The Energon Pub

HoosierDaddy wrote:Except there isn't anythig close to proof for MACRO evolution. The "evolution" that we see going on now is not evolution but rather adaptation. Animals aren't growing legs or changing colors or any of that and there isn't anything out there the proves evolution. The evidence that is spoken of is rather, wishful thing but in reality it is simple adaptation. But in spite of all that there is NOTHING that even comes close to proving MACRO evolution and the only thing you get is theories by scientists. That is why it is hard to convince Christians of it. But most Christians (myself include) believe that if evolution does exist in one form or another it is Gods plan to keep life on Earth thriving.

And atheism is a religion because regardless if an atheist believe in the big bang or evolution( I have yet to see an atheist who doesn't but there may be some) he puts his faith and belief in science. He has faith that science provides the answers. How many scientific "theories" are out there that a clung onto by atheists that they think must be real? Many. It is a s much religion as anything. Science is the god of atheists.

#

* Helacyton gartleri is the HeLa cell culture, which evolved from a human cervical carcinoma in 1951. The culture grows indefinitely and has become widespread (Van Valen and Maiorana 1991).

A similar event appears to have happened with dogs relatively recently. Sticker's sarcoma, or canine transmissible venereal tumor, is caused by an organism genetically independent from its hosts but derived from a wolf or dog tumor (Zimmer 2006; Murgia et al. 2006).

* Several new species of plants have arisen via polyploidy (when the chromosome count multiplies by two or more) (de Wet 1971). One example is Primula kewensis (Newton and Pellew 1929).


# Incipient speciation, where two subspecies interbreed rarely or with only little success, is common. Here are just a few examples:

* Rhagoletis pomonella, the apple maggot fly, is undergoing sympatric speciation. Its native host in North America is Hawthorn (Crataegus spp.), but in the mid-1800s, a new population formed on introduced domestic apples (Malus pumila). The two races are kept partially isolated by natural selection (Filchak et al. 2000).
* The mosquito Anopheles gambiae shows incipient speciation between its populations in northwestern and southeastern Africa (Fanello et al. 2003; Lehmann et al. 2003).
* Silverside fish show incipient speciation between marine and estuarine populations (Beheregaray and Sunnucks 2001).


# Ring species show the process of speciation in action. In ring species, the species is distributed more or less in a line, such as around the base of a mountain range. Each population is able to breed with its neighboring population, but the populations at the two ends are not able to interbreed. (In a true ring species, those two end populations are adjacent to each other, completing the ring.) Examples of ring species are

* the salamander Ensatina, with seven different subspecies on the west coast of the United States. They form a ring around California's central valley. At the south end, adjacent subspecies klauberi and eschscholtzi do not interbreed (Brown n.d.; Wake 1997).
* greenish warblers (Phylloscopus trochiloides), around the Himalayas. Their behavioral and genetic characteristics change gradually, starting from central Siberia, extending around the Himalayas, and back again, so two forms of the songbird coexist but do not interbreed in that part of their range (Irwin et al. 2001; Whitehouse 2001; Irwin et al. 2005).
* the deer mouse (Peromyces maniculatus), with over fifty subspecies in North America.
* many species of birds, including Parus major and P. minor, Halcyon chloris, Zosterops, Lalage, Pernis, the Larus argentatus group, and Phylloscopus trochiloides (Mayr 1942, 182-183).
* the American bee Hoplitis (Alcidamea) producta (Mayr 1963, 510).
* the subterranean mole rat, Spalax ehrenbergi (Nevo 1999).


# Evidence of speciation occurs in the form of organisms that exist only in environments that did not exist a few hundreds or thousands of years ago. For example:

* In several Canadian lakes, which originated in the last 10,000 years following the last ice age, stickleback fish have diversified into separate species for shallow and deep water (Schilthuizen 2001, 146-151).
* Cichlids in Lake Malawi and Lake Victoria have diversified into hundreds of species. Parts of Lake Malawi which originated in the nineteenth century have species indigenous to those parts (Schilthuizen 2001, 166-176).
* A Mimulus species adapted for soils high in copper exists only on the tailings of a copper mine that did not exist before 1859 (Macnair 1989).


