Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Thinkquote of the day: How do animals and plants become species, as in Darwin’s “Origin of Species”?

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

University of Bristol (England) bacteriologist Alan H. Linton went looking for direct evidence of speciation and concluded in 2001:

“None exists in the literature claiming that one species has been shown to evolve into another. Bacteria, the simplest form of independent life, are ideal for this kind of study, with generation times of twenty to thirty minutes, and populations achieved after eighteen hours. But throughout 150 years of the science of bacteriology, there is no evidence that one species of bacteria has changed into another … Since there is no evidence for species changes between the simplest forms of unicellular life, it is not surprising that there is no evidence for evolution from prokaryotic [i.e., bacterial] to eukaryotic [i.e. plant and animal] cells, let alone throughout the whole array of higher multicellular organisms.” (Alan Linton, “Scant Search for the Maker,” Times Higher Education Supplement, April 20, 2001, Book section, 29.)

– from Jonathan Wells, author of Icons of Evolution, who has just published The Politically Incorrect Guide to Darwinism (p. 59), updating the intelligent design controversy.
Remember that when a supercilious person informs you that there is overwhelming evidence for Darwin’s theory about how life originates*, grows, and changes and why people are what they are.

(*Yes, yes, I know Darwin didn’t try to explain the origin of life, only the origin of species, but most of his materialist followers are more sure of their dogmas than was the Master.)

The question is not whether species originate (they surely do) or whether Darwin’s favorite process of natural selection ever influences the course of events (surely it often does), but whether it is really the engine of the vast complexity of life that we see around us.

That last proposition is believed – and ordered to be taught in tax-funded schools – not because it is plausible but because it upholds materialism.

When asked about these matters, I usually say at this point, “Ladies and gentlemen, welcome to the intelligent design controversy. Now you know why there is a controversy and why it cannot go away.” 

Comments
Houdin The sources which led me to the PEH are "quirky?" Thanks for revealing yourself. "A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution is undemonstrable." John A. DavisonJohn A. Davison
August 18, 2006
August
08
Aug
18
18
2006
12:23 AM
12
12
23
AM
PDT
The trouble with the endosymbiotic hypothesis is that it can't be verified experimentally. The similarities between bacteria and mitochondria find an alternative explanation with the PEH as do those between chloroplasts and algae. During their evolution these various life forms were simply reading the same "prescribed" blueprints. There is also no evidence that any prokaryote ever evolved into a eukaryote. There are not and cannot be any intermediates for a nuclear membrane or, for that matter, any other subcellular organelle. As a bench scientist I have great faith in the experimental method and when it fails to support an hypotheis that should be noted and freely acknowledged. The Darwinians, and I suspect that Margulis is one, have always been loathe to do experiments or, when they have, do not report the results. Frankly, I think they are afraid to do experiments because deep down they know they are through. Darwinians in particular suffer from that cardinal sin known as pride. It takes a great deal of humility to admit that you have dedicated your life to a phantom. Bateson had that wonderful humility and admitted that Mendelism had nothing to do with evolution as I have documented elsewhere here at UD and in publication. Imagine, the father of Mendelian Genetics admitted that it had absolutely nothing to do with evolution. Of course he was absoluely right, my kind of scientist! "A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable." John A. DavisonJohn A. Davison
August 17, 2006
August
08
Aug
17
17
2006
02:21 AM
2
02
21
AM
PDT
One more thing before the thread dies: Does anybody know anything about this Allen H Linton? I know he's listed as a bacteriologist at the University of Bristol, but one of the comments he made makes me wonder about him: "...there is no evidence for evolution from prokaryotic [i.e., bacterial] to eukaryotic [i.e. plant and animal] cells..." I was under the impression that there was quite a bit of evidence for the evolution of eukaryotic cells by engulfing bacteria and blue-green algae to produce present day mitochondria and chloroplasts. In fact, since the DNA in those two organelles turned out to be so similar to bacterial and algae DNA, Lynn Margulis is widely believed to be on the short list for a Nobel prize for proposing the symbiosis theory of eukaryotic evolution. I wonder if perhaps professor Linton isn't ready to be added to JAD's pantheon of quirky scientists.Houdin
