Was Darwin Wrong?

Nevertheless, in over a century of research no new species of bacteria have emerged.

— DI National Geographic Ignores The Flaws in Darwin's Theory

Is it just a coincidence that the vast majority of citizens in the most scientifically successful nation on Earth are skeptical of Darwin's theory?

— DI National Geographic Ignores The Flaws in Darwin's Theory

even though Darwinian theory regards inability to interbreed as the distinguishing feature of separate species

— DI National Geographic Ignores The Flaws in Darwin's Theory

In short, we shall have to treat species in the same manner as those naturalists treat genera, who admit that genera are merely artificial combinations made for convenience. This may not be a cheering prospect; but we shall at least be freed from the vain search for the undiscovered and undiscoverable essence of the term species.

— Darwin The Origin of Species Chapter 14 1st Ed

The fossil record of horses is also much more complicated than Quammen makes it out to be; actually, it looks like a tangled bush with separate branches rather than a straight line of ancestors and descendants.

— DI National Geographic Ignores The Flaws in Darwin's Theory

"the embryo is the animal in its less modified state," a state that "reveals the structure of its progenitor." This idea -- that embryos pass through earlier stages of their evolutionary history and thereby show us their ancestors -- is a restatement of German Darwinist Ernst Haeckel's notorious "ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny," a false doctrine that knowledgeable experts discarded over a century ago

— DI National Geographic Ignores The Flaws in Darwin's Theory

How can one determine whether homology in living things comes from common ancestry or common design?

— DI National Geographic Ignores The Flaws in Darwin's Theory

That's why Darwin titled his magnum opus The Origin of Species, not How Existing Species Change Over Time.

— DI National Geographic Ignores The Flaws in Darwin's Theory

While I'm not farmiliar with Ernst Haeckel's work ....

— Wayne Francis

I'm passionately following (from Italy) your debate against creationists and IDs (I know, they are all the same), and I have some question about their position.
1) Why are they against evolution by natural selection, and not other scientific theory, such us (and I quote) "we should be very careful to not elevate evolution with a word like "theory," and put the "amoeba-to-man" conjecture on the same level as the theory of relativity and theories of electricity" (actually, it should be the opposite, theories of relativity and theory of electricity)?

2) Since cosmology and geology are partly historical disciplines too (and as far as the first one are concerned, there's no chance to do any "experiment" whatsoever), why do they accept these worldviews?

3) How do they explain the lack of modern day species fossils in the deep past? I mean, if god created whales such as they are today, why we cannot find Eubalaena glacialis fossils, but just Ambulocetus, Basilosaurus and the like? I understand they cannot be put in a neat fossil line, but what about the proverbial bunny in the Cretaceous? Have they found one
Thank you

Marco

Some IDers would say that God has created new animals over time, these would be the Old Earthers.

Creationist are agianst evolution because they feel if it where true it pulls them off their pedistals. They might not really be the closest to "God"

Its better some times to watch from afar. That said I'm a member of Americans United for Seperation of Church and State even tho I live in Australia

1) Why are they against evolution by natural selection, and not other scientific theory...

— Marco

2) Since cosmology and geology are partly historical disciplines too (and as far as the first one are concerned, there's no chance to do any "experiment" whatsoever), why do they accept these worldviews?

— Marco

3) How do they explain the lack of modern day species fossils in the deep past? I mean, if god created whales such as they are today, why we cannot find Eubalaena glacialis fossils, but just Ambulocetus, Basilosaurus and the like?

— Marco

"Nevertheless, in over a century of research no new species of bacteria have emerged." -------------- Hmmm don't know where they get this idea.  We have found new baterica that where not in exsistance 50 years ago before the development of nylon.

— Wayne Francis

Steve Reuland,

Can you speculate on why Wells would do this? Given his education, he surely knows better. Even if we stipulate that he is taking advantage of ignorance on the part of his target audience, why would he do this? Do you suppose he believes that the "truth" he is defending must be or even should be supported by knowingly being dishonest? Do you suppose it bothers him that his beliefs are being supported by these tactics?

I can see the tactical advantages he enjoys. I can even understand that he may feel satisfaction watching those less knowledgeable repeat his distortions in all good faith. But from his viewpoint, I'd find that approach a bit creepy.

I couldn't say why Wells does what he does, other than the fact that he surely feels the ends justifiy the means. He's a follower of Rev. Moon, you must realize.

Is it just a coincidence that the vast majority of citizens in the most scientifically successful nation on Earth are skeptical of Darwin's theory?

