Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
This is my response on a related but closed earlier thread:
Your biggest problem relates to the dogmatic constructs within which you are a captive, as was I.
Let’s assume we are talking about the theory of Darwinian biological evolution.
Background: We can view living organisms as open systems, constantly changing matter and energy with the environment. There is a dynamic between the living organism and the environment.
Definition: A simple and workable definition may be along the lines of heritable changes in a population through several generations. Or to put it in a more scientific paradigm; the frequency of alleles within a gene pool from generation to generation.
So far so good. I have no quarrel with this on a theoretical or practical level. I could in fact quite simply demonstrate this in a short space of time through short lived and rapidly duplicating populations of particular organisms. There are many, many experiments which prove this to be evidentiary.
I apologise for the basic background, however I can't assume that you would be cognisant of this given the content of this thread.
The evidence put forward to support the theory of Darwinian or neoDarwinian evolution relates to speciation.
Again, for the simplicity of the argument a species may be defined as related organisms capable of interbreeding below the genus or subgenus level.
If that definition is generally acceptable then all I would need to do is provide one example where this wasn’t the case, and via the Socratic Method the taxonomical construct would be shown to be false, or at least severely flawed.
Therefore, I give you: conolophus marthae and conolophus subcristatus. As you can see, they are of the same genus but different species. Well, the two can interbreed. In fact you could mount a reasonable argument that the two are in fact the same species. A better way of defining the pair would be to say they are of the same kind.
There is nothing remarkable about this, as there are literally thousands of examples where this has been demonstrated.
So what does all this mean?
The Bible defines organisms into kinds. It doesn’t seek to do so in a detailed way, which to some may be dissatisfying however there is a key differentiator between species and kinds and that is....INFORMATION.
Darwinian evolution doesn’t place any limits on the increasing complexity of genetic information as species inevitably transmute from simplicity to complexity in response to their environment and competition.
Every single designed, performable, recordable and reviewable experiment or observation within the broad boundaries of the scientific method can merely demonstrate that organisms have the ability to adapt within the limitations of their pre-existing nucleotide capacity.
Although you can demonstrate “evolution” occurs at the species level of taxonomy, this does not give any indication that an organism has the capacity to evolve into anything other than a variety within the same kind.
The extrapolation of this theory, and the intertwined theories that give superficial support, to changes at higher levels of Linnaean taxonomy is simply unscientific.
1. It can not be observed.
2. It can not be tested.
3. There is no evidence to support it.
And please don’t bring in recombinant frequency arguments because the underlying explanation of variation is steeped in the pre-existing worldview of the observer. Again, the three points above stand.
This is my response on a related but closed earlier thread:
Your biggest problem relates to the dogmatic constructs within which you are a captive, as was I.
Let’s assume we are talking about the theory of Darwinian biological evolution.
Background: We can view living organisms as open systems, constantly changing matter and energy with the environment. There is a dynamic between the living organism and the environment.
Definition: A simple and workable definition may be along the lines of heritable changes in a population through several generations. Or to put it in a more scientific paradigm; the frequency of alleles within a gene pool from generation to generation.
So far so good. I have no quarrel with this on a theoretical or practical level. I could in fact quite simply demonstrate this in a short space of time through short lived and rapidly duplicating populations of particular organisms. There are many, many experiments which prove this to be evidentiary.
I apologise for the basic background, however I can't assume that you would be cognisant of this given the content of this thread.
The evidence put forward to support the theory of Darwinian or neoDarwinian evolution relates to speciation.
Again, for the simplicity of the argument a species may be defined as related organisms capable of interbreeding below the genus or subgenus level.
If that definition is generally acceptable then all I would need to do is provide one example where this wasn’t the case, and via the Socratic Method the taxonomical construct would be shown to be false, or at least severely flawed.
Therefore, I give you: conolophus marthae and conolophus subcristatus. As you can see, they are of the same genus but different species. Well, the two can interbreed. In fact you could mount a reasonable argument that the two are in fact the same species. A better way of defining the pair would be to say they are of the same kind.
