Wanna have a Civilized Evolution v. ID discussion? Part 2?

Question

Okay, we are watching the Hawthorne fly. So there is no scientific PROOF of life coming from non-life, only theory. And a descent theory at that. Fair enough.
Now for the next one:

Is there SCIENTIFIC PROOF of one species changing into another species? Or is it still in the theory stage?

(that is where I seperate macro from micro-evolution)

Just discuss the question. So far all you are using is the word "theory".
If there is PROOF of evolution (life developing from a lesser to a greater species) than that would prove that the Bible is wrong and therefore cannot be trusted.

Macro & Micro are too used in scientific circles...where do you think I learned them? In a secular science class in which the prof was a card carrying evolutionist!
It is scientifically provable that there are changes WITHIN species. But what about from one species INTO another. The best theory I've heard of that is "given enough time..."

Ok, science does not try to prove anything but rather understand what is. Point taken.
The issue I am interested in is-has it been DISCOVERED scientifically that one species can evolve into another species.

Species: I will not be specific...maybe I will.

From a frog to eventually become a dog kinda thing (rough example but you know what I mean).

Can't site one off the top of my head...but it was a term we used in at least 3 of the classes I took. The Scientific Creationism book also uses it. I think it clarifies the issue.

JP-I am enjoying our discussion. Thanks for taking the time. I am in no way being deceptive...I just believe in ID, even when I was, at best, an agnostic I did.
If there is PROOF that one species has changed into another than that would mean that the Bible is inaccurate & therefore obviously wrong. This is why I study it...I want to know what reality is.

1. Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microevolution
2. A liberal institution: http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/evo101/IVMicroevolution.shtml
3. NSF: http://www.nsf.gov/news/news_summ.jsp?cntn_id=104626&org=NSF

I haven't been rude as far as I know...I think I am pretty laid back...however, curt answers/ brievety/too lazy to type to soften my views may be accurate.
I try to be respectful. 2D is always hard. I prefer real life.

Bula'ia Aratyme-what about dolphins? I would be interested in a study about that.
Close does not PROVE that we have evolved from them. Although it does spark interest.

JP-agreed on definitions.
Given time can one species evolve into a higher form, as in an ape becoming a person? Is that even OBSERVABLE scientifically or will it remain in the realm of theory?

Skeptic-I totally agree that there are changes within a species. This is very obvious! As even observed in humans.

But from say, a mosquito to a different species altogether.

Skeptic-I like all your info.
sub-species to sub-species YES!!!
how about a Spiecies to another one? Has this been PROVEN/DISCOVERED scientifically?

JP-Usually people like talking to me in person. I am definately a people person...the only ones I tick off are legalists.............then again Jesus had a way of ticking them off too.

Okay- so when it all comes down, this is a theory & is not YET provable or discoverable through the scientific method? Am I off base saying that?

Fair enough. Thanks....I'm going to play a board game with my wife before she gets mad at me for being on this thing. Talk to you guys later....peace.

PS- lots of food for thought. And it seems like both camps may be bypassing each other with terms & definitions.

Summary:
1. Have the definitions changed in order to be more favorable of evolutionary theory? They seem different than a few years ago.
2. I know what a theory is. It is actually stronger than a hypothesis...don't read my emotion through text.
3. The crux of the issue is in definitions. Define "species", etc...I can generally say a cat is a different species from a dog, a human from a monkey, a dolphin from a turkey. However, regarding types of bugs...I will have to give that more thought. I am not sure the Bible is so specific. It does use the word after it's own "Miyn"descended from the same ancestral gene pool.
4. This does not preclude new species because this represents a partitioning of the original gene pool. Information is lost or conserved not gained. A new species could arise when a population is isolated and inbreeding occurs. By this definition a new species is not a new "kind" but a further partitioning of an existing "kind".

Skeptic-we need to define the term "species". We maybe totally just bypassing each other.

Okay, I guess the better question, as far as I am concerned is:
When the Bible says "after its kind" what does that mean?
-At the least, there seems to be 7 major categories mentioned in the Bible-1) vegetation & fruit trees, 2) fish, 3) birds, 4)cattle (hearding animals), 5) reptiles, 6) wild beasts, 7) man.

I will have to do more study into the phrase "after its own kind". Maybe there is areement here.
Once again, if things are provable scientifically, then I must look at how I view the Bible to make sure I am not interpreting it like a fool (world is flat thingy).

Maybe the issue is more of the origin of species...God/no God/God apart from the Bible and other sources.

