Evidence Disproving Evolution

myself | 10/11/02 | gore3000

[gore3000]

Evidence Disproving Evolution

The basis of a valid scientific theory is that it be able to explain all the scientific data in the field it is concerned with and that no evidence contradicting the theory be true. This is a harsh test, but one which all legitimate scientific theories must pass. This is a test which the theory of evolution has failed in spades as the following abundantly shows.

Religion and Science:

Access Research Network Discovery Institute -- Origins -- Creation Science -- Creation/Evolution Sites -- Creation & Evolution Links from the Intelligent Design and Evolution Awareness (IDEA) Club -- True Origins -- Answers in Genesis -- Faith Facts -- Center for Renewal of Science and Culture -- Center for Scientific Creation -- Creation Research Society -- Biblical Creation Society -- Christian Apologetics -- Institute for Creation Research

"It is interesting to contemplate an entangled bank, clothed with many plants of many kinds, with birds singing on the bushes, with various insects flitting about, and with worms crawling through the damp earth, and to reflect that these elaborately constructed forms, so different from each other, and dependent on each other in so complex a manner, have all been produced by laws acting around us. These laws, taken in the largest sense, being Growth with Reproduction; Inheritance which is almost implied by reproduction; Variability from the indirect and direct action of the external conditions of life, and from use and disuse;. a Ratio of Increase so high as to lead to a Struggle for Life, and as a consequence to Natural Selection, entailing Divergence of Character and the Extinction of less-improved forms. Thus, from the war of nature, from famine and death, the most exalted object which we are capable of conceiving, namely, the production of the higher animals, directly follows evolution." From: Charles Darwin, "On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life"

Intelligent Design:
Darwin's Mistake by Stu Pullen -- Rebuttals of Criticisms of Darwin's Black Box -- Dembski - Another Way to Detect Design -- Behe, Michael J. - ARN Authors Page -- Leadership U. Designer Universe: Intelligent Design Theory of Origins -- Flagellar Structure and regulated transcription of flagellar genes -- Dr. Lee Spetner's continued exchange with Dr. Edward E. Max -- Intelligent Design Research Community -- Intelligent Design Theory Resources -- Intelligent Design. The bridge between science and theology. (William Dembski). -- Evolution vs Creation (Intelligent Design) WorldView -- Detailed defense of "Icons" by Wells -- Dembski on Intelligent Design -- Dembski: No Free Lunch -- Behe's Book -- A True Acid Test:Response to Ken Miller : Behe, Michael -- Intelligent Design Articles -- Phillip Johnson's Page -- Ohio Science Standards - IDN	A Moment in History... That a maker is required for anything that is made is a lesson Sir Isaac Newton was able to teach forcefully to an atheist-scientist friend of his. Sir Isaac had an accomplished artisan fashion for him a small scale model of our solar system which was to be put in a room in Newton?s home when completed. The assignment was finished and installed on a large table. The workman had done a very commendable job, simulating not only the various sizes of the planets and their relative proximities, but also so constructing the model that everything rotated and orbited when a crank was turned. It was an interesting, even fascinating work, as you can image, particularly to anyone schooled in the sciences. Newton's atheist-scientist friend came by for a visit. Seeing the model, he was naturally intrigued, and proceeded to examine it with undisguised admiration for the high quality of the workmanship. "My! What an exquisite thing this is!? he exclaimed. "Who made it?? Paying little attention to him, Sir Isaac answered, "Nobody." Stopping his inspection, the visitor turned and said: "Evidently you did not understand my question. I asked who made this. Newton, enjoying himself immensely no doubt, replied in a still more serious tone. "Nobody. What you see just happened to assume the form it now has." "You must think I am a fool!? the visitor retorted heatedly, "Of course somebody made it, and he is a genius, and I would like to know who he is." Newton then spoke to his friend in a polite yet firm way: "This thing is but a puny imitation of a much grander system whose laws you know, and I am not able to convince you that this mere toy is without a designer and maker; yet you profess to believe that the great original from which the design is taken has come into being without either designer or maker! Now tell me by what sort of reasoning do you reach such an incongruous conclusion?" From: Sir Isaac Newton Solar System Story, "The Truth: God or evolution?" by Marshall and Sandra Hall

