Precision in Nature: Evidence of God or Accidents?

[Youwerecreated]

read into something that "Religion is science and science is religion'

It was stated in almost so many words.

I'll find it....

Here I will save you the trouble.

Link,look it over.

Eternal Productions - 101 Scientific Facts and Foreknowledge

 

[Youwerecreated]

That has been what you have been taught but speciation has never been observed only microadaptations.

Speciation has been observed many times. You don't know what you're talking about.

5.0 Observed Instances of Speciation

The following are several examples of observations of speciation.
5.1 Speciations Involving Polyploidy, Hybridization or Hybridization Followed by Polyploidization.

5.1.1 Plants

(See also the discussion in de Wet 1971).
5.1.1.1 Evening Primrose (Oenothera gigas)

While studying the genetics of the evening primrose, Oenothera lamarckiana, de Vries (1905) found an unusual variant among his plants. O. lamarckiana has a chromosome number of 2N = 14. The variant had a chromosome number of 2N = 28. He found that he was unable to breed this variant with O. lamarckiana. He named this new species O. gigas.
5.1.1.2 Kew Primrose (Primula kewensis)

Digby (1912) crossed the primrose species Primula verticillata and P. floribunda to produce a sterile hybrid. Polyploidization occurred in a few of these plants to produce fertile offspring. The new species was named P. kewensis. Newton and Pellew (1929) note that spontaneous hybrids of P. verticillata and P. floribunda set tetraploid seed on at least three occasions. These happened in 1905, 1923 and 1926.
5.1.1.3 Tragopogon

Owenby (1950) demonstrated that two species in this genus were produced by polyploidization from hybrids. He showed that Tragopogon miscellus found in a colony in Moscow, Idaho was produced by hybridization of T. dubius and T. pratensis. He also showed that T. mirus found in a colony near Pullman, Washington was produced by hybridization of T. dubius and T. porrifolius. Evidence from chloroplast DNA suggests that T. mirus has originated independently by hybridization in eastern Washington and western Idaho at least three times (Soltis and Soltis 1989). The same study also shows multiple origins for T. micellus.
5.1.1.4 Raphanobrassica

The Russian cytologist Karpchenko (1927, 1928) crossed the radish, Raphanus sativus, with the cabbage, Brassica oleracea. Despite the fact that the plants were in different genera, he got a sterile hybrid. Some unreduced gametes were formed in the hybrids. This allowed for the production of seed. Plants grown from the seeds were interfertile with each other. They were not interfertile with either parental species. Unfortunately the new plant (genus Raphanobrassica) had the foliage of a radish and the root of a cabbage.
5.1.1.5 Hemp Nettle (Galeopsis tetrahit)

A species of hemp nettle, Galeopsis tetrahit, was hypothesized to be the result of a natural hybridization of two other species, G. pubescens and G. speciosa (Muntzing 1932). The two species were crossed. The hybrids matched G. tetrahit in both visible features and chromosome morphology.
5.1.1.6 Madia citrigracilis

Along similar lines, Clausen et al. (1945) hypothesized that Madia citrigracilis was a hexaploid hybrid of M. gracilis and M. citriodora As evidence they noted that the species have gametic chromosome numbers of n = 24, 16 and 8 respectively. Crossing M. gracilis and M. citriodora resulted in a highly sterile triploid with n = 24. The chromosomes formed almost no bivalents during meiosis. Artificially doubling the chromosome number using colchecine produced a hexaploid hybrid which closely resembled M. citrigracilis and was fertile.
5.1.1.7 Brassica

Frandsen (1943, 1947) was able to do this same sort of recreation of species in the genus Brassica (cabbage, etc.). His experiments showed that B. carinata (n = 17) may be recreated by hybridizing B. nigra (n = 8) and B. oleracea, B. juncea (n = 18) may be recreated by hybridizing B. nigra and B. campestris (n = 10), and B. napus (n = 19) may be recreated by hybridizing B. oleracea and B. campestris.
5.1.1.8 Maidenhair Fern (Adiantum pedatum)

Rabe and Haufler (1992) found a naturally occurring diploid sporophyte of maidenhair fern which produced unreduced (2N) spores. These spores resulted from a failure of the paired chromosomes to dissociate during the first division of meiosis. The spores germinated normally and grew into diploid gametophytes. These did not appear to produce antheridia. Nonetheless, a subsequent generation of tetraploid sporophytes was produced. When grown in the lab, the tetraploid sporophytes appear to be less vigorous than the normal diploid sporophytes. The 4N individuals were found near Baldwin City, Kansas.
5.1.1.9 Woodsia Fern (Woodsia abbeae)