— Wells

Wells nonetheless asks a good question. What could there possibly be about the US such that, way atypical of Western nations generally, the majority of US citizens have no clue what Darwin said, and what little they attach to the term "evolution" is wildly wrong?

I don't think there is any coincidence here at all. There is an excellent reason for public ignorance. Wells himself struggles to join those responsible.

Thomas Woodward's article in Christianity Today starts from the unwarranted assumption that science is diametrically opposed to faith. If one assumes so much that is not in evidence, how can one be swayed by whatever evidence is introduced later in the discussion?

The difficulty with creationism and ID theologies is not just that they are racist in their American foundation, but that they are absolutely opposed to learning in application. In a fit of interesting irony, creationism has become the papism that Jefferson and Madison warned about, preached from a pulpit where the preacher stands in fear of anyone who may actually be able to read the sources and see that what the preacher says is not what the scriptures say -- and so the preacher must poison the well against any who can and do read, and who do know the facts.

The answer is a republican sort of democracy, where education (essential to morality, according to the various Northwest Ordinances of 1785 through 1787, and later)is provided for the masses so they can see for themselves.

Which is why creationists are so opposed to the public schools.

3) How do they explain the lack of modern day species fossils in the deep past? I mean, if god created whales such as they are today, why we cannot find Eubalaena glacialis fossils, but just Ambulocetus, Basilosaurus and the like? I understand they cannot be put in a neat fossil line, but what about the proverbial bunny in the Cretaceous? Have they found one? Thank you Marco

Thomas Woodward's article in Christianity Today starts from the unwarranted assumption that science is diametrically opposed to faith.

Science isn't diametrically opposed to faith. That's why its discoveries are so threatening. The geologists and biologists certainly didn't set out to upset anybody's Biblical beliefs. Indeed, a fair number of 'em were Anglican clergymen. Believers cling to the notion that the scientists are biased precisely because, to use a line from the Daily Show, it's really the facts that are biased.

I've re-read Woodward's article for the third time and I honestly cannot locate any portion showing that Woodward "starts from the unwarranted assumption that science is diametrically opposed to faith."

If we imagine the "clash of two theories"---the older notion of "separate creations" by a supremely wise designer, versus Darwin's "common ancestry" of all life, driven by natural selection---it appears here that the younger system has utterly crushed the older. Sketched in terms of a basketball tourney, Quammen paints a complete rout---a 118-0 shutout.

The Christian ... armed with the best arguments and evidence on both sides of the issue, can systematically compare and evaluate evolutionary theory and intelligent design theory. For the philosophical naturalist, "nature is all there is."

If we imagine the "clash of two theories"---the older notion of "separate creations" by a supremely wise designer, versus Darwin's "common ancestry" of all life, driven by natural selection---it appears here that the younger system has utterly crushed the older. Sketched in terms of a basketball tourney, Quammen paints a complete rout---a 118-0 shutout.

Woodward's paragraph does not claim (not even indirectly or by implication) that the two opposing basketball teams of his paragraph happened to be "science" and "faith."

Thomas Woodward’s article in Christianity Today starts from the unwarranted assumption that science is diametrically opposed to faith.

Diametrically opposed to Woodward’s faith, maybe, but not necessarily diametrically opposed to all faith. With faith you get to pretend pretty much whatever pops into your head, and I'm sure Woodward is well aware of those who share many of his religious views but who believe that the creation stories are meant to be true metaphorical representations of the science. In other words he knows that there are people who are willing to pretend even more than he pretends, so I think perhaps Woodward was only speaking for himself and those who try to think as he does.

I dunno, Ed. I've re-read Woodward's article for the third time and I honestly cannot locate any portion showing that Woodward "starts from the unwarranted assumption that science is diametrically opposed to faith." Would you show me which snippet(s) lead you to believe that Woodward is assuming any such thing, and explain how it or they show said assumption?

If we imagine the "clash of two theories"---the older notion of "separate creations" by a supremely wise designer, versus Darwin's "common ancestry" of all life, driven by natural selection---it appears here that the younger system has utterly crushed the older. Sketched in terms of a basketball tourney, Quammen paints a complete rout---a 118-0 shutout.

My emphasis on the word "fact" is designed to convey the sense of brimming confidence which is the article's emotional subtext. The editor's purpose was, quite literally, to overwhelm the reader. In fact, the first page tells us of evolution's "overwhelming evidence"---twice, in headline and text.