Biology Disproving Evolution
Alternative Splicing -- Scientists snap first 3-D pictures of the "heart" of the transcription machine -- Molecular Biology Book -- Cell Interactions in Development -- Oldest Living Plant -- Fruit Flies Speak Up -- The Nature of Nurture: How the environment shapes our genes -- Nanobes (Nanobacteria) are crystals -- Regulation of the Cell Cycle 2001 Nobel Prize -- Amniota - Problems with the Philogeny of -- Basic Principles of Genetics Mendel's Genetics -- Photosynthesis -- Population Variability and Evolutionary Genetics -- Fossil Hominids mitochondrial DNA -- Genetics Glossary AB -- Genomics and Its Impact on Medicine and Society 2001 Primer -- The molecular clock -- Cell Signaling: The Inside Story on MAP Kinases -- Protein Synthesis -- Watching genes at work -- Cell snapshot spots cancer -- Development protein atracts and then repels muscle tissue -- Evolution of the Genomes of Mammals and Birds -- Gene Silencing - Study shows plants inherit traits from more than gene sequence alone -- Gene silencing - Environmental Stress reactions -- Bio-Tech Info - Gene Silencing Articles -- Advances In "Micro" RNA Exploring Process Of Life -- Monkeys and Men - gene expression -- Chimps, Humans and Retroviruses -- Gene activity in human brain sets us apart from chimps -- Pros and Cons of Inbreeding -- Inbreeding and desth of species -No Need to Isolate Genetics -- How Organisms Protect Themselves Against Transposons -- Uses of transposons -- Cell Suicide -- Protein Transforms Sedentary Muscles Into Exercised Muscles, Researchers Report -- Gene insertion in Transgenic Animals -- "50,000 Genes, and We Know Them All (Almost)"	While evolution continues to tell us that species transform themselves in a simple almost magical manner, modern biology shows this not to be the case. Organisms are so complex that for them to transform themselves into different ones would require a theory of COevolution. The random processes assumed by evolutionary theory deny such a possibility. Genes are just information encoded along a long string of the chemical DNA; they cannot do anything themselves. David Baltimore, Nobel Prize Winner

Mutations:
A Scientific Defense of a Creationist Position on Evolution -- Evolutionist View of Evolutionary Biology -- Creation, Selection, And Variation -- Population Genetics, Haldane's Dilemma and the Neutral Theory of Evolution -- Haldane Rebuttal -- Point_Mutations -- Inbreeding and Population Genetics -- Introduction to Evolutionary Biology -- Neutral Mutations -- Computational Geneticists Revisit A Mystery In Evolution -- Mutations - organisms fixes them itself -- Mutations	Funny thing about mutations, it is almost impossible for them to spread throughout a species. In addition, mutations which either transform a species into another or which add any kind of greater complexity have not been seen in spite of the daily experimentation going on in thousands of research labs daily.

Junk DNA:
The Human Genome Project -- Junk DNA in man and mouse -- Junk DNA - Over 95 percent of DNA has largely unknown function -- JUNK dna and transpositions -- Junk DNA Tips Off Tumor Comeback -- Transgenics, Junk DNA, Evolution and Risks: Reading Through Rows	Evolutionists are always making assumptions. They assumed that the tonsils and the appendix were remnants of previous species from which humans had evolved and were totally useless. They were wrong about that. When the human genome was sequenced and it was found that only 5% of it was used in genes they immediately assumed that the 95% not in genes was 'junk'. They were wrong again of course. The now called 'non-coding' DNA is the source of what makes humans tick and a marvel of creation in itself.

Abiogenesis:
RNA World: A Critique -- Evolution and the Origin of Life -- Thermodynamics and the Origin of Life - Part II -- The Mystery of Life's Origin -- Message Theory/Remine -- Bruce Lipton, Insight Into Cellular Consciousness	There is a tremendous amount of proof against abiogenesis. First of all is Pasteur's proof that life does not come from inert matter (and this was of course at one time the prediction of materialists). Then came the discovery of DNA and the chemical basis of organisms. This poses a totally insurmountable problem to abiogenesis. The smallest living cells has a DNA string of some one million base pairs long and some 600 genes, even cutting this number by a quarter as the smallest possible living cell would give us a string of some 250,000 base pairs of DNA. It is important to note here that DNA can be arranged in any of the four basic codes equally well, there is no chemical or other necessity to the sequence. The chances of such an arrangement arising are therefore 4^250,000. Now the number of atoms in the universe is said to be about 4^250. I would therefore call 4^250,000 an almost infinitely impossible chance (note that the supposition advanced that perhaps it was RNA that produced the first life has this same problem). The problem though is even worse than that. Not only do you need two (2) strings of DNA perfectly matched to have life, but you also need a cell so that the DNA code can get the material to sustain that life. It is therefore a chicken and egg problem, you cannot have life without DNA (or RNA if one wants to be generous) but one also has to have the cell itself to provide the nutrients for the sustenance of the first life. Add to this problem that for the first life to have been the progenitor of all life on earth, it necessarily needs to have been pretty much the same as all life now on earth is, otherwise it could not have been the source of the life we know. Given all these considerations, yes, abiogenesis is impossible.

