Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...
Little Faith

Evolution/Creationism flamewar goes here

creation vs. evolution  

40 members have voted

  1. 1. creation vs. evolution

    • creationism(god(s), spirits created all)
      9
    • evolution (life adapts and changes over time, not made)
      31


Recommended Posts

Exactly, who says other lifeforms need Earth-like conditions to exist anyway? All we did was adapt to our environment. By the way, the Universe is so big, I'd say the chances of other intelligent species being out there is about a 100%. And probably lots of them too. In fact, some scientists believe that in our own Milkyway, there might be billions of planets, since most stars have planets orbiting around them. It's Mind-boggling.

Share this post


Link to post
GS-1719 said:

We did not adapt to our environment. Evolution is BS.

Please ignore the troll.

Share this post


Link to post
GS-1719 said:

We did not adapt to our environment. Evolution is BS.


"You weren't there"

-- base of every major religion

Share this post


Link to post
scorpion said:

"You weren't there"

-- base of every major religion

Please ignore the troll.

It has been scientifically proven that evolution does not work. The reasons for its continuing popularity as a theory have also been shown. Therefore, I do not think that life will simply pop up anywhere in the universe given Earth-like or related conditions.

Share this post


Link to post

Did some-one mention evolution?
:-D

GS-1719 said:

It has been scientifically proven that evolution does not work. The reasons for its continuing popularity as a theory have also been shown. Therefore, I do not think that life will simply pop up anywhere in the universe given Earth-like or related conditions.

Could you give us some references to where I can find your "scientific proof".

further, I read your profile and it states:

GS-1719's profile:
Interests: Mathematics, Theoretical Physics, Computer Science, Other Physics

Physics states that all that happens in non-living nature behaves according to physical laws. Every process can be explained using natural explainations (like F=m*a), and without supernatural explainations (like god or something).

Now, why do you not apply this same logic on living nature (biology). Why not assume that like everything else in nature living organism behaves according to laws (like natural selection).

If I told you an apple falls to the ground because god is pulling it down, you'd think I was being lazy and stupid. But it's just as lazy and stupid as saying that a cat has claws because god created cats like this.

Explaining a falling apple with Laws and a claw with divine intervention seems a bit inconsistent to me.

Like in physics we should seek natural explainations for all things in biology. That's true science if you ask me.

If these "scientists" of yours really have another natural explaination for the excistance and the diversity of all the different species I'd like to hear about it.
But I doubt this theory will be any good.

Share this post


Link to post

Aww, not this again. My brain still hurts from last time.

/me bashes head on the wall for pain to go buh-bye.

Share this post


Link to post
Scientist said:

Could you give us some references to where I can find your "scientific proof".

Many sources, my favourite being Evolution Deceit.

Now, why do you not apply this same logic on living nature (biology). Why not assume that like everything else in nature living organism behaves according to laws (like natural selection).

Refer to the previous.

Share this post


Link to post

Evolution is a fact. whether or not it is responsible for 2 billion years of life on Earth is open to some amount of skepticism.
certainly, IMO, there is enough proof that this is almost definitely a fact.
the universe is incredibly vast. so vast, in fact, that I dare say that all of us reading this board cannot fully appreciate or comprehend it's size. there are voids in space that are a million times as large as the super-cluster that our GALAXY is a part of!
I don't think we can even _really_ comprehend how big a galaxy is...
but back OT,
another poor analogy: billions of stars are like the people on Earth.
there are so many differences, but haven't you seen 2 people who were looked almost identical?
the likelyhood that the RIGHT conditions exist elsewhere, I say, is certain... Do I think we are alone as sentient lifeforms in the cosmos?
unfortunately, yes.

Share this post


Link to post

in all reality we did adapt to the enviroment. life is found in ALL parts of our planet. from the deep cold of the artic to the blistering heat of an underwater volcano. infact some organisms dont even rely on the sun for energy. it may be possible that once life has adapted there is little to be done to stop it.
planets with moons are a requirment for stable enviroment, unless out side that planet's orbit there is a far larger planet. tempeture is not as important and here is why. on the ocean, near volcanos, organisms live in water that is over boiling. the pressure keeps this water from boiling. as long as water preforms the needed tasks for a creature it would not matter how hot it gets. another thing is gases, i am sure many places might aviod oxygen. early earth did this. oxygen is toxic to life, you can die from too much, and early organisms produced it as a bi-product. however another adapted to use it, this has become the mitochondria. most if the life in earth's history was not oxygen useing, only in the last billion years.

most solar systems haave more than a single star, thus makeing other possible positions for life giving planets. a large planet might be very hot, yet have liguid water due to the pressure. and like the ocean floor there could be life. i agree that intelligent life would be rare as would multi cellular. earth took 3 billion years to get advanced, and that may have been just because of the mitochondria. that alowed move energy to be made from fuel and it was produced much faster than by fermentation. Given that i am sure many planet do have life however i am sure that most of that life is not as complex

Share this post


Link to post
GS-1719 said:

It has been scientifically proven that evolution does not work. The reasons for its continuing popularity as a theory have also been shown. Therefore, I do not think that life will simply pop up anywhere in the universe given Earth-like or related conditions.

yeah, right. so instead of evolution we should follow a 2,000 year old comic-book, because THATS rational and logical.

Evolution is a THEORY, it develops and is added to/changed over time. Its not perfect NOW, maybe it will never be, time will tell. ALL religions are static doctrines/ideologies which serve to limit logical thinking and make slaves respect their masters. Even if a scientific theory isnt perfect now, its still better than putting all my faith in the works of kings, slaveholders and insane ideologues that are more than millenia old.

