Evolution under scrutiny

J Hubner · #1 by **J Hubner** » Nov 23, 2011 1:53 am

Greetings.

One of the main problems evolutionist’s faces nowadays is the principal problem exposed by the diversity of species we observe today on our planet. If evolution means what it is asserted to mean by the Darwin squad: a series of gradual genetic changes within a specie, then If it is a series of gradual genetics changes we should only observe one highly evolved descendant of the first specie, only one specie, and not many as we currently observe.

The evolutionists propose the process of speciation as an answer. However we never found any cases of speciation in the fossil record and furthermore we have never found examples of species that link together major groups suspected to have common descent, for example: birds and reptiles, not a single example of these species has ever been found. None is observed living either.

Also the existence of archaic structures or badly designed structures that have no use in some specimens that are said to prove evolution do not prove evolution at all. There are no badly designed structures, the appendix for example, long said by Darwin to be badly designed, was found to be important for the immune system as a source of anti bodies producing cells and is also a compartment for bacteria that act in the digestive system. All of these facts invalidate this claim of evolution, and one may think that with so many claims of evolution being revealed as false that if the trend continues, evolution will have very little to show for itself in the near future.

Also, we can further examine the fossil record for an extremely potent headshot towards the doctrine of evolution. Darwin himself stated on numerous occasions that the fossil record presented difficulties for his theory. The oldest rocks from the earliest periods do not contain a single evidence of evolutionary change and this is something Darwin repeatedly acknowledged and is still being acknowledged by the scientists today as a powerful case against evolution. No valid examples of speciation in the fossil strata have been discovered.

It must also be said that the early development of vertebrate embryos and its features is more consistent with separate origins rather than with common ancestry. I wil expound on this later.

Furthermore, in biochemistry, recent discovery’s shed light on irreducibly complex structures in the function of cells. Doctor Michael Behe’s pioneering work in this domain has revealed new problems for the theory of evolution. The existence of irreducibly complex cannot be denied anymore, however the political bias from evolutionism continue to choke valuable work, refusing publication of findings contrary to their doctrinal assertions.

It also seems to me that the main proponent’s of evolutionism are mostly concerned with doing pseudo-science that actual science. Actual science is concerned with rigourous attemps at refutation rather than only attempts at confirmation. The history of evolution has been nothing but poor attempts at confirmation, gaps subsists, its claims are improvable and it much lacks openness to critique by competent peers. This is why the label pseudo-science fits like a glove.

I look forward to reading your replies.

Spearthrower · #2 by **Spearthrower** » Nov 23, 2011 2:26 am

J Hubner wrote:Greetings.

One of the main problems evolutionist’s faces nowadays is the principal problem exposed by the diversity of species we observe today on our planet.

Generally, an argument is built on a premise, and for the argument to make any sense, the premise must be sound.

You have completely confounded sense by not recognising that the theory of Evolution quite expressly explains the diversity of species we observe today, so it can hardly be considered a problem.

Thus, the rest of your 'argument' is just empty rhetoric devoid of any actual understanding of the topic matter. Vacuous ideological demagoguery.

Weaver · #3 by **Weaver** » Nov 23, 2011 2:32 am

1) Speciation doesn't work like you think it does. Gradual changes occurring simultaneously within separated population groups of a single species leads to divergence, and eventually multiple species. This is what Darwin noted - it's really quite basic biology nowadays. Study some science.

2) Your assertions that different species haven't been found in the fossil record, nor common ancestors, are utterly false. Study some science.

3) There are many, many structures within all species which are less-than-ideal solutions to the problems they solve. Simply look at the retina of the human eye for multiple examples. Study some science.

4) Again the lies about what the fossil record contains, this time with added claims that scientists acknowledge issues with it. Study some science.

5) Sure you will. Can't wait. In the meantime, study some science.

6) There are no irreducibly complex structures. Behe has been proven to be utterly wrong with his claims. Political bias simply doesn't fit into the equation - there is no suppression of challenging science from the ID crowd, it's just that their re-packaged creationism has no scientific merit whatsoever. Study some science.

7) Whatever. Evolution is the most studied, most challenged, and most robust of the scientific fields of study. Not only has the theory been demonstrated to be correct historically in massively overwhelming numbers, it has been repeatedly studied occurring in real time. Study some science.

8) But will you learn anything from them? Will you ever admit that you are totally wrong, that your understanding of science is lacking on multiple levels? Will you you ever admit that the scientific support for the theory of evolution is simply unassailable due to the massive, integrated, self-supporting body of evidence available in the real world? Somehow, I doubt it.

laklak · #4 by **laklak** » Nov 23, 2011 2:35 am

Oh goodness me, in one simple, parsimonious, brilliant post, Mr. J Hubner has COMPLETELY DISPROVED THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION!!!!!!!

Why didn't ANY of us think of this? Why didn't ALL those Phd sciency types not figure this out? How did they not SEE THE GAPS??!! Didn't they KNOW about irreducible complexity in the cell's functions? OMFG THIS IS AMAZING! This deserves a Nobel! This deserves a Pulitzer! We need to elect this man to high office, no, no not mere high office, THE HIGHEST!

Spearthrower · #5 by **Spearthrower** » Nov 23, 2011 2:55 am

Does anyone think this is one of those Dembski course credit posts? It's nearly a complete list of the ignorant canards which can only be inculcated in total isolation from any genuine knowledge of the topic matter.

laklak · #6 by **laklak** » Nov 23, 2011 3:17 am

Probably. Either that or it's bearding the atheist in his own den. If you do it you get to wear a special hat and sit in the front pew on Sunday.

Spearthrower · #7 by **Spearthrower** » Nov 23, 2011 3:28 am

J Hubner wrote:a series of gradual genetic changes within a specie, then If it is a series of gradual genetics changes we should only observe one highly evolved descendant of the first specie, only one specie, and not many as we currently observe.

Even if the Earth's environment was entirely homogenous throughout all of recorded history, this would still be an ignorant claim that suffices by itself to show that you've approached this question without so much as an grain of knowledge of the topic matter.

Mutations arise as a matter of course, some are preferentially selected. Even if there were only one species, any degree of isolation between parts of the population would lead inevitably to speciation: you need to go and learn at least a basic outline of the theory you're claiming to have defeated!

J Hubner wrote:The evolutionists propose the process of speciation as an answer. However we never found any cases of speciation in the fossil record and furthermore we have never found examples of species that link together major groups suspected to have common descent, for example: birds and reptiles, not a single example of these species has ever been found. None is observed living either.

Lemme guess - you want a crocoduck?

Perhaps you are less ignorant of other topics. Let's try elementary logic.

You realise that to disprove the statement 'All swans are white', all you need to do is show one black swan, right?

Ok - tiktaalik roseae.

Of course, I could put numerous other examples under your nose, but why should I do the legwork when all you're here for is to crow about your ignorance of the topic matter?

Go learn stuff - stuff good!

J Hubner wrote:Also the existence of archaic structures or badly designed structures that have no use in some specimens that are said to prove evolution do not prove evolution at all. There are no badly designed structures, the appendix for example, long said by Darwin to be badly designed, was found to be important for the immune system as a source of anti bodies producing cells and is also a compartment for bacteria that act in the digestive system. All of these facts invalidate this claim of evolution, and one may think that with so many claims of evolution being revealed as false that if the trend continues, evolution will have very little to show for itself in the near future.

Citation from Darwin, please? Not that what Darwin said is particularly relevant with respect to the modern science of evolutionary biology, but it's been noted thousands of times how duplicitous claims are made by Creationists about what Darwin allegedly said.

Let's make something clear from a Biological perspective: Vestigiality doesn't mean 'useless'. It means, no longer used for the original purpose. Vestigiality IS evolution. You have provided a logical disproof of your own idea. Well done, just unfortunate you didn't recognise it.

Appendixes don't produce antibodies - the lymphatic tissue lining the appendix does - but that's just a minor droplet in the greater sea of Wrong.

Incidentally, the notion that this is good design is hilarious! An omnipotent being can't come up with a better design than something that can explode and frequently kill the bearer.

On 'good design' - try the recurrent laryngeal nerve. Giraffes everywhere are laughing (fractionally slower than their human counterparts) at your claim of good design.

J Hubner wrote:Also, we can further examine the fossil record for an extremely potent headshot towards the doctrine of evolution. Darwin himself stated on numerous occasions that the fossil record presented difficulties for his theory. The oldest rocks from the earliest periods do not contain a single evidence of evolutionary change and this is something Darwin repeatedly acknowledged and is still being acknowledged by the scientists today as a powerful case against evolution. No valid examples of speciation in the fossil strata have been discovered.

It's a funny old thing time - one of the characteristics of it is that it doesn't stand still! In the intervening years between Darwin's initial tentative inquiries into this field, and your infantile post, there may just have been a few discoveries that strengthen Darwin's theory, even if he was entirely unaware of them.

Now, let's look at the details. The oldest rocks from the oldest periods are around 4 billion years old. As life didn't arise until after that, a lack of life prior to that is not to be expected.

However, what it does show is that there was a time when there was no life on Earth, and then there was a time when there was life on Earth. This means, if you can follow the logic, that at some point life arrived on Earth.

Now, it could be that a magic man in the sky blinked lifeforms into existence. But if this magic, almost certainly bearded, man in the sky did so, then he magicked extremely simple forms onto the planet. Then he slowly and cautiously replaced them with very slightly different organisms, and proceeded to repeat this ever after. That could be considered consistent with the hard evidence from empirical reality, but it does somewhat break the fundamentals of parsimony considering Darwin and Mendel provided a mechanism by which life does this without magical intervention.

The rest of your claims in this paragraph are just outright lies. The fossil record is entirely consistent with a progression of evolving life forms arising in geological time. No relevant scientist argues otherwise: you are just lying.

Oh and you reiterated your error again, so I will give you a new example:

Archaeopteryx - long considered an example of the first bird, now it's considered more likely to be a dinosaur - what does that tell you about the 'no intermediary species in the fossil record' bollocks you are touting? :doh:

J Hubner wrote:It must also be said that the early development of vertebrate embryos and its features is more consistent with separate origins rather than with common ancestry. I wil expound on this later.