Darwin and His Theory:
Charles Darwin - The Truth -- Darwin's Racism -- Darwi n's Family -- Malthus and evolutionists -- Darwin's Environment -- Darwin, Racism, Evil -- Ascent of Racism -- Talk.Origins and the Darwin/Hitler Test -- Darwin's finches Evolution in real time -- Effects of the 1998 El Niño on Darwins finches on Daphne -- Punctuated Equilibrium at Twenty -- Homology A Concept in Crisis. Origins & Design 182. Wells, Jonathan -- Darwin's Creation Myth -- David Berlinsky 'The Deniable Darwin	Evolutionists try to paint Darwin as a quiet scientist working hard on writing his theory. However, this is a totally false statement. Yes, he was a recluse. However, he was neither a scintist not a very nice person as the following quote shows: With savages, the weak in body or mind are soon eliminated; and those that survive commonly exhibit a vigorous state of health. We civilised men, on the other hand, do our utmost to check the process of elimination; we build asylums for the imbecile, the maimed, and the sick; we institute poor-laws; and our medical men exert their utmost skill to save the life of every one to the last moment. There is reason to believe that vaccination has preserved thousands, who from a weak constitution would formerly have succumbed to small-pox. Thus the weak members of civilised societies propagate their kind. No one who has attended to the breeding of domestic animals will doubt that this must be highly injurious to the race of man. It is surprising how soon a want of care, or care wrongly directed, leads to the degeneration of a domestic race; but excepting in the case of man himself, hardly any one is so ignorant as to allow his worst animals to breed. From: Charles Darwin, "The Descent of Man", Chapter V.

Evolutionist Censorship:
Scientists Censored for Publicly Exposing Flaws in Evolution - Suite101.com -- Science and Fairness -- Duane Gish Responds to Joyce Arthur's Critique -- Do Creationists Publish in Notable Refereed Journals? -- Censorship of Information on Origins -- Professor Rigid on Evolution (must "believe" to get med school rec)	Evolutionists almost since the start have tried to silence opponents. While they constantly claim to be scientists, it seems that instead of following the principles of science - questioning, discussion, and challenging of existing theories, they follow the principles of ideology - silencing and destroying opponents.

Species Disproving Evolution:

Morphology of the Archaea -- Humans Are Three Percent Puffer Fish -- JGI Fugu v2.0 Home -- Cyanobacteria not changed in 4 billion years -- Platypus -- Platypus Web Sites -- Eosimias ankle bone proves human descent! -- euglena -- Textbook Fraud: Hyracotherium dawn horse eohippus, mesohippus, meryhippus -- - On the Alleged Dinosaurian Ancestry of Birds - -- Fruit Flies Disprove Darwin -- Hymenopimecis Wasp: Parasite's web of death -- Haploid False Spider Mites -- Cambrian Explosion: Biology's Big Bang -- Cambrian Explosion: Origin of the Phyla -- Kangaroo and platypus not related

Top: Euglena, Hymenopimesis Wasp, Butterfly, Platypus Bottom: Bat, Fugu, Cambrian species

