Speciation events

John: I can't control what other Creationists believed, proposed or thought about speciation at one time. Whatever that was it appears to have changed.

I wanted you to be aware of it, not control it. And while other viewpoints have recently acquired an increased voice, probably due to ID, the viewpoint that speciation is impossible hasn't changed or gone away. ICR and CRS, the two foremost Creationist organizations, still teach that speciation is impossible. Their adherents participate in Creation/evolution discussion sites like this all the time. That's why I pointed out to you that this viewpoint is still alive and kicking when you said that no one since Linnaeus had believed this. By the way, the first sentence of your linked article (Speciation Conference Brings Good News for Creationists) mentions these Creationists.

John: The problem could have been with the definition of species. I am not even sure what state it is in now (the definition of species). And once a solid definition of species "evolves", how could we test it on all the extinct fauna?

Species has a pretty clear, though complex, definition. It's complex because the different means of reproduction require different definitions. For mammals it's pretty simple: a species is a population of individuals capable of producing offspring with one another. Once you get away from mammals it can become more interesting. For example, some species are bisexual, where an individual can play the role of either sex, and so the definition is different. For asexual organisms the definition of species is even more different because there is no such thing as sex. And though there is a definition of species for all the methods of reproduction, there are still ambiguities causing biologists to debate just where the species boundaries lie.The ambiguities concerning where to draw the species boundaries greatly increase with fossils. For fossils we must use yet other definitions for species because we can't know whether one fossil was ever capable of reproducing with another fossil. There are no living examples by which to judge, and there's no DNA, either.The problems with identifying fossil species are made clear by a modern example. Lion and tiger skeletons are identical. If we only had fossils of lions and tigers we would conclude, incorrectly of course, that they were a single species.

John: As for the "history" of what Creationists claimed, what about the "evolution" of the theory of evolution? Where does it stand now? Is the Modern Synthesis still reign supreme? Or has it been replaced? I can never get a straight answer.

The Modern Synthesis combines Darwinian evolution with the science of genetics. This merging of sciences occurred because they were found to be interdependent, interexplanatory and mutually compatible. This wasn't understood to be the case until the work of the population geneticists back in the 1920s. We've discovered nothing over the past 80 years to cast any doubt upon genes as the foundation of heredity, and the Modern Synthesis is as valid today as it was then, even more so.

John: Now that we have directly witnessed catastrophes depositing many layers of sediments in a short time frame also puts a damper on the old line "the further down in the strata you go, the older the objects are that are found there," because in fact it doesn't matter in what layer they are found, the objects could have been deposited at the same time.

I've scanned ahead a little and noticed that Larry already addressed this, I'm not sure in how much detail, so for now I'll just mention that the geologic column is not consistent in any way with rapid deposition. We can come back to this if it makes sense.--Percy

​

[This message has been edited by Percipient, 11-24-2001]

Percy:
ICR and CRS, the two foremost Creationist organizations, still teach that speciation is impossible.John Paul:
OK, sticking with speciation events only, where in the ICR or the CRS can I read that advocate that species are fixed? When I type in speciation into their respective search engine I get articles that talk about it as though it is a known fact of life. Usually these two orgs agree with AiG, and Ham talks about speciation, Natural Selection, descent with modification, as if he had no problem with them.Percy:
Their adherents participate in Creation/evolution discussion sites like this all the time.John Paul:
I've posted on several boards and have never read where a Creationist posted species are fixed. Next time you read one, please point it out to me (pretty please, it would be like observing a living fossil ).Percy:
That's why I pointed out to you that this viewpoint is still alive and kicking when you said that no one since Linnaeus had believed this.John Paul:
I appreciate that but to me that is more myth than reality.The reason I inquired about the Modern Synthesis is because on another discussion board (NAiG) I was told that version of the ToE was outdated/ replaced in the 1980s when molecular biology took off. I thought it was suspicious when no one could cite the literature that explained what the changes were and what the tenets of the new version are. That is why I asked...What Creationists need to do, and from I have read it is an ongoing process, is to discover what the "Kind" is. That study is called Baraminology-Ligers & Wholphinsback to Larry's original post:
As well as two FAQs on talkorigins.org in the Evolution section. We observe new species evolving with some frequency and therefore it is not a real objection to say that evolution has never been observed.John Paul:
As I have stated, evolution isn't the debate. To think it is shows some people do not understand the Creationists' PoV.Larry:
Some go further, and claim that even if speciation occurs, it can't continue because of limits to genetic change. To make such a claim you need to demonstrate such a barrier.John Paul:
Why isn't up to you to show that evolution, on the scale you believe, is allowed? Some empirical evidence would be nice. With genetic engineering we should be able to manipulate an organism's genome to see what happens. But alas, bacteria always remain bacteria, a virus always evolves into a virus, a dog remains a dog, all this with intelligent intervention meant to speed up the evolutionary process. Right now all the data tends to support a barrier does exist but we just haven't identified it yet.Larry, the rest of your post we can go to a new thread and discuss. We can keep this thread to speciation events...