Ive read evolution deceit, and its interesting how no one needs to write a "bible deceit" or "new Testament Deciet- i guess the motives behind making people "childlike in their obedience of christ" and "Trembling in gods omnipoptent presence" are just too OBVIOUS

Share this post


Link to post

evolution is much much more than what many of you have been taught. it is not a static theory like E=MC2. it happens differently in some enviroments and areas than in others. Evolution also requirers knowlege in other areas, like gelogy and planitary science. there are som many veriabels that go into evolution. what works in one area may not in another. however it does happen, things change. however sometimes there are periods with little or no change, mainly when a species has been around along time and nothing really chalenges it.
look a scorpions, 450 million years old. they have stayed very much the same. one reason is because that age has worked out all the kinks for where they live. however changes in venom, size, color and enviromental location do still occur. only the basic body plan stays the same.
humans on the other hand have faced near extinctions several times and quick adaptations had to be made. looking at our genetics proves that our gene line is extreamly thin, thinner than a small group of modern day chimps. thus the lack of fossils makes sence seeing that no particular species survived more than 50,000 years, plus a small population. there have been many human and human like creatures spread over africa, europe and asia. infact a bipedal ape, a distant relitive, may have lived in china up to a few hundred years ago. another thing is the neanderthals were probaly a sub spicies to us. they adapted to live in the colder north. brain size is similar(not smaller) so they where not stupid ape men like the movies. they died out mainly from compition from souther humans, but changeing enviroment and low population didnt help either

Share this post


Link to post

all early human fetuses have gills... you have the same dormant T-cells that seals do... You have a tailbone, an appendix, and fingernails... but you use none of them. Humans are not naturally meant to walk upright, etc...
Hello.... YOU are living proof that evolution exists.

Share this post


Link to post

Tag, you're it.

Life is confusing. So is how I am able to comprehend all this. Oh, wait, I can't. Let me wake up first. I need some coffee.

Share this post


Link to post
Xian said:

ALL religions are static doctrines/ideologies which serve to limit logical thinking and make slaves respect their masters.

I know my religion, and that could not be further from the truth.

Share this post


Link to post

So, GS-1719, let's look at "Evolution Deceit" (this must be the one found at evolutiondeceit.com). Time for some random quotes of wisdom!

Materialist philosophy, which accepts only the existence of matter and presupposes man to be 'a heap of matter', asserts that he is no more than an animal, with 'conflict' the sole rule of his existence. Although propagated as a modern philosophy based on science, materialism is in fact an ancient dogma with no scientific basis.

Interesting, there is no scientific proof that we don't have a supernatural soul! Then we must have one, although there isn't even any indication that we actually have one!

The past two centuries have been a bloody arena of materialism: Ideologies based on materialism (or competing ideologies arguing against materialism, yet sharing its basic tenets) have brought permanent violence, war and chaos to the world. Communism, responsible for the death of 120 million people, is the direct outcome of materialistic philosophy. Fascism, despite pretending to be an alternative to the materialistic world-view, accepted the fundamental materialist concept of progress though conflict and sparked off oppressive regimes, massacres, world wars and genocide

Traces of this philosophy, which has a lot to answer as regards man-made disasters of the last two centuries, can be found in every ideology that perceives differences among people as a 'reason for conflict'. That includes the terrorists of the present day who claim to uphold religion, yet commit one of the greatest sins by murdering innocent people.

Oh my god! The science of evolution has caused communism, al-Quaeda! Possibly even Linux! What has the world come to!!!!"""!"#

Most people accept everything they hear from scientists as strictly true. It does not even occur to them that scientists may also have various philosophical or ideological prejudices. The fact of the matter is that evolutionist scientists impose their own prejudices and philosophical views on the public under the guise of science.

Wow, this author just does not have any prejudices and philosophical views! All he writes is absolutely true!

For instance, although they are aware that random events do not cause anything other than irregularity and confusion, they still claim that the marvellous order, plan, and design seen both in the universe and in living organisms arose by chance.

Yes, the chance that events which can be expressed physically and mathematically occur must be a LOT smaller than the chance of the existence of a supernatural being which cannot be explained at all! Yeay!

He does not stop there; he also claims, without hesitation, that not only one, but millions of proteins formed by chance and then incredibly came together to create the first living cell.

Woah, did you also notice that quadrillions of atoms just by accident lump together when you throw mud into a pile of mud! Incredible!

If the same scientist were to find three bricks resting on top of one another while walking along a flat road, he would never suppose that these bricks had come together by chance and then climbed up on top of each other, again by chance. Indeed, anyone who did make such an assertion would be considered insane.

It's great with unrelated metaphors, you know! I can't be that the scientist is looking for the most likely explanation, can it? It couldn't be that today, there are evidently humans around who could pile those bricks up, and thus it's the most likely explanation, but if he had seen those bricks a billion years ago when there were no humans around, he would have drawn the logical conclusion that they had come to that arrangement by random accident? No, of course The Almighty God Who Isn't Proved To Exist But Is 1337 And Stuff must have put them there!!!! Yeah-wahoo!

It is not possible to claim that this attitude is adopted in the name of science: scientific approach requires taking both alternatives into consideration wherever there are two alternatives equally possible concerning a certain case.

Creationism is so damn rational, don't you think! It is so scientific to assume that what's written in a 2000+ year old fairy-tale is true! It's even cool to make up supernatural explanations for natural things! Fantacular!!!!!


*Cough* *cough*

Share this post


Link to post

Is that a real creationist we have here? I didn't think such things existed... except in the news.

Share this post


Link to post
GS-1719 said:

Many sources, my favourite being Evolution Deceit.

Refer to the previous.

Wow, another book to hide behind!
I must admit that I never heard of "the evolution deceit" before. So I went to this site and watched the movies.
Chapter 1 says Darwin was just an amateur naturalist.
[sarcasm]Well then I guess Leonardo da Vinci was just an amateur artist[/sarcasm]

This brilliant chapter also claims that the evolution theory was immediatly popular.
This is a lie, Darwin was ridiculed thoughout his life.

It also claims that evolution is popular amoug imperialists, like Karl Marx.
Don't these people know who Marx was? He wrote Das Kapital and together with Friedrich Engels he wrote the Manifesto of the Communist Party. He was most definatly not an imperialist!
Besides if the evolution-theory and imperialism support eachother don't you think christians are suppose to support the theory, since they're the most imperialistic people on the surface of this planet.