It is clear to see that I am outside my area of experise. When I talk with people it is in the general levels. So thank you for your time.
As a pastor, I believe that all truth is God's truth & if there is a "contradiction" over things, I want to dig in to see if there is really one at all...I want to know the truth & seeing I beleive in God, I believe that science & God will never contradict, although how we interpret the Bible may be flawed & in need of readjusting. So thanks. I will return with more discussion...oh & JP, I lost at Monopoly last night.

Answer 1

First: Again, there is no scientific proof for ANYTHING.

Second: The Theory of Evolution does not consist of micro and macro evolution. The Theory of Evolution is literally defined as the changing proportions of alelles in the gene pool of life on Earth. Technically, even 'species' don't exist. Taxonomic distinctions are man-made distinctions, not universal distinctions.

-----

I have answered your question. Science can prove nothing at all. It does not function to prove anything. I have also corrected your misuse of the terms 'Evolution' and 'species'.

Further, by describing 'lesser' and 'greater' species, you have described evolution as a progressive process. It is not a progressive process, it is a branching process.

If you cannot continue the discussion with these corrections, then perhaps the flaw is yours?

----

Could you please cite a reputable source of biology literature that uses the terms 'microevolution' and 'macroevolution' then?

----

Since the changing proportions of alleles in organisms have been observed, the Theory of Evolution, as described by natural selection, is considered to be highly confident. In fact, this is the very definition of 'theory' in a scientific context. In a scientific context, a 'theory' is a set of hypotheses that are supported by experiments with such a confidence level that to believe contrary would be considered grossly uninformed or intentionally deceptive.

----

I'm sorry, you've said a civilized discussion. One of the rules of civilized discussion and debate is the polite request for supporting third party evidence. While I will not call you a liar, I do not personally share your experiences, and your experiences contradict my own. Therefore, I request citation of a source upon which we can both agree. Any book called "Creation Science" is going to be biased towards Creationism, while you are claiming the words apply to Evolution. Therefore, I request citation of a source biased towards Evolution that uses them. If not, we must dispense with the terms as we cannot agree on them.

----

While some of your earlier questions have been argumentative and rude, so far you have not been in this line of questioning, so I will show you nothing less than the same respect. I too am enjoying it. It is good for all people to refresh their knowledge and understanding of topics from time to time, and this is is helping me do just that. It is easy to fall into 'faith mode' until one quietly steps back and forces oneself or is forced by another, to be precise in one's terms and definitions.

----

While I normally consider Wikipedia sound, in this case I will reject it as potentially debatable. Evolution is a controversial topic and the Wiki is subject to attack in such fields.

I will accept the Berkley reference. I often use this site. I will accept the terms 'microevolution' and 'macroevolution' as defined at the following links:

Macroevolution: http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/evo101/VIADefinition.shtml

Microevolution:
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/evo101/IVADefinition.shtml

Ultimately, these may be paraphrased as follows:
Microevolution occurs within a breeding population whereas macroevolution describes changes between populations. Both operate on mutation, migration, genetic drift, and natural selection.

Lacking in these definitions is a description of a process to bar microevolution from progressing to the point where a single breeding population is split and the two microevolve in the separate subpopulations until the two subpopulations are independant breeding populations unable to cross breed.

Given this lack, I will otherwise grant the use of the terms.

----

Text can be difficult. Allow me to restate myself: Some of your prior questions and answers have come across to myself and others as harsh, though this may at times be a limitation of the medium. I apologize for the unkind interpretation where there was a kinder interpretation available. Normally I do preferance the kinder interpretations; I admit my error was likely to be my bias in this discussion. I should not have allowed scientific bias to affect interpersonal bias.

-----

Again, theories are collections of supported hypotheses that as a whole describe an observed effect. So for evolution to be considered a theory at all, there must be hypotheses that have observable consequences.

Yes, it is possible under microevolution to lead to a divide large enough to cause the proto-ape lineage to diverge into the ape line and hominid line. These mechanisms are described at http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/evo101/VIBPatterns.shtml . The mechanism, in plain English, would be that the protoape population was divided either by geography or sociology (the population may have been divided between two 'opposing' troops, and since there was little to no cross-breeding, they would still have been isolated breeding populations), and each microevolved in ways advantageous for each of them, until the sum variation rendered the two populations no longer genetically compatible. As Buli'a below mentions, the genetic variation required for the split between the ape population and hominid population is known.

----

When it comes right down to it, *EVERYTHING* in science is either:

A guess (no reason to accept it other than it 'seems' right or intuition)
An untested hypothesis (supported by prior data but predicts an unknown data)
A tested hypothesis (supported by both prior data and duplicated experiments)
A theory (a combination of tested hypotheses that describe a large field).

