

Because of the billions of planets we've studied, we haven't found any with sentient life.

...were you not aware of this?

Ringleader wrote:It must be common sense in the sense that you get it and 95% of biologists, the people that actually study and LEARN the stuff don't, oh...

They do get it. Either you're one of the few who don't, or you misread what I said. You really should read more carefully before you make these big posts. It sounds to me like you're just assuming what I'm going to say rather than actually reading it.

Ringleader wrote:We haven't thoroughly explored any planets except for our own (barely), and our telescopes aren't powerful enough to see anything on planets in other solar systems, but again, abiogenesis has little to do with macroevolution. We can't see the surface of other planets, which is why it's still up in the air, and why no serious scientist is absolutely committed to the idea one way or the other despite it being a strong likelihood based on recent discoveries of exoplanets with comparable conditions as earth, quite opposite to the priests and pastors that say things with absolute conviction despite the complete lack of evidence.

We examine planets in many ways other than site. Still, this is why I also asked "How many new species have you seen naturally created in your lifetime? How much life have you seen spawning out of rocks, water, and lightning?"

Ringleader wrote:The first self replicating strand of life would have been so basic compared to even the simplest bacteria today, we wouldn't see any more generate as each niche in which an organic chain of molecules could possibly form and replicate is already chock full of far more advanced organisms.

We're not discussing the origin of life. We're discussing Macroevolution: the idea of all species on Earth evolving from a single, original species. If you want to talk about the origin of life, all you have to do is look to the hundreds of failed (and never successful) attempts at creating life.

Ringleader wrote:As for examples of new organisms forming due to macroevolutionary process, please refer to my previous posts which gives many examples of new species forming within our own period of observation.

I suppose I asked the wrong question there, and I apologize. Rather than a new species, I was referring to a new family or genus.

Ringleader wrote:You said that without providing any evidence to why it's true. You just said: "If it wasn't an abnormality, pretty much every plant would have sentient aliens on them and Earth's variety would be substantially greater." This only demonstrates how little you actually know ABOUT evolution in general. The process doesn't work with the underlaying intention of creating sentient intelligent life as the terminus, it's merely a process by which genes which are subject to mutations with potential positive and negative effects, make copies of themselves in organic vessels that are able to facilitate the process of duplication in their environment.

You are referring to microevolution, which is the variation of a species to adapt to its environment.

Macroevolution is about all life being created by radical variations from a single parent species.

Ringleader wrote:Right, only the science that makes you feel uncomfortable. Isn't that the simpler explanation though?

Macroevolution doesn't make me feel uncomfortable. It is a plausible idea and I have no problem with its existence or even its acceptance by the scientific community. What I don't like is when it is labeled as science.

Macroevolution is a suggestion for the creation of life based on the theory of evolution (which I have regularly referred to as microevolution and supported throughout the entirety of this thread). There is no way to test or observe Macroevolution; it's an attempt at explaining the origin of today's species while following scientific guide-lines (meaning it has to form to currently accepted scientific theories and it cannot claim "God did it" as an explanation).

Ringleader wrote:Well, because it's the one you imply when you say Macroevolution is the only theory science has produced, then say it's astronomically unlikely (without any proof or explanation of why this is true).

1. It is the only theory (to my knowledge... I've certainly never heard of another)
2. I didn't think you would contest me on the unlikelyhood

Ringleader wrote:If I understand this statement correctly, your asking me why I posited creation of the universe by an all-father figure as a possibility, a slim one albeit, knowing it's the one we cannot use from a scientific outlook? Well, because I'm agnostic to whether or not God is real in the same sense that I'm agnostic to whether or not there's a celestial teapot in orbit over Mars, but there very well may be both, and it's not my contention to try and refute either, but, CLAIMING them in spite of everything we observe in the world now, everything we act based on, every shred of factual evidence ever gathered, claiming something something so obscenely beyond what we can see with our own eyes, and feel with our own hands, just to entertain some thought that we never die, but go to paradise for eternity is just insulting to everything mankind has achieved and everything we are capable of achieving.

You choose not to believe. That's fine with me; I never asked you to.

Ringleader wrote:Plus, I also know that the foundation by which science is capable of answering the big questions, and the astronomical probabilities you claim, is quite literally mountain sized, if you were to print out everything, every observation we've taken note of, the resulting stack of paper would no doubt ascend to nauseating heights.

We've? I'm sorry... I had no idea you worked there. Perhaps you would care to share some of your studies.

Ringleader wrote:AND, I'm very confident the scientific community will find the answers to such questions as: Is there life on other planets? and, Can life spawn from organic compounds? In the near distant future as we all should.

I am of the same confidence.

ReconToaster wrote:No intelligent person thinks that Civ.

I think Recon just burned you, Ringleader... >.>

ReconToaster wrote:The point is not that the idea of a God is stupid, or implausible. The point is that actively BELIEVING that there ABSOLUTELY is an all-powerful creator, as described in the Bible, watching our every move is just fucking silly.

To you, perhaps. I haven't lost from it.

ReconToaster wrote:No scientist will ever tell you that a theory needs "Proof" to be valid. What a theory needs is a solid amount of evidence to back it up. INTELLIGENT DESIGN DOES NOT HAVE THAT. It is a possibility, but it is not a legitimate theory, as there is not a shred of evidence that suggests it.

I do not wish for my beliefs to be scientifically accepted.

ReconToaster wrote:There is nothing wrong with looking up at the sky, and daydreaming about the all the different possibilities. There's nothing wrong with hoping that you won't one day simply cease to exist.

There IS something wrong with claiming to know, with absolute or even relative certainty, that there is a Heaven. YOU DON'T KNOW THAT, and there's no rational reason for you to even think that.

That's why I consider it my belief.

CivBase wrote:

Ringleader wrote:The Hysterical part is, you don't address ANY of my rebuttals except what you perceive to be some mistake, how many of my actual points have you even considered?

To be honest, I skimmed most of it because you made it very clear in your first few sentences that you ignored what I said and just wanted to sound intelligent by talking about random off-topic crap.

That's a great reason not to respond to the bulk of my argument, because I addressed a point in a way that you didn't seem to fancy.

Ohhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh, talking about random off-topic crap? Like, evidence and facts?