Chapter 3 assumes the first living thing was a complete cell with mithochondria and everything!
The first "living thing" was probably nothing more than a little piece of RNA that could replicate itself; it was not a complete cell.

Now GS-1719 is wondering that if this strand of RNA really existed why didn't we find huge amouts of fossils of it?
answer: We're not going to find fossils of these very early beings, because they did not possess structures that could be fossilized.

the deceit chapter 4 said:
natural selection has no evolutionairy power

So you think natural selection can't give us new species.
Another member of doomworld thought so too not so long ago. To see what i answered click here and scroll halfway down and read the story about Rhagoletis pomonella

So we see natural selection can and has given us new species.

The deceit tells us that since natural selection didn't provide new species scientists desperately searched for another mechanism to support their lie, and came up with mutation. The reason mutation was taken into the evolution theory was the discovery of DNA; not because natural selection failt (natural selection didn't fail remember).

the evolution deceit chapter 4 said:
Matution has no evolutionairy power

The deceit tells us mutation only damages DNA and has never resultated in new genes or anything useful.

Now this is actually true... o no wait it's another lie!
Scientist explains:
Mutations occur because DNA-replication isn’t always perfect. Because of this evolution and diversification can exist. Genetical changes form the basis of evolution. Many errors can be made during DNA-replication, just think of the deletion, insertion or substitution of bases. These mutations change the exact bases sequence. If this kind of mutation occurs in a gene coding for a protein this can lead to changes in the amino acid sequence. The protein then can perhaps get a new function. But these kind of mutations do not result in “entirely new genes”. Gene duplications do.

Gene Duplication
Due to irregularities during DNA-replication a gene can get replicated twice. After duplication mutations in both sister genes can take place independently. This way they can diverge and may get different functions. Heamoglobine and myoglobine are probably the result of such a gene duplication. (Two genes resulting from such a duplication in an organism are called paralog genes)

An other way to make entire new genes is polyploidy. This is a form of gene duplication where the entire genome can be duplicated. For an example of this read botany.iastate.edu/~jfw/HomePage/RichPNAS.pdf+polyploid&hl=nl&ie=UTF-8]the following article


Gene duplication is just one way of getting entirely new genes. There are other ways as well.

So we see that mutation can and has led to complete new genes and functions.

Chapter 4 also claims that the experiments on fruitflies never resulted in a useful adaption for the fly. This is not true, scientist have created fruitfly that live longer, can withstand higher temperatures and are bigger than there natural relatives.
Also look at the food your eating. Most of it contains geneticly manipulated components. The deceit wants us to believe that this is impossible.

Chapter 6 claims that it is impossible for one species to evolve into another.
[sarcasm]Well then I guess that all these observed instances of speciation are all just part of the conspiracy and are all lies:[/sarcasm]