Oh please do! Some dude on the internet knows better than hundreds of thousands of accredited scientists working in their fields. Why haven't you published this evidence.... oh hold on, you do have evidence, right? Why do I get the feeling that you think writing 5 sentences is going to be sufficient, and why do I get the feeling that you think you are conducting science by doing so?

J Hubner wrote:Furthermore, in biochemistry, recent discovery’s shed light on irreducibly complex structures in the function of cells. Doctor Michael Behe’s pioneering work in this domain has revealed new problems for the theory of evolution. The existence of irreducibly complex cannot be denied anymore, however the political bias from evolutionism continue to choke valuable work, refusing publication of findings contrary to their doctrinal assertions.

Behe's had his arse spanked so many times on this, why are you regurgitating it?

Every claimed case-study of irreducible complexity has been shown to be a) wrong and b) extremely ignorant of the relevant topic. Behe's a shill, and you've slurped his discharge up like a good little believer.

The reason respected journals refuse to publish his claims is because he's not doing science: you can't ignore contradictory data in science, it just doesn't work like that. What does Behe do? Does he go back to the lab to collate the evidence for his case? Of course not! That's not how Creation Science works - far better to write a book and sell it to people incapable of judging the merit of the claims, rather than have it treated by the experts in the field who know when he's making mistakes or fudging his data.

J Hubner wrote:It also seems to me that the main proponent’s of evolutionism are mostly concerned with doing pseudo-science that actual science. Actual science is concerned with rigourous attemps at refutation rather than only attempts at confirmation. The history of evolution has been nothing but poor attempts at confirmation, gaps subsists, its claims are improvable and it much lacks openness to critique by competent peers. This is why the label pseudo-science fits like a glove.

Unfortunately, you appear to be operating under a delusional construct of science: this probably means you are a self declared Creation Scientist. They don't understand that the entire methodology sits on the back of evidence.

Let's take genetics. Darwin was entirely unaware of this field of study, and it most assuredly could have falsified the ToE. But OH LOOK! Not only did it not falsify evolutionary theory, but it also added numerous more lines of inquiry. Evolution is routinely tested under conditions that could potentially falsify it - the fact that it hasn't been falsified does not mean that people are looking to confirm it, but rather that it is as robust a scientific theory as any of the others you take for granted in life.

J Hubner wrote:
I look forward to reading your replies.

Try and raise your game: assertions without evidence aren't remotely interesting.

Sityl · #8 by **Sityl** » Nov 23, 2011 3:51 am

It's so sad, because if the OP were given even a sliver of education on what evolution actually is, instead of the institutionalized lies he was likely fed since a child, he would actually see how quickly his argument fails. :/

Ihavenofingerprints · #9 by **Ihavenofingerprints** » Nov 23, 2011 4:06 am

J Hubner wrote:
Also the existence of archaic structures or badly designed structures that have no use in some specimens that are said to prove evolution do not prove evolution at all. There are no badly designed structures, the appendix for example, long said by Darwin to be badly designed, was found to be important for the immune system as a source of anti bodies producing cells and is also a compartment for bacteria that act in the digestive system. All of these facts invalidate this claim of evolution, and one may think that with so many claims of evolution being revealed as false that if the trend continues, evolution will have very little to show for itself in the near future.

What are you trying to say? That every part of every animal on the planet is perfectly designed?

Sityl · **#10** by **Sityl** » Nov 23, 2011 4:12 am

Ihavenofingerprints wrote:
J Hubner wrote:
Also the existence of archaic structures or badly designed structures that have no use in some specimens that are said to prove evolution do not prove evolution at all. There are no badly designed structures, the appendix for example, long said by Darwin to be badly designed, was found to be important for the immune system as a source of anti bodies producing cells and is also a compartment for bacteria that act in the digestive system. All of these facts invalidate this claim of evolution, and one may think that with so many claims of evolution being revealed as false that if the trend continues, evolution will have very little to show for itself in the near future.

What are you trying to say? That every part of every animal on the planet is perfectly designed?

Im just waiting to hear his explanation about the laryngeal nerve, knees, backs, small birth canals...

Calilasseia · **#11** by **Calilasseia** » Nov 23, 2011 4:14 am

It's petunias time once more, folks ...

J Hubner wrote:Greetings.

We'll spare you any synthetic ingratiation, and get straight to business.

J Hubner wrote:One of the main problems evolutionist’s

Oh, dear, you've erected the one creationist canard that is guaranteed to invite scorn and derision. Since you manifestly couldn't be bothered to read the relevant thread where I dealt with this, and many other, creationist canards at length, I'll re-post the relevant dismantling thereof here.

The "evolutionist" canard (with "Darwinist" side salad).

Now, if there is one guaranteed way for a creationist to establish that he or she is here for no other reason than to propagandise for a doctrine, it's the deployment of that most viscerally hated of words in the lexicon, namely, evolutionist. I have posted about this so often here, that I was surprised to find that I'd missed it out of the original list, but I had more pressing concerns to attend to when compiling the list originally. However, having been reminded of it, now is the time to nail this one to the ground with a stake through its heart once and for all.

There is no such thing as an "evolutionist". Why do I say this? Simple. Because the word has become thoroughly debased through creationist abuse thereof, and in my view, deserves to be struck from the language forever. For those who need the requisite education, there exist evolutionary biologists, namely the scientific professionals who devote decades of their lives to understanding the biosphere and conducting research into appropriate biological phenomena, and those outside that specialist professional remit who accept the reality-based, evidence-based case that they present in their peer reviewed scientific papers for their postulates. The word "evolutionist" is a discoursive elision, erected by creationists for a very specific and utterly mendacious purpose, namely to suggest that valid evolutionary science is a "doctrine", and that those who accept its postulates do so merely as a priori "assumptions" (see [3] above). This is manifestly false, as anyone who has actually read the peer reviewed scientific literature is eminently well placed to understand. The idea that there exists some sort of "symmetry" between valid, evidence-based, reality-based science (evolutionary biology) and assertion-laden, mythology-based doctrine (creationism) is FALSE. Evolutionary biology, like every other branch of science, tests assertions and presuppositions to destruction, which is why creationism was tossed into the bin 150 years ago (see [2] above). When creationists can provide methodologically rigorous empirical tests of their assertions, the critical thinkers will sit up and take notice.

Furthermore, with respect to this canard, does the acceptance of the scientifically educated individuals on this board, of the current scientific paradigm for gravity make them "gravitationists"? Does their acceptance of the evidence supporting the germ theory of disease make them "microbists"? Does their acceptance of the validity of Maxwell's Equations make them "electromagnetists"? Does their acceptance of of the validity of the work of Planck, Bohr, Schrödinger, Dirac and a dozen others in the relevant field make them "quantumists"? Does their acceptance of the validity of the astrophysical model for star formation and the processes that take place inside stars make them "stellarists"? If you are unable to see the absurdity inherent in this, then you are in no position to tell people here that professional scientists have got it wrong, whilst ignorant Bronze Age nomads writing mythology 3,000 years ago got it right.

While we're at it, let's deal with the duplicitous side salad known as "Darwinist". The critical thinkers here know why this particular discoursive elision is erected, and the reason is related to the above. Basically, "Darwinist" is erected for the specific purpose of suggesting that the only reason people accept evolution is because they bow uncritically to Darwin as an authority figure. This is, not to put too fine a point on it, droolingly encephalitic drivel of a particularly suppurating order. Let's provide a much needed education once and for all here.

Darwin is regarded as historically important because he founded the scientific discipline of evolutionary biology, and in the process, converted biology from a cataloguing exercise into a proper empirical science. The reason Darwin is considered important is NOT because he is regarded uncritically as an "authority figure" - the critical thinkers leave this sort of starry-eyed gazing to followers of the likes of William Lane Craig. Darwin is regarded as important because he was the first person to pay serious attention to reality with respect to the biosphere, with respect to the business of determining mechanisms for its development, and the first to engage in diligent intellectual labour for the purpose of establishing that reality supported his postulates with respect to the biosphere. In other words, instead of sitting around accepting uncritically mythological blind assertion, he got off his arse, rolled up his sleeves, did the hard work, put in the long hours performing the research and gathering the real world data, and then spending long hours determining what would falsify his ideas and determining in a rigorous manner that no such falsification existed. For those who are unaware of this, the requisite labour swallowed up twenty years of his life, which is par for the course for a scientist introducing a new paradigm to the world. THAT is why he is regarded as important, because he expended colossal amounts of labour ensuring that REALITY supported his ideas. That's the ONLY reason ANY scientist acquires a reputation for being a towering contributor to the field, because said scientist toils unceasingly for many years, in some cases whole decades, ensuring that his ideas are supported by reality in a methodologically rigorous fashion.

Additionally, just in case this idea hasn't crossed the mind of any creationist posting here, evolutionary biology has moved on in the 150 years since Darwin, and whilst his historical role is rightly recognised, the critical thinkers have also recognised that more recent developments have taken place that would leave Darwin's eyes out on stalks if he were around to see them. The contributors to the field after Darwin are numerous, and include individuals who contributed to the development of other branches of science making advances in evolutionary theory possible. Individuals such as Ronald Fisher, who developed the mathematical tools required to make sense of vast swathes of biological data (heard of analysis of variance? Fisher invented it), or Theodosius Dobzhansky, who combined theoretical imagination with empirical rigour, and who, amongst other developments, provided science with a documented instance of speciation in the laboratory. Other seminal contributors included Müller (who trashed Behe's nonsense six decades before Behe was born), E. O. Wilson, Ernst Mayr, Motoo Kimura, Stephen Jay Gould, Niles Eldredge, J. B. S. Haldane, Richard Lewontin, Sewall Wright, Jerry Coyne, Carl Woese, Kenneth Miller, and they're just the ones I can list off the top of my head. Pick up any half-decent collection of scientific papers from the past 100 years, and dozens more names can be added to that list.