There is further evidence that speciation can be caused by infection with a symbiont. A Wolbachia bacterium infects and causes postmating reproductive isolation between the wasps Nasonia vitripennis and N. giraulti (Bordenstein and Werren 1997).

Nothing in the real world can be proved with absolute certainty. However, high degrees of certainty can be reached. In the case of evolution, we have huge amounts of data from diverse fields. Extensive evidence exists in all of the following different forms (Theobald 2004). Each new piece of evidence tests the rest.

* All life shows a fundamental unity in the mechanisms of replication, heritability, catalysis, and metabolism.
* Common descent predicts a nested hierarchy pattern, or groups within groups. We see just such an arrangement in a unique, consistent, well-defined hierarchy, the so-called tree of life.
* Different lines of evidence give the same arrangement of the tree of life. We get essentially the same results whether we look at morphological, biochemical, or genetic traits.
* Fossil animals fit in the same tree of life. We find several cases of transitional forms in the fossil record.
* The fossils appear in a chronological order, showing change consistent with common descent over hundreds of millions of years and inconsistent with sudden creation.
* Many organisms show rudimentary, vestigial characters, such as sightless eyes or wings useless for flight.
* Atavisms sometimes occur. An atavism is the reappearance of a character present in a distant ancestor but lost in the organism's immediate ancestors. We only see atavisms consistent with organisms' evolutionary histories.
* Ontogeny (embryology and developmental biology) gives information about the historical pathway of an organism's evolution. For example, as embryos whales and many snakes develop hind limbs that are reabsorbed before birth.
* The distribution of species is consistent with their evolutionary history. For example, marsupials are mostly limited to Australia, and the exceptions are explained by continental drift. Remote islands often have species groups that are highly diverse in habits and general appearance but closely related genetically. Squirrel diversity coincides with tectonic and sea level changes (Mercer and Roth 2003). Such consistency still holds when the distribution of fossil species is included.
* Evolution predicts that new structures are adapted from other structures that already exist, and thus similarity in structures should reflect evolutionary history rather than function. We see this frequently. For example, human hands, bat wings, horse legs, whale flippers, and mole forelimbs all have similar bone structure despite their different functions.
* The same principle applies on a molecular level. Humans share a large percentage of their genes, probably more than 70 percent, with a fruit fly or a nematode worm.
* When two organisms evolve the same function independently, different structures are often recruited. For example, wings of birds, bats, pterosaurs, and insects all have different structures. Gliding has been implemented in many additional ways. Again, this applies on a molecular level, too.
* The constraints of evolutionary history sometimes lead to suboptimal structures and functions. For example, the human throat and respiratory system make it impossible to breathe and swallow at the same time and make us susceptible to choking.
* Suboptimality appears also on the molecular level. For example, much DNA is nonfunctional.
* Some nonfunctional DNA, such as certain transposons, pseudogenes, and endogenous viruses, show a pattern of inheritance indicating common ancestry.
* Speciation has been observed.
* The day-to-day aspects of evolution -- heritable genetic change, morphological variation and change, functional change, and natural selection -- are seen to occur at rates consistent with common descent.


Furthermore, the different lines of evidence are consistent; they all point to the same big picture. For example, evidence from gene duplications in the yeast genome shows that its ability to ferment glucose evolved about eighty million years ago. Fossil evidence shows that fermentable fruits became prominent about the same time. Genetic evidence for major change around that time also is found in fruiting plants and fruit flies (Benner et al. 2002).

The evidence is extensive and consistent, and it points unambiguously to evolution, including common descent, change over time, and adaptation influenced by natural selection. It would be preposterous to refer to these as anything other than facts.

# The word theory, in the context of science, does not imply uncertainty. It means "a coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena" (Barnhart 1948). In the case of the theory of evolution, the following are some of the phenomena involved. All are facts:

* Life appeared on earth more than two billion years ago;
* Life forms have changed and diversified over life's history;
* Species are related via common descent from one or a few common ancestors;
* Natural selection is a significant factor affecting how species change.

Many other facts are explained by the theory of evolution as well.

# The theory of evolution has proved itself in practice. It has useful applications in epidemiology, pest control, drug discovery, and other areas (Bull and Wichman 2001; Eisen and Wu 2002; Searls 2003).

# Besides the theory, there is the fact of evolution, the observation that life has changed greatly over time. The fact of evolution was recognized even before Darwin's theory. The theory of evolution explains the fact.