August 15, 2006
August
08
Aug
15
15
2006
11:07 PM
11
11
07
PM
PDT
This thread seems to be dying, so I'll use this opportunity to point out something that everybody seems to have missed: We have no "good" definition of species. The "best" one, 'if two organisms cannot produce fertile offspring then they are separate species' doesn't work at all for asexual organisms, such as bacteria. Since asexual organisms account for the vast majority of life on earth, both by numbers, numbers of species and sheer weight of all the organisms, that definition is sorely lacking. But what's really significant is that if the life we see today arrived via Darwinian evolution, where each species splits off from an ancestral species, then this is exactly what we should expect. You can call it a successful prediction of Darwinian Evolution.Houdin
August 15, 2006
August
08
Aug
15
15
2006
10:57 PM
10
10
57
PM
PDT
johnnyb: "“Just wondering-was the nylonase bacteria classified as a seperate species?” Not even remotely." Why not? If it breeds true (and being non-sexual, I'm sure it does), then we appear to have a bacteria that is significantly different from all other species of bacteria and it should be classified as a new species. It could make a lot of difference to a sport parachutist if his canopy had been contaminated with an ordinary bacteria or one that can digest his parachute. Remember petroleum eating bacteria? When the first one was discovered, it was classified as a new species solely because it could digest jet fuel. Since they could multiply and clog fuel filters in airplanes, it was very important to know if the bacteria in your fuel were "ordinary" bacteria or the new type that could consume jet fuel and bring your plane down in the process. I believe several dozen similar bacteria have been discovered since and they have all been given species names and classified.Houdin
August 15, 2006
August
08
Aug
15
15
2006
10:47 PM
10
10
47
PM
PDT
johnnyb: "...if RM+NS was the primary force behind evolution, this [degradation] is just about all you would get. The cells lose control and just go their own way. They don’t get more coordinated, they get less coordinated." Can you give us some more information on how this happens. For example, if you have a population of, say, 100 billion bacteria and a newly split off bacteria has a mutation that makes it unable to digest food, how is this degradation passed on to the other 100 billion bacteria? In Darwinian evolution, it's not. Instead, the new defective bacteria dies and the other 100 billion continue on as they were, with their genetic code intact. You seem to be saying that this doesn't happen, that instead of dropping dead, the defective bacteria somehow passes his defect on to every other bacteria. How does this happen? If your theory is true, this could be the key to a whole new range of medicines. Find some way to give a single bacteria a fatal mutation and every other bacteria drops dead too. You could get rich.Houdin
August 15, 2006
August
08
Aug
15
15
2006
10:40 PM
10
10
40
PM
PDT
#34 by johnnyb Thanks for the plug. While my papers are no longer here on the side board, most of them are available over at "brainstorms" and elsewhere on the web. "A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable." John A. DavisonJohn A. Davison
August 15, 2006
August
08
Aug
15
15
2006
12:01 AM
12
12
01
AM
PDT
"Please bear in mind that evolution doesn’t care whether humans regard it as degradation or development." This is true if you are talking about RM+NS. And, as ID'ers have long said, if RM+NS was the primary force behind evolution, this is just about all you would get. The cells lose control and just go their own way. They don't get more coordinated, they get less coordinated. There's nothing wrong with this. There's only something wrong with imagining that a process that is known to cause cumulative disorganization and degredation to be the primary cause of cumulative organization. It's like claiming that because you can flip one bit in a computer program, and get it to fail spectacularly, you should likewise be able to flip one bit, and have it do new things never thought of by the author!johnnyb
August 14, 2006
August
08
Aug
14
14
2006
07:07 PM
7
07
07
PM
PDT
MikeFNQ
There are of course many other examples of what we would regard degradation which are evolutionarily advantageous (”parasitic” males in some fish for example, where the just latch onto the female and suck blood while acting as a sperm source). Evolution doesn’t care about forward or upward, it just cares about survival and reproduction. These cells are succeeding in that.
