Kinda makes me wonder if the Fundies will "BOTTLENECK" at some point? (sorry, a question remnant from the Evolution 3 thread)

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=000D4FEC-7D5B-1D07-8E49809EC588EEDF&pageNumber=1&catID=2

JOHN RENNIE
June 17, 2002

12. Nobody has ever seen a new species evolve.

Speciation is probably fairly rare and in many cases might take centuries. Furthermore, recognizing a new species during a formative stage can be difficult, because biologists sometimes disagree about how best to define a species.

The most widely used definition, Mayr's Biological Species Concept, recognizes a species as a distinct community of reproductively isolated populations--sets of organisms that normally do not or cannot breed outside their community.

In practice, this standard can be difficult to apply to organisms isolated by distance or terrain or to plants (and, of course, fossils do not breed). Biologists therefore usually use organisms' physical and behavioral traits as clues to their species membership.

Nevertheless, the scientific literature does contain reports of apparent speciation events in plants, insects and worms. In most of these experiments, researchers subjected organisms to various types of selection -- for anatomical differences, mating behaviors, habitat preferences and other traits -- and found that they had created populations of organisms that did not breed with outsiders.

For example, William R. Rice of the University of New Mexico and George W. Salt of the University of California at Davis demonstrated that if they sorted a group of fruit flies by their preference for certain environments and bred those flies separately over 35 generations, the resulting flies would refuse to breed with those from a very different environment.

Congratualations, thanx for presenting the facts. I have more evidince of a new species forming. With the definition of species as you have stated. Different breeds of dogs are evidince of species seperation. If all dogs come from wolves, and humans are the catalyst of this change the evolution of new species has been clearly documented. Now people will say that a lot of dog breads can and will mate and have healthy ofspring. But take the case of the toy poodle and the great dane. The two dogs cannot have healthy puppies.

OK, so fruit flies have prejudices and preferences.

Similar to a preference for almond eyes vs. round eyes to stare into every night.

I don't blame them in that.

a rose is a rose but by any other name, it is a rose.

Tobias, yes, I've read some of that in my 'surfing'. There is actually quite a huge volume of new information attesting to evolution.

In fact, there is much research right now with regards to HIV that is shedding light on some of the evolution taking place, or recently taking withion the structure of our current DNA.

It's all quite mind boggling and quite interesting.

Wouldee, many years ago someone, a Christian friend of mine, told me that God "complete" his creations. In other words that after the Genisis years, creation was DONE.

What then accounts for the evolution of ANY creature, of ANY organism?

I don't know of any.

What is, is as intended.

I see credible evidence of adaptation and mutation, but the naturally occuring ones in nature are for healing and survival within each species.

I do discount the alchemy of clinical deviations as non-recurring anomolies contrived and controlled in artificial environments as conjectural experiences of low probability and of very low sustainable efficacy in nature.

Not that I would like to see anything post-modern man can concoct let loose on humankind's fragile ecosystem.

There is a self sustaining balance in nature of predator and prey that deserves not to be tampered with.

A suitable example of accidental disruption has occured in the Great Lakes with organisms migrating from the USSR on and in the hulls of Soviet and Russian vessels quite fortuitously that is wreaking havoc in that local eco-system.

Cloning animal life is proving itself to be naturally unsustainable as well and yet that is the present reality and momentum in the cattle industry, but that's another subject.



Apologies for my constant edits of grammar and vocabulary.

It is not just HIV that is helping support evolution. Every virus from HIV to the Flu Virus is an example, the reason HIV is used is because its reproduction rate, and conciquently its evolution rate is fast. The reason for there being no HIV drug is that no drug is fast enough to kill all of the virus before the little virus that while is weakend but not killed passes its resistince to the drug to its decentdants. This process happens over and over agian. This is the same reason we need a new flu shot every year. The Flu that goes around eventually becomes imune to the shot. I am thinking about posting a basic summary of the theory of evolution because a lot of people argue and really don't know what they are talking about.