Observed Instances of Speciation
-Joseph Boxhorn
5.0 Observed Instances of Speciation The following are several examples of observations of speciation.
5.1 Speciations Involving Polyploidy, Hybridization or Hybridization Followed by Polyploidization.
5.1.1 Plants (See also the discussion in de Wet 1971).
5.1.1.1 Evening Primrose (Oenothera gigas)
While studying the genetics of the evening primrose, Oenothera lamarckiana, de Vries (1905) found an unusual variant among his plants. O. lamarckiana has a chromosome number of 2N = 14. The variant had a chromosome number of 2N = 28. He found that he was unable to breed this variant with O. lamarckiana. He named this new species O. gigas.
5.1.1.2 Kew Primrose (Primula kewensis)
Digby (1912) crossed the primrose species Primula verticillata and P. floribunda to produce a sterile hybrid. Polyploidization occurred in a few of these plants to produce fertile offspring. The new species was named P. kewensis. Newton and Pellew (1929) note that spontaneous hybrids of P. verticillata and P. floribunda set tetraploid seed on at least three occasions. These happened in 1905, 1923 and 1926.
5.1.1.3 Trapopogonan
Owenby (1950) demonstrated that two species in this genus were produced by polyploidization from hybrids. He showed that Tragopogon miscellus found in a colony in Moscow, Idaho was produced by hybridization of T. dubius and T. pratensis. He also showed that T. mirus found in a colony near Pullman, Washington was produced by hybridization of T. dubius and T. porrifolius. Evidence from chloroplast DNA suggests that T. mirus has originated independently by hybridization in eastern Washington and western Idaho at least three times (Soltis and Soltis 1989). The same study also shows multiple origins for T. micellus.
5.1.1.4 Raphanobrassica
The Russian cytologist Karpchenko (1927, 1928) crossed the radish, Raphanus sativus, with the cabbage, Brassica oleracea. Despite the fact that the plants were in different genera, he got a sterile hybrid. Some unreduced gametes were formed in the hybrids. This allowed for the production of seed. Plants grown from the seeds were interfertile with each other. They were not interfertile with either parental species. Unfortunately the new plant (genus Raphanobrassica) had the foliage of a radish and the root of a cabbage.
5.1.1.5 Hemp Nettle (Galeopsis tetrahit)
A species of hemp nettle, Galeopsis tetrahit, was hypothesized to be the result of a natural hybridization of two other species, G. pubescens and G. speciosa (Muntzing 1932). The two species were crossed. The hybrids matched G. tetrahit in both visible features and chromosome morphology.
5.1.1.6 Madia citrigracilis
Along similar lines, Clausen et al. (1945) hypothesized that Madia citrigracilis was a hexaploid hybrid of M. gracilis and M. citriodora As evidence they noted that the species have gametic chromosome numbers of n = 24, 16 and 8 respectively. Crossing M. gracilis and M. citriodora resulted in a highly sterile triploid with n = 24. The chromosomes formed almost no bivalents during meiosis. Artificially doubling the chromosome number using colchecine produced a hexaploid hybrid which closely resembled M. citrigracilis and was fertile.
5.1.1.7 Brassica
Frandsen (1943, 1947) was able to do this same sort of recreation of species in the genus Brassica (cabbage, etc.). His experiments showed that B. carinata (n = 17) may be recreated by hybridizing B. nigra (n = 8) and B. oleracea, B. juncea (n = 18) may be recreated by hybridizing B. nigra and B. campestris (n = 10), and B. napus (n = 19) may be recreated by hybridizing B. oleracea and B. campestris.
5.1.1.8 Maidenhair Fern (Adiantum pedatum)
Rabe and Haufler (1992) found a naturally occurring diploid sporophyte of maidenhair fern which produced unreduced (2N) spores. These spores resulted from a failure of the paired chromosomes to dissociate during the first division of meiosis. The spores germinated normally and grew into diploid gametophytes. These did not appear to produce antheridia. Nonetheless, a subsequent generation of tetraploid sporophytes was produced. When grown in the lab, the tetraploid sporophytes appear to be less vigorous than the normal diploid sporo- phytes. The 4N individuals were found near Baldwin City, Kansas.
5.1.1.9 Woodsia Fern (Woodsia abbeae)
Woodsia abbeae was described as a hybrid of W. cathcariana and W. ilvensis (Butters 1941). Plants of this hybrid normally produce abortive sporangia containing inviable spores. In 1944 Butters found a W. abbeae plant near Grand Portage, Minn. that had one fertile frond (Butters and Tryon 1948). The apical portion of this frond had fertile sporangia. Spores from this frond germinated and grew into prothallia. About six months after germination sporophytes were produced. They survived for about one year. Based on cytological evidence, Butters and Tryon concluded that the frond that produced the viable spores had gone tetraploid. They made no statement as to whether the sporophytes grown produced viable spores.
5.1.2 Animals Speciation through hybridization and/or polyploidy has long been considered much less important in animals than in plants [[[refs.]]]. A number of reviews suggest that this view may be mistaken. (Lokki and Saura 1980; Bullini and Nascetti 1990; Vrijenhoek 1994). Bullini and Nasceti (1990) review chromosomal and genetic evidence that suggest that speciation through hybridization may occur in a number of insect species, including walking sticks, grasshoppers, blackflies and cucurlionid beetles. Lokki and Saura (1980) discuss the role of polyploidy in insect evolution. Vrijenhoek (1994) reviews the literature on parthenogenesis and hybridogenesis in fish. I will tackle this topic in greater depth in the next version of this document.
5.2 Speciations in Plant Species not Involving Hybridization or Polyploidy
5.2.1 Stephanomeira malheurensis Gottlieb (1973) documented the speciation of Stephanomeira malheurensis. He found a single small population (< 250 plants) among a much larger population (> 25,000 plants) of S. exigua in Harney Co., Oregon. Both species are diploid and have the same number of chromosomes (N = 8). S. exigua is an obligate outcrosser exhibiting sporophytic self-incompatibility. S. malheurensis exhibits no self- incompatibility and self-pollinates. Though the two species look very similar, Gottlieb was able to document morphological differences in five characters plus chromosomal differences. F1 hybrids between the species produces only 50% of the seeds and 24% of the pollen that conspecific crosses produced. F2 hybrids showed various developmental abnormalities.
5.2.2 Maize (Zea mays) Pasterniani (1969) produced almost complete reproductive isolation between two varieties of maize. The varieties were distinguishable by seed color, white versus yellow. Other genetic markers allowed him to identify hybrids. The two varieties were planted in a common field. Any plant's nearest neighbors were always plants of the other strain. Selection was applied against hybridization by using only those ears of corn that showed a low degree of hybridi- zation as the source of the next years seed. Only parental type kernels from these ears were planted. The strength of selection was increased each year. In the first year, only ears with less than 30% intercrossed seed were used. In the fifth year, only ears with less than 1% intercrossed seed were used. After five years the average percentage of intercrossed matings dropped from 35.8% to 4.9% in the white strain and from 46.7% to 3.4% in the yellow strain.
5.2.3 Speciation as a Result of Selection for Tolerance to a Toxin: Yellow Monkey Flower (Mimulus guttatus) At reasonably low concentrations, copper is toxic to many plant species. Several plants have been seen to develop a tolerance to this metal (Macnair 1981). Macnair and Christie (1983) used this to examine the genetic basis of a postmating isolating mechanism in yellow monkey flower. When they crossed plants from the copper tolerant "Copperopolis" population with plants from the nontolerant "Cerig" population, they found that many of the hybrids were inviable. During early growth, just after the four leaf stage, the leaves of many of the hybrids turned yellow and became necrotic. Death followed this. This was seen only in hybrids between the two populations. Through mapping studies, the authors were able to show that the copper tolerance gene and the gene responsible for hybrid inviability were either the same gene or were very tightly linked. These results suggest that reproductive isolation may require changes in only a small number of genes.