I guess if Civ says something like: "Just because it's the only thing we've thought of, and the one we are most likely to chose from a scientific perspective, does not mean that it is the only possibility." And RL equates the original religions as pseudo-scientific explanations in their own right, that filled in the gaps of our early lack of understanding in the early days of humanity, well, I guess that equating of sorts, that response, a response Civ wasn't wanting or expecting and therefore a response he dismissed, ALSO invalidates all the other responses RL gave to Civ's other points, such as the probability of macroevolution, and the sources he provided in his support...

Oh...

Gee, I guess it's hard to have a debate with someone that dismisses all your points as off topic, meaningless crap based on one instance of misinterpretation.







Y'see, that point that you made, and thought I ignored is quite separate from your other point on macroevolution, but I guess you can't really address the point on probability of macroevolution, providing basic facts, sources, etc. because of... Why?

Ringleader wrote:The religious response method: Ignore 99% of the points, sources and evidences shown, find a chink in the veritable mountain of proof presented and expound hugely upon it while ignoring everything else while not providing sources of my own and claiming the need not to as it's common sense.

....I didn't target a small chunk of information that you gave me. I just said "you ignored what I said" and chose to instead re-affirm my previous statement.

Actually, yes, you did target a small chunk, because all you have to say as a clear denier of factual information is "Whelp, you ignored that one thing I said (or in this case, responded in a way I didn't want), therefore all your other points, the factual evidence supporting your argument, is thereby off topic crap."

So to reiterate:

The Hysterical part is, you don't address ANY of my rebuttals except what you perceive to be some mistake, how many of my actual points have you even considered? (and by 'consider', I mean not immediately dismiss as off topic crap)

Ringleader wrote:It's like, that's what your used to, and what you feel is actually valid and acceptable, to say things like: I don't need to show proof of how macroevolution is astronomically improbable, because it's common sense to me, and if it wasn't an abnormality, every plant would have sentient organisms living on them! Like these claims are made real by you saying them.

Are you suggesting that every planet has sentient organisms living on them?

Aren't you mistaking me with you now though? I mean, if you said "If it wasn't an abnormality, pretty much every plant would have sentient aliens on them and Earth's variety would be substantially greater.", then how exactly would I be suggesting them? It's like, you think your statements are willed into reality because you say them. I'm not really sure how my pointing this quite obvious flaw of yours out in my previous post somehow equates to my suggesting it, please clarify this?

YOU said that: "If it wasn't an abnormality, pretty much every plant would have sentient aliens on them and Earth's variety would be substantially greater.", without any proof, without any reason why this would be true, you just sorta, said it, lol. Does this mean I'm suggesting this too, well, I guess that means the debate ends here and now, as I can't seem to communicate with you without you missattributing your statements as mine.

Ringleader wrote:Like, ROT still hasn't even addressed my point on radiometric dating, and how several different isotopes are used to acquire just one date, and I don't expect him to either. That's what I expect now, and that's sad.

I'm not Rot, nor have I read what he posted.

No, really thank you for clarifying this, because I wasn't using this instance of my conversation with Rot to bolster my argument aimed at you, I was in fact actually talking directly to you, calling you Rot and everything!

Ringleader wrote:And, no, religion was humanities first shot at explaining things, like science, it was the formation of models in response to observing the natural world. To someone alive 4,000 years ago that didn't know anything about fossils, radiometric dating, round earth theory, they filled in all the blanks with: Goddunit, now be a good boy, treat women and slaves like how how our society condones, and give the temple your hard earned coin.

This is why I went back and bolded "from a scientific perspective." Again, you ignored what I said and tried to sound smart by spitting about a bunch of crap that has nothing to do with the argument. I realism evolution wasn't the first attempt at explaining our creation. What I said was that it is the only scientifically-accepted attempt (to my knowledge) that has been produced.

Oh, LOL a bunch of crap, like facts you mean? Like scientific evidence proving Macroevolutionary theory as a fact? Right, crap that has nothing to do with anything, especially nothing to do with refuting your point on macroevolution being astronomically improbable, right? = Why it's possible to have a rational discussion with believer.

I'm just, spewing diarrhea out of my mouth all over your screen.

Ringleader wrote:Wrong, that's exactly what's going on and you know it.

...

You DO realize that I'm looking down the barrel of a degree in physics, computer engineering, and actuary science... right? Don't make irrational claims like that.

Please explain how this has anything to do with my statement. Does this entitle you to discreet knowledge about the formation and development of life morose then any actual biologist?

Also, your response really didn't address my point of you knowing what this is all about, creationists using divine intervention to fill in the gaping logistical potholes THEY have created, the 'difficult situations' of course being the teaching of evolution in schools, parents having a problem with their kids being taught one thing, then another on different days of the week, the acceptance of science into religious doctrines, that's the difficult part.

Reading that you think macroevolution should be taught in schools is great and all, but unfortunately, it's an implied mandate according to your book, and the people that are actually serious about their religion, accept this incredibly nonsensical text as the undisputed word of god, and act based upon that, do not share your views, based on the fact that they think the book is divine word created by the creator of the universe
While we're making unrelated boasts, I guess I should also mention that 'I'm looking down the barrel' of an Aerospace Engineering degree. I also prefer nachos with cheese over nachos with salsa, also, I'm right handed.

I also know about evolution and how it works, and the piles of evidence suggesting it, which I guess is really the only background info one should consider bringing up in a debate like this.

Ringleader wrote:We already have the conclusions, we already have the facts, the FACT that you don't know about them enough to even make logical claims about it shows that yes, you DO wan't to start using divine intervention to explain 'difficult' situations. Difficult in what sense? In the sense that it goes against your preconceived notions? Meaning it's bad for you if it's true? Meaning if there were any alternatives to accepting the facts, even pretending that you know them and still think their fallacious while not even caring to address the points I've already made and the evidence I've shown with respects to radiometric dating, fossil evidence, law of super-positioning, gene trees?

This might shock you, but I don't think divine intervention should be an answer that scientists should accept for any situation. Why exactly are we arguing about what I believe? Do you seriously think you know what I think better than I do just because I believe in God? That, sir, is ignorance at its greatest.

Ok, good. Then how could it possibly expand our understanding of the world? All it can do is make a select few lash out against reason, while generally being an obstruction the scientific and learning community must continually overcome.