Understood. IDists are concerned with the origination of information. ID argues that RM+NS does not account for origination of information and complexity in biology. While Darwinists might see degredation as evidence of evolution, an IDists just sees degredation of previouslty existing information, an event that sheds no light on where the information came from.Jehu
August 14, 2006
August
08
Aug
14
14
2006
04:57 PM
4
04
57
PM
PDT
Jehu: This is a cancer tumour that is not a cancer of the host. The host does not have cancer, it has another organism's cancer cells. The cells that are cancerous, and the DNA within them, are not those of the dog with the lump but of a dog that has been dead for centuries. The lump has its own DNA, reproduces, has now spread around the world. To pass such an entity of as "a cancer tumour" completely misses the point that these cells have escaped from their life as a dog, and now have a life as a parasitic, infectious organism that continues to evolve. It has its own family history. Oh, I never claimed it was a new species of dog. I asked if it was still Canis familiaris. If so, we now have a dog that will never pee on the carpet. :) These cells are definitely still alive. They are definitely infectious and parasitic. They do not bark, pant, slobber, or shag your houseguest's legs. I don't think it can be called a dog. I also don't believe "cancer" is appropriate. What is it? Ofro: Please bear in mind that evolution doesn't care whether humans regard it as degradation or development. As long as the mutations allow the genes to copy themselves into ongoing generations it will be selected for. Here we have mutations in a cell line that have most definitely been beneficial for that cell line, and for the genes within. There are of course many other examples of what we would regard degradation which are evolutionarily advantageous ("parasitic" males in some fish for example, where the just latch onto the female and suck blood while acting as a sperm source). Evolution doesn't care about forward or upward, it just cares about survival and reproduction. These cells are succeeding in that. _____________ Smeg! Work beckons. MMikeFNQ
August 14, 2006
August
08
Aug
14
14
2006
02:49 PM
2
02
49
PM
PDT
MikeFNQ,
"Here’s a dog that died somewhere around 1000 years ago, but lives on as a parasitic, infectious organism in dogs today, with geographic variants living around the world. Is this still Canis familiaris? Is it a mammal? Is it a chordate?"
It is a cancer tumor Mike. No it is not a new species of dog. That is about as bad as the claims that a handicap family in Turkey who could not walk properly was evidence of evolution. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4782492.stmJehu
August 14, 2006
August
08
Aug
14
14
2006
01:46 PM
1
01
46
PM
PDT
Question about speciation: Would you consider the SIV and HIV virus separate species? There is pretty good evidence now that HIV split off SIV less than 100 years ago.ofro
August 14, 2006
August
08
Aug
14
14
2006
12:22 PM
12
12
22
PM
PDT
Don't underestimate the amount of variation that YECs have always promoted. While the majority insisted on the monophyletic source of all human diversity from a single breeding pair there were Darwinists suggesting that the different races of man each had to have evolved from a separate genus of apes.Charlie
August 14, 2006
August
08
Aug
14
14
2006
09:24 AM
9
09
24
AM
PDT
"if there is enough evidence of speciation to convince Young Earth Creationists (who originally opposed the idea)" What idiocy. YECs have accepted speciation since at least the 1700s! Note that Pagans such as aristotle also opposed the idea of speciation. This line of argument only makes sense if you (a) ignore the fact that YECs have long-believed in speciation, and (b) assume that YECs are idiots and being able to convince them of something is useful as evidence. Certainly there have existed YECs who disagree with speciation, just as there have existed Pagans who disagree with speciation. But of what relevance are such facts? "I could have added that even some ID advocates (granted, probably a minority), like Behe, have no real issues with speciation." Noone has an issue with speciation. O'Leary even stated that in the article. Has it come down to Darwinists making things up about their opponents to complain about? "Pardon the cynicism, but given the unsuccessful experience I had trying to start an actual discussion of the evidence for immune system evolution in other threads, I don’t