Woodward's own rhetoric artfully advances his argument, but his book tells little about the status of evolutionary theory within the wider scientific community. In surveys of scientists and studies of federal support for scientific research, I have not detected any appreciable impact of ID within core biological disciplines. Although funding for biological research has soared under the Bush administration, for example, none of it is going to any projects pursuing an ID paradigm, and much of it flows into evolutionary research. When it comes to where the U.S. government puts its money in science, evolution still wins.

An explosion of resources in this area have made it much easier for any follower of Christ to evaluate the issues of Darwinism and Design from all sides, and not from National Geographic's perspective that simply assumes that nature---all on its own---has the ability to craft the diversity and complexity of life on its own. Paul identified the downward spiral in Romans chapter one as one where men deified dumb nature, imbuing it with powers and spiritual significance that can never be justified. The Christian, aware of this pitfall, and armed with the best arguments and evidence on both sides of the issue, can systematically compare and evaluate evolutionary theory and intelligent design theory. For the philosophical naturalist, "nature is all there is." Thus, the question of origins leads quickly to a guaranteed result: Darwin wins, in a lopsided shutout.

A "supremely wise designer" = faith Natural selection = science

Paul identified the downward spiral in Romans chapter one as one where men deified dumb nature, imbuing it with powers and spiritual significance that can never be justified. The Christian, aware of this pitfall, and armed with the best arguments and evidence on both sides of the issue, can systematically compare and evaluate evolutionary theory and intelligent design theory. For the philosophical naturalist, "nature is all there is." Thus, the question of origins leads quickly to a guaranteed result: Darwin wins, in a lopsided shutout.

But why would he say "Darwin wins," unless he was posing Darwin as diametrically opposed to the faith?

For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature--have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.

None of this would be necessary were Woodward making any argument other than the one he makes --- that Quammen's article is dead wrong. None of Woodward's arguments against Quammen's article makes any sense except from the viewpoint that Quammen is making a case against the things that Christianity Today and its readers believe and stand for. The possibility that Quammen might be a Christian, or that evolution might not be unalterably opposed to Christianity, does not occur in Woodward's article.

FL, is there any snippet of Woodward's article which would support an idea that it might be possible God's creation includes evolution, that a Christian might study evolution without treading down the wayward path away from righteousness, or that intelligent design is frippery and evil itself?

The Christian, aware of this pitfall, and armed with the best arguments and evidence on both sides of the issue, can systematically compare and evaluate evolutionary theory and intelligent design theory.

I don't see how Darwin being (mostly) right implies that Christianity must be wrong. Yet I read these reactions to the NG article, and the thrust of them is NOT "Well, Darwin only presents one side of this story, not wrong but incomplete, and we have the other side of the story, just as accurate as far as it goes." Instead, like Ed Darrell, I see these responses describing the Christian position as an alternative, rather tham a complement, to natural selection.

Just as a seat of the pants guess, I'd estimate that at least an order of magnitude more Americans doubt what Darwin said, than *know* what Darwin said. I suspect this results from most Americans' knowledge of Darwin and evolution coming more from their churches than their public educations. And the church, understandably considering their perspective, doesn't draw much of a distinction between a theory that doesn't mention any gods at all one way or another, and a theory that explicitly opposes or rejects all gods. Neutrality seems to be invisible to some Christians, in whose eyes everyone either accepts their god, or (necessarily) rejects it. The "don't know, don't care" position must be stuck into the "rejection" pigeonhole.

Darwin was trying to explain evidence, not even address any religious doctrine. And as a result, his ideas need not oppose the Christian god, or zeus or thor or the great spirit or whatever one happens to consider "truth" so limpidly self-evident that everyone else is left, as FL writes, "without excuse." To paraphrase someone on another forum, "My god's existence is obvious, but only if you're objective!"

I found the NG article to be clear, well-written, beautifully illustrated, and not anti-religion in any way. While I don't expect it to reduce the number of Americans who doubt what Darwin claimed, I can hope that it can increase the number who have some better clue what they're doubting.

test

FL,

In quoting Romans 1:20 you said,

"I have always found that verse amazing, especially in its far-reaching implications for every human, right here and now. "Without excuse." Why would a person ever give themselves over to PN or Atheism (or even Agnosticism) in light of this verse?"

Obviously you meant a person of Faith? For the rest of us, having seen no evidence to convince us of the existence of any deity, or of the divinity of Jesus, it's more a matter of wondering why a person would ever give themself over to Faith or creationism, when Science has provided an impressive body of evidence and research supporting evolution.