The HIV virus is a naturally occuring organism found in nature as intended and was created with inherent purposes for being and has been present in nature all along.

It just has no predator or natural resistance within man's physiology et al.

It's ability to sustain itself and multiply in a human host is not yet understood sufficiently.

When the completion of observations of certain human hosts that resist and remiss its efficacy are complete, then the eradication of the menace from human hosts may commence.

Somebody will become quite wealthy on that day. That motive shall assure near term success, no doubt.

I am not trying to be a jerk or anything, but I don't get how your last post refutes anything that i am saying. And while I get the "big" words you are using they not only add nothing to what you are trying to saying, i believe that efficacy is used incorrectly.

And again i am not trying to be a jerk but both of your seem like you got your then out of a larger work and does not make sence in the context of this conversation.

Scientists do know how the HIV virus works and interacts with the human body. And there are people out there who cannot be effected by HIV but that is a nother example of evolution. Those people are decendants of the surviors of The Black Plauge. While the means of contracting it are different the virus itself uses the same technique to hurt the host. So the poeple that were immune to the plauge passed this immunity to there children and now can withstand a completly different virus that reproduces the same way.

Evolution does happen. diseases get stronger because manmade drugs interact with it making it more resistant. Nothing new. Our generations have got smarter. training a person make that person evolve. yet our modern science goes back and forth as thier knowledge increases. How many things cause cancer and then years later we are told thier scientific proof was wrong.We make assumptions based on what we have learned and also what we want as an outcome. Humans are the most complex thing on our planet. Who knows much about our mind. Yet the bible tells us that if we believe anything is possible. Even doctors tell us that our mental syke is a great healer.So does the bible.Thier are numerous things in the bible even how to treat mold in a house that is true today. Is this just by happen stance? Being only with one spouse all your life basically wipes out std's. Evolution is a man made therory. Except for our food suppy chain which we can see what is happening when we mess with genetics. We do not know if the outcome is good or bad for many years. We are playing as if we are Elohim.Doing so we are in for a hard long road.. blessings.. Miles

Anti-biotic resistance in bacteria is selective breeding, not evolution. Read here: http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v20/i1/superbugs.asp Pay special attention to the research done on the bodies of frozen explorers from the 1800's. Their intestines contained anti-biotic resistant bacteria, which would have been impossible IF the resistance were due to evolution. The resistance has always existed in certain deformed bacteria, but it becomes an advantage when anti-biotics are used.

HIV is a retro-virus, it doesn't change any faster than any other retro-virus. The test used to determine if you have HIV is actually testing your blood for HIV anti-bodies.

Breeding preferences in fruit flies is not more proof of evolution than breeding preferences in humans. We are told that evolution takes one species and changes it into another completely different species. We would need to see a fruit fly that COULDN'T breed with other fruit flies before we could suggest that evolution had occured. Fruit flies only live for a few days and they are the most bred species on the planet. We have yet to produce a fruit fly that can only breed with it's own kind. Preference DOES NOT indicate evolution, it is adaptation or micro-evolution (don't like that term, adaptation is better). The Biblical account of Noah and the story of Jacob both show adaptation. Noah gathered two of each KIND (not species), which inturn produced each species according to their kind. Jacob breed black sheep from white sheep. Adaptation / selective breeding, which are both similar biological processes. We have thousands of types of canines from Timber wolves to chiuaua and no matter the morphological differences, they can all interbreed.

It is apparent to me that the word evolution has more meanings than it has credibility in being used at all as a word to describe anything coherent.

Much the same way as the word god is thrown around with a similarly disaffected meaning.

Semantics has a clearer meaning as a result, but in no way defines the differences between the two topic's passion in the human consciousness.

It does remain that humanity's collective conscience is evolving into an amorphous redundancy of selective reasoning and judgement as viewed from the perspective of our culture and imposed upon the whole.