5.3 The Fruit Fly Literature
5.3.1 Drosophila paulistorum Dobzhansky and Pavlovsky (1971) reported a speciation event that occurred in a laboratory culture of Drosophila paulistorum sometime between 1958 and 1963. The culture was descended from a single inseminated female that was captured in the Llanos of Colombia. In 1958 this strain produced fertile hybrids when crossed with conspecifics of different strains from Orinocan. From 1963 onward crosses with Orinocan strains produced only sterile males. Initially no assortative mating or behavioral isolation was seen between the Llanos strain and the Orinocan strains. Later on Dobzhansky produced assortative mating (Dobzhansky 1972).
5.3.2 Disruptive Selection on Drosophila melanogaster Thoday and Gibson (1962) established a population of Drosophila melanogaster from four gravid females. They applied selection on this population for flies with the highest and lowest numbers of sternoplural chaetae (hairs). In each generation, eight flies with high numbers of chaetae were allowed to interbreed and eight flies with low numbers of chaetae were allowed to interbreed. Periodically they performed mate choice experiments on the two lines. They found that they had produced a high degree of positive assortative mating between the two groups. In the decade or so following this, eighteen labs attempted unsuccessfully to reproduce these results. References are given in Thoday and Gibson 1970.
5.3.3 Selection on Courtship Behavior in Drosophila melanogaster Crossley (1974) was able to produce changes in mating behavior in two mutant strains of D. melanogaster. Four treatments were used. In each treatment, 55 virgin males and 55 virgin females of both ebony body mutant flies and vestigial wing mutant flies (220 flies total) were put into a jar and allowed to mate for 20 hours. The females were collected and each was put into a separate vial. The phenotypes of the offspring were recorded. Wild type offspring were hybrids between the mutants. In two of the four treatments, mating was carried out in the light. In one of these treatments all hybrid offspring were destroyed. This was repeated for 40 generations. Mating was carried out in the dark in the other two treatments. Again, in one of these all hybrids were destroyed. This was repeated for 49 generations. Crossley ran mate choice tests and observed mating behavior. Positive assortative mating was found in the treatment which had mated in the light and had been subject to strong selection against hybridization. The basis of this was changes in the courtship behaviors of both sexes. Similar experiments, without observation of mating behavior, were performed by Knight, et al. (1956).
5.3.4 Sexual Isolation as a Byproduct of Adaptation to Environmental Conditions in Drosophila melanogaster Kilias, et al. (1980) exposed D. melanogaster populations to different temperature and humidity regimes for several years. They performed mating tests to check for reproductive isolation. They found some sterility in crosses among populations raised under different conditions. They also showed some positive assortative mating. These things were not observed in populations which were separated but raised under the same conditions. They concluded that sexual isolation was produced as a byproduct of selection.
5.3.5 Sympatric Speciation in Drosophila melanogaster In a series of papers (Rice 1985, Rice and Salt 1988 and Rice and Salt 1990) Rice and Salt presented experimental evidence for the possibility of sympatric speciation. They started from the premise that whenever organisms sort themselves into the environment first and then mate locally, individuals with the same habitat preferences will necessarily mate assortatively. They established a stock population of D. melanogaster with flies collected in an orchard near Davis, California. Pupae from the culture were placed into a habitat maze. Newly emerged flies had to negotiate the maze to find food. The maze simulated several environmental gradients simultaneously. The flies had to make three choices of which way to go. The first was between light and dark (phototaxis). The second was between up and down (geotaxis). The last was between the scent of acetaldehyde and the scent of ethanol (chemotaxis). This divided the flies among eight habitats. The flies were further divided by the time of day of emergence. In total the flies were divided among 24 spatio-temporal habitats.
They next cultured two strains of flies that had chosen opposite habitats. One strain emerged early, flew upward and was attracted to dark and acetaldehyde. The other emerged late, flew downward and was attracted to light and ethanol. Pupae from these two strains were placed together in the maze. They were allowed to mate at the food site and were collected. Eye color differences between the strains allowed Rice and Salt to distinguish between the two strains. A selective penalty was imposed on flies that switched habitats. Females that switched habitats were destroyed. None of their gametes passed into the next generation. Males that switched habitats received no penalty. After 25 generations of this mating tests showed reproductive isolation between the two strains. Habitat specialization was also produced.
They next repeated the experiment without the penalty against habitat switching. The result was the same -- reproductive isolation was produced. They argued that a switching penalty is not necessary to produce reproductive isolation. Their results, they stated, show the possibility of sympatric speciation.
5.3.6 Isolation Produced as an Incidental Effect of Selection on several Drosophila species In a series of experiments, del Solar (1966) derived positively and negatively geotactic and phototactic strains of D. pseudoobscura from the same population by running the flies through mazes. Flies from different strains were then introduced into mating chambers (10 males and 10 females from each strain). Matings were recorded. Statistically significant positive assortative mating was found.
In a separate series of experiments Dodd (1989) raised eight populations derived from a single population of D. Pseudoobscura on stressful media. Four populations were raised on a starch based medium, the other four were raised on a maltose based medium. The fly populations in both treatments took several months to get established, implying that they were under strong selection. Dodd found some evidence of genetic divergence between flies in the two treatments. He performed mate choice tests among experimental populations. He found statistically significant assortative mating between populations raised on different media, but no assortative mating among populations raised within the same medium regime. He argued that since there was no direct selection for reproductive isolation, the behavioral isolation results from a pleiotropic by-product to adaptation to the two media. Schluter and Nagel (1995) have argued that these results provide experimental support for the hypothesis of parallel speciation.
Less dramatic results were obtained by growing D. willistoni on media of different pH levels (de Oliveira and Cordeiro 1980). Mate choice tests after 26, 32, 52 and 69 generations of growth showed statistically significant assortative mating between some populations grown in different pH treatments. This ethological isolation did not always persist over time. They also found that some crosses made after 106 and 122 generations showed significant hybrid inferiority, but only when grown in acid medium.
5.3.7 Selection for Reinforcement in Drosophila melanogaster Some proposed models of speciation rely on a process called reinforcement to complete the speciation process. Reinforcement occurs when to partially isolated allopatric populations come into contact. Lower relative fitness of hybrids between the two populations results in increased selection for isolating mechanisms. I should note that a recent review (Rice and Hostert 1993) argues that there is little experimental evidence to support reinforcement models. Two experiments in which the authors argue that their results provide support are discussed below.