Various Topics:
A Critique of '29 Evidences for Macroevolution' -- Blind Atheist -- Freeper Views on Origins -- Freeper Views on Origins - Patriarchs -- Creation/Evolution Debate -- Homology -- 15 Answers to John Rennie and SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN's Nonsense (by Bert Thompson and Brad Harrub> -- Sir Karl Popper "Science as Falsification," 1963 -- Pope John Paul II: Truth Cannot Contradict Truth (Statement on Evolution - 1996) -- Evolution Shams -- A Critique of PBS's Evolution -- Evolution of a Creationist -- Evolution, Creation, and Thermodynamics -- God, Humanity and the Cosmos Book Section Evolutionary Biology and Theology -- The Revolution Against Evolution -- Sexual Reproduction A Continuing Mystery to Evolutionists -- Splifford FAQ (How talk.origins and sci.bio.evolution really work -- Mathematics vs Evolution -- Evolution vs Logic -- Natural Selection an Agency of Stasis, not Change -- Evolution as Anti-Science -- Critique of Gould -- Radiocarbon dating things which should not radiocarbon date... -- Evolution or Christianity -- Funding for Evolution -- Scientists find biological reality behind religious experience [Free Republic] -- Doctors increasingly find introducing prayer helps calm patients and speeds recovery -- The healing power of prayer. -- There is power in prayer [Free Republic] -- Micro vs Macroevolution -- Science Design Kit -- 50 Reasons to Leave Evolutionism -- The Evolution of Truth -- Fossils and dating -- - Talk.Origins: Deception by Omission -- Talk Origins - FAQ or Fiction? -- McCluskey, E. S. --- Which Vertebrates Make Vitamin C? -- Vitamin c Pseudogene -- Snapshots of God -- Critics of Evolution - Book Reviews	While evolution claims to explain the descent of one species from another, it has never been able to do so. The original explanation for how evolution transforms species, natural selection, has things backwards. Natural selection kills, it does not create anything. For evolution to be true it needed to propose a creative force which would have been able to add new traits, new functions to the simplest creatures and gradually transform them into more complex ones. The original proposal by Darwin, the melding of features from the parents, did not answer this problem, nor does the more modern version of the exchange of genetic information that occurs in procreation. Such methods do not add any information either, they just reshuffle the information which already exists in the species. Clearly this cannot be the source of increased complexity either. With the re-discovery of genetics in the 20th Century, the Darwinists finally accepted the incorrectness of the melding theory and proposed mutations as the agent of creation of new information. They ran into the problem that with individuals receiving half their genes from each parent and half the genes of each parent being passed on to the progeny, the chances of a new mutation, even one which might be favorable, had not only a very small chance of surviving more than a few generations, but also had an almost impossible chance of spreading throughout a species. They therefore proposed that most mutations were neutral ones and by gradual accumulation they would change the species. This explanation did not even solve the problem of how difficult it was for any mutation to survive, let alone spread throughout a species. The discovery of DNA made the above possibility, already quite unlikely and totally unproven, just about totally impossible. The high complexity of a gene and more importantly experiments showing that changing even one of the thousand DNA bases of a gene are likely to destroy functioning completely and are extremely unlikely to enhance it, presented another serious problem for evolution. This was 'solved' by proposing that gene duplication would create new functions without destroying necessary functioning. Of course, as before, this was only theory and no experimental proof of it was found to support it. The same problem of it being hard to change a gene favorably applied to such genes, the only explanatory gain was that incorrect mutations would not be deadly. Even then, this was insufficient explanation for the transformation of species. Similar genes, which are fairly common, only accomplish similar functions. The vast changes required for complete species transformation, are unexplainable without the creation of totally new genes. With the discovery that genes themselves are just factories and are controlled by other DNA in the organism, and that a single gene often produces many proteins, this explanation was rendered inadequate. Now a new function, which was already known to most likely require more than a single new gene, would require a whole complex of DNA outside the gene to make it work when and if needed. This makes the evolutionary explanation of random, non-directed species change totally untenable and indeed biologists are beginning to call the developmental process of an organism a program. Like all programs, those for life are not made at random.

[AndrewC]

I'm not familiar with Pakicetus, and thus have no opinion on your position on same. But since you make the strong claim that evolution is impossible, any evolution disproves your "theory." You are of course familiar with eohippus.

Yes, I agree that "eohippus was dead long before there was a horse," for the trivial reason that once the animal grew to where it is called the horse it is no longer called eohippus. But the eohippus: 1) got much larger over time in a well-represented series of fossils; and 2)eventually evolved into the horse.

You obviously deny #2 above. Do you also deny #1? (That eohippus grew several-fold?) Or is it that the little eohippi were killed first by the flood?

Please post a link to my strong claim that evolution is impossible.

Please provide a link to my post advocating a global flood(one covering the entire third planet from the star known as Sol, to the depths of the highest mountains--attempting to preempt any more red herrings) causing the death of any creature.