So, anyone who wants to be regarded as an extremely low-grade chew toy here only has to erect the "evolutionist" or "Darwinist" canard, and they will guarantee this end result.

Now that this has been dealt with, it's time to find out what entirely synthetic pseudo-problem you're going to erect, in the mistaken belief that you'r presesnting some startlingly original wisdom that is somehow going to overturn 150 years of valid science. :Let's take a look at this shall we?

J Hubner wrote:faces nowadays is the principal problem exposed by the diversity of species we observe today on our planet.

This isn't a "problem" for evolution, because evolution was erected to explain this very phenomenon. And does so with spectacular success, as anyone who has read real scientific papers on the subject, instead of worthless creationist apologetics, is exquisitely equipped to understand. Speaking of which, have you read any of the relevant papers? Only if not, I suggest you spend time educating yourself with some of them.

J Hubner wrote:If evolution means what it is asserted to mean by the Darwin squad: a series of gradual genetic changes within a specie, then If it is a series of gradual genetics changes we should only observe one highly evolved descendant of the first specie, only one specie, and not many as we currently observe.

Wrong. Someone obviously hasn't heard of the biological species concept. Which, succinctly put, is as follows:

A species is a population of organisms, all of which are interfertile with each other, and none of which are interfertile with other, reproductively distinct populations.

On this basis, the appearance of new species simply requires, that when a population diverges into two (or more), for some reason, those populations acquire mutations that introduce interfertility failure with the other populations. Not only has this been observed taking place in the wild, but has also been reproduced in the laboratory. Theodosius Dobzhansky produced a speciation event in his laboratory with a population of Drosophila pseudoobscura. Not only that, but scientists have alighted upon relevant families of genes that have been demonstrated empirically to be implicated in speciation.

It's time for some relevant citations of apposite scientific papers. The following comprises just a small smaple of the available scientific literature:

A Model For Divergent Allopatric Speciation Of Polyploid Pteridophytes Resulting From Silencing Of Duplicate-Gene Expression by Charles R.E. Werth and Michael D. Windham, American Naturalist, 137(4): 515-526 (April 1991) - DEVELOPMENT OF A MODEL TO MATCH OBSERVED SPECIATION IN NATURE

A Molecular Reexamination Of Diploid Hybrid Speciation Of Solanum raphanifolium by David M. Spooner, Kenneth. J. Sytsma and James F. Smith, Evolution, 45(3): 757-764 - DOCUMENTATION OF AN OBSERVED SPECIATION EVENT

A Mouse Speciation Gene Encodes A Meiotic Histone H3 Methyltransferase by Ondrej mihola, Zdenek Trachtulec, Cestmir Vlcek, John C. Scimenti and Jiri Forejt, Science, 323: 350-351 (16th January 2009) - DETERMINING THE FUNCTION OF A GENE DIRECTLY IMPLICATED IN SPECIATION AND FAILURE OF INTERFERTILITY BETWEEN DIVERGING POPULATIONS

A Rapidly Evolving MYB-Related Protein Causes Species Isolation In Drosophila by Daniel A. Barbash, Dominic F. Siino, Arron M. Tarone and John Roote, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA, 110(9): 5302-5307 (29th April 2003) - DETERMINING THE BEHAVIOUR OF A GENE DIRECTLY IMPLICATED IN SPECIATION AND FAILURE OF INTERFERTILITY BETWEEN DIVERGING POPULATIONS

A Screen For Recessive Speciation Genes Expressed In The Gametes Of F1 Hybrid Yeast by Duncan Greig, Public Library of Science Genetics, 3(2): e21 (February 2007) - Determining the presence of speciation genes in a primitive eukaryote, and the roles of any genes thus located

Adaptive Divergence And The Evolution Of Reproductive Isolation In The Wild: An Empirical Demonstration Using Introduced Sockeye Salmon by Andrew P. Hendry, Genetics, 112-113: 515-534 (2001) - DIRECT EXPERIMENTAL TEST OF REPRODUCTIVE ISOLATION AND ITS ROLE IN SPECIATION EVENTS

Adaptive Evolution And Explosive Speciation: The Cichlid Fish Model by Thomas D. Kocher, Nature Reviews Genetics, 5: 288-298 (April 2004) - DISCUSSION OF METHODS OF EMPIRICAL DEMONSTRATION OF SPECIATION INCLUDING MOLECULAR ANALYSES

Chromosomal Rearrangements And Speciation by Loren H. Rieseberg, TRENDS In Ecology & Evolution, 16(7): 351-358 (July 2001) - determination of the input that chromosomal rearrangements may have upon speciation evnets

Chromosome Evolution, Phylogeny, And Speciation Of Rock Wallabies by G. B. Sharman, R. L. Close and G. M. Maynes, Australian Journal of Zoology, 37(2-4): 351-363 (1991) - DOCUMENTATION OF OBSERVED SPECIATION IN NATURE

Evidence For Rapid Speciation Following A Founder Event In The Laboratory by James R. Weinberg Victoria R. Starczak and Danielle Jörg, Evolution 46: 1214-1220 (15th January 1992) - EXPERIMENTAL GENERATION OF A SPECIATION EVENT IN THE LABORATORY

Evolutionary Theory And Process Of Active Speciation And Adaptive Radiation In Subterranean Mole Rats, Spalax ehrenbergi Superspecies, In Israel by E. Nevo, Evolutionary Biology, 25: 1-125 - DOCUMENTATION OF OBSERVED SPECIATION IN NATURE

Experimentally Created Incipient Species Of Drosophila by Theodosius Dobzhansky & Olga Pavlovsky, Nature 230: 289 - 292 (2nd April 1971) - EXPERIMENTAL GENERATION OF A SPECIATION EVENT IN THE LABORATORY

Founder-Flush Speciation On Drosophila pseudoobscura: A Large Scale Experiment by Agustí Galiana, Andrés Moya and Francisco J. Alaya, Evolution 47: 432-444 (1993) EXPERIMENTAL GENERATION OF A SPECIATION EVENT IN THE LABORATORY

Gene Duplication And Speciation In Drosophila: Evidence From The Odysseus Locus by Chau-Ti Ting, Shun-Chern Tsaur, Sha Sun, William E. Browne, Yung-Chia Chen, Nipam H. Patel and Chung-I Wu, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA, 101(33): 12232-12235 (17th August 2004) - EMPIRICAL ANALYSIS OF THE ROLE OF A DEFINED SPECIATION GENE AND DUPLICATION THEREOF IN SPECIATION EVENTS

Gene Transfer, Speciation, And The Evolution Of Bacterial Genomes by Jeffrey G. Lawrence, Current Opinion in Microbiology, 2(5): 519-523 (October 1999) - determining the role of horizontal gene transfer in the development of new bacterial serotypes

Genes And Speciation by Chung-I Wu, Journal of Evolutionary Biology, 14: 889-891 (2001) - development of a rigorous theory of reproductive isolation taking into account incomplete interfertility failure events

Hybrid Lethal Systems In The Drosophila melanogaster Species Complex. II. The Zygotic Hybrid Rescue (Zhr) Gene Of Drosophila melanogaster by Kyoichi Sawamura, Masa-Toshi Yamamoto and Takao K. Watanabe, Genetics, 133: 307-313 (February 1993) - EMPIRICAL DETERMINATION OF THE ROLE OF A NAMED SPECIATION GENE IN SPECIFIC LIVING ORGANISMS

Hybridisation And Adaptive Radiation by Ole Seehausen, TRENDS In Ecology & Evolution, 19(4): 198-207 (April 2004) - development of a rigorous theory underpinning hybrid speciation and SPECIFICATION OF EMPIRICAL TESTS OF THAT THEORY

Incipient Speciation By Sexual Isolation in Drosophila: Concurrent Evolution At Multiple Loci by Chau-Ti Ting, Aya Takahashi and Chung-I Wu, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA, 98(12): 6709-6713 (5th June 2001) - EMPIRICAL DEMONSTRATION OF THE EXISTENCE OF GENES GOVERNING MALE MATING SUCCESS AND FEMALE MATING PREFERENCE LEADING TO SEXUAL SELECTION AND SPECIATION

Laboratory Experiments On Speciation: What Have We Learned In 40 Years? by William R. Rice and Ellen E. Hostert, Evolution, 47(6):1637-1653 (December 1993) - review of speciation literature and determination of the validity of reproductive isolation as a speciation mechanism

Models Of Evolution Of Rperoductive Isolation by Masatoshi Nei, Takeo Maruyama and Chung-I Wu, Genetics, 103: 557-559 (March 1983) - DIRECT EMPIRICAL TEST OF MODELS OF REPRODUCTIVE ISOLATION, AND ESTABLISHMENT OF CORRELATION WITH REAL WORLD DATA

Phylogenetics And Speciation by Timothy G. Barraclough and Sean Nee, TRENDS in Ecology & Evolution, 16(7): 391-399 (July 2001) - [b]Determination of rigorous methods for using phylogenetic analyses to establish speciation events

Pollen-Mediated Introgression And Hybrid Speciation In Louisiana Irises by Michael L. Arnold, Cindy M. Buckner and Jonathan J. Robinson, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA, 88(4): 1398-1402 (February 1991) - OBSERVATION OF A SPECIATION EVENT IN NATURE

Premating Isolation Is Determined by Larval Rearing Substrates in Cactophilic Drosophila mojavensis. IV. Correlated Responses In Behavioral Isolation To Artificial Selection On A Life-History Trait by William J. Etges, The American Naturalist, 152(1): 129-144 (July 1998) - DIRECT EMPIRICAL TEST OF BEHAVIOURAL ISOLATION AS A MECHANISM DRIVING SPECIATION

Rapid Evolution Of Postzygotic Reproductive Isolation In Stalk-Eyed Flies by Sarah J. Christianson, John G. Swallow and Gerald S. Wilkinson, Evolution, 59(4): 849-857 (12th January 2005) - DIRECT EMPIRICAL TEST AND MOLECULAR ANALYSIS OF SEXUAL SELECTION AND HYBRID STERILITY AS MECHANISMS DRIVING SPECIATION