The old use of the term 'law' is outmoded. Naturalists like Isaac Newton considered a discovered principle to be absolutely true, because they were not operating under the full scientific method. We observe the effects of gravity, and we used to have a 'law of gravity', but now we define gravity by 'the theory of relativity'... and we know Relativity is fatally flawed because it cannot be reconciled with quantum gravity (it rejects the graviton, favoring spacetime folding as the mechanism).

-----

That's EXACTLY the problem. The words are being thrown around without either side sitting back and precisely defining them and agreeing on a single definition.

That's why there is a need to step back and agree on definitions before the discussion can continue.

Enjoy the game guy, look forward to continuing. My email's in my profile, feel free to private me.

-----

Incorrect, regarding information. Information can be gained. Any time there is an energy differential (that is, two regions in contact with different amounts of entropy), there is the potential for computational processing. Computational processing can result in a net information gain at the cost of the gain in entropy.

For example, the "and" gate maps inputs { 00, 01, 10, 11 } to the outputs { 0, 0, 0, 1 }. Though a bit is lost, the RELEVANCE of the output bit is higher -- it holds more information than did the two incoming bits, in this case, the resulting bit has the equivalent of 1.25 input bits (the potential gain is reduced by the fact multiple outputs are common.

This gain comes at a price -- lossy forms of computation incur a necessary minimum loss of usable energy in the form of heat. In this case, the inputs and outputs are not one-to-one and onto, because given the output, you cannot determine for certain the inputs.

----

Bummer about the monopoly, dude. But isn't it almost always the case that the wife ends up with all the money in a marriage? ;)

Answer 2

You are using the word "proof" and "theory" in a non-scientific way and in a way that makes it impossible for us to call anything proof. Science does not aim at proof in the sense that one can say, "I'm 100%, absolutely certain I am right about this." Rather it aims for probabilities and takes the explanation that has the highest probability. Also, a "theory" is not just "somebody's guess." Scientists do not come up with theories by sitting in their chairs and letting their imaginations fly. There is of course some imagination involved, but theories have to make predictions about how the world works, and to fit within the boundaries of the known facts.

The other ambiguity comes from your notion of "species." Scientists define species as a group of organisms that are reproductively isolated. That is to say, if members of one group can't produce fertile offspring with members of another group, they are different species. In that sense, yes, we have directly seen species change into other species. The famous fruit fly experiments have produced thousands of different species. But you seem to imply that the only kind of evolution that counts is when a frog turns into a cat, or something similar. That never happens spontaneously, and we'll never see it happen, because that takes millions and millions of years to happen. The distinction between micro- and macro-evolution is a false one, at least as it is used by creationists. If two groups of organisms are separated (say, a new river forms, separating the two), and you'll allow that tiny changes can occur in both the species, then why can't lots and lots of tiny changes occur over time to become big changes? It's like saying "I'll grant you that if I spent a dollar less than my brother today, I'd be one dollar richer, but I don't believe that if I did that for 50 years I'd be thousands of dollars richer." What if, instead of 50 years, it was a million years? Would you deny that you'd be 365 million dollars richer just because nobody has lived long enough to observe someone save that much money?

You can't just assert a difference between two kinds of evolution and let it set there, bald. You have to argue for it. Otherwise, I could, with equal force, deny the difference and we'd get nowhere. So why is it that, in this special case, lots of small changes don't add up to big changes? Again, hopefully I have caused no disrespect on your part.

Answer 3

I personally don't understand or know of anyone who refuses to claim that micro-evolution happens in nature. My understanding of the Theory of Evolution is that it didn't start out as claiming macro-evolution but it certainly does make those claims today. If you'd like to know what I believe . . . I believe that micro-evolution occurs but NOT macro-evolution.

No macro-evolution has not been scientifically proven.

Hey J. P. , Last semester I took a Biology 101 course at college. Micro and Macro-evolution are discussed in length. My college course book is called "Life on Earth" by Audesirk, Audesirk, and Byers. copyright 2006

Answer 4

Gess .... I see where you are going with this! You just say what you want and ignore people's answers! That's no civilized discussion, that a one person debate (you verses you)! That's called straw man's fallacy.... our just assume our position on the subject, ignore our point of view, and attacking it. That means you are simply copying off a book and want things to go your way.

I answered your question to how life comes out of non-life as something that happens all the time, but you just ignored it ... picked a "whatever-you-say answer" and moved on!