Ringleader wrote:We hear in the news: Local group want's schools to 'teach the controversy'... WHAT CONTROVERSY?! Like there's some big room debate going on amongst the scientific academia. Created hysteria to make science LOOK like it doesn't have the answers or that the answers aren't strong enough to hold up as teaching material in schools, which is just total bullshit. The fact that were allowing this retardation of learning in schools, or that were actually even CONSIDERING it is disgusting, but that's OK, because even if our future generations are so handicapped that they can't even compete in the modern world, they'll still go to heaven when they die!

This might also shock you, but I believe that microevolution should be taught in public schools. However, students stand nothing to gain from learning either macroevolution or creationist beliefs, so I see no reason to teach either in school.

Wrong, firstly most things taught in school are not ever used again, but goddammit, is that really a good reason not to teach anything that's actually true and interesting?

How to you use true facts you learned again if everyone else knows them? Well, you wouldn't really debate with other people, but if your interested in what was taught, then you pursue it and learn more and maybe even work in a career that uses it.

Also, knowing.... things... helps you make better educated decisions and makes you less dumb.

Ringleader wrote:Oh, the quote-unquote SCIENTIFIC people, those bastards! What did they ever do besides giving us everything we use on a daily basis! How dare they present something that makes me feel sad and it doesn't even make like easier, what a jip!

I put scientific in quotes because actual scientific people, for the most part, do not bad-mouth religious people.

Your absolutely right, they don't. Unfortunately, every instance of neutral fact that is interpreted as an assault upon the religious community, like the mere existence of things like dinosaur bones and nuclear isotopes threaten the validity of religion. I mean, they do and all, but no, those in scientific fields of study typically don't bad mouth anyone, as most people don't, they just, fact find to the extreme displeasure of faith.


Paleontologist: Aye, look, I discovered some dinosaur bones!

Nuclear physicist: Cool, let's date them using radiometric dating!

Geologist: Hey, I know how rock solid radiometric dating is and all, but it doesn't hurt to superpose the fossils too!

Religious person: Stop, stop mocking me!

Atheists use science as a false identity to make them seem more credible, but the only true scientific opinion on creation is total agnosticism.

Boy, it sure is a good thing I directly stated that I'm agnostic to the existence of god (as well as the celestial teapot) in the post you quote mined. Oh wait, so you didn't read that I'm agnostic? Or did you read it, and then decided to go off on some spiel about atheism despite that not being my stance to make it appear as though it were?

Oh, so you created a straw man argument then? Or were you just pointing out something unrelated to give your rebuttal more oomph? or to somehow discredit mine? Well, If that's the case, Civ, the sky is blue, ok? The sky isn't green, it's blue, and it's composed of air too, not molten lead, Ok?

Creation is not something that can be observed nor is it important to know so there is no reason to choose to believe in the presence or lack-there-of of a divine being.

Well, actually the implications of a creator ARE important. IE, if we were created by a large celestial entity in his image, and everything he/she/it also created, being the laws of physics, the rate at which we are born, live and die, everything, and this entity was also omnipotent and omniscient (the two are inseparable), and knew how everything would play out based on some virtual simulation, and the only serious purveyors of this theory are modern religions (not the ancient ones of conquered peoples, which are of course false because they were conquered by other civilizations), which are willing to exert their power on other people, be it preaching or killing, legislating, then it does matter, because those that think that they are mandated by the creator of this universe to preform actions that effect other people are doing so with the notion that god wouldn't be god/all powerful if he didn't create the earth and it's current lifeforms as we see them now, as well as other religions with other miracles/creation myths that motivate people to act or think based upon it's merit.

So, you admit there is no reason to choose to believe in the lack-there-of divine being? Well, sure I guess, if you want to risk spending infinity amounts of time in a lake of torment. Hell, even discussing this with some of my more upright god believing friends, ones that actually sorta think about these things, even they are willing to out and say they are and risk ridicule in such a place as this where ideas can in fact be swapped to their disadvantage, completely relying on pascals wager as the one and only reasonable position to take.

Ringleader wrote:FYI, they have provided plenty of evidence, more then enough, WAY more then enough, here's but a taste:

http://records.viu.ca/~johnstoi/essays/courtenay1.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peppered_moth_evolution
http://www.dinosaurjungle.com/dinosaur_facts_familytree.php
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cladistics
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-misconceptions.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html
http://darwiniana.org/transitionals.htm
http://phylointelligence.org/observed.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speciation
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_of_common_descent <------------- Read entire thing (if you're actually serious about learning stuff.)

I posted it, see, but I'm almost certain your just going to skip over this, or completely ignore it.

I'm guessing you didn't actually read any of it.

Wrong, I'm actually interested in knowing the truth, so I read it.

You just remembered some stuff that you read about in the past and looked for a billion wikipedia links to post on here so that I would be deterred from reading it all you and could feel good about yourself because you correctly predicted I wouldn't actually read it all.

Weak...

Obviously I don't remember lots of it, it's lots of information, I got the basic ideas down, but still, your rebuttal to my cited proofs are: "You only posted those to make me feel bad because you knew I wasn't going to read them! Therefore, I retroactively didn't read them because I knew you only posted them to make me feel bad for not reading them!"

News flash: None of these articles disprove religion. They provide evidence for macroevolution, though most of the articles either provide similar evidence for a common creator or can be explained by other events by creationists.

Can I poop now?

I brought that up specifically as proof for macroevolution... Why are you saying it doesn't disprove religion, like that's what I was trying to prove?

Again jumbling up macroevolution and abiogenesis like a wild man, two separate and almost completely unrelated fields of study. I think I said "I'm not trying to disprove religion as I'm agnostic to the existence of god." and things of that sort continually so... I guess this is another one of your world class straw mans to give what your saying more oomph, while somehow discrediting me by debunking claims I didn't make. Since were on that, Civ, the earth is round, and goes around the sun, ok? It does!

Ringleader wrote:Well, yes, yes you do, lol. That's kinda how this thing works!

No... no, it's kinda not. They're called observations.

Uh,m no, I'm afraid not, you actually do have to give some proof why macroevolution is astronomically improbable.

I mean, I gave evidence to how it's readily fact, and examples of speciation, but you haven't touched on that at all, so...

Ringleader wrote:You would have to find some reason (a darn good one) why every scrap of evidence compiled flew in the face of Macroevolutionary theory, and by all means, don't hold back, if the probability is indeed astronomical, you should have no trouble in doing so, na?

