Skip to comments.The Dini-gration of Darwinism
Posted on 04/29/2003 10:43:39 AM PDT by Remedy
Texas Tech University biology professor Michael Dini recently came under fire for refusing to write letters of recommendation for students unable to "truthfully and forthrightly affirm a scientific answer" to the following question: "How do you think the human species originated?"
For asking this question, Professor Dini was accused of engaging in overt religious discrimination. As a result, a legal complaint was filed against Dini by the Liberty Legal Institute. Supporters of the complaint feared that consequences of the widespread adoption of Dinis requirement would include a virtual ban of Christians from the practice of medicine and other related fields.
In an effort to defend his criteria for recommendation, Dini claimed that medicine was first rooted in the practice of magic. Dini said that religion then became the basis of medicine until it was replaced by science. After positing biology as the science most important to the study of medicine, he also posited evolution as the "central, unifying principle of biology" which includes both micro- and macro-evolution, which applies to all species.
In addition to claiming that someone who rejects the most important theory in biology cannot properly practice medicine, Dini suggested that physicians who ignore or neglect Darwinism are prone to making bad clinical decisions. He cautioned that a physician who ignores data concerning the scientific origins of the species cannot expect to remain a physician for long. He then rhetorically asked the following question: "If modern medicine is based on the method of science, then how can someone who denies the theory of evolution -- the very pinnacle of modern biological science -- ask to be recommended into a scientific profession by a professional scientist?"
In an apparent preemptive strike against those who would expose the weaknesses of macro-evolution, Dini claimed that "one can validly refer to the fact of human evolution, even if all of the details are not yet known." Finally, he cautioned that a good scientist "would never throw out data that do not conform to their expectations or beliefs."
The legal aspect of this controversy ended this week with Dini finally deciding to change his recommendation requirements. But that does not mean it is time for Christians to declare victory and move on. In fact, Christians should be demanding that Dinis question be asked more often in the court of public opinion. If it is, the scientific community will eventually be indicted for its persistent failure to address this very question in scientific terms.
Christians reading this article are already familiar with the creation stories found in the initial chapters of Genesis and the Gospel of John. But the story proffered by evolutionists to explain the origin of the species receives too little attention and scrutiny. In his two most recent books on evolution, Phillip Johnson gives an account of evolutionists story of the origin of the human species which is similar to the one below:
In the beginning there was the unholy trinity of the particles, the unthinking and unfeeling laws of physics, and chance. Together they accidentally made the amino acids which later began to live and to breathe. Then the living, breathing entities began to imagine. And they imagined God. But then they discovered science and then science produced Darwin. Later Darwin discovered evolution and the scientists discarded God.
Darwinists, who proclaim themselves to be scientists, are certainly entitled to hold this view of the origin of the species. But that doesnt mean that their view is, therefore, scientific. They must be held to scientific standards requiring proof as long as they insist on asking students to recite these verses as a rite of passage into their "scientific" discipline.
It, therefore, follows that the appropriate way to handle professors like Michael Dini is not to sue them but, instead, to demand that they provide specific proof of their assertion that the origin of all species can be traced to primordial soup. In other words, we should pose Dr. Dinis question to all evolutionists. And we should do so in an open public forum whenever the opportunity presents itself.
Recently, I asked Dr. Dini for that proof. He didnt respond.
Dinis silence as well as the silence of other evolutionists speaks volumes about the current status of the discipline of biology. It is worth asking ourselves whether the study of biology has been hampered by the widespread and uncritical acceptance of Darwinian principles. To some observers, its study has largely become a hollow exercise whereby atheists teach other atheists to blindly follow Darwin without asking any difficult questions.
At least that seems to be the way things have evolved.
But that posting was by a creationist, and therefore held to a different standard.
And how did those few bacteria get their antibiotic resistance? Were they specially created that way or did they descend from non-resistant bacteria? If they were specially created that way, why would God create a bacteria that would defeat man's attempts to survive it? Does God hate people that much?
Did miss something? I thought that was your little god.
Oooh, ooh, let me!
This paper and others it cites shows both in vitro and in vivo that antibiotic resistance to cefotaxime, cefuroxime, ceftazadime, and aztreonam evolved by single amino-acid substitutions from an ancestral penicillinase gene. The authors conclusion (and I quote) "The authors take this result as evidence that their in vitro evolution technique accurately mimics natural evolution and can therefore be used to predict the results of natural evolutionary processes. "
Predicting evolutionary potential: In vitro evolution accurately reproduces natural evolution of the TEM b-lactamase. Barlow, Miriam; Hall, Barry G. Biology Department, University of Rochester, Rochester, NY, USA. Genetics (2002), 160(3), 823-832.
Don't look now, but your inner primate is showing. Ooh, ooh, ook!
That's 'cos your knees are for kneeling. See, God even made the two words similar, to give you a big clue.
While you're at it, help a brother out with my nipples and my appendix.
This is no place for personal ads.
Oh, and perhaps some insight (pun intended) into why my eyes are certainly not suited for close reading at all.
Didn't they warn you about that when you were approaching puberty? !@#$% public schools!
O masters, if I were disposed to stir
Your hearts and minds to mutiny and rage,
I should do Brutus wrong, and Cassius wrong,
Who, you all know, are honourable men:
I will not do them wrong; I rather choose
To wrong the dead, to wrong myself and you,
Than I will wrong such honourable men.