johnpaul: With genetic engineering we should be able to manipulate an organism's genome to see what happens. But alas, bacteria always remain bacteria,You have ignored by specific response to this. And why would one expect an entirely domain to appear? Such a strange requirement.johnpaul:a virus always evolves into a virus, a dog remains a dog, all this with intelligent intervention meant to speed up the evolutionary process.You continue to ignore my previous specific response. Would you care to respond specifically or not?johnpaul: Right now all the data tends to support a barrier does exist but we just haven't identified it yet.The data you claim exists supports nothing of the sort. The fact that a macromutation does not occur does not reflect on evolutionary biology because no one asserts such things do occur. If you disagree I want a specific cite to the scientific literature supporting your claim of macromutations being necessary.The barriers you claim only require that evolution not occur at a certain pace, but present no problem over many years. So, I'm still at a loss as to what the a barrier is to evolution. And you still have not responded to what a kind is. Please do so.Larry

All you need do to find a Creationist denying speciation is find a debate about transitional fossils. That's why the transitional fossil FAQs at TalkOrigins exist. Duane Gish of ICR wrote an entire book denying speciation called The Fossils Say No!. I've been in discussions where a Creationist will concede speciation but deny transitional status to any fossil mentioned. And many Creationists who say they accept speciation will drop it as soon as you mention human evolution.The Modern Synthesis received a lot of attention here early this year. Thmsberry maintained at great length that it had been replaced in the 70s but was unable to cite anything anywhere to that effect. I think some people become confused because they start thinking that the Modern Synthesis is a theory when it is actually something else.History makes clear how unlikely replacing the Modern Synthesis is. Before the 1920s one of the widely accepted perspectives was that Darwinian evolution and genetics were not consistent or compatible. The work of the population geneticists mathematically demonstrated that genetics and evolution were not only compatible but reinforced one another, and thus the Modern Synthesis of evolution and genetics was born. The Modern Synthesis is not itself a theory but simply a recognition that two previously separate and distinct sciences were actually extremely closely inter-dependent. The only way to supplant the synthesis is to decide that genetics and evolution are not really inter-dependent sciences. Doesn't seem likely.--Percy

john paul: With genetic engineering we should be able to manipulate an organism's genome to see what happens. But alas, bacteria always remain bacteria,larry:
You have ignored by specific response to this. And why would one expect an entirely domain to appear? Such a strange requirement.John Paul:
Sooner or later an organism very different from the original would have to appear or else all life would still be some unknown population of single-celled organisms. Nothing even close has come as a result of trying to do so.johnpaul:a virus always evolves into a virus, a dog remains a dog, all this with intelligent intervention meant to speed up the evolutionary process.larry:
You continue to ignore my previous specific response. Would you care to respond specifically or not?larry from an earlier post:
No, they are saying there is a limit to the rapidness of change. Which no one denies.
As I specifically said, a dog into a cat is not predicted by evolution. Any single step is going no farther than speciation. An event that turned a dog into a cat would be evidence of creation actually.John Paul:
I didn't say a dog would/ could evolve into a cat, but with all the tinkering we have done with mumerous organisms not once has anything fundamentally different (as in procaryotes and eucaryotes; reptiles and mammals or birds). Bacterial experiments involved more than just a single step and yet nothing would lead anyone to believe a proc can evolve into a euc. Nothing.larry from an earlier post:
The specific patterns of genetic commonalities also happen to follow a pattern that matches several nested hierarchies including those observed in the fossil record and taxonomic classification. These clearly are compatible with common descent--what specifically in creationism accounts for these hierarchiers? Especially what accounts for the non-functional nested hierarchiers we observe?John Paul:
First, non-functional needs to be defined. I am aware of research that shows the previously thought of "junk" DNA isn't really junk. Also viral insertions have been shown to attach to specific DNA sequences, regardless of the organism that contains those sequences and once there they do get passed along.
Common descent really isn't the issue. It's common descent from what? We don't even know what the first populations of single-celled organisms were. How do we know we can get here from there when we don't even know where there is? A Common Creator using common processes is as viable for hierarchies as is common descent.The Junk Dealer Ain't Selling That No More The article is at the bottom of the page.Pseudogenes: Are they non-functional