There is nothing remarkable about this, as there are literally thousands of examples where this has been demonstrated.
So what does all this mean?
The Bible defines organisms into kinds. It doesn’t seek to do so in a detailed way, which to some may be dissatisfying however there is a key differentiator between species and kinds and that is....INFORMATION.
Darwinian evolution doesn’t place any limits on the increasing complexity of genetic information as species inevitably transmute from simplicity to complexity in response to their environment and competition.
Every single designed, performable, recordable and reviewable experiment or observation within the broad boundaries of the scientific method can merely demonstrate that organisms have the ability to adapt within the limitations of their pre-existing nucleotide capacity.
Although you can demonstrate “evolution” occurs at the species level of taxonomy, this does not give any indication that an organism has the capacity to evolve into anything other than a variety within the same kind.
The extrapolation of this theory, and the intertwined theories that give superficial support, to changes at higher levels of Linnaean taxonomy is simply unscientific.
1. It can not be observed.
2. It can not be tested.
3. There is no evidence to support it.
And please don’t bring in recombinant frequency arguments because the underlying explanation of variation is steeped in the pre-existing worldview of the observer. Again, the three points above stand.
So you believe in DNA. I suppose you accept just like the court of law, that we can tell if someone is related to you, eg your son.
Through DNA we have found that we are related to ever creature that has ever been tested.
Finally, you put forward that DNA can only change so much.. Can you point out the part of the DNA A T C G, that can't be changed?
This is my response on a related but closed earlier thread:
Your biggest problem relates to the dogmatic constructs within which you are a captive, as was I.
Let’s assume we are talking about the theory of Darwinian biological evolution.
Background: We can view living organisms as open systems, constantly changing matter and energy with the environment. There is a dynamic between the living organism and the environment.
Definition: A simple and workable definition may be along the lines of heritable changes in a population through several generations. Or to put it in a more scientific paradigm; the frequency of alleles within a gene pool from generation to generation.
So far so good. I have no quarrel with this on a theoretical or practical level. I could in fact quite simply demonstrate this in a short space of time through short lived and rapidly duplicating populations of particular organisms. There are many, many experiments which prove this to be evidentiary.
I apologise for the basic background, however I can't assume that you would be cognisant of this given the content of this thread.
The evidence put forward to support the theory of Darwinian or neoDarwinian evolution relates to speciation.
Again, for the simplicity of the argument a species may be defined as related organisms capable of interbreeding below the genus or subgenus level.
If that definition is generally acceptable then all I would need to do is provide one example where this wasn’t the case, and via the Socratic Method the taxonomical construct would be shown to be false, or at least severely flawed.
Therefore, I give you: conolophus marthae and conolophus subcristatus. As you can see, they are of the same genus but different species. Well, the two can interbreed. In fact you could mount a reasonable argument that the two are in fact the same species. A better way of defining the pair would be to say they are of the same kind.
There is nothing remarkable about this, as there are literally thousands of examples where this has been demonstrated.
So what does all this mean?
The Bible defines organisms into kinds. It doesn’t seek to do so in a detailed way, which to some may be dissatisfying however there is a key differentiator between species and kinds and that is....INFORMATION.
Darwinian evolution doesn’t place any limits on the increasing complexity of genetic information as species inevitably transmute from simplicity to complexity in response to their environment and competition.
Every single designed, performable, recordable and reviewable experiment or observation within the broad boundaries of the scientific method can merely demonstrate that organisms have the ability to adapt within the limitations of their pre-existing nucleotide capacity.
Although you can demonstrate “evolution” occurs at the species level of taxonomy, this does not give any indication that an organism has the capacity to evolve into anything other than a variety within the same kind.
The extrapolation of this theory, and the intertwined theories that give superficial support, to changes at higher levels of Linnaean taxonomy is simply unscientific.