Ehrman (1971) established strains of wild-type and mutant (black body) D. melanogaster. These flies were derived from compound autosome strains such that heterotypic matings would produce no progeny. The two strains were reared together in common fly cages. After two years, the isolation index generated from mate choice experiments had increased from 0.04 to 0.43, indicating the appearance of considerable assortative mating. After four years this index had risen to 0.64 (Ehrman 1973).
Along the same lines, Koopman (1950) was able to increase the degree of reproductive isolation between two partially isolated species, D. pseudoobscura and D. persimilis.
5.3.8 Tests of the Founder-flush Speciation Hypothesis Using Drosophila The founder-flush (a.k.a. flush-crash) hypothesis posits that genetic drift and founder effects play a major role in speciation (Powell 1978). During a founder-flush cycle a new habitat is colonized by a small number of individuals (e.g. one inseminated female). The population rapidly expands (the flush phase). This is followed by the population crashing. During this crash period the population experiences strong genetic drift. The population undergoes another rapid expansion followed by another crash. This cycle repeats several times. Reproductive isolation is produced as a byproduct of genetic drift.
Dodd and Powell (1985) tested this hypothesis using D. pseudoobscura. A large, heterogeneous population was allowed to grow rapidly in a very large population cage. Twelve experimental populations were derived from this population from single pair matings. These populations were allowed to flush. Fourteen months later, mating tests were performed among the twelve populations. No postmating isolation was seen. One cross showed strong behavioral isolation. The populations underwent three more flush-crash cycles. Forty-four months after the start of the experiment (and fifteen months after the last flush) the populations were again tested. Once again, no postmating isolation was seen. Three populations showed behavioral isolation in the form of positive assortative mating. Later tests between 1980 and 1984 showed that the isolation persisted, though it was weaker in some cases.
Galina, et al. (1993) performed similar experiments with D. pseudoobscura. Mating tests between populations that underwent flush-crash cycles and their ancestral populations showed 8 cases of positive assortative mating out of 118 crosses. They also showed 5 cases of negative assortative mating (i.e. the flies preferred to mate with flies of the other strain). Tests among the founder-flush populations showed 36 cases of positive assortative mating out of 370 crosses. These tests also found 4 cases of negative assortative mating. Most of these mating preferences did not persist over time. Galina, et al. concluded that the founder-flush protocol yields reproductive isolation only as a rare and erratic event.
Ahearn (1980) applied the founder-flush protocol to D. silvestris. Flies from a line of this species underwent several flush-crash cycles. They were tested in mate choice experiments against flies from a continuously large population. Female flies from both strains preferred to mate with males from the large population. Females from the large population would not mate with males from the founder flush population. An asymmetric reproductive isolation was produced.
In a three year experiment, Ringo, et al. (1985) compared the effects of a founder-flush protocol to the effects of selection on various traits. A large population of D. simulans was created from flies from 69 wild caught stocks from several locations. Founder-flush lines and selection lines were derived from this population. The founder-flush lines went through six flush-crash cycles. The selection lines experienced equal intensities of selection for various traits. Mating test were performed between strains within a treatment and between treatment strains and the source population. Crosses were also checked for postmating isolation. In the selection lines, 10 out of 216 crosses showed positive assortative mating (2 crosses showed negative assortative mating). They also found that 25 out of 216 crosses showed postmating isolation. Of these, 9 cases involved crosses with the source population. In the founder-flush lines 12 out of 216 crosses showed positive assortative mating (3 crosses showed negative assortative mating). Postmating isolation was found in 15 out of 216 crosses, 11 involving the source population. They concluded that only weak isolation was found and that there was little difference between the effects of natural selection and the effects of genetic drift.
A final test of the founder-flush hypothesis will be described with the housefly cases below.
5.4 Housefly Speciation Experiments
5.4.1 A Test of the Founder-flush Hypothesis Using Houseflies Meffert and Bryant (1991) used houseflies to test whether bottlenecks in populations can cause permanent alterations in courtship behavior that lead to premating isolation. They collected over 100 flies of each sex from a landfill near Alvin, Texas. These were used to initiate an ancestral population. From this ancestral population they established six lines. Two of these lines were started with one pair of flies, two lines were started with four pairs of flies and two lines were started with sixteen pairs of flies. These populations were flushed to about 2,000 flies each. They then went through five bottlenecks followed by flushes. This took 35 generations. Mate choice tests were performed. One case of positive assortative mating was found. One case of negative assortative mating was also found.
5.4.2 Selection for Geotaxis with and without Gene Flow Soans, et al. (1974) used houseflies to test Pimentel's model of speciation. This model posits that speciation requires two steps. The first is the formation of races in subpopulations. This is followed by the establishment of reproductive isolation. Houseflies were subjected to intense divergent selection on the basis of positive and negative geotaxis. In some treatments no gene flow was allowed, while in others there was 30% gene flow. Selection was imposed by placing 1000 flies into the center of a 108 cm vertical tube. The first 50 flies that reached the top and the first 50 flies that reached the bottom were used to found positively and negatively geotactic populations. Four populations were established:
Pop A + geotaxis, no gene flow
Pop B - geotaxis, no gene flow
Pop C + geotaxis, 30% gene flow
Pop D - geotaxis, 30% gene flow
Selection was repeated within these populations each generations. After 38 generations the time to collect 50 flies had dropped from 6 hours to 2 hours in Pop A, from 4 hours to 4 minutes in Pop B, from 6 hours to 2 hours in Pop C and from 4 hours to 45 minutes in Pop D. Mate choice tests were performed. Positive assortative mating was found in all crosses. They concluded that reproductive isolation occurred under both allopatric and sympatric conditions when very strong selection was present.
Hurd and Eisenberg (1975) performed a similar experiment on houseflies using 50% gene flow and got the same results.
5.5 Speciation Through Host Race Differentiation Recently there has been a lot of interest in whether the dif- ferentiation of an herbivorous or parasitic species into races living on different hosts can lead to sympatric speciation. It has been argued that in animals that mate on (or in) their preferred hosts, positive assortative mating is an inevitable byproduct of habitat selection (Rice 1985; Barton, et al. 1988). This would suggest that differentiated host races may represent incipient species.
