About Evolution

[bob x]

While the discoveries are deduced to show mutations and improvements inside a species, not one species change has been accurately accounted...

That's totally untrue. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html lists many observed speciations; http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.html lists more.

[wil]

Quote:While the discoveries are deduced to show mutations and improvements inside a species, not one species change has been accurately accounted...
That's totally untrue. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html lists many observed speciations; http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.html lists more.

Great links...and they point out the artificial changes and genetic modifications by man and some isolated changes which have occurred which meet the argued criteria for speciation...

Obviously what we are looking for is the series of fishes that walked onto land...not the notion that has the big holes in the middle, or the formation of the eye, eyelid etc. And we know that the theory does not state man descended from apes but from a common ancestor which we cannot find.

Again I appreciate the links as they prove the weakness of the thesis. I would really hate to have to hang my hat on such conjecture. In court this evidence would be categorized as circumspect and circumstantial, you don't have the gun or the body...just lots of miising links...

[Tao_Equus]

I would really hate to have to hang my hat on such conjecture. In court this evidence would be categorized as circumspect and circumstantial, you don't have the gun or the body...just lots of miising links...[/quote]



Perhaps a court might return a 'not proven' verdict on evolution theory. And I would think any 'evolutionist' would agree that its not a complete theory as yet. But apply the same to a court judging 'creationist' theories and they would be laughed out of court. Creationism is entirely a matter of faith with not a shred of credible verifiable evidence.

[tufail]

A Review of “Creation AND/OR Evolution: An Islamic Perspective”
[ISBN 1-4134-6581-1].
282 pages; $31.99;


Author: T.O.Shanavas.


Publisher: XLIBRIS PUBLISHERS

International Plaza II, Suite 340
Philadelphia, PA 19113-1513
USA

Shanavas’ son asked: “Dad, you send me to the best school around our home to study science. You send me to the Islamic Center to study the Qur’an. Science says that human beings evolved from the world of apes, but the Islamic Center teaches us that humans were initially created in heaven and came to earth fully formed. What is the truth?” Creation AND/OR Evolution: An Islamic Perspective is the answer to the question.

In Creation AND/OR Evolution: An Islamic Perspective, Shanavas describes a novel concept of Islamic metaphysics of the future focusing on the phrase, Inshah Allah (God so will). Within the Islamic metaphysics of the future, all separately identifiable small or large components of the universe have self and subjectivity and the creation is a process. In this process, our short-lived and imperfect universe evolves as creatures of all varieties choose the divine proposals carried within arriving moments of future and objectify them into material realities.

It is reasonable to anticipate a chaotic universe, which evolves through practice of free choice. Yet, stunningly, in this potentially chaotic universe, which evolves through the practice of free choices of millions or billions of animate and inanimate creatures, order emerges. Shanavas brilliantly describes how the order evolves in universe where chance events are daily affairs.

Shanavas accepts chance events without rejecting Allah’s Providence. The author gives logical explanation for the existence of evil in the universe under a compassionate God.

Quoting Qur’anic verses, Shanavas systematically and methodically argues that Adam and Eve were created on the earth originally. With reference from pre-Darwin Muslim scholar, the author shows that the story of the creation of Eve from Adam’s rib was a Judeo-Christian story imported to Islamic faith by Muslims converted from the People of the Book.

According to the author, the theory of evolution is no way anti-Islamic. Pre-Darwin Muslim scholars originally proposed the theory of evolution centuries before Charles Darwin. An American scientist, contemporary of Charles Darwin, described the theory as “the Muhammadan theory of Evolution.” Historically, Muslims were the first to record the discovery of human origin from the world of apes even though we know now that apes and human have common ancestor.

The book gives logical explanation for the birth of new species, mutation, fossils, and “missing links.” The author has meticulously recorded the references to every point that he makes in the book.

It is a ground breaking book.

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards, wil!

Originally Posted by wil

But we must not forget the one thing missing from his book and the 'mountains' of data is the origin of any one species. While the discoveries are deduced to show mutations and improvements inside a species, not one species change has been accurately accounted...each has the missing link...and then a miracle happens. Same with fingers, eyes, and organs...we see vestiges but we cannot go like the alphabet a-z on the creation or disolution of any of them, it is currently conjecture....

Um, you can't question the evidence or the authors...you must just believe....where have I heard that before?

the primordial being in me salutes and recognized the primordial being in you.

It is comforting to see someone else sees some of the same things I do in this.

[juantoo3]

2.0 Species Definitions

A discussion of speciation requires a definition of what constitutes a species. This is a topic of considerable debate within the biological community. Three recent reviews in the Journal of Phycology give some idea of the scope of the debate (Castenholz 1992, Manhart and McCourt 1992, Wood and Leatham 1992). There are a variety of different species concept currently in use by biologists. These include folk, biological, morphological, genetic, paleontological, evolutionary, phylogenetic and biosystematic definitions. In the interest of brevity, I'll only discuss four of these -- folk, biological, morphological and phylogenetic. A good review of species definitions is given in Stuessy 1990.