-- Shakespeare, Julius Caesar, Act III, Scene 2
My inner primate is a bonobo. For a long time when I was younger I'd cruise singles bars with a bunch of bananas, hoping to get lucky. Trouble is, very few wimmin seem to be in touch with their inner bonobo.
Yes, and a deal's a deal.
ook oook oook ook.
Well, now, there's your problem. If you'd stuck it out in Catholic school like the rest of us, you'd have found out that the Church has no problem with evolution.
Once again, !@#$% public schools!
Is she French?
But 'tis a common proof,
That lowliness is young ambition's ladder,
Whereto the climber-upward turns his face;
But when he once attains the upmost round.
He then unto the ladder turns his back,
Looks in the clouds, scorning the base degrees
By which he did ascend.
No, because I require mine to be board certified also.
Where did you get the mistaken impression that not rejecting evolution was the *only* criteria I had?
"What clinical medical practice or technique requires a belief in evolution?" Required belief is the key.
But although top medical practice does indeed depend on an understanding of evolution and how it has shaped biology, you're missing the primary point, which I think you'll find clear enough if you reread my original post on this topic.
Let me illustrate it another way: Good medical practice does not depend at all on knowing what shape the Earth is. And yet, would you trust a physician who rejected the belief that the Earth is round, and who believed it was flat? I wouldn't. And it wouldn't be because that would *directly* affect his medical judgement. Instead, my reason would be if he's able to know the clear evidence on the matter but reject it anyway, for lord only knows what dogmatic/religious/psychotic/etc. reasons of his own, then I can't trust his judgement on much *else*, either. If he can reject such common knowledge as *that*, what *else* might he reject along with it for similar motives? Can you be sure that he doesn't reject some or most commonly accepted *medical* knowledge as well?
Now I don't much care if my car mechanic, for example, accepts or rejects evolution. Most likely, he hasn't been exposed to enough of the topic to formulate an informed opinion one way or the other -- so his casual rejection of it doesn't imply much if anything about his reasoning ability. But for someone in a heavily scientific field, like medicine, who *has* been intimately instructed on the field and the supporting evidence, and who in theory ought to have a good enough basic trust in the methods of science to at least conditionally accept the conclusions of other fields even if he himself doesn't have the time to wade into it and double-check it all himself... If someone in the field of *science* is capable of rejecting evolution on dogmatic grounds without just cause, then he's not really a scientist at all and there's no telling *what* other conclusions of science (including medical science) he may just arbitrarily decide to reject as well out of "personal" mental prejudices.
In short, rejection of evolution by a medical professional is a very bad sign about their ability to reason properly and/or accept research findings even in their own field.
You may disagree, but after several decades of personally examining the beliefs and reasoning processes of "anti-evolutionists", I quite simply have little to no faith in their ability to understand and practice science without their personal mental blocks getting in the way. That's not to say that they might not be wonderful people or very skilled in some other profession, but on the whole (with admittedly some rare exceptions) they're usually quite unfit for a first-class *science-based* career.
All other things equal...
"All other things equal", it wouldn't be a big issue. But "all other" things are seldom exactly "equal".
In all of your subsequent examples, you stack the deck by describing your choices as being a physician who doesn't believe in evolution, but who is otherwise outstanding. Well fine, sure -- if I can verify that in all ways a physician is outstanding, then I don't care *what* he believes. He could believe he was a chicken (or that I was) and it wouldn't matter.
But the point is that:
1. We're talking about the case when you *don't* know how good his skills and problem-solving abilities might be, but you *do* know that he holds a fringe, anti-scientific belief, and then you have to judge whether that speaks well or ill of his probable competence in general.
2. You're presuming that even if you determine he's "skilled at stopping bleeding" or whatever, that he's not possibly dangerously short-sighted in *other* areas of his field due to his dogmatism.
Again -- if you learned that a doctor was a flat-earther (and you weren't in a position to do a full battery of tests to measure every aspect of his medical competence) would you feel fully comfortable putting yourself into his care, or would you prefer to find one who was at least normal enough to know the Earth wasn't flat?
"What clinical medical practice or technique requires a belief in evolution?" Required belief is the key. I've asked this time and again. It cuts to the heart of the issue.
No it doesn't, actually, for reasons I explained above.
It's more a litmus test of scientific competetence than a necessary prerequisite for all medical treatments. But it *is* relevant to some, as the essay I linked above shows.
If you cannot give a clinical example,
your choice for a physician is not being done logically, and I find that terribly funny.
I find it funny that you might think it "logical" to go to a doctor who believes the Earth is flat, and find that no indication that perhaps the doctor isn't playing with a full deck.
Your position that those who accept evolution are "idiots" and "loons".
Now ask me a hard one.
Not heard of "energy", eh?
You cannot rearrange what does not exist
Oh? Prove it.
That's very good. Excellent. I wish I had thought of it. I might even use it from time to time. I'm giving you credit now, in advance, because it's possible I won't remember later.
So, we have a snotty wordsmith.
Yes, but we love you anyway.
Welcome to the "debate", Ich.
Species exhibit stability, stasis, not change. This is a fact.
Where was that "fact" established? You seem to have forgotten to include support for your (incorrect) "fact". We breathlessly await demonstration that what you say is actually true.