# If "only a theory" were a real objection, creationists would also be issuing disclaimers complaining about the theory of gravity, atomic theory, the germ theory of disease, and the theory of limits (on which calculus is based). The theory of evolution is no less valid than any of these. Even the theory of gravity still receives serious challenges (Milgrom 2002). Yet the phenomenon of gravity, like evolution, is still a fact.

HoosierDaddy wrote:Here is the bottom line that I THINK we can mostly all agree on. Organized religion is ok and people in it have their hearts in the right place. It's th radicals of ANY of those organized religions that ruin it for all

Tammuz wrote:stop arguing AGAINST the evidence.

Tammuz wrote:

HoosierDaddy wrote:Except there isn't anythig close to proof for MACRO evolution. The "evolution" that we see going on now is not evolution but rather adaptation. Animals aren't growing legs or changing colors or any of that and there isn't anything out there the proves evolution. The evidence that is spoken of is rather, wishful thing but in reality it is simple adaptation. But in spite of all that there is NOTHING that even comes close to proving MACRO evolution and the only thing you get is theories by scientists. That is why it is hard to convince Christians of it. But most Christians (myself include) believe that if evolution does exist in one form or another it is Gods plan to keep life on Earth thriving.

And atheism is a religion because regardless if an atheist believe in the big bang or evolution( I have yet to see an atheist who doesn't but there may be some) he puts his faith and belief in science. He has faith that science provides the answers. How many scientific "theories" are out there that a clung onto by atheists that they think must be real? Many. It is a s much religion as anything. Science is the god of atheists.

ah how wrong you are. macro evolution is a misused term by non-scientists, Micro-evolution and macro-evolution are the same! you can't have one without the other: man decides at which point something is designated a new species; in microbiology two things are of different species if they share less than 70 genomic DNA hybridisation, or less than 97% 16s rRNA hybridisation, given the horizontal gene transfer ability of many bacteria, it really is VERY easy for new species to evolve. one example is antibiotic resistance in bacteria, if enough rsistance gene accumulate(roughly equivalent to 30% of the wild types genome) then it is a new species.

the accumulation of mutations is observed to happen, once the number of accumulated mutations reaches an ARBITARY amount it is designated as a new species.

that's the major flaw in the micro but not macro argument against evolution, it requires nature to obey mans criteria of what defines a species, and that varies quite alot.

being the generous guy i am i offer a very pro creationist source that new species have been seen to evolve here

but one case is not enough to rest upon for science, we have to do repeats!

#

* Helacyton gartleri is the HeLa cell culture, which evolved from a human cervical carcinoma in 1951. The culture grows indefinitely and has become widespread (Van Valen and Maiorana 1991).

A similar event appears to have happened with dogs relatively recently. Sticker's sarcoma, or canine transmissible venereal tumor, is caused by an organism genetically independent from its hosts but derived from a wolf or dog tumor (Zimmer 2006; Murgia et al. 2006).

* Several new species of plants have arisen via polyploidy (when the chromosome count multiplies by two or more) (de Wet 1971). One example is Primula kewensis (Newton and Pellew 1929).


# Incipient speciation, where two subspecies interbreed rarely or with only little success, is common. Here are just a few examples:

* Rhagoletis pomonella, the apple maggot fly, is undergoing sympatric speciation. Its native host in North America is Hawthorn (Crataegus spp.), but in the mid-1800s, a new population formed on introduced domestic apples (Malus pumila). The two races are kept partially isolated by natural selection (Filchak et al. 2000).
* The mosquito Anopheles gambiae shows incipient speciation between its populations in northwestern and southeastern Africa (Fanello et al. 2003; Lehmann et al. 2003).
* Silverside fish show incipient speciation between marine and estuarine populations (Beheregaray and Sunnucks 2001).