think the effort would be worth the return." We did have a discussion. There was no evidence that RM+NS had anything to do with the development. The only evidence was comparative anatomy, which says nothing whatsoever about mechanism of development. "Also, the evidence for speciation is enormous (MUCH MUCH larger than the evidence for the evolution of the immune system, which is already substantial), so it’s crazy to even think to summarize it in a post." Are Darwinists completely incapable of even understanding what is being discussed? _No one_ here is asking "did speciation happen?" What is being asked are two things (1) how often has it been observed, and (2) what are the mechanism (both in observed and unobserved cases)? The answers as it turns out, is (1) not often at all -- perhaps a handful of definitive examples, and (2) for observed cases -- almost never by RM+NS, most often due to symbiosis (I guess hybridization would count, depending on the definition of species used). "There are so many lines of evidence - zoologic (e.g. ring species), biogeographic (speciation due to geographic separation, e.g. on islands), direct empirical evidence of speciation in some organisms (e.g. the classical raphanobrassica) and examples of experimentally-induced reproductive isolation in others (e.g. drosophila), genetic/molecular (identification of reproductive isolation genes), etc." True but irrelevant. You are proving a case that no one is questioning. Is that because the question that was actually asked is a better one than you are implying? "Then there is the bizarre example linked to by MikeFNQ above: a dog tumor cell (estimated to have arisen several centuries ago) which has become a transmissible parasitic organism (and there may be more similar examples in other species!) - freaky." Indeed freaky. Definitely worthy of further study. Probably the most interesting answer to the question so far. However, I find it amusing that best answer to something that developed via Darwinism is "cancer". Doesn't that go to evidence more in favor of Sanford's thesis (RM+NS leads to degredation not development) than NDE? "For those who are really interested, I suggest reading Speciation by H Allen Orr and J Coyne ( http://www.sinauer.com/detail.php?id=0914 ), but beware - it’s very information-dense." Thanks for the link! Going into my inter-library loan list now. I apologize for being a little testy. I think I woke up on the wrong side of the bed this morning. It's the only way I could find to be succinct. I suggest that you look at Davison's papers. I find it interesting that under long-age assumptions, you have rampant phyla generation in the Cambrian over 10 million years, yet hardly any (if any at all) _genera_ being produced in the last 10 million years. Very interesting indeed.johnnyb
August 14, 2006
August
08
Aug
14
14
2006
08:47 AM
8
08
47
AM
PDT
"Its all over but the whining, folks." LOL! I love it so, John Davison...tinabrewer
August 14, 2006
August
08
Aug
14
14
2006
07:56 AM
7
07
56
AM
PDT
Of course speciation WAS very real but it isn't happening any more that's all. Neither is the formation of any new genera, families, orders, classes, phyla or kingdoms. It is all over but the whining folks. That seems never to stop. "A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution udemonstrable." John A. DavisonJohn A. Davison
August 14, 2006
August
08
Aug
14
14
2006
07:20 AM
7
07
20
AM
PDT
Ms. O'Leary, I don't see why I am changing the subject - if there is enough evidence of speciation to convince Young Earth Creationists (who originally opposed the idea), that probably means something, doesn't it? I could have added that even some ID advocates (granted, probably a minority), like Behe, have no real issues with speciation. For those who ask me to present evidence here: sorry, you're on your own educating yourselves on the subject. Pardon the cynicism, but given the unsuccessful experience I had trying to start an actual discussion of the evidence for immune system evolution in other threads, I don't think the effort would be worth the return. Also, the evidence for speciation is enormous (MUCH MUCH larger than the evidence for the evolution of the immune system, which is already substantial), so it's crazy to even think to summarize it in a post. There are so many lines of evidence - zoologic (e.g. ring species), biogeographic (speciation due to geographic separation, e.g. on islands), direct empirical evidence of speciation in some organisms (e.g. the classical raphanobrassica) and examples of experimentally-induced reproductive isolation in others (e.g. drosophila), genetic/molecular (identification of reproductive isolation genes), etc. Then there is the bizarre example linked to by MikeFNQ above: a dog tumor cell (estimated to have arisen several centuries ago) which has become a transmissible parasitic organism (and there may be more similar examples in other species!) - freaky. For those who are really interested, I suggest reading Speciation by H Allen Orr and J Coyne ( http://www.sinauer.com/detail.php?id=0914 ), but beware - it's very information-dense.Andrea