Because the rate of evolutionary change in sharks is very slow and gradual, it can be frustratingly difficult to determine where one species stops and another begins. There is no evidence of punctuated equilibrium (sudden 'jumps' in form) in the shark fossil record. Without sharp discontinuities, boundaries between named species are often made rather arbitrarily along a continuum of variation. Thus distinctions among some fossil sharks may best be considered 'chronomorphs' (forms within an evolving lineage) rather than biologically discrete species.I'm sorry, what was that you were saying about "stability, stasis, not change" being a "fact"? What was that you were saying in another post about species arriving "fully formed" and not via change from earlier forms?
They are fully formed and strive mightily to remain that way, virtually unchanged, sometimes for millions of years.
*Cough*. See above.
Did you read my post?
Indeed I did. Needs work.
Sorry yourself -- wordplay does not substitute for facts.
Absolutely correct, which is why your vague wordplay about "fully formed species" needs to be reworked with more rigorous definitions before it can actually mean anything specific enough for proper discussion. Until then, you're just playing word games.
So why don't you take a stab at defining it?
Just shows how stupid you are willing to look in order to contradict someone who shows your materialistic/atheistic beliefs the utter nonsense that they are.
No Dawkins is a virulent atheist which keeps making ridiculous assertions such as that a rock formation is as designed as Mount Rushmore, that a phony program proves evolution and numerous other imbecilities. He is like many evolutionists a man with absolutely no common sense and no respect for the truth.
It exists, and unless like your fellow Ichmeunon you want to state that matter comes from nothing it is a valid question indeed which MUST BE ANSWERED BY MATERIALISTS FOR THEM TO BE ABLE TO CLAIM THAT THEIR POSITION IS BASED ON SCIENCE AND REALITY.
Smart aleck word games and answering a question with a question only show that your beliefs are totally vacuous.
Links are fine to support a point.
Which I did. Now come your rationalizations and excuses:
But they are also used by those also who can't think, write, summarize or make cogent arguments, as well as by those who wish to mislead and/or waste others time.
That's a nice irrelevant rant, unless you can demonstrate that that's how *I* used links in this instance. Do you attempt to do so? No, you don't. Do you attempt to rebut the information I linked to? No, you don't.
You're just a Sophist, and not a very good one at that. Let me know when you want to discuss what I've actually written and included via links, instead of running in circles and casting vague aspersions in a transparent attempt to avoid dealing with the answers I provided to your questions.
You have linked to talkorigins.org, just possibly the most dishonest site on the web. I know this because I've deconstructed their stuff before.
Classic ad hominem attack as an excuse for a) not dealing with the contents, and b) frantically discouraging readers of the thread from looking at it.
First, I've seen your prior accusations of "dishonesty" against t.o., and in fact they were better examples of your own cheap sophistry and dishonesty than those whom you accuse. But hey, here's your chance -- let's put your credibility on the line. Feel free to point out what you feel is an example of t.o.'s worst "dishonesty", and we'll see whether *they're* the ones being disingenuous, or *you* are. Failure to do so will reflect poorly on you as well.
Second, even if t.o. were somehow Evil Incarnate, the reason that ad hominem is a falacious and intellectually dishonest form of attack is because they might be right *this time* -- you simply cannot dismiss the material I've linked without DEALING WITH THAT MATERIAL. Not if you're going to be anything other than a clumsy sophist, that is.
Finally, the reason that so many anti-evolutionists screech hysterically about why the talk.origins archive allegedly should not even be linked to is because they know that the talk.origins archive is quite simply the very best, most fair, most comprehensive online collection of pro-evolution and anti-evolution material available. Readers who visit the talk.origins archive can see for themselves how reasonable, well-supported, and *honest* that site is -- and that's why the anti-evolutionists go ballistic when someone points readers to the talk.origins archive.
All further links in your reply to me will therefore be ignored.
Ah, yes, the pre-emptive "pay no attention to that man behind the curtain", even though many of the other links in my reply COME FROM SOURCES OTHER THAN T.O. Do you really think you're fooling anyone with all that hand-waving? Personally, I think it makes you look silly.
Kindly remember this. The Link Chase Game is an infamous Evol tactic, misleading and a vast time-waster, but nothing more.
On the contrary, the "Evols" provide links so that readers can do more than just take our word for something, they can go look at original sources or more extensive essays than would be fair to post inline to these threads. In other words, we're trying to be as informative as possible.
The real "Game" is how often the anti-evolutionists (and not just Phaedrus, many of them have done this) start running in circles in frenzied panic trying to give excuses for why readers should *not* read the links, and why we "Evols" should not *give* any. It's a game of, "here, put on these blinkers, reading can be hazardous to the anti-evolutionary position".
As an aside, if Evolution has nothing to do with abiogenesis, why is the site address "talkorigins"?
Because the talk.origins Usenet newsgroup is dedicated to the broader topics of origins of all sorts, including the origin of the universe (cosmology/creationism), the origin of life in general (abiogenesis/creationism), and the origin of modern life from ancient life (evolution/creationism), among others. There's a lot of debate about the origins of various things, and a single newsgroup seemed to be a better forum than more specific forums, since people tend to slide from one topic to the other when debating them (as you've certainly seen here).
This is just gratis snottiness, so typical of you Evolutionists. It is No-substance Nastiness.