Lastly, I have criticized the Talk-origins alleged horse tree because of its disagreement with other interpretations of the fossil evidence and its own internal inconsistencies. Thus I do not find it compelling to accept the validity of the tree in any form. Your questions are ill-formed and my response to them remains, absolutely not. If you rephrase your original question into -- Is there an "unbent" ancestral chain linking the "eohippus" fossil with the modern horse?, I would answer, I doubt it, but I do not reject it.

[Gumlegs]

Although he/she/it does not follow links him/her/itself, Gore3000 has thoughtfully provided those of us who do quite a few of them to follow. I have chosen a couple of them and now report my findings. I post them here for all to see.

From the "Caltech and the Human Genome Project" website, the following article: "DNA is a Reality Beyond Metaphor," was written by David Baltimore, one of the winners of The Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine 1975. I report the Nobel Prize information so as to assure everyone that Dr. Baltimore is, indeed a Gore3000-approved expert. Indeed, Gore3000 him/her/itself cites Dr. Baltimore as one of the noble crusaders against evolution in his "Biology Disproving Evolution" section. But if we read Baltimore's "DNA" article, we find this curious statement as the final paragraph:

Modern biology is a science of information. The sequencing of the genome is a landmark of progress in specifying the information, decoding it into its many coded meanings and learning how it goes wrong in disease. While it is a moment worthy of the attention of every human, we should not mistake progress for a solution. There is yet much hard work to be done–even the genome we have today is a first draft that needs elaboration. It will be the work of at least the next half-century to fully comprehend the magnificence of the DNA edifice buil[t] over 4 billion years of evolution and held in the nucleus of each cell of the body of each organism on earth. [Emphasis mine.]

Note: I do not state that Baltimore has "proved" evolution, I merely post his own words, which assume evolution. Perhaps G3K can point out Dr. Baltimore's error for us.

I then clicked on this link, from Gore3000's "Biology Disproving Evolution" section. One of the winners of the 2001 Award was Leland H. Hartwell. I followed links at the Nobel site to this site, where I found Hartwell's own words describing his work:

My laboratory is beginning a new research program aimed at studying how molecular circuits support evolution. Evolution acts through selection of preexisting genetic variation in populations. Three important questions are: 1) How does variation occur? 2)How is variation maintained? 3) How is genetic variation expressed as phenotypic variation? The first question is well studied. We are currently focused on the second. A variety of biochemical mechanisms (including gene redundancy, co-assembly of proteins into macromolecular complexes, positive feedback, robust circuit design, repair processes) minimize the phenotypic consequences of genetic variation and thereby allow cells to tolerate it. These relationships can be revealed by synthetic-phenotypes. That is, if one gene plays a role that buffers the phenotypic expression of variation in another, then loss of the first reveals the phenotypic consequences of variation in the second. Synthetic-lethal relationships have been widely studied in yeast although rarely systematically or comprehensively. Anecdotal results strongly suggest that buffering mechanisms are modular. That is, the cellular circuitry is organized into modules that buffer the expression within their module but do not affect other modules. We are developing methods to be both systematic and comprehensive in the investigation of synthetic phenotypes and are focusing on tolerance of genetic variation in the DNA synthetic apparatus. Since the very mechanisms that permit the maintenance of variation also diminish its phenotypic expression, the third question becomes significant. Phenotypic expression of genetic variation in the DNA synthetic apparatus has additional implications for evolution (and cancer) since this variation can be expressed as mutator phenotypes.[Emphasis mine.]

Hartwell's words appear to mean not only that he assumes that evolution happened, he's active in finding evidence that supports it! He does not claim to have "proved" it, nor do I mean to imply that he has. I mean to show he assumes evolution happened and he's working actively in that field.

Two of the Gore3000-approved experts both assume evolution happened! One is, in his very own words, "beginning a new research program aimed at studying how molecular circuits support evolution." Both are Nobel Prize winners, but Gore3000 him/her/itself sayeth that all Nobel Prizes in Physiology or Medicine have disproved evolution! How can this possibly be?

[Condorman]

...an exchange of emails between an evolutionist (who also seems to be an atheist) and a creationist.

Interesting site. The page prior to the one you linked demolished another quote-mining adventure wherein the author had this to say:

Of course the biggest reason that Creationists quote Gould is because Creationists have a fondness for the "argument from authority". Religion thrives on authority (authority of God, authority of priestcraft and sacred texts). This means that if they can get a scientist, any scientist, to make a statement that even remotely appears to agree with them-- they use it. They say, "See, a scientist, an authority, disagrees with evolution!"

