Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Nialler · 07-11-2006, 08:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Recently there was an article on a super-mosquito species that has evolved in Athens, Greece. Compared to most mosquitos it has twice as long of a range for detecting blood, can distinguish between colors, has a faster wing-beat speed, and is resistent to many pesticides and repellants.

I will look that one up.

But I must ask:

"Has it given birth to a spider yet?" :Cheeky:

Ezkerraldean · 07-11-2006, 09:14 AM

HIV?
according to carl zimmer, all HIV strains are blocked by a gene (CCR5 apparently) that also has the affect of immunising the carrier from bubonic plague when two copies are posessed. since the plague affected all of eurasia except sub-saharan africa and south-east asia (and since many americans are descended from europeans), this is why AIDS is most common in sub-saharan africa and south-east asia. Bubonic plague brought to prominence a beneficial mutation - the double CCR5, which incidentally also helps to block HIV.

patchy · 07-11-2006, 09:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ezkerraldean

HIV?
according to carl zimmer, all HIV strains are blocked by a gene (CCR5 apparently) that also has the affect of immunising the carrier from bubonic plague when two copies are posessed. since the plague affected all of eurasia except sub-saharan africa and south-east asia (and since many americans are descended from europeans), this is why AIDS is most common in sub-saharan africa and south-east asia. Bubonic plague brought to prominence a beneficial mutation - the double CCR5, which incidentally also helps to block HIV.

Yes, yes, but that's all technical-sounding and stuff. Far easier to just think of AIDS as "god punishing fags for sinning." That way you don't have to learn any biology or anything; you can get all the science education you need from some hypocritical asshole in a cheap suit and a combover standing at the pulpit every Sunday.

Viti · 07-11-2006, 09:29 AM

Well if we are going with Creationist mindset, then horsies are horsies and kitties are kitties and doggies can't turn into fishies.

Late_Cretaceous · 07-11-2006, 09:37 AM

Here is a detailed description of observed instances of speciation.

In fact, the occurance and documentation of speciation is so strong that it has led many creationists to dig up the goal posts and move them to an entirely new playground. Hence, "speciation is not evolution" is now the battle cry. Many creationists will admit that speciation occurs "within kinds" - but point out that they are still salamnaders, yew plants, mosquitoes, bacteria, whatever. What they want to see is a fish larvae turn into an Allosaurus in order to be convinced.

Ezkerraldean · 07-11-2006, 09:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Late_Cretaceous

Here is a detailed description of observed instances of speciation.

nice! i had no idea it had actually definitevely been observed st all, let alone that many times.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Late_Cretaceous

What they want to see is a fish larvae turn into an Allosaurus in order to be convinced.

hahaha, they'll be waiting a while then.

RBH · 07-11-2006, 10:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by eksyte

Since it's the only real hole in the evolutionary theory, has it ever been observed?

Long-term evolution experiment on E. coli.

Observed Instances of Speciation.

Yes, evolution has been systematically observed in the laboratory and field.

RBH

eksyte · 07-11-2006, 11:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by patchy

It may be a fine line, but perhaps the OP is asking more if speciation has been observed (to which the answer is still a resounding yes) rather than if evolution has been observed.

Sort of, but what JPD said works for what I was looking for.

Thanks, guys... even if you are a buncha smartasses.

Evoken · 07-12-2006, 03:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RBH

Observed Instances of Speciation.

For the sake of balance...

Quote:

The “Observed Instances FAQ”

As for the “Observed Instances of Speciation” FAQ (the reading of which is encouraged by this writer), after one goes to the trouble of digesting all the preliminary verbiage, all the “speciation” examples given fall into one of two categories:

1. “new” species that are “new” to man, but whose “newness” remains equivocal in light of observed genetic “variation” vs. genetic “change” (as discussed above), and/or because a species of unknown age is being observed by man for the first time.
2. “new” species whose appearance was deliberately and artificially brought about by the efforts of intelligent human manipulation, and whose status as new “species” remain unequivocally consequential to laboratory experiments rather than natural processes.

In neither of the above examples cited by Isaak was the natural (i.e., unaided) generation of a new species accomplished or observed, in which an unequivocally “new” trait was obtained (i.e., new genetic information created) and carried forward within a population of organisms. In other words, these are not examples of macro-evolutionary speciation—they are examples of human discovery and/or genetic manipulation and/or natural genetic recombination. They serve to confirm the observable nature of genetic variation, while saying absolutely nothing in support of Darwinian “macro-evolution,” which postulates not just variations within a type of organism but the emergence of entirely new organisms.

Definitions of “species” and (therefore) “speciation” remain many and varied, and by most modern definitions, certain changes within organism populations do indeed qualify as “speciation events”—yet even after many decades of study, there remains no solid evidence that an increase in both quality and quantity of genetic information (as required for a macro-evolutionary speciation event) has happened or could happen.

From here...
http://trueorigin.org/isakrbtl.asp#observe

What is the common response to this sort of criticisms?

Thanks in advance,
Valz

flashbaby · 07-12-2006, 04:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by flashbaby

what about this for a new species
http://calvin.st-andrews.ac.uk/exter...?reference=423

this is a non man made macro evolution origin of a new species.

There is no requirement for an increase of quality or quantity of genetic information for speciation to occur.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

07-11-2006, 09:14 AM	#12
Ezkerraldean Veteran Member Join Date: May 2006 Location: transatlantically challenged (UK/canada) Posts: 2,688	HIV? according to carl zimmer, all HIV strains are blocked by a gene (CCR5 apparently) that also has the affect of immunising the carrier from bubonic plague when two copies are posessed. since the plague affected all of eurasia except sub-saharan africa and south-east asia (and since many americans are descended from europeans), this is why AIDS is most common in sub-saharan africa and south-east asia. Bubonic plague brought to prominence a beneficial mutation - the double CCR5, which incidentally also helps to block HIV.

07-11-2006, 09:29 AM	#14
Viti Contributor Join Date: Apr 2001 Location: Down South Posts: 12,879	Well if we are going with Creationist mindset, then horsies are horsies and kitties are kitties and doggies can't turn into fishies.

07-11-2006, 09:37 AM	#15
Late_Cretaceous Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: Alberta Posts: 1,049	Here is a detailed description of observed instances of speciation. In fact, the occurance and documentation of speciation is so strong that it has led many creationists to dig up the goal posts and move them to an entirely new playground. Hence, "speciation is not evolution" is now the battle cry. Many creationists will admit that speciation occurs "within kinds" - but point out that they are still salamnaders, yew plants, mosquitoes, bacteria, whatever. What they want to see is a fish larvae turn into an Allosaurus in order to be convinced.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.