tgamble

"The production of a new animal species in nature has yet to be documented." Paul and Anne Ehrlich Extinction: The Causes and Consequences of the Disappearance of Species, (New York: Ballantine), pp. 23,

i know about talkorigins which is why I'm asking about this quote. They aren't creationists and the quote is used by Hugh Ross to defend his dogma of no speciation.

How accurate is the quote? Obviously, the statement itself is incorrect, but is the quote out of context? I did some research and it's quite obvious that they don't deny evolution.

Thanks!

Wyz_sub10

The Ehrlich's definitely acknowledge speciation having occurred. In fact, on pp. 26-27 of the book, they state:

What they do say in their book is that speciation cannot compensate for extinction.

In other words, speciation is moving quickly at this point in history, but extinction is moving more quickly, and speciation cannot catch up.

Just to add...the authors even get into controversial territory by stated that speciation may actually mitigate extinction - i.e. each individual in a species represents biodiversity. If speciation occurs and important genes are passed on, then the ecosystem "loses nothing" through extinction provided that species is replaced with a "new one".

I don't see how anyone could use this book to argue against speciation.

[ October 25, 2002: Message edited by: Wyz_sub10 ]

[ October 25, 2002: Message edited by: Wyz_sub10 ]</p>

Jesus Tap-Dancin' Christ

Some people can argue that black is white and night is day.

Jack the Bodiless

Well, the TalkOrigins examples are primarily plants, or animals in laboratories (e.g. fruit flies).

These don't quite qualify as "The production of a new animal species in nature". But I don't see why the author would imagine this nitpicking distinction is significant.

tgamble

I should add that this guy is a Hugh Ross deciple. He would explain speciation in the past as acts of creation. Now we're in the 7th day of rest and God ain't createing anymore.

in fact, he's used more extinction than speciation as proof against evolution. The bible offers an explanation he says. Evolution doesn't.

We're now in a period of devolution. I didn't think there was such a thing.

But dictionary.com (I know it's not the best source for scientific definitions but still) defines it as "Biology. The evolutionary decline or loss of a function, characteristic, or structure in an organism or a species."

Is devolution a word actually used by biologists? Sounds like a custom made creationist term to avoid the dreaded E word.

[ October 25, 2002: Message edited by: tgamble ]</p>

tgamble

He's now dismissing the example I gave because it was in a "toxic enviroment".

Neruda

My favorite example of speciation is the case of the rock wallabies in Hawaii. In 1916, three australian rock wallabies were imported to a zoo in Hawaii. A dog breaks in, one wallaby is killed, the other two escape. They start a breeding population in the wild, and within 60 years evolve a new liver enzyme that enables them to eat plants that were originally toxic to them, evolve new proteins, become lighter in color and smaller and size. They're a new species now.

Also, pupfish in Death Valley evolve very quickly, so when a small population is seperated from a larger population (which probably happens often, because they basically live in puddles), they change so quickly that within only a few generations they can no longer interbreed with the original population.

so those are examples of evolution in nature, and there are plenty more. But we have to remember that evolution is a process that exceeds our lifetimes by thousands of years or more for the most part, so we can't expect to see lots and lots of evolution at any given time.

tgamble

Still a wallabie. Still a pupfish. Nothing new. :=)

tgamble

latest response:

WTF?!
<img src="graemlins/banghead.gif" border="0" alt="[Bang Head]" /> <img src="graemlins/banghead.gif" border="0" alt="[Bang Head]" /> <img src="graemlins/banghead.gif" border="0" alt="[Bang Head]" />

RufusAtticus

WTF? All environments are toxic.