FL,

1. I challenged you to present any evidence that Woodward was fair in his article. You demur. Without attributing any motive to your action, I do wish to call attention to the evidence that is not there. If Woodward meant to say 'Christians should keep an open mind,' he failed.

2. Yes, that quoted phrase sounds exactly as if Woodward is pitting Darwin against faith. And, absent any suggestion that there is a possibility that Quammen's article might have at least a scintilla of accuracy to it, the animus toward science is palpable to me.

3. I'd take Woodward's call to analyze the evidence more seriously if he demonstrated any understanding of how such a process might occur, or any understanding of the types of evidence and how they might be weighed. But his article is in furtherance of suggesting hoaxes on Christians and others, that ID is science, that ID now has established some foothold on making a beachhead towards refuting evolution. No part of that claim is accurate. I don't cotton to people who claim to be religious types as they mislead others about the facts, and I take their arguments as the daggers at truth, the propaganda statements, they are intended to be.

4. What "two sides" of the case does Woodward propose Christians should study? If he means to offer ID as a second case, he's dissembling. ID offers no evidence and no theory counter to anything in the modern edition of evolution, and nothing that contradicts any of Darwin's work. If he means to say that Darwin might be wrong, science already assumes that (as did Darwin) -- it's an integral part of the science that Darwin established. There is no "other side" to be considered in science.

If he means to offer some Christian creation story as the other side, he again fails to make any case.

5. Woodward has assumed there is opposition where there is none. He has tried to confer scientific authority on arguments that have not been made, in papers that have not been written, about science experiments that have never been done.

Were Woodward serious, he might actually mention the evidence Quammen offers, and suggest an analysis of it. Instead he argues -- implicitly -- that Quammen is philosophically opposed to Christianity, an argument that is completely and utterly without evidence. That's an inexpensive and inappropriate attack on the author's motives. If Quammen is right, his motives don't matter. If Woodward has the goods to show Quammen is wrong, Quammen's motives don't matter. As it is, all we have is Woodward's attack on Quammen's motives, without an iota of evidence that Quammen was really incorrect.

6. What's this claptrap about contrasting philosophies? Darwin was not a philosophical naturalist. Nor was Asa Gray. Nor was Dobzhansky, nor is Collins. Nor can we make much of a case that any but a small handful of scientists ever were.

So what is the point of bringing up irrelevent points about philosophy? I see in it another ad hominem argument, one to suggest that Quammen and The National Geographic Society are somehow philosophically opposed to Christianity -- and as I noted before, that's a scurrilous claim with regard to the Society and its people, and an unevidenced claim against Quammen. There is no issue there; we're just calling Woodward's bluff.

If Woodward has a case to be made, he doesn't need to call names. If he doesn't have a case to be made, calling names isn't a substitute.

7. I mentioned Larson's review of Woodward's book because Larson specifically rebuts Woodward's claim that ID offers an alternative to evolution, in that paragraph I quoted from Larson's review. That paragraph rebuts the heart of Woodward's claim against Quammen's article, and that Larson's review was published three months ago tells us Woodward is on notice that his claim is false. He makes the false claim anyway. I regard that as a moral failing, to be called for making a false claim and continue to make it.

8. If Woodward is not assuming that science and Christianity are opposed, can you offer evidence from his article to that point? Woodward assumes that arguments for evolution are made solely by philosophical naturalists, that they are false because they are made by philosophical naturalists, and then he poses ID as a more Christian alternative, ignored by the philosophical naturalists because they know it to be true.

Woodward commits all the "sins" he accuses scientists of committing, and I don't find his accusations against them to be accurate.

9. Romans 1.20 is quite specific, I think. It says the evidence has been in front of everyone from the beginning, but the evidence comes from "invisible attributes," or some other minuscule thing that is unseeable by at first glance. It may refer to a lot of other stuff, but I think it plainly refers to the way the material world we see is created by atoms, which we don't see, and directed by genes, which we can't see without great magnification. It's a clear warning to creationists to observe nature as Darwin did. Creationists, and IDists, ignore the claim at their own peril.

Do you really think Paul was saying anything about the stories of Adam and Noah? Perhaps. But he was not telling Christians to deny reality.

"...the Galápagos finch story is complicated by the fact that many of what were originally thought to be thirteen species are now interbreeding with each other -- even though Darwinian theory regards inability to interbreed as the distinguishing feature of separate species."

Yet the famous ornithologist Lack estimated, many decades ago, that this interbreeding is reasonably rare. Modern research may indicate that it is not that rare, but that's beside the point.