# Ring species show the process of speciation in action. In ring species, the species is distributed more or less in a line, such as around the base of a mountain range. Each population is able to breed with its neighboring population, but the populations at the two ends are not able to interbreed. (In a true ring species, those two end populations are adjacent to each other, completing the ring.) Examples of ring species are

* the salamander Ensatina, with seven different subspecies on the west coast of the United States. They form a ring around California's central valley. At the south end, adjacent subspecies klauberi and eschscholtzi do not interbreed (Brown n.d.; Wake 1997).
* greenish warblers (Phylloscopus trochiloides), around the Himalayas. Their behavioral and genetic characteristics change gradually, starting from central Siberia, extending around the Himalayas, and back again, so two forms of the songbird coexist but do not interbreed in that part of their range (Irwin et al. 2001; Whitehouse 2001; Irwin et al. 2005).
* the deer mouse (Peromyces maniculatus), with over fifty subspecies in North America.
* many species of birds, including Parus major and P. minor, Halcyon chloris, Zosterops, Lalage, Pernis, the Larus argentatus group, and Phylloscopus trochiloides (Mayr 1942, 182-183).
* the American bee Hoplitis (Alcidamea) producta (Mayr 1963, 510).
* the subterranean mole rat, Spalax ehrenbergi (Nevo 1999).


# Evidence of speciation occurs in the form of organisms that exist only in environments that did not exist a few hundreds or thousands of years ago. For example:

* In several Canadian lakes, which originated in the last 10,000 years following the last ice age, stickleback fish have diversified into separate species for shallow and deep water (Schilthuizen 2001, 146-151).
* Cichlids in Lake Malawi and Lake Victoria have diversified into hundreds of species. Parts of Lake Malawi which originated in the nineteenth century have species indigenous to those parts (Schilthuizen 2001, 166-176).
* A Mimulus species adapted for soils high in copper exists only on the tailings of a copper mine that did not exist before 1859 (Macnair 1989).


There is further evidence that speciation can be caused by infection with a symbiont. A Wolbachia bacterium infects and causes postmating reproductive isolation between the wasps Nasonia vitripennis and N. giraulti (Bordenstein and Werren 1997).

as for proof of evolution;

Nothing in the real world can be proved with absolute certainty. However, high degrees of certainty can be reached. In the case of evolution, we have huge amounts of data from diverse fields. Extensive evidence exists in all of the following different forms (Theobald 2004). Each new piece of evidence tests the rest.

* All life shows a fundamental unity in the mechanisms of replication, heritability, catalysis, and metabolism.
* Common descent predicts a nested hierarchy pattern, or groups within groups. We see just such an arrangement in a unique, consistent, well-defined hierarchy, the so-called tree of life.
* Different lines of evidence give the same arrangement of the tree of life. We get essentially the same results whether we look at morphological, biochemical, or genetic traits.
* Fossil animals fit in the same tree of life. We find several cases of transitional forms in the fossil record.
* The fossils appear in a chronological order, showing change consistent with common descent over hundreds of millions of years and inconsistent with sudden creation.
* Many organisms show rudimentary, vestigial characters, such as sightless eyes or wings useless for flight.
* Atavisms sometimes occur. An atavism is the reappearance of a character present in a distant ancestor but lost in the organism's immediate ancestors. We only see atavisms consistent with organisms' evolutionary histories.
* Ontogeny (embryology and developmental biology) gives information about the historical pathway of an organism's evolution. For example, as embryos whales and many snakes develop hind limbs that are reabsorbed before birth.
* The distribution of species is consistent with their evolutionary history. For example, marsupials are mostly limited to Australia, and the exceptions are explained by continental drift. Remote islands often have species groups that are highly diverse in habits and general appearance but closely related genetically. Squirrel diversity coincides with tectonic and sea level changes (Mercer and Roth 2003). Such consistency still holds when the distribution of fossil species is included.
* Evolution predicts that new structures are adapted from other structures that already exist, and thus similarity in structures should reflect evolutionary history rather than function. We see this frequently. For example, human hands, bat wings, horse legs, whale flippers, and mole forelimbs all have similar bone structure despite their different functions.
* The same principle applies on a molecular level. Humans share a large percentage of their genes, probably more than 70 percent, with a fruit fly or a nematode worm.
* When two organisms evolve the same function independently, different structures are often recruited. For example, wings of birds, bats, pterosaurs, and insects all have different structures. Gliding has been implemented in many additional ways. Again, this applies on a molecular level, too.
* The constraints of evolutionary history sometimes lead to suboptimal structures and functions. For example, the human throat and respiratory system make it impossible to breathe and swallow at the same time and make us susceptible to choking.
* Suboptimality appears also on the molecular level. For example, much DNA is nonfunctional.
* Some nonfunctional DNA, such as certain transposons, pseudogenes, and endogenous viruses, show a pattern of inheritance indicating common ancestry.
* Speciation has been observed.
* The day-to-day aspects of evolution -- heritable genetic change, morphological variation and change, functional change, and natural selection -- are seen to occur at rates consistent with common descent.