Role Of Gene Interactions In Hybrid Speciation: Evidence From Ancient And Experimental Hybrids by Loren H. Rieseberg, Barry Sinervo, C. Randall Linder, Mark C. Ungerer and Dulce M. Arias, Science, 272: 741-745 (3rd May 1996) - DIRECT EXPERIMENTAL TESTS OF HYPOTHESES REGARDING HYBRID SPECIATION

Searching For Speciation Genes by Roger Butlin and Michael G. Ritchie, Nature, 412: 31-33 (5th July 2001) - DIRECT EMPIRICAL SEARCH FOR GENES IMPLICATED IN SPECIATION EVENTS

Selfish Operons And Speciation By Gene Transfer by Jeffrey G. Lawrence, Trends in Microbiology, 5(9): 355-359 (September 1997) - EMPIRICAL DETERMINATION OF MECHANISMS FOR DEVELOPMENT OF NEW BACTERIAL SEROTYPES

Sex-Related Genes, Directional Sexual Selection, And Speciation by Alberto Civetta and Rama S. Singh, Molecular & Biological Evolution, 15(7): 901-909 (1998) - EMPIRICAL DETERMINATION OF THE SHAPING OF GENES IMPLICATED IN SPECIATION VIA SEXUAL SELECTION

Sexual Selection, Reproductive Isolation And The Genic View Of Speciation by J. J. M. Van Alphen and Ole Seehausen, Journal of Evolutionary Biology, 14: 874-875 (2001) - application of known speciation mechanisms to the Lake Victoria superflock of Cichlid fishes

Speciation Along Environmental Gradients by Michael Doebeli and Ulf Dieckmann, Nature, 421: 259-264 (16th January 2003) - determination of the effects of environmental pressures upon the outcome of speciation events

Speciation And The Evolution Of Gamete Recognition Genes: Pattern And Process by S. R. Palumbi, Heredity, 102: 66-76 (2009) - determination of the role of gamete recognition genes in speciation events, and their rapid evolution in segregated populations

Speciation By Hybridisation In Heliconius Butterflies by Jesús Mavárez, Camilo A. Salazar, Eldredge Bermingham, Christian Salcedo, Chris D. Jiggins and Mauricio Linares, Nature, 441: 868-871 (15th June 2006) - DETERMINATION OF A SPECIATION EVENT IN NATURE, FOLLOWED BY LABOARTORY REPRODUCTION OF THAT SPECIATION EVENT, AND CONFIRMATION THAT THE LABORATORY INDIVIDUALS ARE INTERFERTILE WITH THE WILD TYPE INDIVIDUALS

Speciation By Hybridization In Phasmids And Other Insects By Luciano Bullini and Guiseppe Nascetti, Canadian Journal of Zoology 68(8): 1747-1760 (1990) - OBSERVATION OF A SPECIATION EVENT IN NATURE

Speciation By Postzygotic Isolation: Forces, Genes And Molecules by H. Allen Orr and Daven C. Presgraves, Bioessays, 22(12): 1085-1094 (2000) - EMPIRICAL DETERMINATION OF THE EXISTENCE OF SPECIATION GENES AND THEIR ROLE IN INTERFERTILITY FAILURE BETWEEN SEGREGATED POPULATIONS

Speciation Genes by H. Allen Orr, John P. Masly and Daven C. Presgraves, Current Opinion in Genetics & Development, 14: 675-679 (2004) - DETERMINATION OF THE EXISTENCE OF SPECIATION GENES AND THEIR SUSCEPTIBILITY TO DARWINIAN SELECTION

Speciation, Hybrid Zones And Phylogeography - Or Seeing Genes In Space And Time by Godfrey M. Hewitt, Molecular Ecology, 10: 537-549 (2001) - review of origins of speciation theory, current developments, and application to past and present speciation events

Speciation By Habitat Specialisation: The Evolution Of Reproductive Isolation As A Correlated Character by William R. Rice, Evolutionary Ecology, 1: 301-314 (1987) - LINKING OF SPECIATION EVENTS TO NICHE MOBILITY AND ADAPTATION FOR NEW NICHES

The Evolution Of Asymmetry In Sexual Isolation: A Model And Test Case by Stevan J. Arnold, Paul A. Verrell and Stephen G. Tilley, Evolution, 50(3): 1024-1033 (June 1996) - DEVELOPMENT OF AN EXTENDED MODEL OF SEXUAL SELECTION FOLLOWED BY EMPIRICAL TEST OF THAT MODEL AND DETERMINATION OF CORRELATION WITH A REAL WORLD POPULATION DIVERGENCE EVENT

The Evolution Of Reproductive Isolation Through Sexual Conflict by Oliver Y. Martin and David J. Hosken, Nature,423: 979-982 (26th June 2003) - DIRECT EXPERIMENTAL TEST OF SEXUAL CONFLICT AS A DRIVER OF SPECIATION

The Evolutionary Genetics Of Speciation by Jerry A. Coyne and H. Allen Orr, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London Part B, 353: 287-305 (1998) review of recent advances in speciation theory and empirical results

The Genetic Basis Of Reproductive Isolation: Insights From Drosophila by H. Allen Orr, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA, 102 supplement 1: 6522-6526 (3rd May 2005) - review of work on speciation genes and the empirical determination of their roles

The Genic View Of The Process Of Speciation by Chung-I Wu, Journal of Evolutionary Biology, 14: 851-865 (2001) - review of theory of speciation including renewed insights into Darwin's own early view of the topic, and how this correlates to a hitherto unforeseen extent with modern genetic results

The Gibbons Speciation Mechanism by S. Ramadevon and M. A. B. Deaken, Journal of Theoretical Biology, 145(4): 447-456 (1991) - DEVELOPMENT OF A MODEL ACCOUNTING FOR OBSERVED INSTANCES OF SPECIATION

The Phylogeny Of Closely Related Species As Revealed By The Genealogy Of A Speciation Gene, Odysseus by Chau-Ti Ting, Shun-Chern Tsaur and Chung-I Wu, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA, 97(10): 5313-5316 (9th May 2000) - EXPERIMENTAL VERIFICATION OF A PREDICTION ABOUT SPECIATION MECHANISMS AT THE MOLECULAR LEVEL

The Population Genetics Of Speciation: The Evolution Of Hybrid Incompatibilities by H. Allen Orr, Genetics, 139: 1805-1813 (April 1995) - development of a gene-based model for speciation and the implications of the results obtained from that model for speciation research

The Theory Of Speciation Via The Founder Principle by Alan R. Templeton, Genetics, 94:1011-1038 (April 1980) - development of a model for founder speciation, and DIRECT EXPERIMENTAL TEST of that model by applying it to a real world organism

What Does Drosophila Genetics Tell Us About Speciation? by James Mallet, TRENDS in Ecology & Evolution, 21(7): 386-393 (July 2006) - Comparison of Drosophila data with data from other organisms to produce a more complete picture of speciation mechanics

J Hubner wrote:The evolutionists propose the process of speciation as an answer.

Correction, they propose mechanisms that explain observed instances of speciation. See the above list of scientific papers for relevant examples.

J Hubner wrote:However we never found any cases of speciation in the fossil record

Ahem, scientists don't need the fossil record for this purpose. All they have to do is observe speciation taking place in living organisms. See the above papers for examples thereof. Having established empirically that speciation does take place in living organisms, it doesn't require any hyperbolic extrapolations, to postulate that the same mechanisms were at work in past organisms.

J Hubner wrote:and furthermore we have never found examples of species that link together major groups suspected to have common descent, for example: birds and reptiles

Ah, it's another of those blatant creationist lies we see being peddled so often. Apparently you have never heard of Archaeopteryx, which exhibits a well-known and exquisitely documented mixture of reptilian and avian features. Other fossils supporting the emergence of birds from theropod ancestors have since been found. I am aware of 17 species from the literature alone, and my knowledge of this is incomplete.

J Hubner wrote:not a single example of these species has ever been found.

I suggest you read some real scientific sources on the subject, and learn something.

J Hubner wrote:None is observed living either.

Ahem. See that list of scientific paper citations I've just provided? Those papers document instances of speciation being observed. They also document numerous instances of gene families that are implicated in speciation events. One such gene family being the major histocompatibility complex, which is responsible for, amongst other things, the immune system. First, the genes in this family have been demonstrated to exhibit high mutation rates, consistent with any gene family that would be implicated in speciation events. Second, the genes in question include the fertillin genes, which determine egg and sperm compatibility. Incremental changes in these genes alone in a given population, would be sufficient to ensure the emergence of a speciation event, even if one ignored all the other gene families alighted upon in the literature.

J Hubner wrote:Also the existence of archaic structures or badly designed structures that have no use in some specimens that are said to prove evolution do not prove evolution at all.

Apparently you need to learn the distinction between proof, which is a formal procedure applicable to pure mathematics, and evidential support, which is the procedure applicable to the physical sciences. The latter most certainly demonstrates that evolution takes place. The evidence is overwhelming, and includes demonstrations not only that evolutionary mechanisms work, but that those mechanisms can be harnessed in the laboratory to produce useful end products. The pharmaceutical industry is currently spending large research and development budgets on the use of in vitro evolution to produce new biotechnology products, including new therapeutic agents. Indeed, I've presented one example of this in detail elsewhere on these forums.

J Hubner wrote:There are no badly designed structures

This latest assertion is so manifestly false, as to be beneath deserving of a point of view. Allow me to introduce you to some examples from the world of insects, which happens to be something of a speciality of mine.

One excellent example of bad design centres upon certain Carabid beetles. These beetles possess fused elytra in the adults. This means that the elytra are unable to open. This in itself isn't an instance of incompetence, but when one combines this with the fact that those beetles still possess fully functional wings locked shut under those elytra, this rather smacks of incompetence on the part of any asserted "designer". Surely any "designer" that intended these beetles to be purely ground living, wouldn't have bothered equipping them with wholly useless wings? On the other hand, the appearance of such features makes eminent sense in the light of evolutionary postulates.

