Pretending? Who's doing the pretending? Are you really so naive to think that all the relevant issues surrounding TOE are totally resolved? Research is constantly reversing yesterday's facts. You readily admit there are things that are unresolved in "science" but I'm willing to bet the neo-Darwinian streak in you prohibits you from inserting "theory of evolution" into that same sentence. Care to prove me wrong? As for the ideas floating around with answers, you provided one stock answer to one question. Brilliant. You sound like a creationist who says "God did it". What are you wise-guy, some type of clairvoyant? I don't think it's a matter of you not having the time to give the answers to the questions, I think it's a matter of them not being available at this particular point in time, at least in any substantive manner. The research is ongoing in these areas, the results inconclusive and issues are not TOTALLY resolved. I've spent the better part of the last five years reading everything I can get my hands on. Yes, I'll admit I'm not a biologist but I have the ability to seperate facts from conjecture. I've read viewpoints as diverse as Dawkins' "Climbing Mount Improbable", Gould's "The Panda's Thumb", and some Denton, Behe and even managed to stomach some stuff I'd rather not mention. Great! Should I do a Google search for it? Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Re: Pretending? no, pm me a proper email address (a personal one, not a yahoo one) and I will email the pdf to you. if you want to remain on an agrresive footing then here is a comment on your list: As you know the theory of evolution was conceived to explain the diversity of life. That means how all these species that we see now have come about. Hence the title' on the origin of species' for Darwin's book. your list: 1. How did sexual reproduction evolve from asexual reproduction not about speciation 2. How did the structural systems within eukaryotic cells evolve? (Similarly prokaryotic cells) not about speciation 3. What is the biological mechanism for the origin of new plants and animals? Are they the same? speciation 4. How did DNA/RNA evolve ? not about speciation 5. What is behind the phenomenon of the left-handed domination of amino acids (chilarity) . not about speciation 6. Which appeared first, eukaryotic chlorophyll or bacteriochlorophyll and how did they evolve? speciation 7. What is the common ancestor of man and ape? speciation yes, 4 out of 3 problems are not about the theory of evolution. well done. Once more, it is the nature of science that major problems are never totally unresolved. and your mentioning of reversing of facts just shows that you do not entirely comprehend scientific language. Your request for a single reference for instance for the ancestor of ape and man is a sign that you don't understand science. Science is not about producing facts, it is about producing theories supported by data. Data can be reinterpreted. There is a lot known about the ancestors of ape and man, but to ask for THE ancestor of ape and man is not a very scientific question in the sense that it is not a very valuable question. To single out one ancestor misses the point that there was an entire lineage from ancestor to man and the other apes. And misses out the point that there were other lineages who went extinct, but are also just as interesting. my advice would be to partly reformulate your questions. Maybe then you will already find the answers you are looking for.
It's 3:00 AM my time so I'll be brief. How would one attempt to validate the claim regarding an organism (or a group of organisms) evolving from an asexual reproductive system to a sexual reproductive system and then have it excluded as an example of speciation? Doesn't the theory of evolution posit that humans are at the end of a long line of descendants that go back to prokaryotic microorganisms? You are familar with the Darwinian concept of homology? Also, please clarify which definition of speciation you are using; the strong definition proposed by Dobzhansky or the weak definition proposed by Mayr.
Your question was bigger than just a simple speciation event, that's why I excluded it. But if you want to mark it as a speciation question. That still leaves 3 non-evolution questions. My point was that you are also looking for the an answer to the question of the origin of life. This might be partly an evolutionary question, but the theory of evolution was not postulated to answer this question specifically. The theory of evolution gives an answer to the question how the diversty of life came about. Doesn't the theory of evolution posit that humans are at the end of a long line of descendants that go back to prokaryotic microorganisms? Yes, but te same is valid for every species presently roaming the earth. All species are at the end of a long line of descendants that go back to a prokaryotic ancestor. Even prokaryotes that might highly resemble the prokaryotic ancestor. You are familar with the Darwinian concept of homology? yes Also, please clarify which definition of speciation you are using; the strong definition proposed by Dobzhansky or the weak definition proposed by Mayr. I don't care about either of them. A broad and general definition is fine here, speciation is the event or process where a new species is created.