Furthermore, the different lines of evidence are consistent; they all point to the same big picture. For example, evidence from gene duplications in the yeast genome shows that its ability to ferment glucose evolved about eighty million years ago. Fossil evidence shows that fermentable fruits became prominent about the same time. Genetic evidence for major change around that time also is found in fruiting plants and fruit flies (Benner et al. 2002).

The evidence is extensive and consistent, and it points unambiguously to evolution, including common descent, change over time, and adaptation influenced by natural selection. It would be preposterous to refer to these as anything other than facts.

and you should knows that a scientific theory is not speculation, but explanation of phenomena, the theory of gravity explains why people don't float of the earth the theory of evolution explains why and how species form. the hust a theory argument only shows a complete lack of scientific knowledge.

# The word theory, in the context of science, does not imply uncertainty. It means "a coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena" (Barnhart 1948). In the case of the theory of evolution, the following are some of the phenomena involved. All are facts:

* Life appeared on earth more than two billion years ago;
* Life forms have changed and diversified over life's history;
* Species are related via common descent from one or a few common ancestors;
* Natural selection is a significant factor affecting how species change.

Many other facts are explained by the theory of evolution as well.

# The theory of evolution has proved itself in practice. It has useful applications in epidemiology, pest control, drug discovery, and other areas (Bull and Wichman 2001; Eisen and Wu 2002; Searls 2003).

# Besides the theory, there is the fact of evolution, the observation that life has changed greatly over time. The fact of evolution was recognized even before Darwin's theory. The theory of evolution explains the fact.

# If "only a theory" were a real objection, creationists would also be issuing disclaimers complaining about the theory of gravity, atomic theory, the germ theory of disease, and the theory of limits (on which calculus is based). The theory of evolution is no less valid than any of these. Even the theory of gravity still receives serious challenges (Milgrom 2002). Yet the phenomenon of gravity, like evolution, is still a fact.

stop arguing AGAINST the evidence, start using it to disprove evolution.

and i refer back to the buddhists, they don't necassairly agree with all science and they are atheists. faith in science is not the same as faith in gods, you can test science's doctrines, you can't say the same for any other religion. people don't accept evolution becuase it doesn't fit in with their world view, just like my mum doesn't think black people are as good as white people, or how neo nazis don't accept the holocaust as happening or the south african presidency doesnt accept HIV as the cuase of AIDS.

i ask you what would convince you that evolution is happening? and i predict that even if i give you that evidence you will still disbelive.

KAMJIIN wrote:

HoosierDaddy wrote:Here is the bottom line that I THINK we can mostly all agree on. Organized religion is ok and people in it have their hearts in the right place. It's th radicals of ANY of those organized religions that ruin it for all

I personally find organized religion a terrible mess. It encourages people to move away from the teachings of their faith and into more polarized and political thinking. The beliefs of their chosen "voice of God" so to speak as opposed to the religion itself. There is a large difference between religion and faith. Faith changes the world and religion crushes it.

And I think you may be confusing radicals with terrorists. I am a Taoist and most other Taoists call me a radical. I'm always told I've lost my way because I refuse to buy into all the Celestial Bureaucracy crap that's been lumped in over the centuries. Never mind the fact that bureaucracy was one of Lao Tzu's biggest problems with the world as a whole. I view it as akin to saying a Christian should reject Christ to reach heaven.

Some natable religious radicals in history;
Jesus of Nazereth
Martin Luther
Mahatma Ghandi

HoosierDaddy wrote:
Well, I believe I read that you are a scientist in this forum somewhere. Is that correct? I don't have the ability to argue with you on your turf. So I cannot provide scientific evidence unless I google it and then you really don't know what is true or false. But I'll concede that you can outwit me on this subject.

HoosierDaddy wrote:I have my beliefs. My faith lie with God and we will never sway each other most likely.