And of course, you're always oh-so gentle and respectful...
I respond to people in the manner in which they treat others. If you want a kinder, gentler discussion, show more courtesy and less derision yourself. You kicked off this discussion with:
They have yet to be answered with anything other than empty rhetoric by the Darwinists. Darwin was a Master Sophist, as are his acolytes. It's the facts they have trouble with.Nah... Nothing gratuitously snotty *there*...
Grow up, Ich.
I am grown up. If you don't like my attitude, improve yours and I'll respond in kind.
[Just how many times are you going to ask this question before you understand the answers you've received dozens of times on earlier threads?]
No, it's an honest question. You ask that same exact question on every crevo thread you pop into. How many more times are you going to ask it? The answers aren't going to change, so re-asking the question is an exercise in futility. You'd be better served by looking more deeply at the answers you receive instead of unceremoniously blowing them off every time, like:
The "answers" are obviously non-answers, as I will show yours to be here.
Uh huh... As I said, perhaps the fault lies on your end.
[Evolution is the study of how species change across generations, and why.]
OK, we will stay with this definition, no matter how ardently you may try to amend it later in this post or on this thread.
More sophist games already? That's a transparent way of saying, "I won't allow you to clarify your position if I misunderstand it or insist on interpreting it in a straw man fashion".
Pre-emptive door-slamming on possible future attempts at reaching an understanding is so childish.
Here's the refutation. First, species have not been shown to change,
Complete hogwash. Feel free to document that amazing (and incorrect) assertion. I note that you made absolutely *no* attempt to provide any sort of support, evidence, cite, or documation for your bald assertion. You're off to a very bad start. There are mountains of evidence of species changing -- some I even linked into the post to which you are currently responding. A closed mind gathers no thought, eh?
they have been shown to remain stable, in many instances over millions of years.
In *many* instances? Sure. And they've been shown to change dramatically in "many" other instances, but you were hoping to draw attention away from that, weren't you? Sophistry is a poor substitute for dealing squarely with the truth.
This is the evidence, shown by study.
Your declaring it doesn't make it so. That's how sophists "prove" things, but it's no real proof at all, is it?
*Which* "study"? By whom? How did they supposedly determine this alleged fact? What about the manner in which that alleged finding clashes with countless studies (citations to which I included in my links, thank you very much) which reached the very opposite conclusion?
I'm sorry, but "because Phaedrus says so, and then says it again" just doesn't cut it. *You* may find yourself sufficiently convincing, but I'm afraid the rest of us would like some documentation for your amazing declarations.
Second, neither has there ever been any credible mechanism of change demonstrated. Mutation as a change agent is widely speculated about by the Evols, but has never been shown.
I already provided you with several links that proved you quite wrong on that point, but hey, I guess that's why you had to "disallow" links from the start, eh? If the data don't support your theory, they must be disposed of, right, Sophist?
Ergo, Evolution is not a theory, it is a failed hypothesis, and Evolutionism is thus not science.
How quickly you declare an unearned victory. Come back if you have actual evidence sometime, instead of just your own empty, unsupported pronouncements.
[Phaedrus: Would you agree that science has its own set of standards that have nothing to do with "Creationism"?]
[Ich: No ...]
Then we have established that you do not understand science. End of subject.
Wow, that's the most transparent dodge I've seen in quite some time. Only a self-deluding Sophist would think that anyone would fall for such a clumsy ruse, instead of it backfiring on the author and making them look remarkably intellectually dishonest.
Let's count the cheap tricks in that one, shall we?
1. Snipping out the entirety of my reasons for my answer and leaving only a single word of it.
2. Failing to respond or rebut IN ANY WAY to the substance of what I actually wrote and the reasons I gave for it.
3. Declaring me wrong WITHOUT EXPLAINING WHY I'm allegedly wrong and Phaedrus is allegedly correct on this matter. Phaedrus claims that "we have established" that (Phaedrus has a mouse in his/her pocket?) without bothering to "establish" it at all.
4. Declaring that I'm not only wrong on that one particular point, but that (overgeneralizing wildly) I allegedly "do not understand science" on the whole, either (again, without a shred of justification given).
5. Declaring "end of subject", as if Phaedrus gets to decide whether I'm allowed to respond to her empty declaration of victory or not, and as if Phaedrus could not possibly learn anything else on the subject and thus the discussion is over (listen, do I hear the sound of a mind slamming shut?)
That's quite a list of cheap tricks for such a short retort. A *good* Sophist would have made do with one or two, to keep the odds of detection low. But when a dodge is so clumsy as to pack so many frenetic excuses for not responding like an adult into one short passage, it practically screams, "run away, run away!"
[I mention creationism because creationists keep bringing it up and I respond to them.]
I didn't, so forget about it in your responses to my posts.
Oh, cool, more orders from Phaedrus about how I'm to limit my speech and topics. In short: Nice try.
If I feel a particular point raises issues pertinent to creationists, I'm going to comment on that observation, thank you very much.
[Phaedrus: How do you reconcile 250,000-to-millions of species with virtually no transitional forms in the fossil record?]
[Ich: They're *all* "transitional forms". Life is always in flux. The form of your question reveals ... yadda yadda.]
This is a classic non-answer.
Your not liking the answer does not transform it into a "non-answer", Sophist.