... the probability is not for Macroevolution being the correct theory. It would be irrational to assign a probability to that because there are only two possibilities: correct or incorrect. The astronomical probability is for life on earth to have successfully been created via the ideas of Macroevolution. Any scientist, including those who subscribe to the theory, would agree with that.

Again, confusing abiogenesis with macroevolution for no reason, two virtually unrelated fields of biology. Macroevolutionary theory doesn't touch on the beginnings of life on earth. This is the coup de flaws of your arguement, and that you said "Any scientist, including those who subscribe to the theory, would agree with that." just shows how keen you are on making up information and selling it as fact.

Abiogenesis:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis

Macroevolution:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macroevolution

In fact, would someone from the evolution side please back me up on this? (the large, red lettering is to catch their attention, not to create emphasis)

Well, if they knew even the basics of Biology/Evolution, they wouldn't confuse abiogenesis is a component of macroevolutionary theory, nor would they be able to back you up on this.

Ringleader wrote:Since this is such a make or break point on your part, I will ask the question no less then 4 more times:

How is it common sense?

How is it common sense?

How is it common sense?

How is it common sense?

Because of the billions of planets we've studied, we haven't found any with sentient life.

Billions of planets we've studied? What? Why do you keep making up information? We've only discovered 552 extrasolar planet CANDIDATES as of May 2011, only a fraction of which are earth-like and within their parent star's habitation zone...

AND, of those candidates, we're barely able to discern any details beyond how large they are/orbit/atmospheric composition (some of which shown to have organic molecules in their atmospheres.) But you know what? That's not even significant, saying that we haven't yet discovered life on planets we can only detect by a absurdly faint drop in luminosity as the planet passes in front of it's star/slight wobble of the star due to the minuscule gravitational effects of these planets on their parent stars, and concluding the probability of macroevolution is therefore astronomically improbable based on our lack of visual conformation that abiogenesis had occurred on these planets when we do not yet posses the technology to see basic features on their surface is absurd. Abiogenesis =/= Macroevolution.

Just stop making up stuff please, so we can actually have a serious discussion.

Please...

...were you not aware of this?

No, I'm not aware of the falsified information you made up, I apologize.

Ringleader wrote:It must be common sense in the sense that you get it and 95% of biologists, the people that actually study and LEARN the stuff don't, oh...

They do get it. Either you're one of the few who don't, or you misread what I said. You really should read more carefully before you make these big posts. It sounds to me like you're just assuming what I'm going to say rather than actually reading it.

Ok, so if I ask every biologist, they are to say that macroevolution is astronomically improbable, even though their jobs are to actively study it occurring and the mounds of facts supporting it because we haven't yet been able to see that abiogenesis had occurred on alien planets? Uh, no actually, that's the dumbest thing I've ever heard. Also, if any biologist says 'yes' on the grounds of it being 'common sense' They should be immediately fired, out of a cannon into the sun.

Ringleader wrote:We haven't thoroughly explored any planets except for our own (barely), and our telescopes aren't powerful enough to see anything on planets in other solar systems, but again, abiogenesis has little to do with macroevolution. We can't see the surface of other planets, which is why it's still up in the air, and why no serious scientist is absolutely committed to the idea one way or the other despite it being a strong likelihood based on recent discoveries of exoplanets with comparable conditions as earth, quite opposite to the priests and pastors that say things with absolute conviction despite the complete lack of evidence.

We examine planets in many ways other than site. Still, this is why I also asked "How many new species have you seen naturally created in your lifetime? How much life have you seen spawning out of rocks, water, and lightning?"

...And my response to that was 'See my previous posts which shows examples of speciation', since you clearly didn't and because you didn't even quote it here, it just shows how hopeless your stance is, here look, I'll do all the trouble of viewing my previous posts for you and restate these examples here:

Code:

PLANTS


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


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


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


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


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


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


Frandsen (1943, 1947) showed that Brassica carinata (n = 17) may be recreated by hybridizing Brassica nigra (n = 8) and Brassica oleracea, Brassica juncea (n = 18) may be recreated by hybridizing Brassica nigra and Brassica campestris (n = 10), and Brassica napus (n = 19) may be recreated by hybridizing Brassica oleracea and Brassica campestris.


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


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


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


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


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

ANIMALS

Speciation through hybridization and/or polyploidy is now considered to be as important in animals as it is in plants. (Lokki and Saura 1980; Bullini and Nascetti 1990; Vrijenhoek 1994). Bullini and Nasceti (1990) review chromosomal and genetic evidence that suggest that speciation through hybridization may occur in a number of insect species, including walking sticks, grasshoppers, blackflies and cucurlionid beetles. Lokki and Saura (1980) discuss the role of polyploidy in insect evolution. Vrijenhoek (1994) reviews the literature on parthenogenesis and hybridogenesis in fish.

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


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

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

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

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

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

They next repeated the experiment without the penalty against habitat switching. The result was the same -- reproductive isolation was produced. They argued that a switching penalty is not necessary to produce reproductive isolation. Their results, they stated, show the possibility of sympatric speciation.


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

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


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

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

Ehrman (1971) established strains of wild-type and mutant (black body) Drosophila melanogaster. These flies were derived from compound autosome strains such that heterotypic matings would produce no progeny. The two strains were reared together in common fly cages. After two years, the isolation index generated from mate choice experiments had increased from 0.04 to 0.43, indicating the appearance of considerable assortative mating. After four years this index had risen to 0.64 (Ehrman 1973). Along the same lines, Koopman (1950) was able to increase the degree of reproductive isolation between two partially isolated species, Drosophila pseudoobscura and Drosophila persimilis.

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

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

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

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

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


Meffert and Bryant (1991) used houseflies (Musca domestica) to test whether bottlenecks in populations can cause permanent alterations in courtship behavior that lead to premating isolation. They collected over 100 flies of each sex from a landfill near Alvin, Texas. These were used to initiate an ancestral population. From this ancestral population they established six lines. Two of these lines were started with one pair of flies, two lines were started with four pairs of flies and two lines were started with sixteen pairs of flies. These populations were flushed to about 2,000 flies each. They then went through five bottlenecks followed by flushes. This took 35 generations. Mate choice tests were performed. One case of positive assortative mating was found. One case of negative assortative mating was also found.