HoosierDaddy wrote: I will say though, that just because I am a creationist does not mean I don't believe in evolution. I don't believe man came from apes but I believe God made the Earth to evolve and adapt in order to survive. I hope that makes sense without making me look like an idiot simpleton. But even if we disagree I always extend my hand and offer my freindship and that I will do to you as well. I enjoy a good debate but i don't want to make enemies either. Cheers, my friend.

HoosierDaddy wrote:Well, you seem to get frustrated when you dig up a bucketful of evidence but then "believers" just blow it off because of their faith. But that will always be a problem. Faith by it's very definition cannot be proven. But people who believe in God believe he is capable of doing anything at the snap of his fingers. On the other hand, science has evidence but people are flawed and theories are often flawed and debunked. In the eyes of believers God is constant and science is always changing. But from the believers standpoint I feel like I have every right to say that things are the way they are because that is how God designed it. I thinkn that the very fact that many things in nature can be proven is proof of God and his design. Like I said before, I think God design evrything to evolve and adapt. When I said I don't think we came from apes I meant that I don't believe we share a common ancestor with apes. Because of where my faith lies I believe that we were put here purposely. And because of my faith in God and his abilities, it allows me to enjoy and believe that much of our science holds water. It is all by design and every time something is "proven" in science just futher promotes the genius design by God.

HoosierDaddy wrote:As far as global warming? There is no doubt that it is happening. The first question is; at what level will it go? Then we have to realize that global warming as well as global cooling has happened many times in the Earths history and at much worse levels then what is going on now. I really don't think the agrguments about global warming are about the existance of it but rather the cause of it. The real argument is whether it is human induced or not. In that case there is no proof that I've ever seen or read that proves humans are causing it. Only theories. But there is proof that it has happened throughout history and humans couldn't have been responsible. Anybody who is still arguing that global warming isn't happening is behind the times. Like I said the argument is about the cause of it.

Amelie wrote:
:edit: You cannot prove or disprove someones beliefs. Proof enough is the effect it has not only on us mentally, but also the meta-physical aspect as well.

Amelie wrote::edit: You cannot prove or disprove someones beliefs. Proof enough is the effect it has not only on us mentally, but also the meta-physical aspect as well.

HoosierDaddy wrote:I'm a Christian so I don't think Jesus is a radical. He is God (I'm Baptist so to me God and Jesus are one and the same) who came here to lay down the law. He wasn't just some guy who forced people to believe like him. That would be a radical. If you don't believe in the divinity of Christ then certainly he could be labled radical.

HoosierDaddy wrote:Martin Luther King Jr was part of organized religion but wasn't radical about that. He was radical about civil rights.

HoosierDaddy wrote:Ghandi, I'll be honest, I know hardly anything about Ghandi and never cared much to learn. All I know is he seemed to be a caring loving man who preached care and loving. So I'm not educated enough about him to comment on him.

HoosierDaddy wrote:You missed my argument about Jesus. I said that if you believe he was divine such as myself, he was not radical he was God himself telling man the rules and the way it is. I did say then, that if you don't believe in the divinity of Jesus he is radical. As for the other stuff, I must have missed on the Martin Luther thing. My bad. As far as it being a shame that I haven't educated myself on Ghandi? Maybe it is a shame but it doesn't interest me so I will be satisfied looking up info on him on the net if ever needed.

Tammuz wrote:

HoosierDaddy wrote:You missed my argument about Jesus. I said that if you believe he was divine such as myself, he was not radical he was God himself telling man the rules and the way it is. I did say then, that if you don't believe in the divinity of Jesus he is radical. As for the other stuff, I must have missed on the Martin Luther thing. My bad. As far as it being a shame that I haven't educated myself on Ghandi? Maybe it is a shame but it doesn't interest me so I will be satisfied looking up info on him on the net if ever needed.

i think even if you do beleive Jesus was (the son of) God, many of the definitions Kamijin has listed do apply to him, he departed from the traditional teachings of his people(the jews), he did cuase a rather extreme change in the views of his followers(old testament to new testament, he pretty much rewrote the rules)

Neko wrote:I don't believe is organized religion. I like to take little bits and ideas from various religions and kinda make my own. I just go with the flow.

shockticus wrote:

Neko wrote:I don't believe is organized religion. I like to take little bits and ideas from various religions and kinda make my own. I just go with the flow.

Amen!