No, they're not (all transitional forms). They've been shown not to be in transition but stable.
...so you keep insisting, with no visible support or evidence.
Note to the astute reader: Part of what I wrote which Phaedrus elided and replaced with "yadda yadda" above is the following:
But contrary to your claim that there are "virtually no" transitional forms, in fact even as a creationist understands the term, there are thousands already found and more found virtually every day.I presume the reader can easily see for himself how Phaedrus has not only failed to deal AT ALL with the rebuttal evidence provided, but in fact tried to pretend there wasn't any given at all (by dishonestly writing it off as a "non-answer") and then simply stamped his/her foot and repeated his/her original false claim.
That doesn't even rise to the level of sophistry, sadly enough, it's simple dishonesty.
You are practicing rhetoric.
Well now, there's the pot calling the polar bear black.
[I wrote:]... genetic algorithms on various types of non-biological entities (electronic circuits, etc.)
Algorithms are Intelligently Designed by human beings.
Not this one -- genetic algorithms are verbatim implementations of natural evolution. And lo and behold, contrary to the compulsive insistence of anti-evolutionists that mere mutation/reproduction/selection can't *possibly* produce greatly increased complexity and endlessly increasing information content, when raw evolution is set loose, it *WORKS*. QED.
And do a little research on Godel's Incompleteness Theorem.
Nice non sequitur. Care to bring up a topic that actually is *relevant* to your argument?
And don't presume to teach your grandpa to suck eggs -- I delved heavily into Godel's work a quarter century ago. That's why I can state authoritatively that you're just trying to muddy the topic here by waving around something impressive (but irrelevant) in the hopes of gee-whizzing your audience into believing that you a) have some valid point for a change and b) it must be something deep.
On the contrary, Godel's theorem poses no problem for evolution nor "Design". Nice try.
And note well that my links are there to educate, not mislead. You are not wasting your time when you follow them.
Methinks you doth protest too much. You'd have had a better chance of pulling off the "Godel helps my case, really, I swear it" implication if you hadn't then immediately spent two sentences piously declaring that you weren't pulling a fast one.
As for not wasting our time, imagine how much more time-efficient it would be if you'd just clearly state whatever point you think you might have, instead of playing, "look! Over there! On that website! That Godel guy sure wouldn't be a waste of time, nosiree!"
Phaedrus: Fruit flies have been bred into monster fruit flies that rapidly revert to the norm when subsequently left to their own devices.
Because the "monster" fruit flies weren't as well adapted to their environment as their original form, they evolved *back* to their original form. Thanks for providing more support for evolution.
They have never been selectively bred into anything but fruit flies.
No one's bothered to. Your point?
No new species has ever been created in the lab.
I already gave you several dozen documented instances. Fine -- if you want to hide your head in the sand, it only makes *your* side look blind.
[Ich: They have, actually (and also here) ...]
More talkorigins links. Sorry. Rejected.
Again, the astute reader will note that Phaedrus is transparently playing at the tired old game of the ad hominem fallacy -- rejecting material based solely on the source, and not on the content. Note that Phaedrus made no attempt whatsoever to address even a single piece of the evidence given (which, by the way, consists of references to works in various well-respected publications in the primary literature -- does Phaedrus claim that *those* are all "liars" too?).
Here, try these on for size if you're going to play childish games of covering your ears and singing "la la la I can't hear you" whenever a link is posted:
Ahearn, J. N. 1980. Evolution of behavioral reproductive isolation in a laboratory stock of Drosophila silvestris. Experientia. 36:63-64.
Barton, N. H., J. S. Jones and J. Mallet. 1988. No barriers to speciation. Nature. 336:13-14.
Baum, D. 1992. Phylogenetic species concepts. Trends in Ecology and Evolution. 7:1-3.
Boraas, M. E. 1983. Predator induced evolution in chemostat culture. EOS. Transactions of the American Geophysical Union. 64:1102.
Breeuwer, J. A. J. and J. H. Werren. 1990. Microorganisms associated with chromosome destruction and reproductive isolation between two insect species. Nature. 346:558-560.
Budd, A. F. and B. D. Mishler. 1990. Species and evolution in clonal organisms -- a summary and discussion. Systematic Botany 15:166-171.
Bullini, L. and G. Nascetti. 1990. Speciation by hybridization in phasmids and other insects. Canadian Journal of Zoology. 68:1747-1760.
Butters, F. K. 1941. Hybrid Woodsias in Minnesota. Amer. Fern. J. 31:15-21.
Butters, F. K. and R. M. Tryon, jr. 1948. A fertile mutant of a Woodsia hybrid. American Journal of Botany. 35:138.
Brock, T. D. and M. T. Madigan. 1988. Biology of Microorganisms (5th edition). Prentice Hall, Englewood, NJ.
Callaghan, C. A. 1987. Instances of observed speciation. The American Biology Teacher. 49:3436.
Castenholz, R. W. 1992. Species usage, concept, and evolution in the cyanobacteria (blue-green algae). Journal of Phycology 28:737-745.
Clausen, J., D. D. Keck and W. M. Hiesey. 1945. Experimental studies on the nature of species. II. Plant evolution through amphiploidy and autoploidy, with examples from the Madiinae. Carnegie Institute Washington Publication, 564:1-174.