Answer 5

ive said it before and ill say it again

why do ID people require excruciating proof of evolution when there is ZERO proof that a god exists. you could fill about 3 football fields worth of data on evolutionary theory (not just the fossil record but evolutionary pscyhology) ... now how many footbal fields can you fill with the proof of ID? not a single sheet of paper.

ugh - - why do you accept the bible first and then question evolution??? accept evolution first and THEN question the bible...there are a of a lot more holes with the bible than with evolutionary theory! lord....you people make me tired...

and thanks for the thumbs down - eat my p**sy

Answer 6

A discussion is where there are two participants, yet you are simply talking nonsense to yourself.

Answer 7

Oh, you want evidence of one species changing into another...

I'll be right back.

New species have arisen in historical times. For example:


A new species of mosquito, the molestus form isolated in London's Underground, has speciated from Culex pipiens (Byrne and Nichols 1999; Nuttall 1998).


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 venerial 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).


Some young-earth creationists claim that speciation is essential to explain Noah's ark. The ark was not roomy enough to carry and care for all species, so speciation is invoked to explain how the much fewer "kinds" aboard the ark became the diversity we see today. Also, some species have special needs that could not have been met during the flood (e.g., fish requiring fresh water). Creationists assume that they evolved from other, more tolerant organisms since the Flood. (Woodmorappe 1996)


And more here:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.html



EDIT: read more carefully, these ARE examples of one species to another (are you sure you know what a species is?).


EDIT 2: "so when it all comes down, this is a theory & is not YET provable or discoverable through the scientific method? Am I off base saying that?"
- YES you are way off. (You are also using the word "theory" incorrectly - you probably mean 'speculation', but that's another matter). Here are your species evolving one into another (they are reproductivly isolated from one another).

Remember, even Michael Behe belives that specieation happens (he just thinks God tinkers with parts).


EDIT 3: OK, I think we have found one of the major issues: you don't know what the word "species" means. I'm not trying to insult; many people do not understand this. JP went into it a bit, let me see if I can help clarify...When biologists talk about "species" we are refering to several things. For starters, we are talking about the second name in a binomial (the scientific name of an organisim) such as Salix exigua, Salix bebbiana, or Salix planifolia (you'll have to forgive me, I'm a botanist). All are "species" of the same genus (Salix - or willows). For the most part, they are reproductivly isolated from one another or different species. To a large extent, that is what species are - reproductivly isolated from one another. The very fact that the barriers are not perfect is strong evidence for evolution (where the Creationists expect the Bibles "kinds" to have distinct barriers).
Organisims are divided by their phylogeny in a (simplified) system that goes like this: Domain, Kingdom, Phylum, Class, Order, Family, Genus, Species, sub-species (also called breed or race).
The things you mentioned are all within the Domain of the Eukaryotes, the Kingdom of Animals, The Phylum of Chordates (things that have spinal chords) for most of what you mentioned; (bugs are arthropods), your turkey is in the Class of birds while all the others are mammals. Your cat and dog are in the Order of carnivours, while your human and monkey are primates, and the dolphin is in the Order of Cetaceans.
As a further example, monkeys are a diverse group of families but humans (the Genus Homo) are Hominids (along with many extinct genera such as australopithecines and paranthropines). Our genus Homo has had several species (such as erectus, ergaster, neanderthalensis); all but one (sapiens) is now extinct.

Thanks for bearing with me through all of that... The most interesting part of all this, is that THIS is the relationship we see in morphology, the fossil record, and very importantly, DNA.

The earlier the division (such as kingdom or phylum) the earlier we see that appearance in the fossil record.

[By the way, even Behe (one of the founders of the ID movement) agrees with all of this. He just thinks God helped this process along... we won't go into the fact that he offers no evidence to support his claim.]

So, I'm not sure what you mean in your #1 of your summary: I don't think the definitions have changed much.

But I hope you are getting the idea... it is the very fact that new species Do arise that drives evolution (and new genetic information does arise; I can go into that later). Once you have two seperate species (like Canis lupus - the grey wolf, and Canus latrans - the coyote), each one of them can change and speciate again, thereby creating even more species. Eventually, some will become so different that they will be classified as seperate genera (like Canis - the wolves and jackals, and Vulpes - one of the groups of foxes). Eventually genera become so distinct from one another that they become seperate families and so on and so on.

BTW, I am happy to continue this or answer any questions you have. You may also email me if you like. It is rare to find a creationists who is willing to learn and dicuss.

Answer 8

yes speciation has been observed (plants and insects)