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

Selection was repeated within these populations each generations. After 38 generations the time to collect 50 flies had dropped from 6 hours to 2 hours in Pop A, from 4 hours to 4 minutes in Pop B, from 6 hours to 2 hours in Pop C and from 4 hours to 45 minutes in Pop D. Mate choice tests were performed. Positive assortative mating was found in all crosses. They concluded that reproductive isolation occurred under both allopatric and sympatric conditions when very strong selection was present. Hurd and Eisenberg (1975) performed a similar experiment on houseflies using 50% gene flow and got the same results.

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


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



Gall Former Fly (Eurosta solidaginis) is a gall forming fly that is associated with goldenrod ( Solidago sp.) plants. It has two hosts: over most of its range it lays its eggs in Solidago altissima, but in some areas it uses Solidago gigantea as its host. Recent electrophoretic work has shown that the genetic distances among flies from different sympatric hosts species are greater than the distances among flies on the same host in different geographic areas (Waring et al. 1990). This same study also found reduced variability in flies on Solidago gigantea. This suggests that some Eurosta solidaginis have recently shifted hosts to this species. A recent study has compared reproductive behavior of the flies associated with the two hosts (Craig et al. 1993). They found that flies associated with Solidago gigantea emerge earlier in the season than flies associated with Solidago altissima. In host choice experiments, each fly strain ovipunctured its own host much more frequently than the other host.

Craig et al. (1993) also performed several mating experiments. When no host was present and females mated with males from either strain, if males from only one strain were present. When males of both strains were present, statistically significant positive assortative mating was seen. In the presence of a host, assortative mating was also seen. When both hosts and flies from both populations were present, females waited on the buds of the host that they are normally associated with. The males fly to the host to mate. This may represent the beginning of a sympatric speciation.


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


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

They also found statistically significant premating isolation between the WH population and the field populations. Finally, the Woods Hole population showed slightly different karyotypes from the field populations.

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

Similar phenomena have been seen in a number of other insects. Microoganisms are seen in the eggs of both Nasonia vitripennis and Nasonia giraulti. These two species do not normally hybridize. Following treatment with antibiotics, hybrids occur between them (Breeuwer and Werren 1990). In this case, the symbiont is associated with improper condensation of host chromosomes. For more examples and a critical review of this topic, see Thompson 1987.

MACROEVOLUTION ABOVE THE LEVEL OF SPECIES


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

Shikano, et al. (1990) reported that an unidentified bacterium underwent a major morphological change when grown in the presence of a ciliate predator. This bacterium's normal morphology is a short (1.5 um) rod. After 8 - 10 weeks of growing with the predator it assumed the form of long (20 um) cells. These cells have no cross walls. Filaments of this type have also been produced under circumstances similar to Boraas' induction of multicellularity in Chlorella. Microscopic examination of these filaments is described in Gillott et al. (1993). Multicellularity has also been produced in unicellular bacterial by predation (Nakajima and Kurihara 1994). In this study, growth in the presence of protozoal grazers resulted in the production of chains of bacterial cells.


The “species flock” of over 600 species of cichlid fish in Lake Victoria have all diverged within the past 15,000 years, according to Tijs Goldschmidt. Lake Victoria, the source of the Nile River in east Africa, was formed by block faulting in the African great rift valley. Geological evidence indicates that the lake was originally formed about 400,000 years ago, but dried out about 15,000 years ago. It subsequently refilled, and the 600+ species of cichlid fish have adaptively radiated during that period of time.

As the lake constitutes a single, although very large ecosystem, the adaptive radiation of the cichlid fish of Lake Victoria must be considered to have undergone a massive sympatric divergence. That this is the case is further supported by the observation that the extraordinary phenotypic variation seen among these fish has been accompanied by almost no genetic variation, except for a very small number of homeotic genes. Goldschmidt has suggested that the adaptive radiation of the cichlids of Lake Victoria has been driven by a combination of adaptation to a myriad of trophic niches, combined with sexual selection resulting from female choice (Goldschmidt, 1998).

MACROEVOLUTION AT THE LEVEL OF KINGDOMS


In 1970, Lynn Margulis proposed that the four kingdoms of eukaryotes (Protoctista, Fungi, Plantae, and Animalia, now combined in the domain Eukarya) originated from the endosymbiotic combination of four prokaryotic (i.e. bacterial) ancestors. The first step in this endosymbiotic partnership was the endosymbiotic incorporation of an aerobic bacterium with an acid-tolerant (probably Archaean) prokaryotic ancestor. The aerobic bacterium eventually evolved into what we now recognize as mitochondria. That this was the first step in the endosymbiotic origin of eukaryotes is supported by the observation that all eukaryotic cells (except such specialized cells as erythrocytes) have mitochondria, indicating that bacteria-derived mitochondria became associated with the ancestors of eukaryotes prior to the splitting of the eukaryotic clade into the plant, fungus, and animal kingdoms.

Margulis cites several lines of evidence supporting the hypothesis that mitochondria originated as endosymbiotic aerobic bacteria:

• Mitochondria have a double membrane. The outer membrane is very similar to the membrane of the vacuoles of eukaryotic cells, while the inner membrane is much more similar to the plasma membrane of bacteria.

• Like bacteria, mitochondria have circular DNA molecules, whereas the DNA molecules in the nuclear chromosomes of eukaryotes is linear.

• Also like bacteria, the circular DNA molecules of mitochondria are not complexed with histone proteins, whereas the linear DNA molecules in the chromosomes of the eukaryotic nucleus are tightly complexed with histone proteins.

• The DNA molecules of mitochondria (like the DNA of bacteria) do not include intron sequences, whereas the DNA molecules in the chromosomes of the eukaryotic nucleus generally include at least one, and often many intron sequences.

• Most of the genetic components of the mitochondrial genome, including such genetic “machinery” as promoter sequences and terminator sequences, are coded in the same way as in bacteria, and are significantly different from the genetic “machinery” in the DNA in the chromosomes of the eukaryotic nucleus.

•Mitochondria have their own ribosomes, which are virtually identical with bacterial ribosomes, but very different in size and structure from the ribosomes in the cytosol of eukaryotic cells.

• Mitochondria reproduce independently inside their host cells via binary fission, the same mechanism by which other bacteria reproduce, and very different from the process of mitosis by which eukaryotic cells divide.