Woodsia abbeae was described as a hybrid of W. cathcariana and W. ilvensis (Butters 1941). Plants of this hybrid normally produce abortive sporangia containing inviable spores. In 1944 Butters found a W. abbeae plant near Grand Portage, Minn. that had one fertile frond (Butters and Tryon 1948). The apical portion of this frond had fertile sporangia. Spores from this frond germinated and grew into prothallia. About six months after germination sporophytes were produced. They survived for about one year. Based on cytological evidence, Butters and Tryon concluded that the frond that produced the viable spores had gone tetraploid. They made no statement as to whether the sporophytes grown produced viable spores.
5.1.2 Animals

Speciation through hybridization and/or polyploidy has long been considered much less important in animals than in plants [[[refs.]]]. A number of reviews suggest that this view may be mistaken. (Lokki and Saura 1980; Bullini and Nascetti 1990; Vrijenhoek 1994). Bullini and Nasceti (1990) review chromosomal and genetic evidence that suggest that speciation through hybridization may occur in a number of insect species, including walking sticks, grasshoppers, blackflies and cucurlionid beetles. Lokki and Saura (1980) discuss the role of polyploidy in insect evolution. Vrijenhoek (1994) reviews the literature on parthenogenesis and hybridogenesis in fish. I will tackle this topic in greater depth in the next version of this document.
5.2 Speciations in Plant Species not Involving Hybridization or Polyploidy

5.2.1 Stephanomeira malheurensis

Gottlieb (1973) documented the speciation of Stephanomeira malheurensis. He found a single small population (< 250 plants) among a much larger population (> 25,000 plants) of S. exigua in Harney Co., Oregon. Both species are diploid and have the same number of chromosomes (N = 8). S. exigua is an obligate outcrosser exhibiting sporophytic self-incompatibility. S. malheurensis exhibits no self-incompatibility and self-pollinates. Though the two species look very similar, Gottlieb was able to document morphological differences in five characters plus chromosomal differences. F1 hybrids between the species produces only 50% of the seeds and 24% of the pollen that conspecific crosses produced. F2 hybrids showed various developmental abnormalities.
5.2.2 Maize (Zea mays)

Pasterniani (1969) produced almost complete reproductive isolation between two varieties of maize. The varieties were distinguishable by seed color, white versus yellow. Other genetic markers allowed him to identify hybrids. The two varieties were planted in a common field. Any plant's nearest neighbors were always plants of the other strain. Selection was applied against hybridization by using only those ears of corn that showed a low degree of hybridization as the source of the next years seed. Only parental type kernels from these ears were planted. The strength of selection was increased each year. In the first year, only ears with less than 30% intercrossed seed were used. In the fifth year, only ears with less than 1% intercrossed seed were used. After five years the average percentage of intercrossed matings dropped from 35.8% to 4.9% in the white strain and from 46.7% to 3.4% in the yellow strain.
5.2.3 Speciation as a Result of Selection for Tolerance to a Toxin: Yellow Monkey Flower (Mimulus guttatus)

At reasonably low concentrations, copper is toxic to many plant species. Several plants have been seen to develop a tolerance to this metal (Macnair 1981). Macnair and Christie (1983) used this to examine the genetic basis of a postmating isolating mechanism in yellow monkey flower. When they crossed plants from the copper tolerant "Copperopolis" population with plants from the nontolerant "Cerig" population, they found that many of the hybrids were inviable. During early growth, just after the four leaf stage, the leaves of many of the hybrids turned yellow and became necrotic. Death followed this. This was seen only in hybrids between the two populations. Through mapping studies, the authors were able to show that the copper tolerance gene and the gene responsible for hybrid inviability were either the same gene or were very tightly linked. These results suggest that reproductive isolation may require changes in only a small number of genes.
5.3 The Fruit Fly Literature

5.3.1 Drosophila paulistorum

Dobzhansky and Pavlovsky (1971) reported a speciation event that occurred in a laboratory culture of Drosophila paulistorum sometime between 1958 and 1963. The culture was descended from a single inseminated female that was captured in the Llanos of Colombia. In 1958 this strain produced fertile hybrids when crossed with conspecifics of different strains from Orinocan. From 1963 onward crosses with Orinocan strains produced only sterile males. Initially no assortative mating or behavioral isolation was seen between the Llanos strain and the Orinocan strains. Later on Dobzhansky produced assortative mating (Dobzhansky 1972).
5.3.2 Disruptive Selection on Drosophila melanogaster