Actually all of my questions are directly related to the TOE. The original point of contention was: There are still many things that are left totally unresolved by the TOE. 1. Evolution of asexual to sexual reproduction - Not Resolved 2. Evolution of systems within eukaryotic cells-Not Resolved 3. You Answered-speciation Ummm....there are no intermediates between eukaryotes and prokaryotes-Not Resolved 4. DNA/RNA....can't have one without the other-Not Resolved 5. Chirality...ok, so evolution provides no answer here either-Not Resolved 6. Which appeared first-Not Resolved and then we go to number 7 Oh really? That must be why anthropologists spend their entire lives trying to find the missing link? Short answer: Not resolved. Case closed.
they are not trying to find the missing link. They are trying to solve the history of man, which involves many missing links. There is no such thing as THE missing link. Actually all of my questions are directly related to the TOE. The original point of contention was: There are still many things that are left totally unresolved by the TOE. i tried to explain to you what the theory of evolution is about, but apparently you prefer your own personal interpretation. And I tried to explain to you that this interpretation is not entirely right. Now you just repeated your original post and if i would answer again we would be going in circles. No thanks. You didn't close the case, you closed yourself off.
Maybe technically that is correct , however, the common ancestor for man and ape has not been resolved. Use your interpretation then and resolve the questions. You'll simply skip over the difficult issues TOE doesn't resolve by way of semantics.
once more then, because you don't seem to get a message immediately. Darwin wrote a book entitled 'On the origin of species.' It explained how the diversity of life could have come about by evolution driven by natural selection. he did not write a book 'on the origin of life'. The theory of evolution does not explain all aspects of life. It is there to explain the diversity of life. How species can change and how new species can be created through natural process. It never claimed to answer all question about life. It never claimed to answer the question where DNA/RNA came from. It never claimed to answer the question where sexual reproduction came from. It never claimed to answer the question how the cell structures came about.. It never claimed to have the answer the question how our current chirality came about. what of this all is so difficult to understand for you?
I see how this works now. So you're basically telling me you don't subscribe to "Universal Darwinism", just good old-fashioned descent with modification, or speciation as you will. Is it simply your desire to limit the scope and definition of this debate to the type of evolution explicitly described in Darwin's book which was published in 1859? Fascinating indeed if it is. Yes, I guess you would throw out those questions I proposed then. You're not a Luddite are you? Just kidding. How about speciation then, has this ever been observed in the "Darwinian" sense? You know those fruit flies they studied and experimented on, they ended up with what?......more fruit flies. Even the talkorigins boys have to go through contortions in a vain attempt to provide some evidence of speciation and in the end all they have is more questions than answers.
the basics haven't changed. i quoted a clear speciation event in the lab in an old thread on sciforums. I can't bother to look it up for you. It won't satisfy you anyway. edit: here is one then Science 2002 Nov 29;298(5599):1773-5 Hybrid speciation in experimental populations of yeast. Greig D, Louis EJ, Borts RH, Travisano M. The Galton Laboratory, Department of Biology, University College London, Gower Street, London WC1E 6BT, UK. Most models of speciation require gradual change and geographic or ecological isolation for new species to arise. Homoploid hybrid speciation occurred readily between Saccharomyces cerevisiae and Saccharomyces paradoxus. Hybrids had high self-fertility (about 82%), low fertility when backcrossed to either parental species (about 7.5%), and vigorous growth under different thermal environments that favored one or the other of the parental species. Extensive karyotypic changes (tetrasomy) were observed in the hybrids, although genic incompatibilities accounted for 50% of the variation in self-fertility.