The second step in the endosymbiotic origin of eukaryotes was the incorporation of motile, microtubule-containing bacteria similar to spirochaete bacteria into the mitochondrion-containing eukaryotic ancestor. Margulis proposed that these bacteria evolved into the cilia and flagella of eukaryotic cells (called undulapodia), which eventually evolved into the mitotic spindle apparatus by which all eukaryotic cells divide. She predicted that the basal bodies of cilia and flagella would have their own DNA, a prediction that was verified by researchers who (ironically) were trying to disprove her hypothesis. Another observation supporting Margulis’s hypothesis about the endosymbiotic origin of undulapodia is the fact that, like mitochondria, cilia and flagella reproduce independently of the cells to which they are attached, via a mechanism similar to binary fission. That the incorporation of spirochaete-like bacteria into the ancestors of all eukaryotes was the second step in the endosymbiotic origin of eukaryotes is supported by the observation that almost all eukaryotic cells (except a few very primitive species) reproduce via mitosis, indicating again that the undulapodia-derived spindle apparatus became associated with the ancestors of eukaryotes prior to the splitting of the eukaryotic clade into the plant, fungus, and animal kingdoms.

The final step in the endosymbiotic origin of eukaryotes was the incorporation of photosynthetic bacteria similar to cyanobacteria into the mitochondria-and-undulapodia-containing eukaryotic ancestor. These photosynthetic bacteria evolved into the chloroplasts of eukaryotic algae and plants. Like mitochondria, chloroplasts have a number of structural and functional similarities to photosynthetic bacteria that point to their endosymbiotic origin:
• Like mitochondria, chloroplasts have a double membrane. The outer membrane is very similar to the membrane of the vacuoles of eukaryotic cells, while the inner membrane is much more similar to the plasma membrane of bacteria.

• Like bacteria and mitochondria, chloroplasts have circular DNA molecules, whereas the DNA molecules in the nuclear chromosomes of eukaryotes is linear.

• Also like bacteria and mitochondria, the circular DNA molecules of chloroplasts are not complexed with histone proteins, whereas the linear DNA molecules in the chromosomes of the eukaryotic nucleus are tightly complexed with histone proteins.

• The DNA molecules of chloroplasts (like the DNA of bacteria and mitochondria) do not include intron sequences, whereas the DNA molecules in the chromosomes of the eukaryotic nucleus generally include at least one, and often many intron sequences.

• Most of the genetic components of the chloroplast genome, including such genetic “machinery” as promoter sequences and terminator sequences, are coded in the same way as in bacteria, and are significantly different from the genetic “machinery” in the DNA in the chromosomes of the eukaryotic nucleus.

•Like mitochondria, chloroplasts have their own ribosomes, which are virtually identical with bacterial ribosomes, but very different in size and structure from the ribosomes in the cytosol of eukaryotic cells.

• Like mitochondria, chloroplasts reproduce independently inside their host cells via binary fission, the same mechanism by which other bacteria reproduce, and very different from the process of mitosis by which eukaryotic cells divide.

• If separated from their eukaryotic host cells, chloroplasts can grow and reproduce on their own, looking and acting for all the world like photosynthetic bacteria.

That this was the final step in the endosymbiotic origin of eukaryotes is supported by the observation that only plant cells (and some protists) have chloroplasts, indicating that bacteria-derived chloroplasts became associated with the ancestors of eukaryotes after to the splitting of the eukaryotic clade into the plant, fungus, and animal kingdoms. This suggestion is strengthened by recent research indicating that fungi and animals are more closely related to each other than either are to plants, indicating that the split between photosynthetic eukaryotes (i.e. algae and plants) and heterotrophic eukaryotes (i.e. fungi and animals) happened before the incorporation of endosymbiotic photosynthetic bacteria in the ancestors of algae and plants.

REFERENCES CITED

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.

Goldschmidt, T. (1998) Darwin’s Dreampond: Drama in Lake Victoria. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 274 pp.

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.

Margulis, Lynn, 1970, Origin of Eukaryotic Cells, Yale University Press, ISBN 0-300-01353-1

Margulis, Lynn, ed, 1991, Symbiosis as a Source of Evolutionary Innovation: Speciation and Morphogenesis, The MIT Press, ISBN 0-262-13269-9

Margulis, Lynn and Dorion Sagan, 2002, Acquiring Genomes: A Theory of the Origins of Species, Perseus Books Group, ISBN 0-465-04391-7

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.

As always, comments, criticisms, and suggestions are warmly welcomed!

--Allen

But it won't do any good, because your just going to ignore it again like you ignored "see my previous posts which show examples of speciation. LOOK, new examples of species that had arisen recently and had been observed doing so! Does this mean you're wrong?

Ringleader wrote:The first self replicating strand of life would have been so basic compared to even the simplest bacteria today, we wouldn't see any more generate as each niche in which an organic chain of molecules could possibly form and replicate is already chock full of far more advanced organisms.

We're not discussing the origin of life. We're discussing Macroevolution: the idea of all species on Earth evolving from a single, original species. If you want to talk about the origin of life, all you have to do is look to the hundreds of failed (and never successful) attempts at creating life.

Oh, we failed to do it in a lab a few hundred times, whelp, I guess that means it couldn't have happened before over several billion years at any point on the earths surface that had the right components in an array so varied and viable, that any lab setup wouldn't even begin to cover a fraction of the possible chemical reactions occurring over that expanse of time.

Also you seem to confuse macroevolution with abiogenesis when you cite our lack of visual confirmation of sentient life forms on alien planets as reason enough for macroevolution being an astronomically improbable event.

Ringleader wrote:As for examples of new organisms forming due to macroevolutionary process, please refer to my previous posts which gives many examples of new species forming within our own period of observation.

I suppose I asked the wrong question there, and I apologize. Rather than a new species, I was referring to a new family or genus.

New family or genus? What? If the process works on a species level in the short time that we've studied it, does that mean theres a magical barrier preventing it from happening more over enormous periods of time? Actually, I should say it like this: If the process works, doesn't it work?

Ringleader wrote:You said that without providing any evidence to why it's true. You just said: "If it wasn't an abnormality, pretty much every plant would have sentient aliens on them and Earth's variety would be substantially greater." This only demonstrates how little you actually know ABOUT evolution in general. The process doesn't work with the underlaying intention of creating sentient intelligent life as the terminus, it's merely a process by which genes which are subject to mutations with potential positive and negative effects, make copies of themselves in organic vessels that are able to facilitate the process of duplication in their environment.

You are referring to microevolution, which is the variation of a species to adapt to its environment.