Cracraft, J. 1989. Speciation and its ontology: the empirical consequences of alternative species concepts for understanding patterns and processes of differentiation. In Otte, E. and J. A. Endler [eds.] Speciation and its consequences. Sinauer Associates, Sunderland, MA. pp. 28-59.
Craig, T. P., J. K. Itami, W. G. Abrahamson and J. D. Horner. 1993. Behavioral evidence for host-race fromation in Eurosta solidaginis. Evolution. 47:1696-1710.
Cronquist, A. 1978. Once again, what is a species? Biosystematics in agriculture. Beltsville Symposia in Agricultural Research 2:3-20.
Cronquist, A. 1988. The evolution and classification of flowering plants (2nd edition). The New York Botanical Garden, Bronx, NY.
Crossley, S. A. 1974. Changes in mating behavior produced by selection for ethological isolation between ebony and vestigial mutants of Drosophilia melanogaster. Evolution. 28:631-647.
de Oliveira, A. K. and A. R. Cordeiro. 1980. Adaptation of Drosophila willistoni experimental populations to extreme pH medium. II. Development of incipient reproductive isolation. Heredity. 44:123-130.
de Queiroz, K. and M. Donoghue. 1988. Phylogenetic systematics and the species problem. Cladistics. 4:317-338.
de Queiroz, K. and M. Donoghue. 1990. Phylogenetic systematics and species revisited. Cladistics. 6:83-90.
de Vries, H. 1905. Species and varieties, their origin by mutation.
de Wet, J. M. J. 1971. Polyploidy and evolution in plants. Taxon. 20:29-35.
del Solar, E. 1966. Sexual isolation caused by selection for positive and negative phototaxis and geotaxis in Drosophila pseudoobscura. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (US). 56:484-487.
Digby, L. 1912. The cytology of Primula kewensis and of other related Primula hybrids. Ann. Bot. 26:357-388.
Dobzhansky, T. 1937. Genetics and the origin of species. Columbia University Press, New York.
Dobzhansky, T. 1951. Genetics and the origin of species (3rd edition). Columbia University Press, New York.
Dobzhansky, T. and O. Pavlovsky. 1971. Experimentally created incipient species of Drosophila. Nature. 230:289-292.
Dobzhansky, T. 1972. Species of Drosophila: new excitement in an old field. Science. 177:664-669.
Dodd, D. M. B. 1989. Reproductive isolation as a consequence of adaptive divergence in Drosophila melanogaster. Evolution 43:1308-1311.
Dodd, D. M. B. and J. R. Powell. 1985. Founder-flush speciation: an update of experimental results with Drosophila. Evolution 39:1388-1392.
Donoghue, M. J. 1985. A critique of the biological species concept and recommendations for a phylogenetic alternative. Bryologist 88:172-181.
Du Rietz, G. E. 1930. The fundamental units of biological taxonomy. Svensk. Bot. Tidskr. 24:333-428.
Ehrman, E. 1971. Natural selection for the origin of reproductive isolation. The American Naturalist. 105:479-483.
Ehrman, E. 1973. More on natural selection for the origin of reproductive isolation. The American Naturalist. 107:318-319.
Feder, J. L., C. A. Chilcote and G. L. Bush. 1988. Genetic differentiation between sympatric host races of the apple maggot fly, Rhagoletis pomonella. Nature. 336:61-64.
Feder, J. L. and G. L. Bush. 1989. A field test of differential host-plant usage between two sibling species of Rhagoletis pomonella fruit flies (Diptera:Tephritidae) and its consequences for sympatric models of speciation. Evolution 43:1813-1819.
Frandsen, K. J. 1943. The experimental formation of Brassica juncea Czern. et Coss. Dansk. Bot. Arkiv., No. 4, 11:1-17.
Frandsen, K. J. 1947. The experimental formation of Brassica napus L. var. oleifera DC and Brassica carinata Braun. Dansk. Bot. Arkiv., No. 7, 12:1-16.
Galiana, A., A. Moya and F. J. Alaya. 1993. Founder-flush speciation in Drosophila pseudoobscura: a large scale experiment. Evolution. 47432-444.
Gottleib, L. D. 1973. Genetic differentiation, sympatric speciation, and the origin of a diploid species of Stephanomeira. American Journal of Botany. 60: 545-553.
Halliburton, R. and G. A. E. Gall. 1981. Disruptive selection and assortative mating in Tribolium castaneum. Evolution. 35:829-843.
Hurd, L. E., and R. M. Eisenberg. 1975. Divergent selection for geotactic response and evolution of reproductive isolation in sympatric and allopatric populations of houseflies. The American Naturalist. 109:353-358.
Karpchenko, G. D. 1927. Polyploid hybrids of Raphanus sativus L. X Brassica oleraceae L. Bull. Appl. Botany. 17:305-408.
Karpchenko, G. D. 1928. Polyploid hybrids of Raphanus sativus L. X Brassica oleraceae L. Z. Indukt. Abstami-a Verenbungsi. 48:1-85.
Kilias, G., S. N. Alahiotis and M. Delecanos. 1980. A multifactorial investigation of speciation theory using Drosophila melanogaster. Evolution. 34:730-737.
Knight, G. R., A. Robertson and C. H. Waddington. 1956. Selection for sexual isolation within a species. Evolution. 10:14-22.