Which means the term “species” does not have a clearly defined definition. Even among researchers it often remains unclear precisely which definition is being used at a given time, and all too frequently in lay publications the term is used in a very mixed way. Whether deliberate or not, it clouds the issue and the message. The term “species” tends to be used in an arbitrary manner.

2.2.1 History of the Biological Species Concept

The BSC has undergone a number of changes over the years. The earliest precursor that I could find was in Du Rietz 1930. Du Rietz defined a species as

"... the smallest natural populations permanently separated from each other by a distinct discontinuity in the series of biotypes."

Barriers to interbreeding are implicit in this definition and explicit in Du Rietz's dicussion of it.

(emphasis mine)
This is the answer I am typically given when I pose the question, “Define ‘species’.”

However, as anyone who has spent any time studying the subject can attest, this is * not * the way the word is most often used, especially in the popular literature.

2.2.2 Criticisms of the Biological Species Concept

The application of the BSC to a number of groups, including land plants, is problematical because of interspecific hybridization between clearly delimited species (McCourt and Hoshaw 1990, Mishler 1985).

Which means that even when “related” species are not supposed to interbreed, they often do, successfully. Which negates the non-breeding criterion, or it negates the use of the term in these instances. Which is it, if one is to remain consistent? * Factual truth is nothing if it is not consistent. *

A more serious criticism is that the BSC is inapplicable in practice. This charge asserts that, in most cases, the BSC cannot be practically applied to delimit species. The BSC suggests breeding experiments as the test of species membership. But this is a test that is rarely made. The number of crosses needed to delimit membership in a species can be astronomical. The following example will illustrate the problem.

Here in Wisconsin we have about 16,000 lakes and ponds. A common (and tasty ;-)) inhabitant of many of these bodies of water is the bluegill sunfish. Let's ask a question -- do all these bluegill populations constitute one species or several morphologically similar species? Assume that only 1,000 of these lakes and ponds contain bluegills. Assuming that each lake constitutes a population, an investigator would have to perform 499,500 separate crosses to determine whether the populations could interbreed. But to do this right we should really do reciprocal crosses (i.e. cross a male from population A with a female from population B and a male from population B with a female from population A). This brings the total crosses we need to make up to 999,000. But don't we also need to make replicates? Having three replicates brings the total to 2,997,000 crosses. In addition, you just can't put a pair of bluegills into a bucket and expect them to mate. In nature, male bluegills excavate and defend nests in large mating colonies. After the nests are excavated the females come in to the colony to spawn. Here the females choose among potential mates. This means that we would need to simulate a colony in our test. Assume that 20 fish would be sufficient for a single test. We find that we would need about 60,000,000 fish to test whether all these populations are members of the same species! (We would also need a large number of large aquaria to run these crosses in). But bluegills are not restricted to Wisconsin...

Yet, how is this any different when applied to the human animal?

I smell apologetics…

This is enough for now, need I go on? This is just the beginning of the first “talkorigins” link.

[juantoo3]

The greatest problem I see stemming from "blind" acceptance of evolutionary theory, especially as it is construed at the lay level, is that it opens a door towards what became eugenics. We start thinking of humans as separate species when we look at other animals in the same way. Granted not everybody, many are content to let others think for them. But for those who hold the meme of evolution as their religion, eugenics is a natural end. And what we got from eugenics is World War II. Did our fathers and grandfathers fight and die to support such a ludicrous thing?

I am no fan of political correctness, but in this much I am in firm agreement, all humans are related, all humans have the same inherent potential, we are one. Regardless of skin color, hair color or consistency, eye color, number of fingers or toes, type, kind or size of genetalia, language, culture, religion, meme or whatever seems to divide us, we are * in truth * ONE.

Now, if science wishes to take a different tack, and deny what it knows to be correct, then Santayana will again be correct. We will have to relearn the lessons of great and terrible war again. If skin color is all that it takes to denote a species, and so very many of the "speciation" examples trotted out for public view are no more than that, then what is there to stop some group of people from believing that their skin color is superior to another's?

This is not religion folks. It is not fantasy. It is the end of the road this logical inconsistency is taking us down. It already has once before.

[Bandit]

Originally Posted by wil

Great links...and they point out the artificial changes and genetic modifications by man and some isolated changes which have occurred which meet the argued criteria for speciation...

Obviously what we are looking for is the series of fishes that walked onto land...not the notion that has the big holes in the middle, or the formation of the eye, eyelid etc. And we know that the theory does not state man descended from apes but from a common ancestor which we cannot find.

that is because a T rex ate the evidence right after the fish gave birth to the monkey, but the monkey made it back to the water safely & swam away. then the T Rex grew wings & changed into a chicken.