Firstly, evolution is evolution, micro and macro are scalar differentiations, both of which are proven and substantiated by facts.

One can't really be incapable of working while the other can. No forcefield prevents fish from adapting into something very similar to a fish, like a lobe finned fish while not something largely different from a fish (while more similar to a lobe finned fish, like an early amphibian) except unrealistic, unsubstantiated time-tables.

Macroevolution is about all life being created by radical variations from a single parent species.

Radical variations? What? You mean like minute variations generationally that compile into larger variations over long periods of time? That's what I said, a process by which genes which are subject to mutations with potential positive and negative effects, make copies of themselves in organic vessels that are able to facilitate the process of duplication in their environment. Same thing, by organic vessels I mean gene carriers/organisms.

Ringleader wrote:Right, only the science that makes you feel uncomfortable. Isn't that the simpler explanation though?

Macroevolution doesn't make me feel uncomfortable. It is a plausible idea and I have no problem with its existence or even its acceptance by the scientific community. What I don't like is when it is labeled as science.

You don't like it labeled as science? But it is science. You don't like it for what it is, therefore it is science that makes you feel uncomfortable and inclined to intentionally misinterpret.

Macroevolution is a suggestion for the creation of life based on the theory of evolution (which I have regularly referred to as microevolution and supported throughout the entirety of this thread). There is no way to test or observe Macroevolution; it's an attempt at explaining the origin of today's species while following scientific guide-lines (meaning it has to form to currently accepted scientific theories and it cannot claim "God did it" as an explanation).

No dood, Macroevolution is not at ALL a suggestion for the creation of life, that's abiogenesis, they have little to do with each other.

Did you read those links I provided? No? It's off topic crap? Or it's too long and I knew you wouldn't read them because it's too long to make me feel better? Oh, well, that would have clarified things for you.

Ringleader wrote:Well, because it's the one you imply when you say Macroevolution is the only theory science has produced, then say it's astronomically unlikely (without any proof or explanation of why this is true).

1. It is the only theory (to my knowledge... I've certainly never heard of another)
2. I didn't think you would contest me on the unlikelyhood

Whelp, I did, but it's really a problem of you confusing abiogenesis with macroevolution, and applying the principles of abiogenesis to macroevolution, I will excuse this as the proof for macroevolution, the development of new flora and fauna through speciation and natural selection is irrefutable, whereas there are multiple abiogenesis theory circulating among scientists now (all of which more reasonable then a paternal sentient creator being willing the universe into existence I might add.) Plus, you say it's the only theory to your knowledge, then say it's astronomically unlikely based on "1. It is the only theory (to my knowledge... I've certainly never heard of another.)?

Ringleader wrote:If I understand this statement correctly, your asking me why I posited creation of the universe by an all-father figure as a possibility, a slim one albeit, knowing it's the one we cannot use from a scientific outlook? Well, because I'm agnostic to whether or not God is real in the same sense that I'm agnostic to whether or not there's a celestial teapot in orbit over Mars, but there very well may be both, and it's not my contention to try and refute either, but, CLAIMING them in spite of everything we observe in the world now, everything we act based on, every shred of factual evidence ever gathered, claiming something something so obscenely beyond what we can see with our own eyes, and feel with our own hands, just to entertain some thought that we never die, but go to paradise for eternity is just insulting to everything mankind has achieved and everything we are capable of achieving.

You choose not to believe. That's fine with me; I never asked you to.

Gee, how wonderful, but I would rather you ask me then make up information about macroevolution.

Ringleader wrote:Plus, I also know that the foundation by which science is capable of answering the big questions, and the astronomical probabilities you claim, is quite literally mountain sized, if you were to print out everything, every observation we've taken note of, the resulting stack of paper would no doubt ascend to nauseating heights.

We've? I'm sorry... I had no idea you worked there. Perhaps you would care to share some of your studies.

Yes, yes, I work at science...

I've done better then share my own studies, I've done one better when I've shared all our studies with you.

Or rather I should say, I understand it, and I don't make up stuff about it.

Ringleader wrote:AND, I'm very confident the scientific community will find the answers to such questions as: Is there life on other planets? and, Can life spawn from organic compounds? In the near distant future as we all should.

I am of the same confidence.

I should then say I will not fill in the blanks with hosh posh until such time should come, nor will I invent information to mislead others in the meantime.

ReconToaster wrote:No intelligent person thinks that Civ.

I think Recon just burned you, Ringleader... >.>

Well, no, He said, no intelligent person thinks that, while I, at the same time, said that you couldn't possibly believe that's whats going on (IDists not wanting to fill in the blanks with divine intervention, something they need to do in order to have any sense of continuity.)

ReconToaster wrote:The point is not that the idea of a God is stupid, or implausible. The point is that actively BELIEVING that there ABSOLUTELY is an all-powerful creator, as described in the Bible, watching our every move is just fucking silly.

To you, perhaps. I haven't lost from it.

Well, that's why it's still around today, social Darwinism, people have died from religions, as it's mandated by them, and entire societies have collapsed because of it. The Rapanui for instance, the native inhabitants of Easter Island destroyed their own infrastructure to build the Maoi statues for ceremonial reasons. We've chosen the short straw when we chose our downfall in the 'slow and painful' variety, when our future generations are out-competed by more advanced, less superstitious civilizations.

We, as a society, have in fact lost from it, all the money that goes into churches and temples, and synagogues, and mosques could be spent on museums, and gymnasiums, and laboratories and space ships, and food for the needy, while not infringing upon the solidarity of foreign tribespeople.

ReconToaster wrote:No scientist will ever tell you that a theory needs "Proof" to be valid. What a theory needs is a solid amount of evidence to back it up. INTELLIGENT DESIGN DOES NOT HAVE THAT. It is a possibility, but it is not a legitimate theory, as there is not a shred of evidence that suggests it.

I do not wish for my beliefs to be scientifically accepted.

Lucky for you then.

ReconToaster wrote:There is nothing wrong with looking up at the sky, and daydreaming about the all the different possibilities. There's nothing wrong with hoping that you won't one day simply cease to exist.

There IS something wrong with claiming to know, with absolute or even relative certainty, that there is a Heaven. YOU DON'T KNOW THAT, and there's no rational reason for you to even think that.

That's why I consider it my belief.