It's still relatively rare, and that biological species is real.

Well's definition is wrong or lacking. A species A may well be ABLE to breed with species B, but that's not what they tend to do. There is considerable prezygotic isolation there.

Interesting that Wells does not even try to address the biogeographical evidence. That is just a red herring.

FL wrote:
because we've allowed Darwinism to sap and dilute our trust and faith"

WOW, I thought you were gonna say "precious bodily fluids" there for a minute!

Somebody misunderstands what Romans 1 says - and it's not FL!

The evidence is there - about God's eternal power and divine nature - but people chose to suppress that evidence - which is exactly what you are doing by saying that you can't see anything! You can't escape from Romans by saying that you can't see it - you are doing exactly what Romans says you will do.

The worrying thing is the consequence - that God "gives people over" to their disbelief. Rome fell - not because of external forces, but because it rotted from within under the onslaught of decadence and luxury - God "giving people over" to what they wanted instead of God. The argument of books like "Amusing Ourselves to Death" (Postman) and "The Closing of the American Mind" (Bloom) is that we are seeing the death of Western culture because it has fallen so much in love with the crap it produces - we are being "given over" to exactly the things we pursue.

Rome was making a comeback until they foolishly left the proven ways of their ancestors and got seduced by Christianity...

Actually I don't believe that story either, but if you're going to lay out a throughly dumb theory of history ('rotted from withing under the onslaught of decadence and luxury') I felt entitled to reply with an equally arbitrary and ignorant read of the facts.

The evidence is there - about God's eternal power and divine nature - but people chose to suppress that evidence - which is exactly what you are doing by saying that you can't see anything! You can't escape from Romans by saying that you can't see it - you are doing exactly what Romans says you will do.

Smokey?

No-one escapes the Spanish Inquisition.

nobody EXPECTS the Spanish Inquisition! Except in the case of Romans,ie.
PILATE
I have a vewwy gweat fwend in Wome called Biggus Dickus.
(The Centurions fall about laughing.)
PILATE
Stop it, stop it, I twell you!

Hi,

Although I'm not exactly what one would call a "deeply religious person" (i.e I consider myself agnostic), I can't help to think that there was some sense in Dr. Terry Mortenson's article. If you take out all the non-scientific bits and pieces (for example, "he didn't pay attention to the Bible (but rather rejected it because of his rebellion against his Creator)"), I thought the scientific arguments were quite solid. I was surprised to see that nobody even tried to discuss these arguments.

First, the "entropic" idea that information does not arrise from nothing, i.e that the entropy of the universe is continuously rising. It seems to me that the genes coding wings for example cannot arise by deletion as most genetic mutations do. Before reading this article, I was conviced that genetic modifications could be deletion *and* adding, but now I'm not so sure. Could anyone enlight me on that matter (or provide me with a reliable source)?

Second, the fact that the evolutionary trees that we see in museums and classes only shows animals at the ends. I searched a bit (admittetly, not too long) for an evolutionary tree showing the common ancestors of two species (i.e a fossile of some sort) and a justification on why it was a common ancestor, but I couldn't find it. Could someone please send me a link or something? Another disturbing point, I thought, was the lack of intermediate fossiles: what do you think about the claims of Dr Mortenson (i.e that there are few if any)?

Last but not least, I would like to point out that, to my mind, religion has nothing to do with this discussion. For me, the religious beliefs of someone who accepts or rejects Darwinism on the base of scientific arguments are irrelevant and sentences like "science is diametrically opposed to faith" or "they are the result of the curse of God on creation when Adam and Eve sinned" are equally useless in determining whether or not Darwinism is a viable theory. What I'm interested in are facts. Please avoid all flame wars: I don't think they're very constructive. If anybody could give me the following information, I would be very much obliged:

1) What is the definition of "species"?
2) Does a genetic mutation have to be a deletion and if so, why (or why not)?
3) If Darwinism is true, what is the link between reptiles and birds?
4) If Darwinism is not true, how did we go from an earth with no oxygen to an earth with reptiles on it?

Thanks a lot.

Charly,

The DNA of organisms can be changed by a range of processes, including insertion, deletion, transposition and substitution. Most of these are well documented in basic textbooks on biology.

As to common ancestors, I can't think of a good example off the top of my head, but that's mainly since it's rare we find a nice neat example in nature. Both lineages of neoceratopsian dinosaurs did not originate directly from _Protoceratops_ - so it would not be fair to say it was the common ancestor of both groups. Likewise, it implies we have direct evidence of the splitting off of two separate groups, which we do not have for the fossil record (however, I would not be surprised if someone here is able to show an example from *recent* history involving speciation of insects or plants, etc.)