Then of course, we have the Strepsiptera, an unusual clade of organisms that are parasitic on various Hymenoptera. In these organisms, adult females are, in effect, nothing more than a bag of organs. These females lack eyes, limbs, and, even more remarkably, also lack functional genitalia. Which makes you wonder how the males manage to mate with them. The males mate with the females by rupturing a vacuole behind the female's head.

Indeed, quite a few insects have abandoned the idea of coupling genitalia altogether. The Order Hemiptera contains numerous examples thereof, including Cimex lectularius, the Bed Bug. Males simply drive their intromittent organs directly through the female's outer integument into the body cavity, and inject their sperm there. The females suffer a fair amount of injury during this process. What "designer" would arrange for this reproductive process to be a part of an organism's life? On the other hand, the emergence of what is known as hypodermic insemination, which is a feature of the mating of numerous Hemiptera, is readily explicable in terms of a "Red Queen" arms race between male and female, each of which have conflicting reproductive goals, and which in the case of several insect and spider clades, has been demonstrated to result in the development of some very interesting genital architecture.

Moving on ...

J Hubner wrote:the appendix for example, long said by Darwin to be badly designed, was found to be important for the immune system as a source of anti bodies producing cells and is also a compartment for bacteria that act in the digestive system.

Ahem, this isn't the whole story by any stretch of the imagination. For example, we have this recent paper:

Role Of The Appendix In The Pathogenesis Of Ulcerative Colitis by M. Matsushita, K. Uchida and K. Okazaki, Inflammophramacology, 15(4): 154-157 (2007) (Abstract available here)

Matsushita et al, 2007 wrote:Although human appendix has been considered as a vestigial remnant, recent observations have focused attention on the role of the appendix in the pathogenesis of ulcerative colitis (UC). Many case-control studies suggest that previous appendectomy is rare in UC patients. This inverse relation is limited to patients who undergo appendectomy before the age of 20 years. Moreover, several investigators reported the improvement of UC after appendectomy, especially in young patients. In the appendix of UC patients, the CD4/CD8 ratio is significantly increased, and the proportion of CD4+CD69+ (early activation antigen) T cells, but not of CD4+HLA-DR+ (mature activation antigen) T cells, is also significantly increased. These findings suggest that the appendix may be a priming site in the development of UC. Further studies including analysis of CD4+ and CD8+ T cells are necessary to clarify the role of the appendix in the pathogenesis of UC.

Hmm, not as cut and dried as one might think.

Then we have this paper:

Appendix Is A Priming Site In The Development Of Ulcerative Colitis by Mitsunobu Matsushita, Hiroshi Takakuwa, Yuji Matsubayashi, Akiyoshi Nishio, Susumu Ikehara and Kazuichi Okazaki, World Journal of Gasteroenterology, 11(31): 4869-4874 (2005) [Full paper downloadable from here]

Matsushita et al, 2005 wrote:Abstract

AIM: The role of the appendix has been highlighted in the pathogenesis of ulcerative colitis (UC). The aims of this study were to elucidate the immuno-imbalances in the appendix of UC patients, and to clarify the role of the appendix in the development of UC.

METHODS: Colonoscopic biopsy specimens of the appendix, transverse colon, and rectum were obtained from 86 patients with UC: active pancolitis (A-Pan; n = 15), active left-sided colitis (A-Lt; n = 25), A-Lt with appendiceal involvement (A-Lt/Ap; n = 10), inactive pancolitis (I-Pan; n = 14), and inactive left-sided colitis (I-Lt; n = 22), and from controls. In the isolated mucosal T cells, the CD4/CD8 ratio and proportion of activated CD4+ T cells were investigated, and compared with controls.

RESULTS: In the appendix, the CD4/CD8 ratio significantly increased in A-Lt and A-Lt/Ap. The ratio in the appendix also tended to increase in A-Pan. In the rectum, the ratio significantly increased in all UC groups. In the appendix, the proportion of CD4+CD69+ (early activation antigen) T cells significantly increased in all UC groups. In the rectum, the proportion of CD4+CD69+ T cells significantly increased only in A-Pan. The proportion of CD4+HLADR+ (mature activation antigen) T cells significantly increased only in the rectum of A-Pan, but not in the other areas of any groups.

CONCLUSION: The increased CD4/CD8 ratio and predominant infiltration of CD4+CD69+ T cells in the appendix suggest that the appendix is a priming site in the development of UC.

Another relevant paper is this one:

Histological And Immunological Features Of Appendix In Patients With Ulcerative Colitis by Yukihiko Jo, Takayuki Matsumoto, Shinichiro Yada, Shotaro Nakamura, Takashi Yao, Masayuki Hotokezaka, Ryuichi Mibu and Mitsuo Iida, Digestive Diseases And Sciences, 48(1): 99-108 (January 2003) (Abstract available here)

Jo et al, 2003 wrote:Patients with ulcerative colitis (UC) have a less frequent prior history of appendectomy than the general population. The aim of the present investigation was to elucidate histological and immunological characteristics of the appendix in UC and to assess the effect of appendectomy on the disease. Nine subjects with mildly active UC were treated by surgical appendectomy. In four subjects, the histological findings of the appendix were compatible with ulcerative appendicitis. CD3+CD4+CD25+, CD3+CD4+CD45RO+, and CD3+CD8+CD45RO+ appendiceal mononuclear cells were significantly higher in UC than in acute appendicitis and in normal appendix. There was a trend towards higher mRNA transcripts of IFN-gamma in the appendix of UC than those in other two groups. Clinical activity index decreased significantly four weeks after the appendectomy, although the effect was transient. The appendix is a site of involvement in UC, where mononuclear cells are presumed to be at a state of basal activation.

Once again, looks as if the situation is a little more complex than knee-jerk apologetics would suggest.

J Hubner wrote:All of these facts invalidate this claim of evolution

Really? Those papers on ulcerative colitis, in which the appendix is implicated as a causative agent, would suggest otherwise.

J Hubner wrote:and one may think that with so many claims of evolution being revealed as false

Er, ahem, this hasn't happened, except in the wet dreams of creationists. See the relevant scientific papers.

J Hubner wrote:that if the trend continues, evolution will have very little to show for itself in the near future.

Those pharmaceutical companies spending large R&D budgets upon the application of evolution in the laboratory disagree with you. As do over 18,000 peer reviewed scientific papers published in evolutionary biology in 2007 alone.

J Hubner wrote:Also, we can further examine the fossil record for an extremely potent headshot towards the doctrine of evolution.

Oh really? I wonder if this is going to be just as specious as your other examples.

J Hubner wrote:Darwin himself stated on numerous occasions that the fossil record presented difficulties for his theory.

Ahem, we're aware of the creationist quote mine of Darwin's work with respect to this. Actually, what Darwin really said, if you actually check his writings, instead of relying upon cut-and-paste creationist apologetics, is that the so-called "problems" arise from the incompleteness of the fossil record as known in his day. Rather more fossils have been unearthed since then, that solve this problem.

J Hubner wrote:The oldest rocks from the earliest periods do not contain a single evidence of evolutionary change

Oh really? You haven't paid very much attention to the actual science, have you? I'm aware of, for example, Bangiomorpha pubescens, a sexually reproducing multicellular eukaryote, that was found in strata dating to 1.2 billion years before present. The paper describing the holotype is this one:

Bangiomorpha pubescens n. gen., n. sp.: Implications For The Evolution Of Sex, Multicellularity, And The Mesoproterozoic/Neoproterozoic Radiation Of Eukaryotes by Nicholas J. Butterfield, Palaeobiology, 26(3): 386-404 (2000) [Full paper downloadable from here]

Butterfield, 2000 wrote:Abstract.—Multicellular filaments from the ca. 1200-Ma Hunting Formation (Somerset Island, arctic Canada) are identified as bangiacean red algae on the basis of diagnostic cell-division patterns. As the oldest taxonomically resolved eukaryote on record Bangiomorpha pubescens n. gen. n. sp. provides a key datum point for constraining protistan phylogeny. Combined with an increasingly resolved record of other Proterozoic eukaryotes, these fossils mark the onset of a major protistan radiation near the Mesoproterozoic/Neoproterozoic boundary.

Differential spore/gamete formation shows Bangiomorpha pubescens to have been sexually reproducing, the oldest reported occurrence in the fossil record. Sex was critical for the subsequent success
of eukaryotes, not so much for the advantages of genetic recombination, but because it allowed for complex multicellularity. The selective advantages of complex multicellularity are considered sufficient for it to have arisen immediately following the appearance of sexual reproduction. As such, the most reliable proxy for the first appearance of sex will be the first stratigraphic occurrence of complex multicellularity.

Bangiomorpha pubescens is the first occurrence of complex multicellularity in the fossil record. A
differentiated basal holdfast structure allowed for positive substrate attachment and thus the selective advantages of vertical orientation; i.e., an early example of ecological tiering.More generally, eukaryotic multicellularity is the innovation that established organismal morphology as a significant factor in the evolutionary process. As complex eukaryotes modified, and created entirely novel, environments, their inherent capacity for reciprocal morphological adaptation, gave rise to the ‘‘biological environment’’ of directional evolution and ‘‘progress.’’ The evolution of sex, as a proximal cause of complex multicellularity, may thus account for the Mesoproterozoic/Neoproterozoic radiation of eukaryotes.

So, we have a sexually reproducing multicellular eukaryote appearing nearly 700 million years before the so-called "Cambrian explosion", just in case you want to dredge up recycled canards about that event.

J Hubner wrote:and this is something Darwin repeatedly acknowledged and is still being acknowledged by the scientists today as a powerful case against evolution.

Crap. See the above paper? That's just one of a number of papers that flushes this assertion down the toilet.

J Hubner wrote:No valid examples of speciation in the fossil strata have been discovered.

Oh, so the appearance of distinct species sorted in time and taxonomic order, is an inconvenient fact you're going to pretend does not exist? Along with, of course, that raft of scientific paper citations above covering observed speciation in living organisms, and the discovery of specific gene families facilitating speciation?

J Hubner wrote:It must also be said that the early development of vertebrate embryos and its features is more consistent with separate origins rather than with common ancestry.