The problem is that science is not a process run on authority. Science has no Pope. Arguments are won on their quality-- not the popularity, fame or even quantity (just because you say it over and over again doesn’t make it true).

[AndrewC]

A variety of biochemical mechanisms (including gene redundancy, co-assembly of proteins into macromolecular complexes, positive feedback, robust circuit design, repair processes) minimize the phenotypic consequences of genetic variation and thereby allow cells to tolerate it.

Sounds a lot like Shapiro.

[AndrewC]

(just because you say it over and over again doesn’t make it true).

Mesonychus...

[gore3000]

My "Darwininian nonsense"? How do you figure? 150 years ago Charles Darwin saw some little birdies and tried to figure out how they got that way. His theory has undergone constant revision ever since. Progress of science, rah rah rah.

Yes, your Darwinian nonsense. First of all Darwin never cited the 'Darwin Finches' as proof of evolution. Second Darwin did a terrible job of examining them. Thirdly, an evolutionist in the 20th Century started the nonsense about the finches proving evolution. He said that they were separate species and had evolved. Being an evolutionist fraud, not a scientist, he was disproved in a famous book called "The Beak of the Finch". The finches do mate and produce progeny and the ones of 'mixed species' are much more viable than those that are not. In addition, it has also been shown that the finches's beaks have not evolved. They shorten and lengthen back and forth according to rainfall. Of course even though this research has been published in a Pulitzer Prize winning book, the evolutionists keep on lying about the finches being proof of evolution. They are the opposite, they disprove evolution.

[Gumlegs]

Sounds a lot like Shapiro.

Would that be Lucille, Sandor, Linda, Joan, Steven, James, Leo, or Paul?

[Junior]

Perhaps G3K can point out Dr. Baltimore's error for us.

He'll just chalk it up to our misinterpreting the good doctor's words, much like we misinterpret the Pope's fairly clear statement on evolution and the church.

[Condorman]

Twit filter = ON

[Junior]

How can this possibly be?

You must remember that in gore3000's world, "evidence" morphs into "absolute proof," a circle is not an ellipse and 1⁷²⁰ is a really big number.

[Gumlegs]

Interesting, isn't it, that a book can be misunderstood by the reading public. A review.

"Darwin's finches are not like Michelangelo's Adam, who raises his finger languidly to meet the down-stretched finger of God: the first man, molded of clay, half-raised from earth, created in an instant. These birds are more like Michelangelo's Prisoners, the famous statues he left half in and half out of the marble, so that looking at them today we can almost see and hear the sculptor's chisel at work. The birds are alive and breathing, but they are unfinished; in the Galapagos the sculptor is still at work, measurably and demonstrably... The chisel is hard at work daily and hourly in every landscape on the planet." (p. 206-7)

This winner of the Pulitzer Prize does not disappoint. Whether you are a beginner or expert when it comes to the subject of evolution will make no difference. There is something for everyone in this book even if the reader isn't all that interested in science or evolution prior to reading.

Weiner compares and contrasts what researchers Rosemary and Peter Grant and those who worked on the Galapagos islands see and find with what Darwin saw and found. Although the Grants' view is very different from Darwin's view in many, if not most, cases, they both support natural selection. For instance, Darwin believed evolution occurred over very long periods of time and generally moved in a set direction toward fitness in the same direction the environment was heading. The Grants found that the environment fluctuates much quicker and is, for the most part, less headed in a particular direction (with the exception of global warming which is fairly consistent in mean temperature movement but not so consistent in its effects on El Niños and La Niñas). Because of the ebbs and flows of evolution, due in large part to the environment, it can be more easily witnessed and documented in real time, in some cases, than it can be through looking at the infrequently fossilizing instances of a given species over thousands or millions of years. As Weiner puts it on page 111

The closer you look at life, the more rapid and intense the rate of evolutionary change. The farther back in time you stand, the less you see.

By making detailed measurements of the various finch species (and individuals) year after year, breeding pair after breeding pair, and generation after generation the Grants are able to see the species wax and wane between becoming more alike and more different. The differentiation episodes come about due to changes in the ecological factors that are ever changing.

If you are interested in the topic of speciation, this book (especially beginning on page 162) and Mayr's are must reads.