Thoday and Gibson (1962) established a population of Drosophila melanogaster from four gravid females. They applied selection on this population for flies with the highest and lowest numbers of sternoplural chaetae (hairs). In each generation, eight flies with high numbers of chaetae were allowed to interbreed and eight flies with low numbers of chaetae were allowed to interbreed. Periodically they performed mate choice experiments on the two lines. They found that they had produced a high degree of positive assortative mating between the two groups. In the decade or so following this, eighteen labs attempted unsuccessfully to reproduce these results. References are given in Thoday and Gibson 1970.
5.3.3 Selection on Courtship Behavior in Drosophila melanogaster

Crossley (1974) was able to produce changes in mating behavior in two mutant strains of D. melanogaster. Four treatments were used. In each treatment, 55 virgin males and 55 virgin females of both ebony body mutant flies and vestigial wing mutant flies (220 flies total) were put into a jar and allowed to mate for 20 hours. The females were collected and each was put into a separate vial. The phenotypes of the offspring were recorded. Wild type offspring were hybrids between the mutants. In two of the four treatments, mating was carried out in the light. In one of these treatments all hybrid offspring were destroyed. This was repeated for 40 generations. Mating was carried out in the dark in the other two treatments. Again, in one of these all hybrids were destroyed. This was repeated for 49 generations. Crossley ran mate choice tests and observed mating behavior. Positive assortative mating was found in the treatment which had mated in the light and had been subject to strong selection against hybridization. The basis of this was changes in the courtship behaviors of both sexes. Similar experiments, without observation of mating behavior, were performed by Knight, et al. (1956).

Observed Instances of Speciation

Microadaptations next ?

 

[Parsifal]

If you want to debate it then do so quit lobbing insults and lets get to it.

That there is no scientific evidence for ID is a fact.....It's not opinion......It's a fact.

ID may well occur but there isn't a shred of scientific evidence that shows that it does.

I'm not saying ID is bad.....I like ID.

I'm merely reporting a fact.......The fact is that there isn't any scientific for ID.

What do you have in response to these well documented facts?

 

[Montrovant]

read into something that "Religion is science and science is religion'

It was stated in almost so many words.

I'll find it....

Foxy sorry but I do believe that and I am gonna let my friend see foreknowledge the bible presents that was not known til modern day science.

Please do not post the same wall of text you have posted multiple times before! Just provide a link to the list if you must!

 

[Youwerecreated]

OMG wall of text!

I was wondering if you were gonna say something.

 

[Youwerecreated]

If you want to debate it then do so quit lobbing insults and lets get to it.

That there is no scientific evidence for ID is a fact.....It's not opinion......It's a fact.

ID may well occur but there isn't a shred of scientific evidence that shows that it does.

I'm not saying ID is bad.....I like ID.

I'm merely reporting a fact.......The fact is that there isn't any scientific for ID.

What do you have in response to these well documented facts?

Are you gonna continue to ignore my question to you ?

 

[Parsifal]

Microadaptations

Speciation....Next!

 

[Parsifal]

You're not willing to acknowledge well established facts.

You say you want debate but you don't seem to know what it is.

Facts mean nothing to you.

 

[Youwerecreated]

If you want to debate it then do so quit lobbing insults and lets get to it.

That there is no scientific evidence for ID is a fact.....It's not opinion......It's a fact.

ID may well occur but there isn't a shred of scientific evidence that shows that it does.

I'm not saying ID is bad.....I like ID.

I'm merely reporting a fact.......The fact is that there isn't any scientific for ID.

What do you have in response to these well documented facts?

I would like to know your point concerning the germ theory after all it was many creationist that were responsible for the theory.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Microadaptations

Speciation....Next!

How would you define speciation ? Did it lead to macroevolution ? What causes change within a kind ?

 

[Youwerecreated]

You're not willing to acknowledge well established facts.

You say you want debate but you don't seem to know what it is.

Facts mean nothing to you.

What facts are you speaking of ?

 

[Parsifal]

I would like to know your point concerning the germ theory

You had said something about how you could disprove science......I asked you to get busy disproving the Germ Theory of disease or admit that you can't.