August 14, 2006
August
08
Aug
14
14
2006
07:02 AM
7
07
02
AM
PDT
Of course, really, the largest presently-acting cause of speciation is.... taxonomy conferences :)johnnyb
August 14, 2006
August
08
Aug
14
14
2006
05:32 AM
5
05
32
AM
PDT
If I had the time and money to research evidence of new speciation events I would look at the Great Lakes and Austraila. Both areas are replete with documented founder events including estimated date of occurrance. The Great Lakes states spend significant amounts of money trying to eradicate or control invasive species introduced by the dumping of bildge water. Austrailia suffers from intentional introduction of invasive species. Both places are isolated or relatively so and selection pressure is also increased in the native species-this would seem to increase the likelyhood of speciation or divergence in both the native and introduced species. Genomes could be could be compared with initial populations and we could also hook-up those austrailian rabbits with the English ones to see if they -well still breed like rabbits.devilsadvocate
August 14, 2006
August
08
Aug
14
14
2006
05:15 AM
5
05
15
AM
PDT
Darwin was once described as being more Lamarckian than Lamarck and August Weismann as being more Darwinian than Darwin. Of course both were wrong. "Meine Zeit wird schon kommen!" Mendel's prediction, which was fulfilled 32 years later, is translated - "My time will surely come." It sure did and William Bateson, the father of modern Genetics was his champion. Unfortunately, Mendelian Genetics had absolutely nothing to do with creative evolution as Bateson finally realized and confided to his son Gregory shortly before he died - "that it was a mistake to have committed his life to Mendelism, that it was a blind alley which would not throw any light on the the differentiaton of species nor on evolution generally." J.A. Davison, Is Evolution Finished?, Rivista di Biologia 97: 111-116, 2004. The Darwinians still "don't get it." "A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable. " John A. DavisonJohn A. Davison
August 14, 2006
August
08
Aug
14
14
2006
03:52 AM
3
03
52
AM
PDT
The vast majority of all organisms that ever existed were, from the moment of their origin, unable to further change and were thus doomed to extinction. The percentage of such creatures steadily increased over geologiocal time until today there seems to be no more "evolvers" left. Just as ontogeny proceeds with a steady loss of developmental potency, so evolution has done the same. Another model is ecological succession. All three are self-limiting processes which terminate in stasis followed by extinction. All three are irreversible. Ecological succession is the only one that can be repeated when the terminal products are removed. Britain is still recovering from sacrificing its mighty oaks for its merchant fleet. "Evolution, a unique, historical course of evets that TOOK PLACE IN THE PAST, is not repeatable experimentally and cannot be investigated in that way." Otto Schindewolf, Basic Questions in Paleontology, page 311, my emphasis. "Darwinians of the world unite. You have nothing to lose but your natural selection." after Karl Marx I love it so! "If you tell the truth, you can be certain, sooner or later, to be found out." Oscar Wilde It looks like it is going to be later! "A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable," John A. DavisonJohn A. Davison
August 14, 2006
August
08
Aug
14
14
2006
03:18 AM
3
03
18
AM
PDT
Hmmmm... What constitutes a new species? http://scienceblogs.com/loom/2006/08/09/an_old_dog_lives_on_inside_new.php Here's a dog that died somewhere around 1000 years ago, but lives on as a parasitic, infectious organism in dogs today, with geographic variants living around the world. Is this still Canis familiaris? Is it a mammal? Is it a chordate?MikeFNQ
August 14, 2006
August
08
Aug
14
14
2006
01:15 AM
1
01