You are willing to cite a "hybrid" yeast organism as an example of speciation, but unwilling to discuss from what (or how) eukaryotes evolved? Why is that off limits to the topic of evolution? Or does that notion go against the protocol of Darwinian evolution? Why is the evolution of DNA/RNA suddenly off limits to discussion in the context of the TOE, when Darwinists stress that the DNA code is evidence that all species are related under common ancestry? Is it really good science to justify that idea regardless of the fact no one knows how it evolved? I believe your attempt to limit the nature and scope of evolutionary theory is really nothing more than a dodge and sidestepping the obvious. Specifically, that the chasm that seperates the asexual organism from the sexual organism is about evolution and it remains unresolved. Relationships of species and genetics are always categorically touted as evidence of common ancestry by Darwinists. Evolutionists believe that the prokaryotes arose first in the history of life and that the eukaryotes appeared later as evolutionary descendents of the prokaryotes. Unfortunately no one can offer us more than that: Belief. You may as well start going to church this Sunday. The unresolved questions of evolution consist of the issues that I brought up, regardless of whether one adheres to strict gradualism or punctuated equilibrium or both. Issues such as whether small-scale evolution can extrapolate to large-scale evolution of the type required by Darwinist theory remain speculative. Evolutionists assume that small-scale evolution is unbounded, but there is no scientific evidence for this. Acceptance of evolution boils down to this prerequisite, you are required to believe that evolution created the very process that enables further evolution without evidence. That is not very different from what they accuse the creationists of.
your attempt to broaden the scope of the theory of evolution is nothing more than an attempt to justify your disbelief of a theory. have you read the paper? For yeast hybrid speciation is possibly a natural mechanism of speciation. You just wanted an example of speciation. You don't accept it for some obscure reason. Just like i predicted. You are all the same. Fixed ideas in your head and never happy with any answer other than from an authority predetermined by yourself.
As far as broadening the scope of the theory, sorry but I'm not the one who added homology as a tenet of TOE. As for fixed ideas, you may want to discuss some of the major problems related with your religion, er, theory of evolution with your pastor, er, professor. Good luck, with your open minded approach it shouldn't take too long.Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
One more thing Going back over this debate I noticed you never conceded that there are ANY problems with evolutionary theory, only science. You also stated: Yes, lets do that, shall we? How did one species of anything SPECIATE from an asexual reproductive system to a sexual reproductive system?
That's the ticket. I knew it wouldn't take long. If you can't elucidate your point with any facts- try making jokes. I can wait for an answer but I'm afraid according to your pet theory I may end up becoming another species before you can entertain the thought of it. Like I said about 10 replies ago, case closed.
you might want to turn open a general biology book and read that a form sexual reproduction is present in prokaryotes and eukaryotes. You might also learn that it is general knowledge that sexual reproduction in prokaryotes is not as common, because it serves a different function. For instance most bacteria reproduce asexually most of the time. They just want to multiply. But when the environment becomes stressful they switch to a form of sexual reproduction. Genetic information is exchanged between individuals. If we now make a generalization we might say that this system merely was adapted from being used only in stress situations to the standard way of reproduction in eukaryotes. The changes that are required for this are small.. is that enough for you?
Actually you might want to put down the general biology book and crack open a book on microbiology or molecular genetics. Prokaryotes do not have meiosis or the ability to sexually reproduce, but they do transfer genetic information via transformation, transduction and conjugation. Eukaryotes utilize meiotic sex via crossing over, independent assortment, and fertilization. You recall my bringing up the term homology? Here's were it fits in again. In the search for the LUCA (Last Universal Common Ancestor) according to the leading researchers in the field, prokaryotes appeared on Earth before eukaryotes. The common view is that a prokaryote creature was the first to arise, and that an ancient eukaryote arose from some unknown prokaryote. However, a French microbiologist named Patrick Forterre, has his own hypothesis which he calls the 'thermoreduction hypothesis.' It turns this relationship around. If you'd care to read more about this issue you'll find something on: http://imbs.massey.ac.nz/Research/MolEvol/Farside/ANT_RES.HTM Otherwise you could do a "Google" search, since that opens up some new avenues of learning besides that old worn out biology book you like to refer to so often. WARNING: You may be disappointed when the research indicates this issue isn't totally resolved and when the results may not conform to your worldview Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