That observation, my friends, is alarmingly humorous and to date quite amusing for me to ponder.

But does little to awaken the sleeping giant of truth.

Sweet dreams.

Evolution only has one scientific meaning, though not many people know what it is and that is why it is hard to argue when people only know one side of an argument.

Well the deffinition of a new species is that it cannot bread with the generation that came before it. That is it nothing more nothing less. A pug cannot bread with a great dane it is physicly impossible in nature. A male pug cannot impregnate a female great dane nor visa virsa. The parts just dont match. Now take these changes over and over generation after generation. Eventually these small changes may make it impossible for the species to bread with the previos generation. This has occured many times in nature. A family of squrills had been seperated by a canyon. After hounreds of years the two different familys could not bread together in nature as one family could only bread one part of the year and the other family the oppisite time of the year. In the lab they could still be artificially inseminated and the baby would be healthy. This caused the future generation not able to bread with its parental generation. So while yes they could bread and have healthy babies in the lab, they could not in nature and thus they are different breads.

Wouldee, the following article is quite fascinating. You might enjoy it. I'm simply an interested layperson, but what I've read, scholarly information, pretty much agrees that the more complex the species the longer evolutionary affects take.

Humans, have evolved (I know you hate the word) internally to such an extent that 'current' evolution can seem insignificant, and therefore, many do not concurr that it is evolution.

As you have pointed out, humans have had the ability to adapt to their environment. Hence the reason for differences in our species throughout the world. If specific environments remained self inclusive long enough, it would be possible for a person from that environment to look human enough, but may not reproduce satisfactorally with other humans. That is the kind of evolution you are probably most familiar with. But the world, this earth, has been through so many changes, that 'modern' man has been forced to be rather nomadic. In these roamings, there have been enough human connection, interbreeding, so that we have not seen, in recorded history, an 'unproductive' evolutionary event in humans. But scientist have been able to find this evidence within our bodies.

You look at this as part of the nature given to us by a God, for the purpose of adapting. If you believe that, than it seems unreasonable to believe that we could be so unchangeable. Does it really matter the form that carries the spirit? Is not the spirit that part, that is of God. So why, would evolution be so difficult a concept for you to believe?

Here is just a small part of the article and the web site to read the rest.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/10/051028140816.htm

SEE WEB ADDRESS FOR FULL STORY

Science News

Picky Female Frogs Drive Evolution Of New Species In Less Than 8,000 Years

ScienceDaily (Oct. 28, 2005) — Picky female frogs in a tiny rainforest outpost of Australia have driven the evolution of a new species in 8,000 years or less, according to scientists from the University of Queensland, the University of California, Berkeley, and the Queensland Parks and Wildlife Service.

"That's lightning-fast," said co-author Craig Moritz, professor of integrative biology at UC Berkeley and director of the Museum of Vertebrate Zoology. "To find a recently evolved species like this is exceptional, at least in my experience."
The yet-to-be- named species arose after two isolated populations of the green-eyed tree frog reestablished contact less than 8,000 years ago and found that their hybrid offspring were less viable. To avoid hybridizing with the wrong frogs and ensure healthy offspring, one group of females preferentially chose mates from their own lineage. Over several thousand years, this behavior created a reproductively isolated population - essentially a new species - that is unable to mate with either of the original frog populations.

This example suggests that rapid speciation is often driven by recontact between long-isolated populations, Moritz said. Random drift between isolated populations can produce small variations over millions of years, whereas recontact can amplify the difference over several thousands of years to generate a distinct species.

"The overarching question is: Why are there so many species in the tropics?" Moritz said. "This work has led me to think that the reason is complex topography with lots of valleys and steep slopes, where you have species meeting in lots of little pockets, so that you get all these independent evolutionary experiments going on. Perhaps that helps explain why places like the Andes are so extraordinarily diverse."