You consider it you're belief because there's a problem with it? Thing is, we have to endure the ignorance it creates, I don't like driving by 10 churches on one block while not seeing any actual legitimate learning institutions, I'm begrieved by the ignorance of my fellow man, and the effects it will have on me. I don't want people to ring my doorbell and tell me something that has no bearing in reality, even though I know they do it because they care about me the same, but in the way I care about them is that I don't want them to fear my damnation based on a collection of desert manuscripts written by goat herders, I wan't them to feel joy in the majesty of the universe without fearing hell, and not mentally handicapping themselves in real life for the sake of paradise in the afterlife.

Take home points:

The objective of evolution is not to create sentient beings, as evolution really doesn't have a long term plan, as it's not the work of a sentient entity itself. Convergencies exists to fit environmental norms, but each and every creature alive on the planet now are modern creatures, the latest yes, not necessarily the greatest as that term doesn't anthropomorphize over very well. Environment shift = the continued facilitation of natural selection.

Macroevolution =/= Abiogenesis, the two are really quite unrelated.

biopoesis

Code:

is the study of how biological life arises from inorganic matter through natural processes, and the method by which life on Earth arose. Most amino acids, often called "the building blocks of life", can form via natural chemical reactions unrelated to life, as demonstrated in the Miller–Urey experiment and similar experiments that involved simulating some of the conditions of the early Earth in a laboratory.[1] In all living things, these amino acids are organized into proteins, and the construction of these proteins is mediated by nucleic acids, that are themselves synthesized through biochemical pathways catalysed by proteins. Which of these organic molecules first arose and how they formed the first life is the focus of abiogenesis.
In any theory of abiogenesis, two aspects of life have to be accounted for: replication and metabolism. The question of which came first gave rise to different types of theories. In the beginning, metabolism-first theories (Oparin coacervate) were proposed, and only later thinking gave rise to the modern, replication-first approach.
In modern, still somewhat limited understanding, the first living things on Earth are thought to be single cell prokaryotes (which lack a cell nucleus), perhaps evolved from protobionts (organic molecules surrounded by a membrane-like structure).[2] The oldest ancient fossil microbe-like objects are dated to be 3.5 Ga (billion years old), approximately one billion years after the formation of the Earth itself.[3][4] By 2.4 Ga, the ratio of stable isotopes of carbon, iron and sulfur shows the action of living things on inorganic minerals and sediments[5][6] and molecular biomarkers indicate photosynthesis, demonstrating that life on Earth was widespread by this time.[7][8]
The sequence of chemical events that led to the first nucleic acids is not known. Several hypotheses about early life have been proposed, most notably the iron-sulfur world theory (metabolism without genetics) and the RNA world hypothesis (RNA life-forms).

Microevolution

Code:

is a change in gene frequency within a population over time.[1] This change is due to four different processes: mutation, selection (natural and artificial), gene flow and genetic drift.
Population genetics is the branch of biology that provides the mathematical structure for the study of the process of microevolution. Ecological genetics concerns itself with observing microevolution in the wild. Typically, observable instances of evolution are examples of microevolution; for example, bacterial strains that have antibiotic resistance.
Microevolution can be contrasted with macroevolution, which is the occurrence of large-scale changes in gene frequencies in a population over a geological time period (i.e. consisting of extended microevolution). The difference is largely one of approach. Microevolution is reductionist, but macroevolution is holistic. Each approach offers different insights into the evolution process. Macroevolution can be seen as the sum of long periods of microevolution, and thus the two are qualitatively identical while being quantitatively different.

Macroevolution

Code:

is evolution on a scale of separated gene pools.[1] Macroevolutionary studies focus on change that occurs at or above the level of species, in contrast with microevolution,[2] which refers to smaller evolutionary changes (typically described as changes in allele frequencies) within a species or population.[3]
The process of speciation may fall within the purview of either, depending on the forces thought to drive it. Paleontology, evolutionary developmental biology, comparative genomics and genomic phylostratigraphy contribute most of the evidence for the patterns and processes that can be classified as macroevolution. An example of macroevolution is the appearance of feathers during the evolution of birds from theropod dinosaurs.
Abrupt transformations from one biologic system to another, for example the passing of life from water into land or the transition from invertebrates to vertebrates, are rare. Few major biological types have emerged during the evolutionary history of life and most of them survive till today. When lifeforms take such giant leaps, they meet little to no competition and are able to exploit a plethora of available niches, following a pattern of adaptive radiation. This can lead to convergent evolution, where unrelated populations display similar adaptations.[4]
The evolutionary course of Equidae (wide family including all horses and related animals) is often viewed as a typical example of macroevolution. The earliest known genus, Hyracotherium (now reclassified as a palaeothere), was a herbivore animal resembling a dog that lived in the early cenozoic. As its habitat transformed into an open arid grassland, selective pressure required that the animal become a fast grazer. Thus elongation of legs and head as well as reduction of toes gradually occurred, producing the only extant genus of Equidae, Equus.[4]

Abiogenesis -> Microevolution -> Macroevolution

Our lack of technology in the viewing of extrasolar planets is not reason in itself to call the occurence of abiogenesis an astronomical improbability.

Also, I didn't respond on schedule because I was watching X=Men. (Not a good source of evolutionary theory I might add)

I get the feeling nobody is reading what anybody is really saying, but from what I'm seeing it's like both of you are running into serious issues getting your ideas down in text without coming across as crazy.

Heh, I had to split my post up into 3 parts because the forum couldn't handle it.

This is still going? Heh. Recon, have you fully divorced yourself from Ring's side, or is this still worth me making a reply or ten to? I may end up reading them either way, though. Skimming has revealed Ring's posts to be filled with hilarity. Hilarity that Ring would probably not appreciate, but hilarity, nonetheless.

I'd say both sides at this point are filled with hilarity, everyone is misunderstanding and misrepresenting.

Rotaretilbo wrote:This is still going? Heh. Recon, have you fully divorced yourself from Ring's side, or is this still worth me making a reply or ten to? I may end up reading them either way, though. Skimming has revealed Ring's posts to be filled with hilarity. Hilarity that Ring would probably not appreciate, but hilarity, nonetheless.

Meh. If you have the time, go for it.

KristallNacht wrote:I'd say both sides at this point are filled with hilarity, everyone is misunderstanding and misrepresenting.

Yup. That's why I'm not responding to Ring's megapost. I had a brief chat with him on xfire about the misunderstandings instead.