1. It can not be observed.
2. It can not be tested.
3. There is no evidence to support it.
And please don’t bring in recombinant frequency arguments because the underlying explanation of variation is steeped in the pre-existing worldview of the observer. Again, the three points above stand.
Mr...if you want to communicate with me you should drop all the scientific terms and say what you mean. Were the dinosaurs on the ark or not? Just a little discrepancy of about 65 million years.
Mr...if you want to communicate with me you should drop all the scientific terms and say what you mean. Were the dinosaurs on the ark or not? Just a little discrepancy of about 65 million years.
Mr... you will make me a believer by providing just one piece of real evidence supporting evolution........ I eagerly await.
The evidence put forward to support the theory of Darwinian or neoDarwinian evolution relates to speciation.
Yes. Speciation. Not "Kindiation," "Familiation," or "Kingdomiation," or "Phylumiation" as you're about to suggest in your half-retarded attempt at discrediting a theory so well supported by scientific evidence that it would take decades to collect and review.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cephus
Again, for the simplicity of the argument a species may be defined as related organisms capable of interbreeding below the genus or subgenus level.
It may be but that is not the only method of deducing speciation and the diversity of life. Bos primigenius and Barbourula kalimantanensis obviously cannot reproduce with one another but that doesn't mean they are of the same relation until you get to the genus or sub-genus level. They branch much further away than that.
Regardless, the advent of DNA mapping and the decoding of a variety of genomes have led us even further into the reality that evolution is fact and what you are promoting is a half-assed theory of garbage that has absolutely no empirical or scientific support behind it!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cephus
If that definition is generally acceptable then all I would need to do is provide one example where this wasn’t the case, and via the Socratic Method the taxonomical construct would be shown to be false, or at least severely flawed.
It is generally accepted but it is not the sole acceptance of a species' classification. Your Socratic Method may work in certain circumstances once you've applied a strict filter to the entirety of taxonomy. However, that does absolutely nothing for the whole of taxonomy upon which DNA decoding has enabled us to further classify species with a much greater array of accuracy.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cephus
Therefore, I give you: conolophus marthae and conolophus subcristatus. As you can see, they are of the same genus but different species. Well, the two can interbreed. In fact you could mount a reasonable argument that the two are in fact the same species. A better way of defining the pair would be to say they are of the same kind.
Whoopedy-doo-dah. You've just made a poor attempt at defining a ring species and I have not done a single double take. Perhaps that's because ring species have presented absolutely no problem to evolution and, in fact, probably offer more evidence for emergent species in a given population which handsomely fits quite nicely into evolutionary theory.
Your argument is akin to saying that by heating a pot of water there is no distinct time when the water goes from cold to hot therefore it is impossible to make a pot of coffee.
You have the same characteristically distinctive discontinuous mindset that plagues all of the other numb-minded and dim-witted Creationists. Move along. Nothing to see here.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cephus
So what does all this mean?
Let's go down the rabbit hole to see how far your discontinuous mindset takes us. Oh, look, I see the "B" word just below... Looks like we're about to get annihilated with something truly "scientific."
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cephus
The Bible defines organisms into kinds. It doesn’t seek to do so in a detailed way, which to some may be dissatisfying however there is a key differentiator between species and kinds and that is....INFORMATION.
That's because the Bible uses 'kinds' like a third grade field trip to the zoo! "Look at the orangutan monkey! Look at the Creationist monkey! Look at the chimpanzee monkey! Look at the penguin bird! Look at the eagle bird! Look at the grizzly bear. Look at the panda bear!"
There is absolutely no difference in information, that is - DNA, between any species on this planet. There may be more strings of DNA in, say, a human being than a bacterial cell but they all use DNA. This horrible and despicable misinformation as regards "not enough information" is like saying Darwin's Origin of Species could not have been written with the same alphabet as the sentence - "The quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dog." In fact, Origin of Species was written and English and utilized every single letter as the one in the sentence above. The alphabet remains the same but the strings of information are longer. It's no surprise that it has been repeatedly seen in the wild, as well as laboratory experiments, that additional DNA strings are no big deal.