Moritz; lead author Conrad Hoskin, a graduate student at the University of Queensland in St. Lucia, Australia; and colleagues Megan Higgie of the University of Queensland and Keith McDonald of the Queensland Parks and Wildlife Service, reported their findings in the Oct. 27 issue of Nature.
The green-eyed tree frog, Litoria genimaculata, lives in the Wet Tropics area of northeast Queensland, a rugged tropical region of Australia along the Pacific Ocean's Great Barrier Reef. The frog, which is green with reddish-brown splotches, is common around streams and grows to

Microevolution is extremely fast, so fast that if macro-evolution were a fact, we would see it happening around us.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=392292&in_page_id=1766&in_a_source=&ito=1490

Lions, seperated from the mainland have become a new species. They are larger and stronger than their mainland cousins. This has been documented very carefully. Read the article, those lions are amazing and the research shows just how fast a species can change. Their silly theories that frogs might change in "less than 8,000 years!" is a load of bull. Frogs have a shorter life cycle than lions and lions produced a new species in just 15 years.

Tobias1540,

Speciation is based on the inablity of two animals to produce a child. This is a biological function, because the two species are so genetically dissimilar. Morphological differences don't count. Andre the Giant couldn't have had sex with a very small woman, but they were of the same species. In your example, the challenge was physical or seasonal, not chemical.

Well, redy...

Iknow this much. I won't be reproducing anytime soon in the next 50 years or so, so I guess I've evolved too. EVO,BABY!!

Not that I'm not viable, I just don't want to.

I read some articles on a mammal in indonesia? that was recently discovered and the consensus was that it hadn't been noticed. hhmmmm....

In the Amazon....same thing, but with ruffled feathers about not ever having a look at something potentially useful to medicine, science, etc. before the eco-system is bulldozed into a wasteland. hhmmmmm...

This could be that....that could be this.....

No one knows, do they?

I'm saying that I'm cautious, very cautious.

Custer and the Sioux...Alamo....Boston Tea Party....Denominationalism......New math.....Congressional politics.....Columbus or Amerigo Vespucci or Native Americans.....

Get my drift? There is a lot of conjecture and nothing coherent in a lot of knowledge per se.

My personal experience has brought the Holy Spirit within.

Even that took a year and a half to assimilate into my being coherently. Initially, I thought that was a Christian phenomena and not the anointing. Took some mature and spirit filled believers some time of anxious waiting til our paths crossed ffor them to tell me that's what time it was and is within me. God sent more than needed. It trickled in until I could accept that I was in the family. Years have passed,many, and the same thing is upon me from time to time to be prepared to encourage another that has the same anointing.

On and on it goes through time. The testimonies are the same. But this is the christian streets, not churchianity.

This life i live tempers every belief and piece of knowledge that crosses my path......and is put under the microscope of critical thinking, reason, logic, truth, and His Holy Word spoken to my heart. They all better match or I don't act.

I learned about truth from removing opinions and conjecture from my mind and will.

Seeking truth, or speaking truth,or thinking on truth is a cleanser. Truth is simple,open, forthright,transparent,indefensible,clear,enlightening,inclusive and highly discriminate.

Less is more in here.

'the least of these' is my mirror.

My greatness is not measured by my treasures so much as by my lack of distractions.

God's word fits the picture of creation that I am of, and creation is content with itself.

I see seasons of endeavor.

I see seasons of anihilation.(sic)

I see historical uniqueness.

But I don't see a kneading of the different periods in the earth's history that shows any gradual revisions of one species into another. I see distinctly different species that have or not survived the rigors of time, environment, and hostility.

That's the difference to me.

Man is man is man, regardless of when he appeared on the stage.
And man has an objective, mission and purpose for being.

It's not for me to sit in judgement of man, but to exercise sound judgement as a man.

Those who hear me, hear what they hear.

Let me only be the echo of what you hear in your heart before you hear me.

Peace.