Koopman, K. F. 1950. Natural selection for reproductive isolation between Drosophila pseudoobscura and Drosophila persimilis. Evolution. 4:135-148.
Lee, R. E. 1989. Phycology (2nd edition) Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK
Levin, D. A. 1979. The nature of plant species. Science 204:381-384.
Lokki, J. and A. Saura. 1980. Polyploidy in insect evolution. In: W. H. Lewis (ed.) Polyploidy: Biological Relevance. Plenum Press, New York.
Macnair, M. R. 1981. Tolerance of higher plants to toxic materials. In: J. A. Bishop and L. M. Cook (eds.). Genetic consequences of man made change. Pp.177-297. Academic Press, New York.
Macnair, M. R. and P. Christie. 1983. Reproductive isolation as a pleiotropic effect of copper tolerance in Mimulus guttatus. Heredity. 50:295-302.
Manhart, J. R. and R. M. McCourt. 1992. Molecular data and species concepts in the algae. Journal of Phycology. 28:730-737.
Mayr, E. 1942. Systematics and the origin of species from the viewpoint of a zoologist. Columbia University Press, New York.
Mayr, E. 1982. The growth of biological thought: diversity, evolution and inheritance. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA. McCourt, R. M. and R. W. Hoshaw. 1990. Noncorrespondence of breeding groups, morphology and monophyletic groups in Spirogyra (Zygnemataceae; Chlorophyta) and the application of species concepts. Systematic Botany. 15:69-78.
McPheron, B. A., D. C. Smith and S. H. Berlocher. 1988. Genetic differentiation between host races of Rhagoletis pomonella. Nature. 336:64-66.
Meffert, L. M. and E. H. Bryant. 1991. Mating propensity and courtship behavior in serially bottlenecked lines of the housefly. Evolution 45:293-306.
Mishler, B. D. 1985. The morphological, developmental and phylogenetic basis of species concepts in the bryophytes. Bryologist. 88:207-214.
Mishler, B. D. and M. J. Donoghue. 1982. Species concepts: a case for pluralism. Systematic Zoology. 31:491-503.
Muntzing, A. 1932. Cytogenetic investigations on the synthetic Galeopsis tetrahit. Hereditas. 16:105-154.
Nelson, G. 1989. Cladistics and evolutionary models. Cladistics. 5:275-289.
Newton, W. C. F. and C. Pellew. 1929. Primula kewensis and its derivatives. J. Genetics. 20:405-467.
Otte, E. and J. A. Endler (eds.). 1989. Speciation and its consequences. Sinauer Associates. Sunderland, MA.
Owenby, M. 1950. Natural hybridization and amphiploidy in the genus Tragopogon. Am. J. Bot. 37:487-499.
Pasterniani, E. 1969. Selection for reproductive isolation between two populations of maize, Zea mays L. Evolution. 23:534-547.
Powell, J. R. 1978. The founder-flush speciation theory: an experimental approach. Evolution. 32:465-474.
Prokopy, R. J., S. R. Diehl, and S. H. Cooley. 1988. Oecologia. 76:138.
Rabe, E. W. and C. H. Haufler. 1992. Incipient polyploid speciation in the maidenhair fern (Adiantum pedatum, adiantaceae)? American Journal of Botany. 79:701-707.
Rice, W. R. 1985. Disruptive selection on habitat preference and the evolution of reproductive isolation: an exploratory experiment. Evolution. 39:645-646.
Rice, W. R. and E. E. Hostert. 1993. Laboratory experiments on speciation: What have we learned in forty years? Evolution. 47:1637-1653.
Rice, W. R. and G. W. Salt. 1988. Speciation via disruptive selection on habitat preference: experimental evidence. The American Naturalist. 131:911-917.
Rice, W. R. and G. W. Salt. 1990. The evolution of reproductive isolation as a correlated character under sympatric conditions: experimental evidence. Evolution. 44:1140-1152.
Ringo, J., D. Wood, R. Rockwell, and H. Dowse. 1989. An experiment testing two hypotheses of speciation. The American Naturalist. 126:642-661.
Schluter, D. and L. M. Nagel. 1995. Parallel speciation by natural selection. American Naturalist. 146:292-301.
Shikano, S., L. S. Luckinbill and Y. Kurihara. 1990. Changes of traits in a bacterial population associated with protozoal predation. Microbial Ecology. 20:75-84.
Smith, D. C. 1988. Heritable divergence of Rhagoletis pomonella host races by seasonal asynchrony. Nature. 336:66-67.
Soans, A. B., D. Pimentel and J. S. Soans. 1974. Evolution of reproductive isolation in allopatric and sympatric populations. The American Naturalist. 108:117-124.
Sokal, R. R. and T. J. Crovello. 1970. The biological species concept: a critical evaluation. The American Naturalist. 104:127-153.
Soltis, D. E. and P. S. Soltis. 1989. Allopolyploid speciation in Tragopogon: Insights from chloroplast DNA. American Journal of Botany. 76:1119-1124.
Stuessy, T. F. 1990. Plant taxonomy. Columbia University Press, New York.
Thoday, J. M. and J. B. Gibson. 1962. Isolation by disruptive selection. Nature. 193:1164-1166.
Thoday, J. M. and J. B. Gibson. 1970. The probability of isolation by disruptive selection. The American Naturalist. 104:219-230.