Thus, your unsubstantiated canard of "Not Enough Information" is completely unfounded and lacking in any sort of scientific merit. No surprise there as this is ordinary from the stock of Creationist garbage commonly seen around here.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cephus
Darwinian evolution doesn’t place any limits on the increasing complexity of genetic information as species inevitably transmute from simplicity to complexity in response to their environment and competition.
There's that disconnected mindset again. Darwinian evolution doesn't place any limits on the increasing complexity of genetic information in the same way that publishers of books don't put any limits on the increasing complexity of novels written in English! The possibilities are both virtually limitless - so enough with this garbage about information! It's been debunked time and again.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cephus
Every single designed, performable, recordable and reviewable experiment or observation within the broad boundaries of the scientific method can merely demonstrate that organisms have the ability to adapt within the limitations of their pre-existing nucleotide capacity.
Yes. So what?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cephus
Although you can demonstrate “evolution” occurs at the species level of taxonomy, this does not give any indication that an organism has the capacity to evolve into anything other than a variety within the same kind.[/i]
[i]
That's because you morons at the Creation Institute keep moving the goalposts as to what defines a "kind." You simply say it's a "Biblical Kind" which, again, reminds me of a third grade field trip to the zoo. As soon as something occurs which you don't like, you simply say "But, that's the same kind!" Eventually, any change that happens in the animal kingdom at all, you could simply say "Well, that's a change to animal kind!" It's regurgitated nonsense. Again. Your lies and disinformation are easily seen through.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cephus
The extrapolation of this theory, and the intertwined theories that give superficial support, to changes at higher levels of Linnaean taxonomy is simply unscientific.
Yeah... But using "Biblical Kinds" is truly a remarkable way to do things, right?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cephus
1. It can not be observed.
2. It can not be tested.
3. There is no evidence to support it.
Lies. Lies. Lies. Here is a body of evidence to support it of which these are only a few examples of the plethora and magnitude of good, solidly scientifically supportable evidences of evolution:
[1] Appearance of novel capabilities in organisms via mutation and selection - Nylonase enzymes in Japanese Flavobacterium species:
A New Nylon Oligomer Degradation Gene (nylC) on Plasmid pOAD2 from a Flavobacterium sp. By Seiji Negoro, Shinji Kakudo, Itaru Urabe, and Hirosuke Okadam, Journal of Bacteriology, Dec. 1992, p. 7948-7953
Birth of a unique enzyme from an alternative reading frame of the pre-existed, internally repetitious coding sequence by Susumu Ohno, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, Vol. 81, PP. 2421-2425, April 1984
Insertion Sequence IS6100 on Plasmid pOAD2, which degrades Nylon Oligomers by Ko Kato, Kinya Ohtsuki, Hiroyuki Mitsuda, Tetsuya Yomo, Seiji Negoro and Itaru Urabe, Journal of Bacteriology, Feb 1994, PP 1197-1200
[2] Appearance of novel capabilities in organisms via mutation and selection - Antifreeze Glycoproteins in Antarctic Notothenioid fishes:
Convergent Evolution of Antifreeze Glycoproteins in Antarctic Notothenioid Fishes and Arctic Cod by Liangbiao Chen, Arthur L. DeVries and Chi-Hing C. Cheng, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA, vol 94, PP 3817-3822, 1997
Evolution of an Antifreeze Glycoprotein by Liangbiao Chen and Chi-Hing C. Cheng, Nature, vol 401, PP 443-444, 1999
Evolution of Antifreeze Glycoprotein Gene from a Trypsinogen Gene in Antarctic Notothenioid Fishes by Liangbiao Chen, Arthur L. DeVries and Chi-Hing C. Cheng, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA, vol 94, PP 3811-3816, 1997
Functional Antifreeze Glycoprotein Genes in Temperate-Water New Zealand Nototheniid Fishes Infer An Antarctic Evolutionary Origin by Chi-Hing C Cheng, Liangbiao Chen, Thomas J Near and Yumi Jin, Journal of Molecular and Biological Evolution, Vol 20, no 11, PP 1897-1908, 2003
Nonhepatic Origin of Notothenioid Antifreeze Reveals Pancreatic Synthesis As Common Mechanism in Polar Fish Freezing Avoidance by Chi-Hing C Cheng, Paul A. Cziko and Clive W. Evans, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA, vol 103, PP 10491-10496, 2006
[3] Speciation events observed in the laboratory:
Evidence for rapid speciation following a founder event in the laboratory by J.R. Weinberg V. R. Starczak and P. Jora, Evolution vol 46, PP 1214-1220, 1992
Experimentally Created Incipient Species of Drosophila by Theodosius Dobzhansky & Olga Pavlovsky, Nature 230, pp 289 - 292 (02 April 1971)
Founder-flush speciation in Drosophila pseudoobscura: a large scale experiment by A. Galiana, A. Moya and F. J. Alaya, Evolution vol 47, pp 432-444, 1993 (Speciation event in Drosophila melanogaster)
Phagotrophy by a flagellate selects for colonial prey: A possible origin of multicellularity byM.E. Boraas, D.B. Seale and J.E. Boxhorn, Evolutionary Ecology Vol. 12, no. 2, pp. 153-164. Feb 1998
Sexual isolation caused by selection for positive and negative phototaxis and geotaxis in Drosophila pseudoobscura by E. del Solar, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA, vol 56, pp 484-487, 1966
The phagotrophic origin of eukaryotes and phylogenetic classification of Protozoa by Tom Cavalier-Smith, International Journal of Systematic and Evolutionary Microbiology vol 52, pp 297-354, 2002
[4] Speciation events in nature and supporting phylogenetic evidence:
Adaptive Evolution And Explosive Speciation: The Cichlid Fish Model by Thomas D. Kocher, Nature Reviews: Genetics, 5: 288-298 (April 2004)
Cichlid Species Flocks of the Past and Present by A. Meyer, Heredity vol 95, 419-420, 20 July 2005
Drosophila paulistorum: A Cluster of Species in Statu Nascendi by Theodosius Dobzhansky & Boris Spassky, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA., 45(3): 419-428 (1959)
Hybridisation and Contemporary Evolution in an introduced Cichlid Fish from Lake Malawi National Park by J. Todd Streelman, S.L. Gymrek, M.R. Kidd, C. Kidd, R.L. Robinson, E. Hert, A.J. Ambali and T.D. Kocher, Molecular Ecology, vol 13, pp 2471-2479, 21 April 2004
Major Histocompatibility Complex Variation In Two Species Of Cichlid Fishes From Lake Malawi by Hideki Ono, Colm O'hUigin, Herbert Tichy and Jan Klein, Molecular and Evolutionary Biology, 10(5): 1060-1072 (1993)
Mitochondrial Phylogeny of the Endemic Mouthbrooding Lineages of Cichlid Fishes from Lake Tanganyika in Eastern Africa by Christian Sturmbauer and Axel Meyer, Journal of Molecular and Biological Evolution, Vol 10, No. 4, pp 751-768, 1993