I was a bit surprised by how much of the book didn't speak of Darwin's finches. Many other "evolution in action" observed events and experiments are discussed. Those include Drosophila (fruit flies), crossbills, sticklebacks, sparrows, soapberry bugs, and more. Sexual selection is also covered as is evolution at the DNA level and co-evolution.

Don't pass up the chance to read this book. It will educate you; it will change you and the way you think about life. The Beak of the Finch should be at, or near, the top of everyone's reading list.

"All times seem special to those who live in them. But it is neither parochial pride nor shortsighted despair to say that our time is more special than others. According to the fossil record, only five times in the past six hundred million years has there been such abrupt havoc in the biosphere. Only five times have so many twigs and branches been lopped from the tree of life at once... We are altering the terms of the struggle for existence: changing the conditions of life for every species that is coeval with our own.

Never before was such havoc caused by the expansion of a single species. Never before was the leading actor aware of the action, concerned about the consequences, conscious of guilt. For better and for worse, this may be one of the most dramatic moments to observe evolution in action since evolution began." (p. 276-7)

from the publisher:

Rosemary and Peter Grant and those assisting them have spend twenty years on Daphne Major, an island in the Galapagos studying natural selection. They recognize each individual bird on the island, when there are four hundred at the time of the author's visit, or when there are over a thousand. They have continuously observed about twenty generations of finches. Jonathan Weiner follows these scientists as they watch Darwin's finches and come up with a new understanding of life itself.

On the Galapagos Islands Charles Darwin gave his first hint at his theory of natural selection, writing about the finches he studied there. In Darwin's time there was no proof of this theoretical mechanism for evolution. Indeed it would have been thought absurd to imagine observing it actually happen; the process was thought to take geological time spans.

Weiner, an outstanding science journalist, details research done in the last 20 years that proves otherwise. Biologists Peter and Rosemary Grant have documented the evolution of Darwin's Galapagos finches, demonstrating that it is neither rare nor slow, but can be watched by the hour. Weiner's superb account reads like a thriller and won the 1995 Pulitzer Prize for nonfiction.

On a remote outpost of the Galapagos, where Darwin received his first inklings of the theory of evolution, they prove that Darwin did not know the strength of this own theory. We watch as nature alters the beaks of finches from generation to generation to help them survive.

They explore evolution not as it occurred centuries ago, but as it's happening right now. Evolution in our time is charted in chapters which recount observations of evolutionary processes speeded by human intervention. A fascinating, revealing study. Includes 50 illustrations and a map.

Another review .

Winner of the Pulitzer Prize

Book Description

On a desert island in the heart of the Galapagos archipelago, where Darwin received his first inklings of the theory of evolution, two scientists, Peter and Rosemary Grant, have spent twenty years proving that Darwin did not know the strength of his own theory. For among the finches of Daphne Major, natural selection is neither rare nor slow: it is taking place by the hour, and we can watch.

In this dramatic story of groundbreaking scientific research, Jonathan Weiner follows these scientists as they watch Darwin's finches and come up with a new understanding of life itself. The Beak of the Finch is an elegantly written and compelling masterpiece of theory and explication in the tradition of Stephen Jay Gould.

[Condorman]

That's not a real review. Further analysis reveals it to be obvious deception and misinformation from the Secret Anti-Theology Advocacy National operatives.

Comrade.

[Gumlegs]

Bip scripple boogie-boogie wigwag wanna wanna scalop.

Page 15, plus Jack Benny's age.

[Condorman]

The piano chews gum if a squid wears a monocle.

Yellow-dello tomorrow at noon.

(Liked the review, BTW. Odd how it didn't seem to say what he seemed to think it said.)

[PatrickHenry]

Two of the Gore3000-approved experts both assume evolution happened! One is, in his very own words, "beginning a new research program aimed at studying how molecular circuits support evolution." Both are Nobel Prize winners, but Gore3000 him/her/itself sayeth that all Nobel Prizes in Physiology or Medicine have disproved evolution! How can this possibly be?

Because you are disgusting, lying slime!
</creationism mode>

[AndrewC]

Would that be Lucille, Sandor, Linda, Joan, Steven, James, Leo, or Paul?

