The Truth of Evolution

[axeplayer]

Hello everyone. I'm not sure if this has been brought up before in the forum, so if it has, forgive me. But I was wondering if any of the evolutionists out there could answer this question for me......do you know of any truths that exist in the theory of evolution? In other words, is it purely based on speculation and the combination of completely different fossils to make it look like gradualism? Or is there actually truth to it?

[CJO]

Evolution is the guiding principle of the modern life sciences.
Natural Selection is one of the most powerful scientific theories there is, in terms of utility and predictive power.
It is based on airtight logic and is extremely well supported by observations from a host of scientific disciplines.

Far from "speculation and the combination of completely different fossils," it's as close to "proven fact" as you're likely to find in science.

[LillSnopp]

Hello everyone. I'm not sure if this has been brought up before in the forum, so if it has, forgive me. But I was wondering if any of the evolutionists out there could answer this question for me......do you know of any truths that exist in the theory of evolution? In other words, is it purely based on speculation and the combination of completely different fossils to make it look like gradualism? Or is there actually truth to it?

Personally, i would suggest for you to go out and look at the monkeys, oh, i mean fellow human beings, and then you fly yourself down to the Africa (Congo), do you see any resemblance ?


Yes, i believe it to be True. Details of everything is most likely wrong here and there, but as this is all science, it will correct itself constantly.

[Nyril]

......do you know of any truths that exist in the theory of evolution?

I've personally seen catalogs of data detailing evolution facts that contains more text then the entirety of this forum. I'd suggest you start with an Introduction to Evolutionary Biology . That covers most of the ground rules for it.

[USIncognito]

Hello everyone. I'm not sure if this has been brought up before in the forum, so if it has, forgive me. But I was wondering if any of the evolutionists out there could answer this question for me......do you know of any truths that exist in the theory of evolution? In other words, is it purely based on speculation and the combination of completely different fossils to make it look like gradualism? Or is there actually truth to it?

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

Don't forget, things have changed a lot since the 1950s and the unlocking of the secrets of DNA. The ideas Darwin advanced, further evidenced by the fossil record over the next hundred years have only been buttressed by the studies of DNA over the subsequent fifty years.

It utterly amazes me that people in the 21st Century continue to think that a overarching body of scientific thought could be based on wishful thinking and a sooper seekret agenda.

[axeplayer]

LillSnopp wrote...
Personally, i would suggest for you to go out and look at the monkeys, oh, i mean fellow human beings, and then you fly yourself down to the Africa (Congo), do you see any resemblance ?

Yes, I do see a slight resemblance, in the fact that we both have arms, legs, hands, five fingers, and eyes. But saying that monkeys, who cannot read nor write, and humans, who can read, write, compose music, solve quadratic equations, and send men to the moon, are alike is like saying that a hummingbird and a helicopter are alike in that they can both fly. It doesn't happen. And just to show you the reality of how false evolution is, I throw some mathematical figures at you. Evolution, which is based on an ameoba forming from primordal slime, requires that that ameoba just suddenly appeared from a mix of certain chemicals in the slime. The probability of a single protein molecule suddenly appearing out of the mixture of chemicals is 1 in 10, with the 10 being followed by 167 zeros. The probability of a strand of 250 protein molecules (which is around the number required for even the simplist form of life) forming from nothing is 1 in 10, with the 10 being followed by about 200000 zeros. Not to mention not a single person in the history of the world has witnessed the forming of a new species by natural selection. I also think it's funny how evolution was made up by some guy who saw some different shaped beaks on a few birds.

[axeplayer]

......do you know of any truths that exist in the theory of evolution?

I've personally seen catalogs of data detailing evolution facts that contains more text then the entirety of this forum. I'd suggest you start with an Introduction to Evolutionary Biology . That covers most of the ground rules for it.

These are hardly facts Nyril. Sure the moths presented in this article underwent a change due to environmental pressures, but they did not result in the formation of a new species. This is what evolution is, the creation of a new species through natural selection. If you know any facts about evolution, facts being proven truths, then please reveal them to me because, so far I haven't gotten any satisfactory replies.

[USIncognito]

AP, I provided you a link to a very well evidenced essay containing 29 evidences for evolution above the species level. Any chance you might look into it (and unlike creationist sites, it contains links to counter arguments)?

Yes, I do see a slight resemblance, in the fact that we both have arms, legs, hands, five fingers, and eyes. But saying that monkeys, who cannot read nor write, and humans, who can read, write, compose music, solve quadratic equations, and send men to the moon, are alike is like saying that a hummingbird and a helicopter are alike in that they can both fly. It doesn't happen.

I'm going to introduce you to an argumentative fallacy called the "straw man." Nothing in evolutionary theory, nor current paleontology suggests that our fellow apes and primates should be able to read, write or do complex mathematical calculations. All of those things developed in humans very recently given the 6-7 million years that have passed since we split from our most recent ancestor with chimpanzees.

You hummingbird/helicopter analogy fails, not only in the fact that hummingbirds don't hover in the same way as helicopters, but in that human/ape common descent is based on far more than simple "both hover" comparisons.

And just to show you the reality of how false evolution is, I throw some mathematical figures at you.

I hope you're not a smoker since all the straw men you're erecting will create a fire hazzard. If you're going to discuss evolution, you need to stick with that topic and not introduce abiogenesis calculations which are largely based on speculation and unfounded math

Evolution, which is based on an ameoba forming from primordal slime, requires that that ameoba just suddenly appeared from a mix of certain chemicals in the slime.

Someone set off a fire alarm since all that straw just spontaneously combusted.

Actually Amoebas are quite a lot more complex than the proto organizisms that preceeded them. There are a myriad of present day examples of self-replicating polymers, self-assembling amino acids, and single cell organisms forming into virtual multi-cellular organisms like the Mixotrich (sp) Paradoxus. Your assertion that amoebas "suddenly" appeared is a straw man.

The probability of a single protein molecule suddenly appearing out of the mixture of chemicals is 1 in 10, with the 10 being followed by 167 zeros. The probability of a strand of 250 protein molecules (which is around the number required for even the simplist form of life) forming from nothing is 1 in 10, with the 10 being followed by about 200000 zeros.

More straw. You're conflating abiogenesis with evolution. It really doesn't matter if primordeal life spontaneously arose, was seeded by an alien civilization or was miraculously created by God or a god... that would have no bearing on whether evolution had occured or not. I realize Creationists like to try and wrap everything together, but thankfully TEs are able to realize the difference between the origin of life and evolution.

Not to mention not a single person in the history of the world has witnessed the forming of a new species by natural selection. I also think it's funny how evolution was made up by some guy who saw some different shaped beaks on a few birds.

Others with broadband can provide the links to new species being observed, but I will address the two larger points of how do YECs address the apparent hyper-speciation following the Flood and why does the genetic evidence again and again support the evolutionary framework?

[Nyril]

If you know any facts about evolution, facts being proven truths, then please reveal them to me because, so far I haven't gotten any satisfactory replies.

Here's a list of observed instances of speciation.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html

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 Tragopogon
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 sporophytes. 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 hybridization 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.

What do you not find satisfactory about that list?

[axeplayer]

what do I not find satisfactory about that list? The main one is that the speciation of those organisms was artificial, not natural. That is, man selected the corn/plant that they wanted, or they did experiments crossing certain flowers. Until you give an example of how a new species formed due to Natural selection, i will not be satisfied.