There are plenty of intermediate fossils - if by that you mean "trends of change in a group over time". Cetaceans are clearly a good example of this, ranging from four legged land animals, to crocodile like paddlers, to long bodied swimmers with tiny back paws, to modern whales and dolphins. And that's just one group.

To your numbered questions:
1. The most common answer given is "a group of actually or potentially interbreeding natural populations that are reproductively isolated from other such groups". Of course, nothing in science is set in stone, and thus we have unusual things like two related species being able to hybridise, ring species, etc.
2. It does not *have* to be, because it can be other forms. Asking why it does not have to be is like asking why you do not have to be a fireman or a baker. There are lots of possibilities.
3. Dinosaurs. One need only look at the range of dinosaur and avian traits shared over the two to see a clear relationship. _Archaeopteryx_ is one of the better known ones, but then there's new guys like the feathered tyrannosaurid _Dilong_, or the sleeping-like-a-ground-bird specimen of _Mei long_. There's a wide range of feathered dinosaurs known now, and as many skeletal traits shared for them.
4. If you mean where did the oxygen come from, it came about through the release of oxygen gas from geological and chemical processes. Reptiles came about as animals like amphibians evolved to better adapt to life in drier environments.

Hope this helps.

First, the "entropic" idea that information does not arrise from nothing, i.e that the entropy of the universe is continuously rising.

— Charly

Second, the fact that the evolutionary trees that we see in museums and classes only shows animals at the ends.

Another disturbing point, I thought, was the lack of intermediate fossiles: what do you think about the claims of Dr Mortenson (i.e that there are few if any)?

What is the definition of "species"?

Does a genetic mutation have to be a deletion and if so, why (or why not)?

If Darwinism is true, what is the link between reptiles and birds?

If Darwinism is not true, how did we go from an earth with no oxygen to an earth with reptiles on it

lord of the flies, the worms and the human race

a heart, brain, legs and more.

Troll, maybe your post would have more of an impact if you were able to cite the original research paper instead of a news article about it.

Maybe it would. Steve Jones didn't, so I couldn't. Sorry.

I have spent some time on this forum, and my impressions of it are that it is vastly overconfident about the strength of evidence in support of evolution. This seems to be the case with evolution more widely, and IMHO is why they are so keen to avoid consideration of alternatives in schools. I have listened to the arguments, and looked at the cited papers, and I don't think the evidence is there.

I have listened to the arguments, and looked at the cited papers, and I don't think the evidence is there.

Flint: from what I've seen, evolution is asserted, and all the "hard bits" always happen somewhere/when else. I haven't seen evidence for evolution happening: I have seen lots of observations interpreted in the light of evolution being assumed; I have seen lots of observations where proof for large-scale evolution is claimed when what has actually happened is a trivial change (unwarranted [IMO] extrapolation); I have seen nobody attempt seriously to put any mathematical bones on how the "discontinuities" in evolution (changing chromosome numbers, the appearance of new proteins from nothing or random sequences); I have seen creationist and ID arguments portrayed as discredited which on close examination was not because they were wrong in their analysis, but because the evolutionist didn't believe that they were correctly representing the evolutionist argument.

But evidence for evolution as the origin of complex life? Not here.

a group of actually or potentially interbreeding natural populations that are reproductively isolated from other such groups

— Marcus Good

There's a wide range of feathered dinosaurs known now, and as many skeletal traits shared for them

— Marcus Good

GWW: Beheaded scorpion? That's much more imaginative! I like it! I feel a new handle coming on!

Troll:

You make my point (inadvertently, I suspect). If you are convinced of an alternative explanation, then you see no evidence. You can peer at it as hard as you can, but see nothing.

I'm reminded of a story of how some poison gas escaped from a military base in Colorado somewhere, and killed thousands of sheep. The ranchers demanded compensation, and some Pentagon types showed up to talk about it. The meeting was held in a house surrounded by rotting sheep, and the stench was so bad they had to close the windows and run special filters to breathe. The ranchers said "You killed our sheep, we need to be paid for them." And the Pentagon people said "Sheep? What sheep? We don't see any sheep." And lacking any evidence, the Pentagon paid nothing.

In the cases of both yourself and the Pentagon, an outside observer would strongly suspect that there was some powerful external reason why no evidence could be found. In neither case does the reason have any relationship to the strength or quality of the evidence. Instead, in both cases, recognizing the evidence leads to unacceptable consequences for the recognizer.