Originally Posted by wil

Again I appreciate the links as they prove the weakness of the thesis. I would really hate to have to hang my hat on such conjecture. In court this evidence would be categorized as circumspect and circumstantial, you don't have the gun or the body...just lots of miising links...

i was not expecting a post like this from you Wil . it made me chuckle because i see it the same way. it is nice to be in a non-dom religion & at the same time be in a non-dom science class.

[Bandit]

Originally Posted by juantoo3

The greatest problem I see stemming from "blind" acceptance of evolutionary theory, especially as it is construed at the lay level, is that it opens a door towards what became eugenics. We start thinking of humans as separate species when we look at other animals in the same way. Granted not everybody, many are content to let others think for them. But for those who hold the meme of evolution as their religion, eugenics is a natural end. And what we got from eugenics is World War II. Did our fathers and grandfathers fight and die to support such a ludicrous thing?

I am no fan of political correctness, but in this much I am in firm agreement, all humans are related, all humans have the same inherent potential, we are one. Regardless of skin color, hair color or consistency, eye color, number of fingers or toes, type, kind or size of genetalia, language, culture, religion, meme or whatever seems to divide us, we are * in truth * ONE.

Now, if science wishes to take a different tack, and deny what it knows to be correct, then Santayana will again be correct. We will have to relearn the lessons of great and terrible war again. If skin color is all that it takes to denote a species, and so very many of the "speciation" examples trotted out for public view are no more than that, then what is there to stop some group of people from believing that their skin color is superior to another's?

This is not religion folks. It is not fantasy. It is the end of the road this logical inconsistency is taking us down. It already has once before.

wow. i have never thought of it that way before & i do see that as a possibility. the blind leading the blind (so to speak). get everyone to believe it then get rid of the 'lesser' humans because evolution says they will die anyway & just keep the supreme race of 'evolved' humans.
or just call it the 'bottle neck theory' & cage them like animals, which like you say- we have seen before & that is not a good thing.
it seems a bit off the beaten path to claim something as science that can not be witnessed. maybe logical inconsistency is a good term for it.

what is that so many say? "when i see it i will believe it"
perhaps there is a bit of that in all of us somewhere.

thanks for the post Juan. it was good insight for me.

[bob x]

Great links...and they point out the artificial changes and genetic modifications by man and some isolated changes which have occurred which meet the argued criteria for speciation...

Some of the speciations which occurred were artificially induced. Others occurred in nature with no human intervention.
The assertion that speciations have never been observed is simply false. That will not stop creationists from continuing to assert it.

[bob x]

If skin color is all that it takes to denote a species

WHERE are you getting that from? There is no obstacle to interbreeding whatsoever between humans of any skin color, as has been experimentally verified time and again.

[juantoo3]

Originally Posted by bob x

WHERE are you getting that from? There is no obstacle to interbreeding whatsoever between humans of any skin color, as has been experimentally verified time and again.

May I remind?:

The origin of the goldfish is thoroughly documented: a Chinese fisher found a bright-red carp among his catch (Chinese carp are black) and saved it in a pail as a gift to the local lord (who rewarded him handsomely). The lord bred the fish in his carp pools, and segregated out all the colored ones which appeared. After a few generations, the colors started shifting unstably, settling on the golden color now seen. This is a classic example of speciation by "punctuated equilibrium." emphasis mine

This is in my experience quite typical, such as the "evidence" of pepper moths turning darker in post industrial England. Coloration is a very commonly presented example held out to demonstrate "speciation," regardless of ability to interbreed with the parent stock.

So actually, it is not an example of "punctuated equilibrium." I doubt Gould would agree either. I seem to recall Gould suggesting periods of time in which speciation took place in very rapid spates across the board among most if not all animals, evidenced by the fossil record, and it was this he called punctuated equilibrium.

[juantoo3]

Originally Posted by bob x

WHERE are you getting that from? There is no obstacle to interbreeding whatsoever between humans of any skin color, as has been experimentally verified time and again.

So, I must ask again, is the human animal to be held to a different standard than the rest of nature? Is this not apologetics to attempt to overcome the logical inconsistencies surrounding the term "species?"

[Vajradhara]

so....


would you folks that deny that speciation has happen, accept a CreationISM source which asserts that it did?


why or why not?

metta,

~v

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards, Vaj!

Originally Posted by Vajradhara

so....


would you folks that deny that speciation has happen, accept a CreationISM source which asserts that it did?


why or why not?

metta,

~v

I am not certain I follow if this is being asked of me? For one, I have at no time espoused creationism in its raw form.

What I have asked for, consistently, is consistency in use of the term "speciation." Otherwise, I am accepting without questioning, just because it is written, just because others say so, just because it is tradition, am I not? Especially when the logic is inconsistent with the use of the terminology.

It is difficult for me to logically accept illogic application.