larry:
You have ignored by specific response to this. And why would one expect an entirely domain to appear? Such a strange requirement.John Paul:
Sooner or later an organism very different from the original would have to appear or else all life would still be some unknown population of single-celled organisms. Nothing even close has come as a result of trying to do so.And the time frame for evolution is? Given the Modern Synthesis is around 50 years old and so experiments of the appropriate type only began since then, why would you expect us to be able to create a new domain? That is an extraordinary claim.johnpaul:a virus always evolves into a virus, a dog remains a dog, all this with intelligent intervention meant to speed up the evolutionary process.John Paul:
I didn't say a dog would/ could evolve into a cat, but with all the tinkering we have done with mumerous organisms not once has anything fundamentally different (as in procaryotes and eucaryotes; reptiles and mammals or birds). Bacterial experiments involved more than just a single step and yet nothing would lead anyone to believe a proc can evolve into a euc. Nothing.Except the genetic evidence of common descent. And which theories do you believe have been falsified and please present specifically the evidence that falsifies them.larry from an earlier post:
The specific patterns of genetic commonalities also happen to follow a pattern that matches several nested hierarchies including those observed in the fossil record and taxonomic classification. These clearly are compatible with common descent--what specifically in creationism accounts for these hierarchiers? Especially what accounts for the non-functional nested hierarchiers we observe?John Paul:
First, non-functional needs to be defined. I am aware of research that shows the previously thought of "junk" DNA isn't really junk.non-coding is the standard definition of non-functional code. The pseudogenes and retrovirus insertions are non-coding.johnpaul: Also viral insertions have been shown to attach to specific DNA sequences, regardless of the organism that contains those sequences and once there they do get passed along.Cite please for retroviruses doing this.johnpaul: Common descent really isn't the issue. It's common descent from what? We don't even know what the first populations of single-celled organisms were. How do we know we can get here from there when we don't even know where there is? A Common Creator using common processes is as viable for hierarchies as is common descent.How so? Please be specific in providing how the evidence fits a theory of a common designer. Include testable hypotheses, confirming evidence, and potential falsifications. So far, everything seems to fit your theory with no evidence that would contradict it.The Junk Dealer Ain't Selling That No More The article is at the bottom of the page.This doesn't address pseudogenes nor does it address retroviral insertions.Pseudogenes: Are they non-functionalHow is saying some pseudogenes code important if the specific evidence for the ones presented is that they don't code?Cheers,
Larry

I do not want to insult John Paul, but he seems to be playing a dance around game with us. Sure he answers questions, but then gives no citations for his responses. It sounds to like he is pulling things out of his (pardon my language) ass, to fit his point of view. I would much rather like to see his arguments backed up with PROOF rather than simple speculation.I am not trying to insult John Paul, I want to clearify the fact he does not back up any argument he has made. Countering his arguments is therefore futile if the original argument itself has no basis in fact.I have only mentioned this because I feel the caliber of the arguments is very high, but wasted on false comments made by John Paul.

​

[This message has been edited by Robert1 (edited 08-26-2001).]

I see JP is still posting his Ligers&Wolphins nonsense... I also noticed that he is still linking people to computer scientist Plaisted's website, where Plaisted proclaims that the 3D-structure of proteins stops speciation events without providing any evidence whatsoever... so much for just-so stories!Don't worry about showing up JP, Robert1, it's called stating the obvious and is not classed as insulting. Besides, insulting people is what JP got kicked off the OCW board for... LOL! People there got fed up with his 'debating' style and things escalated a bit...

We haven't seen JP in a while, don't know what happened to him.--Percy

Moving this topic from "Great Debate" (topic 08-006) to "Evolution" forum.Adminnemooseus-----I was doing a search for "ring species", in relation to they're being transtitionals, and I found this topic. Seemed to be worth reviving.Moose

Thread moved here from the The Great Debate forum.

Zephan, from http://EvC Forum: Let us reason together. -->EvC Forum: Let us reason together.:

quote:

---

In other words (Although, I know you evos just hate these self-evident terms):

​

1. Microevolution
2. Macroevolution

​

First, it is entirely debatable what exactly constitutes a new species.

​

Second, macroevolution has never been observed. The extrapolation of alleged microevolution is merely assumed (not predicted). Fact is, nobody can "predict" the next stage of evolution with regards to Quetzel's #2 above (#1 predictions specific as to future new species are equally non-existant). Never seen an evolutionist even try. This would appear to make the ToE unfalsifiable. Accordingly, ToE is a useless theory which carries zero worth for the present and future. Most alarming, however, is that, unlike all the rest of real science, #2 cannot even be demonstrated in the present.

---

Zephan, have a read of this topic, starting at message 1.Moose------------------
Professor, geology, Whatsamatta U
Evolution - Changes in the environment, caused by the interactions of the components of the environment.
My big page of Creation/Evolution Links