Charly, stromatolites are actually called cyanobacteria, and are not seaweed. They didn't create oxygen, but helped release it from inside other molecules into the atmosphere. This in turn set the stage for later lifeforms like plants to "take the ball and run with it".

The friend I mentioned earlier added "which can have fertile offsprings". I think in the case of bacteria there could be a problem. Maybe with "same DNA".

— Charly

My question was, how did such organisms arise from an earth without oxygen?

— Charly

Charly,

I'm not sure how valid this is these days, but as I understand it the early organisms ingested methane and excreted oxygen, which led eventually to them poisoning the atmosphere for themelves and leaving the place open to our own direct ancestors.

I'm not entirely sure though how I feel about being descended from (figuratively speaking) excrement. I guess, in the end, the important thing is "I'm here, so whatever."

Note just as we see with the bacteria changing to its environment today we can expect it did way back then. We know 1 frame shift caused a bateria to be able to consume nylon for food. We should expect this type of mutation to work on issues of what other chemicals they need to survive. So a bacteria that uses methane and produces oxygen may mutate so when it reproduces oxygen could replace methane. These 2 bacteria then cover different ecological niches. We also can't discount symbiotic relationships especially in the early stages of life.

stromatolites are actually called cyanobacteria, and are not seaweed

— Marcus Good

Some mules are fertile. There are many degrees of fertility and viability.

— Francis Wayne

the early organisms ingested methane and excreted oxygen, which led eventually to them poisoning the atmosphere for themelves and leaving the place open to our own direct ancestors

— Bob Maurus

From what I understand of evolution theory, at the conception of an individual, errors can occur in duplicating the DNA. If these are viable, i.e. if the individual can actually live with these modifications and transmit it on to its decendants, then it might spread. Now in order for this modification to spread accross to the whole population, you would need to have a certain number of individuals with this modification wouldn't you? I would like to know the probability of an error occuring during this duplication phase (mitosis I think it's called) just to see how long it would take for the part of the population with a certain genetic modification to reach a certain proportion and eventually becoming another species . . . I guess such a model has already been constructed

— Charly

From what I understand of evolution theory, at the conception of an individual, errors can occur in duplicating the DNA.

— Charly

If these are viable, i.e. if the individual can actually live with these modifications and transmit it on to its decendants, then it might spread.

— Charly

Now in order for this modification to spread accross to the whole population, you would need to have a certain number of individuals with this modification wouldn't you?

— Charly

I would like to know the probability of an error occuring during this duplication phase (mitosis I think it's called) just to see how long it would take for the part of the population with a certain genetic modification to reach a certain proportion and eventually becoming another species

— Charly

Wayne: Um, to be pedantic, technically there is a pretty thick black and white line - in that post, you said common horse has 64 chromosomes and mountain zebra has 32. OK, there are animals who can change numbers of chromosomes within the species (I read about a species of deer the other day). But even a three-year-old can tell the difference between a horse and a zebra - I know, my daughter told me.

"No black and white line" suggests there is a continual graduation between the two - one species blurring into the other - and whilst you can successfully cross them to produce a range of expression of "stripiness", I doubt that the number of chromosomes could be anywhere between 32 and 64. Which would mean that, appearance notwithstanding, the hybrid would either be a horse that looks a bit like a zebra, or a zebra that looks a bit like a horse. I did try and do a search to find out more, but didn't come up with anything on Google. I stand to be corrected, however.

Er, anyway, as you were ....

aCTasaid:
"But even a three-year-old can tell the difference between a horse and a zebra - I know, my daughter told me."

And those are? Aside from the gross physical differences, such as the pattern and colour, what exactly *are* those, as your daughter summated them? Did she point out differences in their chromosomal count?

C'mon, science has a totally different set of expectations than a public one. I work in a science museum, and get adults telling me the thylacine and hyena are kinds of dog - but science goes far deeper than the surface appearance.

"Which would mean that, appearance notwithstanding, the hybrid would either be a horse that looks a bit like a zebra, or a zebra that looks a bit like a horse. I did try and do a search to find out more, but didn’t come up with anything on Google. I stand to be corrected, however."

What about the quagga?