5.5.1 Apple Maggot Fly (Rhagoletis pomonella) Rhagoletis pomonella is a fly that is native to North America. Its normal host is the hawthorn tree. Sometime during the nineteenth century it began to infest apple trees. Since then it has begun to infest cherries, roses, pears and possibly other members of the rosaceae. Quite a bit of work has been done on the differences between flies infesting hawthorn and flies infesting apple. There appear to be differences in host preferences among populations. Offspring of females collected from on of these two hosts are more likely to select that host for oviposition (Prokopy et al. 1988). Genetic differences between flies on these two hosts have been found at 6 out of 13 allozyme loci (Feder et al. 1988, see also McPheron et al. 1988). Laboratory studies have shown an asynchrony in emergence time of adults between these two host races (Smith 1988). Flies from apple trees take about 40 days to mature, whereas flies from hawthorn trees take 54-60 days to mature. This makes sense when we consider that hawthorn fruit tends to mature later in the season that apples. Hybridization studies show that host preferences are inherited, but give no evidence of barriers to mating. This is a very exciting case. It may represent the early stages of a sympatric speciation event (considering the dispersal of R. pomonella to other plants it may even represent the beginning of an adaptive radiation). It is important to note that some of the leading researchers on this question are urging caution in inter- preting it. Feder and Bush (1989) stated:
Hawthorn and apple "host races" of R. pomonella may therefore represent incipient species. However, it remains to be seen whether host-associated traits can evolve into effective enough barriers to gene flow to result eventually in the complete reproductive isolation of R. pomonella populations.
5.5.2 Gall Former Fly (Eurosta solidaginis) Eurosta solidaginis is a gall forming fly that is associated with goldenrod plants. It has two hosts: over most of its range it lays its eggs in Solidago altissima, but in some areas it uses S. gigantea as its host. Recent electrophoretic work has shown that the genetic distances among flies from different sympatric hosts species are greater than the distances among flies on the same host in different geographic areas (Waring et al. 1990). This same study also found reduced variability in flies on S. gigantea. This suggests that some E. solidaginis have recently shifted hosts to this species. A recent study has compared reproductive behavior of the flies associated with the two hosts (Craig et al. 1993). They found that flies associated with S. gigantea emerge earlier in the season than flies associated with S. altissima. In host choice experiments, each fly strain ovipunctured its own host much more frequently than the other host. Craig et al. (1993) also performed several mating experiments. When no host was present and females mated with males from either strain, if males from only one strain were present. When males of both strains were present, statistically significant positive assortative mating was seen. In the presence of a host, assortative mating was also seen. When both hosts and flies from both populations were present, females waited on the buds of the host that they are normally associated with. The males fly to the host to mate. Like the Rhagoletis case above, this may represent the beginning of a sympatric speciation.
5.6 Flour Beetles (Tribolium castaneum) Halliburton and Gall (1981) established a population of flour beetles collected in Davis, California. In each generation they selected the 8 lightest and the 8 heaviest pupae of each sex. When these 32 beetles had emerged, they were placed together and allowed to mate for 24 hours. Eggs were collected for 48 hours. The pupae that developed from these eggs were weighed at 19 days. This was repeated for 15 generations. The results of mate choice tests between heavy and light beetles was compared to tests among control lines derived from randomly chosen pupae. Positive assortative mating on the basis of size was found in 2 out of 4 experimental lines.
5.7 Speciation in a Lab Rat Worm, Nereis acuminata In 1964 five or six individuals of the polychaete worm, Nereis acuminata, were collected in Long Beach Harbor, California. These were allowed to grow into a population of thousands of individuals. Four pairs from this population were transferred to the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute. For over 20 years these worms were used as test organisms in environmental toxicology. From 1986 to 1991 the Long Beach area was searched for populations of the worm. Two populations, P1 and P2, were found. Weinberg, et al. (1992) performed tests on these two populations and the Woods Hole population (WH) for both postmating and premating isolation. To test for postmating isolation, they looked at whether broods from crosses were successfully reared. The results below give the percentage of successful rearings for each group of crosses.
WH X WH - 75%
P1 X P1 - 95%
P2 X P2 - 80%
P1 X P2 - 77%
WH X P1 - 0%
WH X P2 - 0%
They also found statistically significant premating isolation between the WH population and the field populations. Finally, the Woods Hole population showed slightly different karyotypes from the field populations.
5.8 Speciation Through Cytoplasmic Incompatability Resulting from the Presence of a Parasite or Symbiont In some species the presence of intracellular bacterial parasites (or symbionts) is associated with postmating isolation. This results from a cytoplasmic incompatability between gametes from strains that have the parasite (or symbiont) and stains that don't. An example of this is seen in the mosquito Culex pipiens (Yen and Barr 1971). Compared to within strain matings, matings between strains from different geographic regions may may have any of three results: These matings may produce a normal number of offspring, they may produce a reduced number of offspring or they may produce no offspring. Reciprocal crosses may give the same or different results. In an incompatible cross, the egg and sperm nuclei fail to unite during fertilization. The egg dies during embryogenesis. In some of these strains, Yen and Barr (1971) found substantial numbers of Rickettsia-like microbes in adults, eggs and embryos. Compatibility of mosquito strains seems to be correlated with the strain of the microbe present. Mosquitoes that carry different strains of the microbe exhibit cytoplasmic incompatibility; those that carry the same strain of microbe are interfertile.
Similar phenomena have been seen in a number of other insects. Microoganisms are seen in the eggs of both Nasonia vitripennis and N. giraulti. These two species do not normally hybridize. Following treatment with antibiotics, hybrids occur between them (Breeuwer and Werren 1990). In this case, the symbiont is associated with improper condensation of host chromosomes.
For more examples and a critical review of this topic, see Thompson 1987.
5.9 A Couple of Ambiguous Cases So far the BSC has applied to all of the experiments discussed. The following are a couple of major morphological changes produced in asexual species. Do these represent speciation events? The answer depends on how species is defined.
5.9.1 Coloniality in Chlorella vulgaris Boraas (1983) reported the induction of multicellularity in a strain of Chlorella pyrenoidosa (since reclassified as C. vulgaris) by predation. He was growing the unicellular green alga in the first stage of a two stage continuous culture system as for food for a flagellate predator, Ochromonas sp., that was growing in the second stage. Due to the failure of a pump, flagellates washed back into the first stage. Within five days a colonial form of the Chlorella appeared. It rapidly came to dominate the culture. The colony size ranged from 4 cells to 32 cells. Eventually it stabilized at 8 cells. This colonial form has persisted in culture for about a decade. The new form has been keyed out using a number of algal taxonomic keys. They key out now as being in the genus Coelosphaerium, which is in a different family from Chlorella.
5.9.2 Morphological Changes in Bacteria Shikano, et al. (1990) reported that an unidentified bacterium underwent a major morphological change when grown in the presence of a ciliate predator. This bacterium's normal morphology is a short (1.5 um) rod. After 8 - 10 weeks of growing with the predator it assumed the form of long (20 um) cells. These cells have no cross walls. Filaments of this type have also been produced under circumstances similar to Boraas' induction of multicellularity in Chlorella. Microscopic examination of these filaments is described in Gillott et al. (1993). Multicellularity has also been produced in unicellular bacterial by predation (Nakajima and Kurihara 1994). In this study, growth in the presence of protozoal grazers resulted in the production of chains of bacterial cells.