Oh please, not the "forged Haeckel drawings" canard. Yawn.

J Hubner wrote:I wil expound on this later.

I can hardly wait.

J Hubner wrote:Furthermore, in biochemistry, recent discovery’s shed light on irreducibly complex structures in the function of cells.

Oh dear, not the "irreducible complexity" canard. Allow me to point and laugh at this juncture.

J Hubner wrote:Doctor Michael Behe’s pioneering work in this domain has revealed new problems for the theory of evolution.

HA HA HA HA HA HA!

Er, you do realise that I'm aware of getting on for 15 scientific papers covering the evolution of the bacterial flagellum? No? Oh dear, I'll have to present them sometime, won't I?

Oh, and by the way, with respect to so-called "irreducible complexity", it seems you need to be taught an elementary lesson.

First of all, "irreducible complexity" wasn't even defined by Behe in the first place, he just found a nice soundbite to describe the phenomenon, as part of the process of propagandising for a supernaturalist doctrine. The evolutionary biologist Hermann Joseph Müller alighted upon the concept sixty years before Behe was born, and his deliberations on this phenomenon were published in a scientific paper in 1918. I've cited this paper repeatedly in past posts whenever this topic as arisen, but, for your benefit, I'll spare you the horrors of the forum's non-functioning search facility and provide not only the citation, but the relevant quote. The paper in question is:

Genetic Variability, Twin Hybrids and Constant hybrids in a Case of Balanced Lethal Factors by Hermann Joseph Müller, Genetics, 3(5): 422-499 (1918) [Original paper downloadable in full from here]

I shall quote directly from that paper for your convenience, highlighting the relevant parts in blue (bottom of page 464 to top of page 465 in original paper):

Hermann Joseph Müller, 1918 wrote:Most present-day animals are the result of a long process of evolution, in which at least thousands of mutations must have taken place. Each new mutant in turn must have derived its survival value from the effect upon which it produced upon the 'reaction system' that had been brought into being by the many previously formed factors in cooperation; thus, a complicated machine was gradually built up whose effective working was dependent upon the interlocking action of very numerous different elementary parts or factors, and many of the characters and factors which, when new, were originally merely an asset finally became necessary because other necessary characters and factors had subsequently become changed so as to be dependent upon the former. It must result, in consequence, that a dropping out of, or even a slight change in any one of these parts is very likely to disturb fatally the whole machinery.

In other words, "irreducible complexity" was arrived at by Müller before Behe was born and was posited by Müller not as a problem for evolution, but as a natural outcome of evolutionary processes. The so-called "Müllerian Two Step" is summarised succinctly as follows:

[1] Add a component;

[2] Make it necessary.

This was placed upon a rigorous footing by Müller himself, along with others such as Fisher, by the 1930s, and so Behe didn't even find a gap for his purported god to fit into. Biologists have known that Behe's "irreducible complexity" nonsense has been precisely that - nonsense - for a minimum of six decades. Indeed, the community of evolutionary biologists have a term to describe the Müllerian Two Step in more formal language, namely 'bricolage'.

J Hubner wrote:The existence of irreducibly complex cannot be denied anymore

Ahem, see the above. Behe's assertions are a gigantic canard, and biologists have known them to be a gigantic canard for over 90 years.

J Hubner wrote:however the political bias from evolutionism continue to choke valuable work, refusing publication of findings contrary to their doctrinal assertions.

Oh please, spare us the blatant creationist projection, and the resurrection of the "Expelled" bilge. We've seen it all before. Do I have to drop those papers on the bacterial flagellum in your lap, in order to demonstrate just how farcical Behe's nonsense is? Oh, you might also like to factor into this, the fact that during the Dover Trial, he had his arse cheeks handed to him on a plate when he tried to peddle this nonsense.

Let's take a look at the trial transcripts, shall we?

I suggest you spend time studying these trial transscripts, which should prove to be quite an eye opener, particularly with respect to, for example, Behe being completely and utterly owned when he made the claim that not only did evolutionary biology have no answer to the origin of the blood clotting cascade, but that it never would find an answer - whereupon the cross examining counsel produced fifty eight scientific papers and nine university textbooks containing the very material Behe said would never exist.

Here's a rundown of Behe's absurdities at Dover, courtesy of the Dover Trial transcripts, which can be downloaded in full from here, and check Michael Behe's evidence, you can see him being systematically dismantled over his canards. In particular, referring to:

Behe Evidence In Chief Day 10 AM Session

Behe Evidence In Chief Day 10 PM Session

Behe Evidence In Chief Day 11 AM Session

Behe Evidence In Chief Day 11 PM Session

Behe Evidence In Chief Day 12 AM Session

Behe Evidence In Chief Day 12 PM Session

Notice that in the following, I provide precise page and line numbers, so that the instances of Behe being completely owned by the cross examining counsel can be located with ease.

Good places to look are:

Day 11, PM session, where Behe is forced to admit under cross examination that his attempt to widen the definition of "science" to admit "intelligent design" would also result in astrology being admitted as a "scientific" discipline. Scroll down the PDF document to Page 36, Line 18 - all pages and lines are conveniently numbered - and read on to Page 39, Line 19 ... take note where he says that "incorrect theories are nonetheless theories" at the end ... then continue reading to Page 41, line 17, where the cross-examining lawyer quips that he didn't taken Behe's deposition in the 16th century :lol:

Day 12, AM session, where Behe is taken apart slowly over flagella and blood clotting. Scroll to Page 101, Line 7, read on, and see Behe admitting that no one in the ID movement ever bothered to put the "irreducible complexity" of the bacterial flagellum to empirical test. He was also forced to accept that 3½ billion years was ample time for the bacterial flagellum to evolve by natural processes at Page 108, Line 23, followed by being forced to admit that the "test" he proposed for invalidating "irreducible complexity" in the case of the bacterial flagellum was as unreasonable as asking a scientist to grow a bird wing in a petri dish. Likewise, Behe is also forced to admit that any demonstration that the flagellum could arise by natural processes would be "a real feather in the cap of people who think Darwinian theory is correct" at Page 112 Lines 13-15. Additionally, Page 112 Line 16 moves on to the blood clotting cascade, and the fact that various Puffer Fishes manage to do without some of the "irreducibly complex" components of Behe's description of the cascade - Page 120, Line 16.

Day 12, PM session, in which the cross examination of Behe continues with respect to the blood clotting cascade, and on Page 6, Lines 5-7, Behe himself says that the Type 3 Secretory System might not be "irreducibly complex" (oh dear, because Nick Matzke later found homologies between the T3SS and - you guessed it - the bacterial flagellum). Behe is then introduced to a particularly awkward question by the cross examiner at Page 8 Line 24 that is well worth savouring. Then, on Page 10, comes the crunch about the immune system, where Behe's statement "the scientific community has no answers to the question of the origin of the immune system" from his book Darwin's Black Box is presented in open session in the court, and from the start of Page 11, the cross examiner begins listing the papers and textbooks that contain precisely the "answers" that Behe claimed didn't exist ...and also demonstrates that Behe, like so many IDiots before, has his knickers in a twist over the meaning of natural selection. On Page 16, line 17, we have the part where Behe claims that the peer reviewed literature on the molecular evolution of the immune system "isn't good enough", whereupon at Page 17, Line 6, the cross examiner reveals that he has fifty eight peer reviewed papers covering the subject, the earliest of which was written in 1971, with the list including new papers that were being prepared for publication at the time of the trial ... then we reach Page 20, where college textbooks on the evolution of the immune system are presented, which Behe is forced to admit he hasn't read, doesn't know the contents of, but he still persists in trying to claim that these texts and these papers aren't good enough because they don't show the entire evolutionary process right down to the atomic level or some such nonsense. Then Behe is hoist upon his own petard on Page 25, Line 23 onwards, when his statement from his book that "if the natural mechanism is to be accepted, then its proponents must publish or perish" is displayed before the court ... read on from this point for some pure comedy gold.

Behe was made to look like a clown at the Dover Trial, Byers, because he erected assertions pulled out of his rectal passage, which were then demonstrated to be fatuous and asinine in the extreme. Such as the assertion about the vertebrate blood clotting cascade I covered above, where he had his arse cheeks serve up to him on a plate by the cross examining counsel.

J Hubner wrote:It also seems to me that the main proponent’s of evolutionism are mostly concerned with doing pseudo-science that actual science.

Oh look, it's that other familiar creationist tactic - defamation. Tell me, since when did "pseudoscience" find its way into Proceedings of the Royal Society, or Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA? Do tell us all, only I'm sure the journal editors in question will be delighted to discover that you know more about this than their teams of peer reviewers.

J Hubner wrote:Actual science is concerned with rigourous attemps at refutation rather than only attempts at confirmation. The history of evolution has been nothing but poor attempts at confirmation

Now I can tell you haven't read a single scientific paper in your life. Time to wheel this out:

A Formal Test Of The Theory Of Universal Common Ancestry by Douglas L. Theobald, Nature, 465: 219-223 (13th May 2010) [Full paper downloadable from here]

Theobald, 2010 wrote:Universal common ancestry (UCA) is a central pillar of modern evolutionary theory1. As first suggested by Darwin2, the theory of UCA posits that all extant terrestrial organisms share a common genetic heritage, each being the genealogical descendant of a single species from the distant past3–6. The classic evidence for UCA, although massive, is largely restricted to ‘local’ common ancestry— for example, of specific phyla rather than the entirety of life—and has yet to fully integrate the recent advances from modern phylogenetics and probability theory. Although UCA is widely assumed, it has rarely been subjected to formal quantitative testing7–10, and this has led to critical commentary emphasizing the intrinsic technical difficulties in empirically evaluating a theory of such broad scope1,5,8,9,11–15. Furthermore, several researchers have proposed that early life was characterized by rampant horizontal gene transfer, leading some to question the monophyly of life11,14,15. Here I provide the first, to my knowledge, formal, fundamental test of UCA,without assuming that sequence similarity implies genetic kinship. I test UCA by applying model selection theory5,16,17 to molecular phylogenies, focusing on a set of ubiquitously conserved proteins that are proposed to be orthologous. Among a wide range of biological models involving the independent ancestry of major taxonomic groups, the model selection tests are found to overwhelmingly support UCA irrespective of the presence of horizontal gene transfer and symbiotic fusion events. These results provide powerful statistical evidence corroborating the monophyly of all known life.