15
AM
PDT
Denyse, the only definition of a species that I know of is that if two organisms are capable of breeding and producing fertile offspring, then they are of the same species. This obviously doesn’t apply to single celled organisms that reproduce asexually, so I’d like to know just how scientists do define “species” when it comes to bacteria. I assume that there are many species of bacteria existing today, whether they were created or evolved, but how does an observer tell that they are different species? Different shapes? Different colors? Different internal chemistry? What does a bacteria have to do to be considered a new species? And no, I don’t know that many “supercilious but badly informed persons assume that Darwin explained the origin of life”. I’ve never heard or read anybody say that and I follow this field pretty closely. If there are people out there that believe such a thing, I’d like to read or hear what they have to say about it, but I need citations to find them.Houdin
August 14, 2006
August
08
Aug
14
14
2006
12:55 AM
12
12
55
AM
PDT
oops, chromosome, not genomeCharlie
August 13, 2006
August
08
Aug
13
13
2006
10:40 PM
10
10
40
PM
PDT
Andrea, just in case you didn't get the message.. the speciation claims from NDE's & accepted by AiG is "speciation is within the “kind,”" meaning varieties of dogs or cats or humans & no one disputes them... but they are varieties, not new species..SatyaMevaJayate
August 13, 2006
August
08
Aug
13
13
2006
10:36 PM
10
10
36
PM
PDT
IIRC, the frame shifts in the bacterial strains to acquire nylonase occur in 2 and 3 genes respectively, and can be induced within 9 days of culturing. (I am wondering if it is also reversible - anyone know?) Compare this to the 46% intra-specific genetic difference referred by johnnyB. Note also that the shifts occur exclusively on plasmids and not in the actual genome of the bacteria. If you google "what makes a bacterial species" or any such search you will see there is no concensus for criteria, but many systems rely on comparing combination rates of split DNA and percentage of genetic differences. A difference between 2-3 genes, on plasmids, would not qualify.Charlie
August 13, 2006
August
08
Aug
13
13
2006
10:33 PM
10
10
33
PM
PDT
Thanks jonnyb, I was over at New Mexicans for Science and Reason (www.nmsr.org/nylon.htm) and their statement "The DNA nucleotides appear in the middle for both the old species and the new(one T inserted)"-re the frame shift for the nylonase bacteria made me think otherwise and wondered if it had been declared a new species.devilsadvocate
August 13, 2006
August
08
Aug
13
13
2006
09:07 PM
9
09
07
PM
PDT
From moderator Denyse: Andrea, if you know that Linton was even remotely interested in what young earth creationists think, let us all know, eh? Otherwise, quit changing the subject. Either there is evidnece of speciation or there isn't. Houdin, you know perfectly well what a species is. If you can eat a pair of pantihose and live, that does not make you a new species. Also, you know as well as I do that many supercilious but badly informed persons assume that Darwin explained the origin of life. Quit twisting my words. My finger is close to the delete key, but I actually hate to use it. Don't force me.O'Leary
August 13, 2006
August
08
Aug
13
13
2006
08:29 PM
8
08
29
PM
PDT
O'Leary: "Remember that when a supercilious person informs you that there is overwhelming evidence for Darwin’s theory about how life originates*, grows, and changes and why people are what they are. (*Yes, yes, I know Darwin didn’t try to explain the origin of life, only the origin of species, but most of his materialist followers are more sure of their dogmas than was the Master.)" What was "Darwin's theory about how life originates"? I didn't know he had one. To the best of my knowledge, the closest he ever came to such a theory were speculations about a warm pond in a private letter. And could you provide a few citations to anybody (except Biblical literalists) who claims that there is "overwhelming evidence ... about how life originates"?Houdin
August 13, 2006
August
08
Aug
13
13
2006
07:30 PM
7
07
30
PM
PDT
“Just wondering-was the nylonase bacteria classified as a seperate species?” "Not even remotely." I would think that a bacteria that was able to digest nylon would qualify as a new species. If that's not enough, then what does a bacteria have to do to be considered a new species?Houdin
August 13, 2006
August
08
Aug
13
13
2006
07:24 PM
7
07
24
PM
PDT
1 2

Leave a Reply