Share this post


Link to post

That site is so funny! I don`t know rather to laugh or cry because of the obvious lies and stupidity demonstrated.

The lies begin with something like: There was a plan and a goal, so assuming there is no creator is dumb. Well if you put it like that, yes. But "we evolutionalists" do not believe there was plan or goal. reptiles/ nature didn`t think: "I`d like some wings now". Wings came to be in small steps, with every step being evolutionary beneficial. There was no GOAL to grow wings, that`s just the way evolution toke under those specific circumstances. Nice word-game though...

To say that all science since Darwin goes against his theory is...
well untrue, false, wrong, incorrect, stupid, dumb, retarded, BS, lied, deceiving, etc.

We (the evolutionaries on Doomworld) could undoubtebly break down this piece of bad propaganda sentence by sentence; but I think it`s probably obvious to every one by now that this site is just a big joke.

Scientist is right!:
For [higher power]'s sake, man, don't quote this much! It's a waste of server space! ~IMJack


You da man!

Share this post


Link to post

jesus, Scientist!
You could've made another wad in the time it took me to read all that.

Share this post


Link to post

More ranting:

Chapter 3 says that Stanley Miller could make organic molecules from a mixure of inorganic gasses.

The deceit admits that organic matter can be formed out of inorganic matter!

In formula:

a) organic matter can be formed
when
b) the right inorganic gasses are present

If b is present a can be formed

The deceit tells us that the gasses that were used during the experiment weren't present at that time on earth. (It does this without any references.)

b is not present so a cannot be formed.

Up to this point this is all logicly correct.

But for some reason the deceit then uses some retroactively way of thinking and suddenly claims that organic matter can never be made from anorganic matter. Form this moment on it is assumed that organic matter cannot be formed.

It's like saying:
a) my leg will break
when
b) I fall really hard

On Monday I didn't fall really hard;
b is not present therefor a is incorrect; I didn't break my leg.

All perfectly logical but the deceit would now retroactively conclude that my leg is unbreakable.



Further the deceit uses a watch as a metaphor for an organism. Now we all know that a watch is not under the influence of natrual selection and mutation; it was created. Saying that an organism is not influenced by natural selection and mutation but created just because a watch is, is stupid.

Let me explain that using a colorful metaphor:

doomworld is blue.

Along comes Harun Yahya (he wrote "the evolution deceit")
Harun:"Doomworld cannot be blue, just look at it as a tomato. These aren't blue so how can doomworld be? Doomworld is red."

Now Harun Yahya writes a book called "the Doomworld Deceit".

GS reads this book and thinks:"How strange that people still believe that doomworld is blue, while it has scientificly been proven to be red!"
=)

By using the watch as a metaphor he's deliberately pre-determining the outcome of his conclusion (who's the deceiver now?)!

In chapter 4 the deceit suggests that evolutionists claim that horses evloved for deers.

EVOLUTION DOES NOT CLAIM THAT HORSES EVOLVED FROM DEERS!!!
Harun Yahya fucking knows this, and the only reason he mentions this is to falsely ridicule evolution.

Evolution is not a false prophecy created by Satan and spread by scientists to deceive poor christians. (although it does fit perfectly in the story I wrote for my wad:))

Share this post


Link to post

I gave up trying to read all of that. Way too long.

Share this post


Link to post

many new theorys say that comets may have brought organic matter to earth. comets contain lots of 'junk' that is found in organic matter. also comets have a large amount of water.
personaly i dont like the way creationist bitch. they just dont want to understand anything but their own ideas. remeber the middel ages? and how people didn't want to believe that earth revolved around the sun. it made us feel less powerful. humans are not the center of the universe or even of life on this planet. we are an infant race, with around 270 thousand years for our species.

earth is over 4 billion years old, not 20000-5000 as many realy hardcore creationist beleive. my mom believes that humans and dinosuars lived together simply because of a very vague line in the bible. creationism is another theory but it is quickly dying. however there is more to evolution than the strongest survives. It is really a large poker game and chance is all we have. anything can wipe us out and anything can replace us if we die.

some people who oppose ideas should do their research more and not go on simply hear say. what is know as the bible is a collection of other civilizations and their legends, fabels, stories, histories, and culture. it has been translated hundreds of times and been under the control and pen of many. honnestly it should be looked at loosly. any religon who fallows the bible should respect all other cultures and religions. after all they are all connected, even if they dont like that.

damn i think that post is a record of the longest. please no more that long

Share this post


Link to post

which do u belive the most. creationism or evolution

note i am not refering to a single creationist theory or evolution theory.

creationist-beliefs a god(s) created earth and life, for any reason

evolution- the planet and universe are here and formed by natural happenings. life adapts and changes over time, none of it was created.

i am a evolution person, yet i am understanding in many areas of it(not just one type of theory) what works someware may not work in another area.

Share this post


Link to post

which do u belive the most. creationism or evolution

note i am not refering to a single creationist theory or evolution theory.

creationist-beliefs a god(s) created earth and life, for any reason

evolution- the planet and universe are here and formed by natural happenings. life adapts and changes over time, none of it was created.

i am a evolution person, yet i am understanding in many areas of it(not just one type of theory) what works someware may not work in another area.

something happened, the poll screen did not come up even after checking the box. anyway here is the REAL deal, I hope

Share this post


Link to post

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×