In short, what Theobald did in the above paper is this. Take a series of models, some of which are based upon the existence of a single universal common ancestor, others based upon the notion that multiple ancestors existed, and see what inheritance patterns these different models produce. Then, compare these different sets of patterns with data from observational reality. The models that provide the closest fit, are the models most likely to apply. When Theobald did this, he found that the best fit was obtained by a model involving a single common ancestor. Here's Theobald's own exposition of this from the above paper:

Theobald, 2010 wrote:The inference from biological similarities to evolutionary homology is a feature shared by several of the lines of evidence for common ancestry. For instance, it is widely assumed that high sequence resemblance, often gauged by an E value from a BLAST search, indicates genetic kinship19. However, a small E value directly demonstrates only that two biological sequences are more similar than would be expected by chance20. A Karlin–Altschul E value is a Fisherian null-hypothesis significance test in which the null hypothesis is that two random sequences have been aligned20. Therefore, an E value in principle cannot provide evidence for or against the hypothesis that two sequences share a common ancestor. (In fact, an E value cannot even provide evidence for the random null hypothesis.21) Sequence similarity is an empirical observation, whereas the conclusion of homology is a hypothesis proposed to explain the similarity22. Statistically significant sequence similarity can arise from factors other than common ancestry, such as convergent evolution due to selection, structural constraints on sequence identity, mutation bias, chance, or artefact manufacture19. For these reasons, a sceptic who rejects the common ancestry of all life might nevertheless accept that universally conserved proteins have similar sequences and are ‘homologous’ in the original pre-Darwinian sense of the term (homology here being similarity of structure due to ‘‘fidelity to archetype’’)[/sup]23[/sup]. Consequently, it would be advantageous to have a method that is able to objectively quantify the support from sequence data for common-ancestry versus competing multiple-ancestry hypotheses.

Here I report tests of the theory of UCA using model selection theory, without assuming that sequence similarity indicates a genealogical relationship. By accounting for the trade-off between data prediction
and simplicity, model selection theory provides methods for identifying the candidate hypothesis that is closest to reality16,17. When choosing among several competing scientific models, two opposing factors must be taken into account: the goodness of fit and parsimony. The fit of a model to data can be improved arbitrarily by increasing the number of free parameters. On the other hand, simple hypotheses (those with as few ad hoc parameters as possible) are preferred. Model selection methods weigh these two factors statistically to find the hypothesis that is both the most accurate and the most precise. Because model selection tests directly quantify the evidence for and against competing models, these tests overcome many of the well known logical problems with Fisherian null-hypothesis significance tests (such as BLAST-style E values)16,21. To quantify the evidence supporting the various ancestry hypotheses, I applied three of the most widely used model selection criteria from all major statistical schools:
the log likelihood ratio (LLR), the Akaike information criterion (AIC) and the log Bayes factor (LBF)16,17.

Using these model selection criteria, I specifically asked whether the three domains of life (Eukarya, Bacteria and Archaea) are best described by a unified, common genetic relationship (that is, UCA) or by multiple groups of genetically unrelated taxa that arose independently and in parallel. As one example, a simplified model was considered for the hypothesis that Archaea and Eukarya share a common ancestor but do not share a common ancestor with Bacteria. This model (indicated by ‘AE1B’ in Fig. 1 and Table 1) comprises two independent trees—one containing Archaea and Eukarya and another containing only Bacteria. In these models the primary assumptions are: (1) that sequences change over time by a gradual, time-reversible Markovian process of residue substitution, described by a 20 × 20 instantaneous rate matrix defined by certain amino acid equilibrium frequencies and a symmetric matrix of amino acid exchangeabilities; (2) that new genetically related genes are generated by duplication during bifurcating speciation or gene duplication events; and (3) that residue substitutions are uncorrelated along different lineages and at different sites. The model selection tests evaluate how well these assumptions explain the given data set when various subsets of taxa and proteins are postulated to share ancestry, without any recourse to measures of sequence similarity.

Which means that Theobald subjected numerous models to test, to determine which of those models produced the best fit to observational data. And in the process, falsified most of the models in question.

J Hubner wrote:gaps subsists

Oh it's that tiresome creationist canard, the "gaps" canard. Which is exposed as wholly duplicitous, because whenever a new fossil is found, that is anatomically intermediate between two existing fossils, creationists now bleat "now there are TWO gaps!"

J Hubner wrote:its claims are improvable

Oh please, read the Theobald paper above and weep. While you're at it, you can read that nice collection of papers on speciation I've cited above, including the ones where scientists produced speciation events in the laboratory. The paper by Diane Dodd is a nice example, because it describes an empirical methodology allowing this to be done in any well equipped secondary school laboratory.

J Hubner wrote:and it much lacks openness to critique by competent peers.

Oh please, this is beneath deserving of a point of view. If you think Hermann Joseph Müller wasn't a "competent peer", despite being a Nobel Laureate, then this really does expose the vacuity of your assertions. Or how about George Wald, another Nobel Laureate, who is apposite to mention here, because creationists fabricated a complete work of fiction with respect to an article he wrote in Scientific American, and passed it off as a so-called "refutation" of evolution. The quote mine purports to "quote" Wald saying the following:

"There are only two possibilities as to how life arose. One is spontaneous generation arising to evolution; the other is a supernatural creative act of God. There is no third possibility. Spontaneous generation, that life arose from non-living matter was scientifically disproved 120 years ago by Louis Pasteur and others. That leaves us with the only possible conclusion that life arose as a supernatural creative act of God. I will not accept that philosophically because I do not want to believe in God. Therefore, I choose to believe in that which I know is scientifically impossible; spontaneous generation arising to evolution." (Wald, George, "Innovation and Biology," Scientific American, Vol. 199, Sept. 1958, p. 100)

However, the so-called "quote" being passed around by creationists is a complete fabrication. First of all, the citation for the article is wholly wrong, the correct citation being:

Wald, G. 1954. The Origin of Life. Scientific American August: 44-53

Second, when the actual article is referenced, we find that what Wald actually stated was this:

George Wald, 1954 wrote: The great idea emerges originally in the consciousness of the race as a vague intuition; and this is the form it keeps, rude and imposing, in myth, tradition and poetry. This is its core, its enduring aspect. In this form science finds it, clothes it with fact, analyses its content, develops its detail, rejects it, and finds it ever again. In achieving the scientific view, we do not ever wholly lose the intuitive, the mythological. Both have meaning for us, and neither is complete without the other. The Book of Genesis contains still our poem of the Creation; and when God questions Job out of the whirlwind, He questions us.

Let me cite an example. Throughout our history we have entertained two kinds of views of the origin of life: one that life was created supernaturally, the other that it arose "spontaneously" from nonliving material. In the 17th to 19th centuries those opinions provided the ground of a great and bitter controversy. There came a curious point, toward the end of the 18th century, when each side of the controversy was represented by a Roman Catholic priest. The principle opponent of the theory of the spontaneous generation was then the Abbe Lazzaro Spallanzani, an Italian priest; and its principal champion was John Turberville Needham, an English Jesuit.

Since the only alternative to some form of spontaneous generation is a belief in supernatural creation, and since the latter view seems firmly implanted in the Judeo-Christian theology, I wondered for a time how a priest could support the theory of spontaneous generation. Needham tells one plainly. The opening paragraphs of the Book of Genesis can in fact be reconciled with either view. In its first account of Creation, it says not quite that God made living things, but He commanded the earth and waters to produce them. The language used is: "let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life.... Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind." In the second version of creation the language is different and suggests a direct creative act: "And out of the ground the Lord God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air...." In both accounts man himself--and woman--are made by God's direct intervention. The myth itself therefore offers justification for either view. Needham took the position that the earth and waters, having once been ordered to bring forth life, remained ever after free to do so; and this is what we mean by spontaneous generation.

This great controversy ended in the mid-19th century with the experiments of Louis Pasteur, which seemed to dispose finally of the possibility of spontaneous generation. For almost a century afterward biologists proudly taught their students this history and the firm conclusion that spontaneous generation had been scientifically refuted and could not possibly occur. Does this mean that they accepted the alternative view, a supernatural creation of life? Not at all. They had no theory of the origin of life, and if pressed were likely to explain that questions involving such unique events as origins and endings have no place in science.

A few years ago, however, this question re-emerged in a new form. Conceding that spontaneous generation doe not occur on earth under present circumstances, it asks how, under circumstances that prevailed earlier upon this planet, spontaneous generation did occur and was the source of the earliest living organisms. Within the past 10 years this has gone from a remote and patchwork argument spun by a few venturesome persons--A. I. Oparin in Russia, J. B. S. Haldane in England--to a favored position, proclaimed with enthusiasm by many biologists.

Have I cited here a good instance of my thesis? I had said that in these great questions one finds two opposed views, each of which is periodically espoused by science. In my example I seem to have presented a supernatural and a naturalistic view, which were indeed opposed to each other, but only one of which was ever defended scientifically. In this case it would seem that science has vacillated, not between two theories, but between one theory and no theory.

That, however, is not the end of the matter. Our present concept of the origin of life leads to the position that, in a universe composed as ours is, life inevitably arises wherever conditions permit. We look upon life as part of the order of nature. It does not emerge immediately with the establishment of that order; long ages must pass before [page 100 | page 101] it appears. Yet given enough time, it is an inevitable consequence of that order. When speaking for myself, I do not tend to make sentences containing the word God; but what do those persons mean who make such sentences? They mean a great many different things; indeed I would be happy to know what they mean much better than I have yet been able to discover. I have asked as opportunity offered, and intend to go on asking. What I have learned is that many educated persons now tend to equate their concept of God with their concept of the order of nature. This is not a new idea; I think it is firmly grounded in the philosophy of Spinoza. When we as scientists say then that life originated inevitably as part of the order of our universe, we are using different words but do not necessary mean a different thing from what some others mean who say that God created life. It is not only in science that great ideas come to encompass their own negation. That is true in religion also; and man's concept of God changes as he changes.

