Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

To: dangus
I did find several examples where we lucked out and have been able to witness speciation due to a fortunate location of a mutation, resulting in "instant" or exceptionally rapid speciation:

Informed creationists have long pointed out that the biblical model of earth history would not only allow for the possibility of one species splitting into several (without the addition of new information, thus not ‘evolution’ as commonly understood), but would actually require that it must have happened much faster than evolutionists would expect.

Link

My desire for examples of speciation was as it relates to evolution, not devolution or splitting. These examples demonstrate changes in existing code that did not lead to new biological systems (More frequent blue screens of death, not less frequent). Great Danes don't mate with Chihuahua. Most of your examples would call them different species.

Observe from your article:

(Test for speciation: sterile offspring and lack of interbreeding affinity.)

(Test for speciation in this case is by morphology and lack of natural interbreeding. These fish have complex mating rituals and different coloration. While it might be possible that different species are inter-fertile, they cannot be convinced to mate.)

(Test for speciation in this case is based on morphology. It is unlikely that forced breeding experiments have been performed with the parent stock.)

Link

I know, I know, you can't show me examples of new systems. Those take to much magic time to be observed.

Psa 1:1 Blessed [is] the man that walketh not in the counsel of the ungodly, nor standeth in the way of sinners, nor sitteth in the seat of the scornful.

If you keep your eyes on the science over the next few years, you will begin to notice how Creationist scientists are taking the raw data and coming up with an entirely new model for our existence. Based on Science. There is a growing number of scientists coming out of the closet who have a desire to put in the hands of a revised educational establishment, a systematic alternative view of the data. As these think tanks organize, the school boards and parents of America will use capitalism to shut down the socialistic oriented education establishment. Dark Ages, Pseudo-science, think again.

The momentum has shifted, and is unstoppable. Homeschooling and the eventual implementation of vouchers is changing the landscape of our scientific horizons.

77 posted on 01/18/2005 9:33:13 AM PST by bondserv (Sincerity with God is the most powerful instigator for change! † [Check out my profile page])
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies ]


To: bondserv
What you dismiss as splitting is precisely what Darwin described as evolution. You can't say "evolution doesn't happen, only splitting." Splitting is evolution. Evolution doesn't describe how new systems gradually materialize. In fact, according to evolutionary theory, a new system CAN'T just materialize: Each adaptation has to be functional at the moment it occurs. It's not like fish just started developing stumps which elongated until suddenly the fish said, "Hey! I can use these stumps for legs!" And you're certainly not going to look in a pond some day and find a fish with legs. (If that happened, you'd argue it wasn't evolution!)

Rather, early fish had lobed fins. Some of these fish evolved to have the ray fins that are most common. Some evolved into having legs. Some lobe-finned fish still exist, and some fish, like catfish, still use lobed fins to try to more effectively cross land.

None of this is easy to view as evolutionary progress. The most evolutionary biologists would call "progress" is simply noting that one descendent species is more different from an ancestor than a different species. But who is to say that an elephant is more progressed than a flounder?

There are two problem points where perhaps you wouldn't consider it mere splitting: at some point simple single-cellular organisms developed cellular systems, and at another point, these complex, single-celled organisms not only became multicellular (colonial), but a multicellular organism began to show cellular differentiation. That is, a colony of cells began to rely on specialized cells to reproduce, creating cells that were capable of starting a while new colony. At this point, colonies of single-celled organisms became multicellular organisms.

The second case isn't hard to figure. While it's true we haven'to bserved it happening, there are innumerable intermediate organisms.

The first one is a tougher case: Biologists call their solution, the endosymbiotic hypothesis. Two species of simple cells lived symbiotically so regularly, they became dependent on having each other as symbionts. Once that happened, an offspiring of the "outer" cell would not survive if it did not also have an offspiring of the "inner" cell within it. Given such a strong evolutionary force, it's not hard to imagine that the outer cell began to regulate the reproduction of the inner cell.

But how did the outer cell come to genetically control the inner cell (organelle)? We've seen that viruses and viroids transfer the location of genetic material. In fact, we've seen speciation occur on this basis. All that had to happen was that a virus transfer genetic material from outside a nucleus to inside it.

What if that never happened? Well, hold on to your hat: It so happens that that process never did happen in the instance of out mitochondria. Mitochondria are the organelles reponsible for turning carbohydrates into energy, the most vital organelle of a cell (besides the nucleus.) This is why they could use mitochondriato construct a family tree of the entire human race, and how they could figure out how many generations we are removed from our common grandmother! They have their own DNA, called mDNA. Mitochondria evolved entirely seperately the rest of our cells, and do not participate in sexual reproduction. Each mitochondria is a clone of its own parent.

79 posted on 01/18/2005 11:59:15 AM PST by dangus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 77 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson