Interesting article. I recently read an article where an isolation experiment was done on fruit flies. They separated a group of fruit flies into two isolated groups, allowed them to breed for a number of generations, And when they were reintroduced to each other they found flies from separate groups couldn't reproduce together. They essentially created a brand new species of fly which had started it's own evolutionary branch. Over time, Because these two species couldn't reproduce, variations and mutations will be passed on only in the species where the change originated and they will become more and more different.
Really interesting, Iul. I had previously read the work Stox cites. Both are fascinating examples of evolution.
I am more a believer of evolution. I definitly am not a creationist but I admit there are some major flaws in evolution theories.
Lack of fossil records. The probability in it all. The mathmatical probablility itself makes evolution almost impossible to the degree that has been suggested. Note I do believe in evolution. I am just throwing out some counter arguments.
Evolution exists even now, in the instant - as the above two examples show. Can you please explain your probability argument?
There isn't a lack of fossil records. There is an abundance of fossils showing stages of development and transitional species. What is the mathematical probability then? If anything it's mathematically improbable that evolution wont occur. For species to evolve via natural selection the following has to occur. 1. Organisms have to reproduce 2. The reproductions can't be perfect 3. Organisms best suited to their environment find more food, Live longer and reproduce more. These 3 things do occur, And as such it's highly improbable that evolution will not happen.
The magazine New Scientist just published a special issue about evolution. Worth buying if you are interested in informing yourself. I'm pasting below one of the articles that can be found here. The article has many links, so you should go to see it online. ABout the 'lack of fossils', they also had an article a few weeks ago written by the paleontologist Donald Prothero demystifying the myth (of lack of transitional fossils).
Well in 1996 in the book, Darwin's Black Box, Behe, using microbiology to question evolution. And I will quote Darwin himself here, "If it could not be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not be possibly have been formulated by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down." Now, in Behe's book he discussed items such as the flagellum. The flagellum is composed of 30-40 complex protein parts. If just one of these is missing, the flagellum would cease to function. The cilium is composed of 200 protein parts, and again if just one is missing, it would stop to work. Could someone please explain how a series of essentially genetic mistakes would bring this about. It would take several mutations for this to occur. And this is just for very small organelles of a single cell. A cell consists of dozens of organelles that would have to be composed of thousands of protein parts. And according to "evolution" these proteins all come together through a series of genetic mistakes and then managed to survive through natural selection. Heck it would even need to survive itself. Cells have genes called p53 genes and these detect genetic mutations and cause the cell to go through apoptosis (the cell basically commits suicide). The mathematical impossibility of such events was stated in Behe's book. And that was just to explain a single cell. Evolutionary biologist, "Tom Cavalier-Smith stated of Behe's findings, "For none of the cases mentioned by Behe is there yet a comprehensive and detailed explanation of the probable steps in the evolution of the observed complexity." Hard core evolutionist Richard Dawkins even admitted that he could not respond to Behe's argument. Another evolutionary biologist, Jerry Coyne, "There is no doubt that the pathways described by Behe are dauntingly complex, and their evolution will be hard to unravel." Evolutionist Robert Pennock said, "I have not addressed the biochemical details of his real examples, but as we have noted, the evidence is not yet in on those questions." Well according to Behe who the above evolutionists could not prove wrong, the biochemical details " have been well understood for 40 years." So far evolutionists can not even explain the evolution of a single organelle on a cell. They admit that they can not explain how it happened scientifically, biochemically or mathematically. Evolutionists are so sure of their "theory" that they have constantly made up lies and forged evidence. Again with well respected evolutionist, Richard Dawkins. In his book, River Out of Eden, claimed that scientists had developed "computer models of evolving eyes." Well David Berliniski looked into it and such a model does not exist. Evolutionist still can not even explain how an eye would come about by through evolution. Then there is the admitted fake "Archaeoraptor" that was presented as a transitional link between bird and dinosaur. There was also the fake Peppered Moth example of microevolution occuring right before our eyes. Another classic is the fake drawings of embryos from Haeckel. The Miller-Urey experiment is another fraud. Instead of using atmospheric conditions similar to earth's he used that of Jupiters. He went on to state "either you have a reducing atmosphere or you're not going to have the organic compounds required for life." (hint: earth's early atmosphere did not have this. Pilztdown man (enough said) The Scopes Trial was set up too *I can elaborate on some of these if you all would like Again with the possibility... Sir Fred Hoyle and Chandra Wickramasinghe also came to the same conclusion as Behe. These people have been awarded several sceintific awards. The have won the International Dag Hammarskjold Gold Medal for Science, the Crafoord Prize from the Royal Swedish Academy Society of Science. the Klumpke-Roberts Award, the Royal Medal, the Bruce Medal... (it goes on). And before anyone accuses these highly acclaimed scientists of being "religious fanatics" they are both atheists. Hoyle ran the numbers to determine the mathematical probabilty of the basic enzymes of life to arise from random processes. The probability is 1/(divided by)1 followed by 40,000 zeros. Francis Crick, the winner of the Nobel Prize for the codiscovery of DNA stated, "The probability of life originating at random is so utterly minuscule as to make it absurd." Now for some on the fossil record. I will quote David Raup of the Field Museum of Natural History. "The evidence we find in the geologic record is not nearly as compatible with darwinian natural selection as would like it to be... the geologic record did not then and still does not yield a finely graduated chain of slow and progressive evolution." "We are now about 120 years after Darwin and the knowledge of the fossil record as been greatly expanded. We now have a quarter million fossil species but the situation hasn't changed much. The record of evolution is still surprisingly jerky and, ironically, we have even fewer examples of evolutionary transitions than we had in Darwin's time." He goes on to discuss the "evolution of the horse." The version shown in Darwin's time has now been discarded. We have a fossil record showing that we had dinosaurs for almost 150 million years. Then they vanished and mammals arrived. There is no fossil record of the transitional species. And also surprisingly enough, we have no record of species that "evolved" in some way but had mutations that deformed the individual but did not render it useless that could be passed on through generations. Again mutations are random, we should see the side effects of mutations, not just the "transitions" (which also do not exist in the fossil record). Niles Eldredge, Gould's collaborator (they made up adaptive evolution) stated of the horse sequence, "speculative" but yet it is presented as fact... strange huh?
Fantastic construction. Social Darwinism divined from Darwin as a moral evil, and it's all Uncle Chuck's, the biologists, fault. Primeval Europe=> Germanic Hordes => Austria-Hungary=> Austria => Branau am Inn => Hitler => Baddie Awesome! Slam dunk refutation of Darwin's theories of biological adaptation!
I disagree with much of evolutionary concepts, but for people to say it leads to Eugenics and its evolution's fault are just plain ignorant.
We shouldn’t care who brought us here or how we got here because unless we can look into the past we’re wasting time. Everything is speculation when trying to define a past you’ve never seen. Everything is speculation and theory no matter whose mouth it comes out of when dealing with a past you’ve never seen. Nobody believes that or we wouldn’t have another person pushing their religion thread. I’ve converted to Buddhism. I rather find myself than look for someone who can’t be bothered with.
I do believe in evolution, but there is a lot science can not explain, if science and spirituality (not talking about religion, talking about spirituality) walked together, we would know a lot more, I guess