From: si 1/09/00 15:28:36 Subject: Evolution: not the nine o'clock news post id: 126717 scusem me sir's but is there anyone out there who does't observe the fact that Evolution is still a theory and may for the rest of our lifetimes remain so. if its theory its faith and faith is a major component of religion certainly not science. grow up and face the facts an apple doesn't always fall downward. and darwin was only a man a product of flawed reasoning which we all suffer from from time to time. Only believe what your senses tell not only you but as many who can sense it as well a ludite From: The Colonel 1/09/00 15:42:27 Subject: re: Evolution: not the nine o'clock news post id: 126729 As compared to the theory that God created the universe in seven days. From: Paul H. 1/09/00 15:45:37 Subject: re: Evolution: not the nine o'clock news post id: 126735 Si, >>scusem me sir's but is there anyone out there who does't observe the fact that Evolution is still a theory... Not so! It's an observed fact. One small example: In 1964, Dr. D.J. Reish removed 5 or 6 polychaetes (Nereis acuminata) from Los Angeles/Long Beach harbor, and grew his sample to a size of thousands. In 1986, four pairs from this group were brought to Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution; the population at Woods Hole thus had gone through two bottlenecks, which are supposed to help drive evolution through genetic drift. In 1977-1978, two new cultures of N. acuminata were gathered from nearby Long Beach and Newport Beach, and grown under the same conditions as the Woods Hole sample. The three populations were later crossed, and it was found that the only crosses that would not produce viable offspring were the crosses involving Woods Hole and the two new cultures. This signifies nothing less than speciation, and all in the laboratory - all observed directly (Weinberg et al., 1992). Source: http://icarus.uic.edu/~vuletic/cefec.html From: Paul H. 1/09/00 15:57:10 Subject: re: Evolution: not the nine o'clock news post id: 126746 Don't like that one? What about this one: Two strains of Drosophila paulistorum (that'd be a fruitfly) developed hybrid sterility of male offspring between 1958 and 1963. Artificial selection induced strong intra-strain mating preferences. (Test for speciation is: sterile offspring and lack of interbreeding affinity.) Dobzhansky, Th., and O. Pavlovsky, 1971. "An experimentally created incipient species of Drosophila", Nature 23:289-292. From: Paul H. 1/09/00 16:24:33 Subject: re: Evolution: not the nine o'clock news post id: 126764 They started with just one type (species) of fly. By controlling which fruitfly had sex with which other fruitfly (to simulate isolated populations of fruitfly in the Wild), they ended up with two types of fruitfly that couldn't interbreed - which is the definition of a new 'species'. They created a new species of fruit fly. Not like different kinds of dogs. A *new* species. There are other examples of the same kind of thing. Evolution is not a theory any more, it's a fact. From: Robert ® 1/09/00 16:32:56 Subject: re: Evolution: not the nine o'clock news post id: 126771 According to http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-fact.html , evolution is both a fact and a theory. "....I'm the first mammal to wear pants..." Pearl Jam, Do the Evolution From: J Spectre 1/09/00 16:33:09 Subject: re: Evolution: not the nine o'clock news post id: 126772 There's a lot of people who aren't very satisfied with the "breeding" criterion as a method of determining "species". It's very hard at a philosophical level. All you can say, really, is that life is a whole, an that what we consider to be "species" are just the tendrils of life, which sort of grip the planet. There's a lot of Australian "species" which have been made species which can still interbreed and vice versa. (I've forgotten all the technical details.) There some very isolated pockets of things like frogs (which can interbreed) but still are considered separate species. This forum is un-moderated. The views and opinions expressed are those of the individual poster and not the ABC. The ABC reserves the right to remove offensive or inappropriate messages. From: Paul H. 1/09/00 16:40:04 Subject: re: Evolution: not the nine o'clock news post id: 126779 Spec, >>There's a lot of people who aren't very satisfied with the "breeding" criterion as a method of determining "species". Ok, Spectre, I won't be able to convince you, but just be aware that us evolutionists are pretty confident we're onto the Real Thing here, we're not just Making It All Up. cheers. From: The Colonel 1/09/00 16:41:04 Subject: re: Evolution: not the nine o'clock news post id: 126780 Just glancing over that web-site. It agrees that evolution as a biological idea is fact. What it states as a theory is the method. Therefore evolution is a fact, natural selection is a theory. Lamarkcians acquried characteristics is a theory. From: John E 1/09/00 18:36:21 Subject: re: Evolution: not the nine o'clock news post id: 126848 Try 'Darwins Dangerous Idea' by Daniel Dennett 1995. I found it tough going but have a deeper understanding of evolution now...I think. And I'm only a carpenter ay! Johno. This forum is un-moderated. The views and opinions expressed are those of the individual poster and not the ABC. The ABC reserves the right to remove offensive or inappropriate messages.