Well, a brief search suggested that the quagga was a horse/plains zebra hybrid (not mountain zebra), but let's assume that they are nonetheless related. After all, in evolutionary terms, the plains zebra will represent a divergence at some point along the line between mountain zebra and horse. We are still not at the point of having a continuum between horse and mountain zebra. A breeding programme is being carried out to try and re-establish the quagga - but it looks to me like even within the closely-related family group of equids, there are intuitively definite "black and white" "lines" which bound identifiable species, rather than a simple range of "different levels." This breeding programme in itself implies that it is definitely possible to identify an animal that is a quagga, and not a horse or plains zebra.

Obviously "given time", it could be argued that one-off events might lead to speciation (with changes in appearance, chromosome number and so on). However, it would be interesting to analyse how much time nature would need, on average, to achieve the level of cross-breeding that humans carry out for research or agriculture - for example, how often plains zebra/horse crosses occur in the wild, compared to in captivity.

aCTa,

The same could be said for lion/tiger, wolf/jackal, coyote/fox and cow/bison events. There is consideral corroborative evidence for wolf/coyote, and possibly dog/coyote interbreeding in the wild. Lion and tiger populations overlap only in India if I'm not mistaken,so presumably the chance of their interbreeding in the wild is slim at best. I'm also not aware of any populations of feral horses in Africa, so the same could probably be said of horse/zebra.

The general definition of species revolves around naturally interbreeding populations. Viability and subsequent fertility of the offsprings of various captive events would presumably serve as a guage of the length of time since the speciation split occured.

Wayne, do the various zebra (sub?)species interbreed natuarlly?

We are still not at the point of having a continuum between horse and mountain zebra.

Troll,

Use your eyes and brain to read this sad article which appeared on CNN today.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/TECH/science/12/01/rare.bird.ap/index.html

Then tell me: if this honeycreeper died before humans discovered it, and if it didn't leave any fossilized evidence of its existence, would the resultant "gap" in our understanding of the diversity of life on earth represent evidence that evolution is bogus?

Does your answer change if that particular honeycreeper was part of a "continuum" of "related" species?

Use your brain, Troll. Let's have some answers and see if you understand have as much as you claim to. Good luck.

GWW Trolls obsession with equines is from me constantly bringing them up in conversation.

GWW Trolls obsession with equines is from me constantly bringing them up in conversation.

At some stage, if evolution is true, "hearts" must have come from "not-hearts". Changes in chromosome numbers must have occurred. "Cells" must have come from "not-cells". And so on. Evolution is talked about as a continuity - but no discussion of how the discontinuities may have happened is ever really carried out.

— A Creationist Troll, Apparently

I have spent some time on this forum, and my impressions of it are that it is vastly overconfident about the strength of evidence in support of evolution.

Wayne: Um, to be pedantic, technically there is a pretty thick black and white line - in that post, you said common horse has 64 chromosomes and mountain zebra has 32. OK, there are animals who can change numbers of chromosomes within the species (I read about a species of deer the other day). But even a three-year-old can tell the difference between a horse and a zebra - I know, my daughter told me. "No black and white line" suggests there is a continual graduation between the two - one species blurring into the other - and whilst you can successfully cross them to produce a range of expression of "stripiness", I doubt that the number of chromosomes could be anywhere between 32 and 64. Which would mean that, appearance notwithstanding, the hybrid would either be a horse that looks a bit like a zebra, or a zebra that looks a bit like a horse. I did try and do a search to find out more, but didn't come up with anything on Google. I stand to be corrected, however. Er, anyway, as you were . . . .

— aCTa

the hybrid would either be a horse that looks a bit like a zebra, or a zebra that looks a bit like a horse.

Thanks, Wayne - and thanks for the domestic cat/lion note. Do you know offhand if all of the cats (felis, neofelis, panthera and acinonyx) are crossfertile? Any timeframe on the zebra splits?

Wayne:

"Because you know what Black panthers are tigers. "

Actually, they can be either leopards or jaguars; mind you, there *are* rare reports of "blue tigers"..

Also, Bob Maurus -

Lions and tigers also interact in Kenya.

http://www.weebls-stuff.com/toons/29/ - as we can plainly see, they only interact in Kenya, and nowhere else in the world..

;)

For your collection, Reed:
Apologetics Press: National Geographic Shoots Itself in the Foot---Again!"

We are still not at the point of having a continuum between horse and mountain zebra

— aCTa

Thanks again, Wayne. It would be interesting, but perhaps not particularly wise, to see some level of research into cross-fertility of the great apes - those old rumors of human/gorilla or human/chimp remain intriguing and, I would suspect, plausible at least. Wouldn't that cause quite a stir amongst our creationist friends? But then, there is that whole thing about "kinds," isn't there? Hm-m-m.