I am not sure the best way to respond to a topic such as this. Besides, in the next few days this topic will have so many responses that I will have stopped checking it.

I believe that evolution and creation can coexist. I believe that there was an incomprehensible force that started it all, but I don't believe that evolution cannot be proven. Everything that lives is evolving every single day. It's how we adapt to our environment.

Heck! The human species has evolved quite a bit since the great human migrations. Our skin colors have changed, our jaws have become smaller, our teeth have become weaker, our bones have become more brittle, and cellphones are now permanently attached to our ears. Okay, the cellphone statement was just plain silly. However, the evidence of evolution is way too prominent to just simply deny it.

I mean, come on! What ever happened to reason? Creating a female from the rib of her male counterpart, and then talking to a snake is not exactly what I would call rational thinking. It is meant to be metaphorical. Plus, the creation story written in the Judeo-Christian scriptures is not even of Judaic origin. The Semitic tribes adapted and changed the darn story after they borrowed it from the Sumerians, Akkadians, Babylonians, and other Mesopotamian civilizations. Just read the darn cuneiform, for crying out loud! The Sumerian scriptures date thousands of years before the ones that we find in today's Christian churches and Synagogues. Now, how's that for some mind bending evidence?

Of course, I believe in creation as well. I believe that in the beginning there was an androgynous deity who gave birth to the old god. The one the god was born from became the feminine aspect of that first incomprehensible deity. This gave way to the existence of God and Goddess. After the world and it's people were created, the Gods became further divided by the needs of men and women for each aspect of their lives. This was how we best understood the incomprehensible divine source. But, I also believe that the incomprehensible creator did all of this through natural means. God didn't say, "Presto! Now you exist!" Instead God created everything through scientific evolutionary forces. God created everything slowly, not instantly! The gods of our world do not own a giant microwave.

Anyway, I've ranted long enough. I'm tired, and I'm going to bed. Goodnight, and Blessed Be!

)O(

Quite a good point. If every living thing, from the smallest cell grouping inherantly has the ability to adapt, which can be seen even in a human generation, then it makes more sense to think/believe that, whatever, the creative force might be, it gave all living creatures the ability to change as needed.

That is evolution and it can be witnessed within a normal lifetime.

To witness speciation in viruses, plants, and animals and then say it can not exist in humans, is a separatist and egotistical attitude. In such a belief, the human would have to be a single/lone subset and hence the greater than all the creations of the universe. Such thinking divides the idea of "oneness", "wholeness" that can be plainly seen in the physical sciences.

This concept makes no sence if one's ultimate goal is to achieve 'unity' in heaven. The Bible, as I understand it, maintains that 'humans' are no less than the birds. Imagine a God comforting a human by saying we are equal to all It's marveleous creations. If such equity is to be believed than we can not be a separate, mortally 'divine' creation. We must be like every other creation, and they evolve.

That's pretty much it to me in a nutshell as well. I just don't see the motion working in reverse (theoretically) to eminate from a single entity.



I don't think it is a case of "not existing" in humans, as much as some virus' just can't stand up to the immune system long enough to be detected. While others are incompatable with the cell structures needed to exist. In other words, I believe that we could not effect a tree with HIV, due to the incompatability in cell structure. But I've not studied this out for myself.



Actually - if we're referencing the bible here - it does say we are higher than the birds, and the beasts of the field. I'm not sure what you mean by "unity" in heaven though?

Redy:

I have enjoyed your posts here concerning civil rights and now evolution... made without prejudice... as far as I can tell... much appreciated...

If only I could read through some of these threads without being annoyed at some of the posters!!

Evolution is happening as we speak, has always been happening... that notion is nealry undeniable... if not completey undeniable.

It is the human ego and emotion placed into "God" that is most bothersome for me... Evolutionary principles do not factor this in the equation... which, in my opinion, does us all a huge favor simply by leaving out human agenda...

Again, thanks for the share(s...