Thompson, J. N. 1987. Symbiont-induced speciation. Biological Journal of the Linnean Society. 32:385-393.
Vrijenhoek, R. C. 1994. Unisexual fish: Model systems for studying ecology and evolution. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics. 25:71-96.
Waring, G. L., W. G. Abrahamson and D. J. Howard. 1990. Genetic differentiation in the gall former Eurosta solidaginis (Diptera:Tephritidae) along host plant lines. Evolution. 44:1648-1655.
Weinberg, J. R., V. R. Starczak and P. Jora. 1992. Evidence for rapid speciation following a founder event in the laboratory. Evolution. 46:1214-1220.
Wood, A. M. and T. Leatham. 1992. The species concept in phytoplankton ecology. Journal of Phycology. 28:723-729.
Yen, J. H. and A. R. Barr. 1971. New hypotheses of the cause of cytoplasmic incompatability in Culex pipiens L.
[Ich: Mutation and non-mutational genetic variation, coupled with reproduction and natural (and other kinds of) selection ...]
Mutation has been discredited.
Only in your own closed mind. You have provided not a shred of support for your "because I say so!" assertions. There are countless research articles showing that, indeed, mutation has not only not been "discredited", it's a fascinatingly productive resource (when shaped by reproduction and selection). Is there any, um, "special reason" you snipped out and failed to comment on the following part of my post where I *supported* my statement?
Oh, right, you don't follow links, do you? You might learn something, and we all know how painful *that* can be...
It's a non-starter. The rest is speculation and nonsense, not evidence.
Only because, by your own admission, you won't *look* at the evidence even when someone puts it before you. I guess it's true what they say about leading horses to water.
[This is Biology 101, were you sleeping?]
More gratis nastiness.
That wasn't nastiness. It was an attempt at shaming you into learning something. But I've learned you have no shame, so I realize it's a wasted effort.
Also, you might want to look up the definition of the word "gratis" -- you've used it twice here, and I don't think it means what you think it means. While it's true that I haven't charged you any money for my remarks about you, I doubt that's quite what you meant to say.
You are wasting my time, Ich.
Clearly, but not for the reasons you probably think.
I have patiently, faithfully, gone through your response to my post to this point and have discredited it, item by item, without exception.
You are such a legend in your own mind.
Actually winning an argument, however, is more difficult than simply parroting your own earlier assertions and emptily declaring victory (multiple times).
You are practicing sophistry. There is no substance. I've heard it all before and I've discredited it all before.
You really need to learn what's involved in properly "discrediting" something. Ignoring it, emptily dismissing it, or playing "Godel link, I win!" just doesn't really cut it.
Come back when you have something substantive to say.
I'm still here, aren't I?
And why not? Time is meaningless when one talks about God. It is only us humans with such short lifetimes that consider time to have such importance.
If one believes that God gives each of us an individual soul there is no question that he can and likely did create different creatures when and as he pleased. Your theory only works if one absolutely denies God from being a part of the discussion.
... and one cannot do that because science has shown quite clearly that life could not have arisen from non-life without an intelligent designer.
There are countless examples of 'gradualism' in living things TODAY so that there are similarities which an evolutionist can call evolution is not to be wondered. Men can be found in all shapes, sizes and colors - TODAY. So can dogs and other species. Yet they are all the same species as science tells us. You cannot tell from most fossils whether it is an infant or an adult, a male or a female and many other things. You cannot even tell if they are different species and the dating is dubious at best. So fossil 'gradualism' proves nothing.
However, there is strong proof against evolutionary gradualism. Two such are the Cambrian explosion and the arising of mammals. Perhaps the two most important events after the creation of life. In the Cambrian explosion, within less than 10 million years all the major phyla (the highest classfication of animal species after kingdom) arose without any gradualism and any possible precursors. The arising of mammals is completely absent from the fossil record. Here we have the greatest change in life form after the Cambrian and we cannot show how it happened from the fossils. Since this was such a great change and evolution supposedly occurs gradually, then it should have the most evidence of all. Instead, all the evolutionists are able to show is a very small skull whose top part has been pasted together from 100 million years before the next earliest fossils - when numerous species of mammals already were to be found.
Nonsense. Scientists could care less about evolution (unless there is a grant involved). The major figures of evolution have not been scientists (and that includes Darwin). Dawkins is no scientist, he is just a popularizer of the atheist philosophy as was Gould. Neither of them ever did any scientific work in biology or any other legitimate scientific field (they were paleontologists and that is science fiction, not science).
Yup, and all you can do to prove them wrong is insult them by calling them names and play rhetorical games. Let's see the evidence for evolution. You call it science, there must be scientific evidence for it. Let's see it. Let's also see the exact theory of evolution on which all these 'scientists' are working to prove. After all, to prove a theory you must first have a theory do you not? Let's see the theory and the proof for that theory. It must be awful strong for you to be able to call everyone who disagrees an idiot, must it not? Or are your strong words just a bluff to hide the total emptiness of your theory?
That is all that evolutionists can do - play word games. They will say when evidence is given against the theory of evolution that they cannot refute that that is not what the theory says. However, one can go on endlessly through these evolution threads and not see a single evolutionist say 'this is the theory of evolution and here is the proof that all species descended from in accordance to the theory'. Look back since the beginning of FR and such a post will never be found.