James A. Shapiro

University of Chicago, Department of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, Cummings Life Sciences

Center, 920 E. 58th Street, Chicago, IL 60637-4931, USA (Phone: 773-702-1625; Fax: 773-702-0439;

E-mail: jsha@midway.uchicago.edu)

Accepted 18 January 2000

Key words: evolutionary feedback, natural genetic engineering, genomic systems, genome-wide transposition,

transcriptional regulatory circuits

Abstract

Cells are capable of sophisticated information processing. Cellular signal transduction networks serve to compute

data from multiple inputs and make decisions about cellular behavior. Genomes are organized like integrated

computer programs as systems of routines and subroutines, not as a collection of independent genetic ‘units’.

DNA sequences which do not code for protein structure determine the system architecture of the genome. Re-petititve

DNA elements serve as tags to mark and integrate different protein coding sequences into coordinately

functioning groups, to build up systems for genome replication and distribution to daughter cells, and to organize

chromatin. Genomes can be reorganized through the action of cellular systems for cutting, splicing and rearranging

DNA molecules. Natural genetic engineering systems (including transposable elements) are capable of acting

genome-wide and not just one site at a time. Transposable elements are subject to regulation by cellular signal

transduction/computing networks. This regulation acts on both the timing and extent of DNA rearrangements and

(in a few documented cases so far) on the location of changes in the genomes. By connecting transcriptional

regulatory circuits to the action of natural genetic engineering systems, there is a plausible molecular basis for

coordinated changes in the genome subject to biologically meaningful feedback.

[DWPittelli]

Please post a link to my strong claim that evolution is impossible.

First, I did not write that you claimed it strongly or intemperately, or wrote the exact words “evolution is impossible.” I am saying that your arguments against evolution often amount to the claim that evolution is impossible, and that that is a strong claim in the sense that atheism and Catholicism make “strong” claims, while agnosticism and Unitarianism make “weak” claims.

You have certainly claimed that a natural origin of life is impossible, or at any rate, would take about E+44 times longer than the age of the universe (e.g., post 142, no doubt your math is impeccable, your central assumption that the simplest self-replicating chemical structure must have DNA, and indeed a specific chain of 125 DNA base pairs, is not).

It’s clear you believe abiogenesis is impossible, and that evolution is impossible for that reason, and I inferred from other comments of yours that that’s not your only reason for believing that evolution is impossible. (e.g., in answer to AntiGuv’s observation that “Your argument is with abiogenesis, not evolution.” you say:

That's the beginning, yes, but evolution is touted as beginning with the first self-replicating system and includes aspects of randomness which are clearly also dependant on numbers.

So I have concluded, I think reasonably, that your position is that evolution is impossible.

If in fact you do believe that evolution is possible, say so here, and I will apologize for mischaracterizing your beliefs.

[DWPittelli]

I wrote: "You obviously deny [that eohippus evolved into the horse]. Do you also deny.. that eohippus grew several-fold? Or is it that the little eohippi were killed first by the flood?

Then your wrote: Please provide a link to my post advocating a global flood.

Obviously, I was making a joke intended to ridicule your position -- or lack thereof. You do explicitly deny that there is an unbroken chain between eohippus and the horse. Fine.

But you refuse to say that eohippus never grew and became more horse-like (because the fossil record clearly shows that it did), and you refuse to say that eohippus did grow and become more horse-like (because that would mean conceding one example of evolution).

And the only way that eohippus did not evolve larger is if there were at one time eohippi of many sizes (perhaps babies and adults), but that during the Flood the little ones drowned first and ended up in the bottom layers. This is of course an absurd view, although it's one that people took seriously before Darwin.

[Gumlegs]

Ah! Thank you.

Reading the abstract you provided has left me in slack-jawed astonishment at what science has achieved in my lifetime alone.

Bravo, James A. Shapiro ... and all the other Shapiros, too.

Lucille ...

Sandor ...

Linda ...

Joan ... (Sorry. This one's just a newspaper report).

Steven ...

Leo ...

Paul ...

and, of course, James A.!

[AndrewC]

If in fact you do believe that evolution is possible, say so here, and I will apologize for mischaracterizing your beliefs.

Yes, I do, as I have cited the llama/camel breeding. But I do not believe the Darwinian random mutation/natural selection version of it. No apology necessary.

As to the calculations, I merely used the numbers presented and made calculations from them. It is likely that the odds of something "useful" forming randomly are even less than the calculations show. This could happen if the tendancy is for the nucleic acids to form monotonic chains, or some other "non-random" minimum energy configuration.