Note that this passage does NOT contain any of the so-called creationist "quote".

Meanwhile, returning to those Nobel Laureates, I suppose you're going to dismiss Barbara McLintock as an "incompetent" peer reviewed, despite her own research being years ahead of its time, and forming in some instances a seminal contribution to evolutionary botany?

Learn this elementary lesson once and for all - the only people pursuing pseudoscience here are creationist ideological stormtroopers for doctrine.

J Hubner wrote:This is why the label pseudo-science fits like a glove.

Poppycock. Since you manifestly haven't read any actual scientific papers yourself, as your manifest ignorance of much of the relevant science demonstrates, your above assertion is so much hot air.

J Hubner wrote:I look forward to reading your replies.

Got a week to set aside for this one? I'll be setting exam questions at the end.

LucidFlight · **#12** by **LucidFlight** » Nov 23, 2011 4:22 am

Oh, and... welcome to the forum, J Hubner. :cheers:

MrFungus420 · **#13** by **MrFungus420** » Nov 23, 2011 4:32 am

J Hubner wrote:Greetings.

One of the main problems evolutionist’s faces nowadays is the principal problem exposed by the diversity of species we observe today on our planet. If evolution means what it is asserted to mean by the Darwin squad: a series of gradual genetic changes within a specie, then If it is a series of gradual genetics changes we should only observe one highly evolved descendant of the first specie, only one specie, and not many as we currently observe.

Wrong. Completely and utterly.

The Theory of Evolution specifically explains the diversity of life.

J Hubner wrote:The evolutionists propose the process of speciation as an answer. However we never found any cases of speciation in the fossil record and furthermore we have never found examples of species that link together major groups suspected to have common descent, for example: birds and reptiles, not a single example of these species has ever been found. None is observed living either.

Wrong. Completely and utterly.

Speciation has been observed, both in the wild and in the laboratory.

Sorry, going to skip over some complete bullshit...

J Hubner wrote:Furthermore, in biochemistry, recent discovery’s shed light on irreducibly complex structures in the function of cells. Doctor Michael Behe’s pioneering work in this domain has revealed new problems for the theory of evolution. The existence of irreducibly complex cannot be denied anymore, however the political bias from evolutionism continue to choke valuable work, refusing publication of findings contrary to their doctrinal assertions.

Wrong, completely and utterly.

Behe has been discredited by his own words.

He was forced to admit under oath that the standards that he used to claim that IC is a scientific discipline would also mean that astrology would be a scientific discipline.

Every specific example that Behe has tried to put forth as an irreducibly complex structure has evolutionary pathways. In other words, every specific example that Behe has used has been discredited. There is not a single example of an irreducibly complex structure. And even if there were a structure that cannot be explained, this is nothing more than a logical fallacy, an argument from ignorance.

Furthermore, Behe himself accepts common descent.

J Hubner wrote:It also seems to me that the main proponent’s of evolutionism are mostly concerned with doing pseudo-science that actual science. Actual science is concerned with rigourous attemps at refutation rather than only attempts at confirmation. The history of evolution has been nothing but poor attempts at confirmation, gaps subsists, its claims are improvable and it much lacks openness to critique by competent peers. This is why the label pseudo-science fits like a glove.

Wrong. Completely and utterly.

Evolution has been tested, it makes predictions, it has practical applications.

Every single fossil has the potential to falsify evolution. Not one, single one has been found that contradicts it.
Cosmology and geology both have the capability to falsify evolution, but both support it.

The discovery of Tiktaalik was the result of successful predictions of evolutionary theory. The scientists that found it were looking in a specific place, and they were specifically looking for a creature like Tiktaalik, i.e., with the features that it had. Evolutionary theory predicted when Tiktaalik would have lived, where it would have lived and what it would have most likely looked like. They found what they had predicted, where they predicted it.

Evolutionary theory is used for developing vaccines and pesticides and understanding genetic diseases. It is used to create algorithms used in such diverse areas as engineering, drug design, pattern recognition and robotics.

Spearthrower · **#14** by **Spearthrower** » Nov 23, 2011 4:35 am

One of the main problems gravitationalist’s (including those with greengrocers' apostrophes) faces (with consequent lack of subject verb-agreement) nowadays is the principal problem (tautology) exposed by the falling of objects we observe today on our planet.

Evolving · **#15** by **Evolving** » Nov 23, 2011 9:52 am

Spearthrower wrote:One of the main problems gravitationalist’s (including those with greengrocers' apostrophes) faces (with consequent lack of subject verb-agreement) nowadays is the principal problem (tautology) exposed by the falling of objects we observe today on our planet.

rustynuts II · **#16** by **rustynuts II** » Nov 23, 2011 9:59 am

SOOOOO much fail in one post. :nono:

J Hubner · **#17** by **J Hubner** » Nov 23, 2011 4:37 pm

It seems to me that I ought to reply, first to the gentlemen that said:quote"This means, if you can follow the logic, that at some point life arrived on Earth"unquote'
I have to disagree, in order to be consistent, we can agree that we still dont know how life came about, evolution aside.
Therefore, the science community is still hesitating on this point.
Second, it seems to me that there is so many schools of view on the subject of evolutionism that to adhere to one or an other sems dubious because of lack of consensus among the scientific community. In other words, given the controversy pointed out in my first post it seems dubious to make a judgement just yet about evolutionism.

A fresh example of this?:the parasitic wasp, in order to survive, it needs a host that fits its parasitic paterns, a caterpillar etc.
If evolution was as valid as it pretends to be , there would be no parasitic wasps, because its primitive unevolved equivalent could just not survive, lacking means of reproduction via the abscence of evolved caterpillars(and other already evolved organisms to serve as its host. it would have to conjure up its parasitic nature and organs(the parasitic dart for example) in a matter of seconds to be a well established species. This we can all agree is impossible, what seems more probable is that this ridiculous as it may seem, it that the wasp was just conjured into existence.

As for the papers being presented here, of course there are diverging views, the real question is wich one can we adhere to without bias or danger.

Animavore · **#18** by **Animavore** » Nov 23, 2011 4:53 pm

Oh deary me!

J Hubner wrote:I have to disagree, in order to be consistent, we can agree that we still dont know how life came about, evolution aside.
Therefore, the science community is still hesitating on this point.

So?

J Hubner wrote:Second, it seems to me that there is so many schools of view on the subject of evolutionism that to adhere to one or an other sems dubious because of lack of consensus among the scientific community.

What are these "schools of evolutionism" of which you speak?

J Hubner wrote:A fresh example of this?:the parasitic wasp, in order to survive, it needs a host that fits its parasitic paterns, a caterpillar etc.
If evolution was as valid as it pretends to be , there would be no parasitic wasps, because its primitive unevolved equivalent could just not survive, lacking means of reproduction via the abscence of evolved caterpillars(and other already evolved organisms to serve as its host. it would have to conjure up its parasitic nature and organs(the parasitic dart for example) in a matter of seconds to be a well established species. This we can all agree is impossible, what seems more probable is that this ridiculous as it may seem, it that the wasp was just conjured into existence.

How is a wasp being "conjured into existence" more probable? Think about this for a second. Have you ever walked down the road one day minding your own business, munching on a takeaway from the local chipper when suddenly, out of nowhere, with a pop, a creature just "conjures into existence" right in front of you, stopping you dead in your tracks and making you drop your chip-butty?
When does that happen in real life? It doesn't. Plain and simple. What we do see are creatures being born from other similar creatures with variation, y'know like my sister looks sort of similar to me but with bigger tits while my brother looks like me with a barrell chest and a chestnut head, all of us looking similar in someway to our mother and the milkman. Less similar to the milkman and Mrs. O'Brien and even less so like Barack O'Bama.
The gradual change over time of species due to variation is far more probable than an elephant popping into existence with a female elephant in tow.

Shrunk · **#19** by **Shrunk** » Nov 23, 2011 5:06 pm

J Hubner wrote:A fresh example of this?:the parasitic wasp, in order to survive, it needs a host that fits its parasitic paterns, a caterpillar etc.
If evolution was as valid as it pretends to be , there would be no parasitic wasps, because its primitive unevolved equivalent could just not survive, lacking means of reproduction via the abscence of evolved caterpillars(and other already evolved organisms to serve as its host. it would have to conjure up its parasitic nature and organs(the parasitic dart for example) in a matter of seconds to be a well established species. This we can all agree is impossible, what seems more probable is that this ridiculous as it may seem, it that the wasp was just conjured into existence.

http://www.ijdb.ehu.es/web/paper.php?doi=14756339&a=f

I admit, I've only skimmed the article. So I can't say for sure it doesn't end up concluding "the parasitic wasp was just conjured into existence." But I somehow doubt it.

BTW, what do you suppose its "primitive unevolved equivalent" would have looked like? Have you ever noticed wasps around that don't use a parasitic form of reproduction? They don't seem to have trouble surviving, do they?

DaveScriv · **#20** by **DaveScriv** » Nov 23, 2011 5:07 pm

Animavore, I suspect J Hubner may be of the American persuasion, so talk of 'local chipper', 'chip-butty' and 'milkman' may not compute. :lol:

Evolution under scrutiny

Evolution under scrutiny

Re: Evolution under scrutiny

Re: Evolution under scrutiny

Re: Evolution under scrutiny

Re: Evolution under scrutiny

Re: Evolution under scrutiny

Re: Evolution under scrutiny

Re: Evolution under scrutiny

Re: Evolution under scrutiny

Re: Evolution under scrutiny

Re: Evolution under scrutiny

Re: Evolution under scrutiny

Re: Evolution under scrutiny

Re: Evolution under scrutiny

Re: Evolution under scrutiny

Re: Evolution under scrutiny

Re: Evolution under scrutiny

Re: Evolution under scrutiny

Re: Evolution under scrutiny

Re: Evolution under scrutiny

Who is online