How would you define speciation ?

The evolution of a new species.

Did it lead to macroevolution ?

Macroevolution isn't a term I use. It's "evolution".

What causes change within a kind ?

You're attempting to debate science using Biblical ideas........You're in over your head...Sorry.

 

[Parsifal]

it was many creationist that were responsible for the theory.

Can you please acknowledge the fact that there isn't any scientific evidence for creationism?

If you're going to attempt to discuss this stuff you need to know what a fact is.

Can you acknowledge that fact before attempting further discussion?

 

[Foxfyre]

read into something that "Religion is science and science is religion'

It was stated in almost so many words.

I'll find it....

Foxy sorry but I do believe that and I am gonna let my friend see foreknowledge the bible presents that was not known til modern day science.

Believing that and arguing it as a basis for Intelligent Design are two different things.

In the world of formal debate, you have to set a basis for something before you can extrapolate that into something else. Once you have established a reasonable case for intelligent design outside of the Bible, THEN the debate can move into the next phase such as whether the Bible narrative is supported by the other evidence.

In my opinion, we really do spin our wheels when we use the Bible as evidence for whatever is claimed in the Bible. That is not much different than our writing whatever we want on our resume and then expect others to use that to assume we are qualified to do something.

 

[Youwerecreated]

I would like to know your point concerning the germ theory

You had said something about how you could disprove science......I asked you to get busy disproving the Germ Theory of disease or admit that you can't.

How would you define speciation ?

The evolution of a new species.

Did it lead to macroevolution ?

Macroevolution isn't a term I use. It's "evolution".

What causes change within a kind ?

You're attempting to debate science using Biblical ideas........You're in over your head...Sorry.

There is no doubt changes happen with a group through microadaptations but it is truly brought forth from genes of the parents and genes existing in the gene pool. Another term for it is genetic drift.

Well microevolution and macroevolution are terms that came from evolutionist and they definitely are different. Macroevolution is one kind changing to a new destinct kind. Where a fly becomes a non-fly or a horse becomes a non-horse so what you posted is merely microadaptations through natural variations of genetic information in genes.

 

[Youwerecreated]

it was many creationist that were responsible for the theory.

Can you please acknowledge the fact that there isn't any scientific evidence for creationism?

If you're going to attempt to discuss this stuff you need to know what a fact is.

Can you acknowledge that fact before attempting further discussion?

Can you please acknowledge explanations come from presuppositoions. You see a natural process I see a designer.

I don't see a natural process producing precise coincedences. I see a designer causing precision in nature. Just the right amount of this and that for this to happen.

 

[Youwerecreated]

It was stated in almost so many words.

I'll find it....

Foxy sorry but I do believe that and I am gonna let my friend see foreknowledge the bible presents that was not known til modern day science.

Believing that and arguing it as a basis for Intelligent Design are two different things.

In the world of formal debate, you have to set a basis for something before you can extrapolate that into something else. Once you have established a reasonable case for intelligent design outside of the Bible, THEN the debate can move into the next phase such as whether the Bible narrative is supported by the other evidence.

In my opinion, we really do spin our wheels when we use the Bible as evidence for whatever is claimed in the Bible. That is not much different than our writing whatever we want on our resume and then expect others to use that to assume we are qualified to do something.

Foxy where would one get the foreknowledge from things in the bible that was not known until modern day science ?

 

[Parsifal]

What facts are you speaking of ?

The ones that I've repeated over and, then repeated some more, and then repeated them again.

 

[Parsifal]

Another term for it is genetic drift.

Genetic drift is one of the mechanisms for speciation.

Well microevolution and macroevolution are terms that came from evolutionist

I've studied genetics, molecular biology, evolution, and a whole lot of other stuff that dwells on evolution and I've never encountered the term except when used by creationists.

Where a fly becomes a non-fly or a horse becomes a non-horse

Horses and Zebras have common ancestors. They are different species with different ancestors.

 

[Parsifal]

Can you please acknowledge explanations come from presuppositoions.

You're completely unable to acknowledge the most relevant, obvious, easy to comprehend, and well documented fact in this discussion.

Until you can acknowledge the fact that there isn't any scientific evidence for creationism you're not able to discuss this stuff.

Can you acknowledge the fact or not.....Yes or No?

Don't deflect......Answer the question.

Can you acknowledge the fact or not.....Yes or No?