Multilocus Phylogeny of Cichlid Fishes (Pisces: Perciformes) : Evolutionary Comparison of Microsatellite and Single-Copy Nuclear Loci by J. Todd Streelman, Rafael Zardoya, Axel Meyer and Stephen A Karl, Journal of Molecular and Biological Evolution, Vol 15, No 7, pp 798-808, 1998
Origin of the Superflock of Cichlid Fishes from Lake Victoria, East Africa by Erik Verheyen, Walter Salzburger, Jos Snoeks and Axel Meyer, Science, vol 300, pp 325-329, 11 April 2003
Phylogeny of African Cichlid Fishes as Revealed By Molecular Markers by Werner E. Mayer, Herbert Tichy and Jan Klein., Heredity, vol 80, pp 702-714, 1998
The Species Flocks of East African Cichlid Fishes: Recent Advances in Molecular Phylogenetics and Population Genetics by Walter Salzburger and Axel Mayer, Naturwissenschaft, vol 91, pp 277-290, 20 April 2004
[5] Evolution of specific features in humans:
Accelerated Evolution of the ASPM Gene Controlling Brain Size Begins Prior to Human Brain Expansion by Natalay Kouprina, Adam Pavlicek, Ganeshwaran H. Mochida, Gregory Solomon, William Gersch, Young-Ho Yoon, Randall Collura, Maryellen Ruvolo, J. Carl Barrett, C. Geoffrey Woods, Christopher A. Walsh, Jerzy Jurka and Vladimir Larionov, Public Library of Science Biology, vol 2, No 5, e126 (23rd March 2004)
Evolution of the Human ASPM Gene, A Major Determinant of Brain Size by Jianzhi Ziang, Genetics, vol 165, pp 2063-2070 (December 2003)
Evolution of Olfactory Receptor Genes in the Human Genome by Yoshihito Niimua and Masatoshi Nei, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA., 100(21) 12235-12240 (14 October 2003)
Evolution of Vertebrate Olfactory Systems by H.L. Eisthen, Brain, Behaviour and Evolution, 50(4): 222-233 (1997).
Human Brain Evolution: Insights from Microarrays by Todd M. Preuss, Mario Cáceres, Michael C. Oldham and Daniel H. Geschwind, Nature Reviews of Genetics, vol 5, no 11, pp 850-860 (November 2004)
Molecular Evolution of FOXP2, a Gene Involved in Speech and Language by Wolfgang Enard, Molly Przeworski, Simon E. Fisher, Cecilia S. L. Lai, Victor Wiebe, Takashi Kitano Anthony P. Monaco and Svante Pääbo, Nature, Vol 418, pp 869-872, 22 August 2002
Molecular evolution of microcephalin, a gene determining human brain size by Yin-Qiu Wang and Bing Su, Human Molecular Genetics, Vol 13, No 11, pp 1131-1137 (1st June 2004)
Organisation and Evolution of Olfactory Receptor Genes on Human Chromosome 11 by J.A. Buettner, G. Glusman, N. Ben-Arie, P. Ramos, D. Lancet and G.A. Evans, Genomics 53(1): 56-58 (1 Oct 1998)
Primate evolution of an olfactory receptor cluster: diversification by gene conversion and recent emergence of pseudogenes by D Sharon, G Glusman,Y Pilpel, M Khen, F Gruetzner, T Haaf, D Lancet, Genomics, 61(1) 24-36 (1 Oct 1999)
Sequence, Structure and Evolution of a Complete Human Olfactory Receptor Gene Cluster by Gustavo Glusman, Alona Sosinsky, Edna Ben-Asher, Nili Avidan, Dina Sonkin, Anita Bahar, André Rosenthal, Sandra Clifton, Bruce Roe, Concepción Ferraz, Jacques Demaille and Doron Lancet, Genomics, 63(2) 227-245 (15 Jan 2000).
The Evolution of Mammalian Olfactory Genes by L. Issel-Tarver & J. Rine, Genetics, 145(1): 185-195 (January 1997)
The Human Olfactory Subgenome: From Sequence To Structure To Evolution by Tania Fuchs, Gustavo Glasman, Shirley Horn-Saban, Doron Lancet and Yitzhak Pilpel, Human Genetics, 108: 1-13 (3 January 2001)
[6] Bird evolution and feathers:
Avian Skin Development and the Evolutionary Origin of Feathers by R.H. Sawyer & L.W. Knapp, Journal of Experimental Zoology Part B: Molecular & Devlopmental Evolution, 298(1): 57-72 (15 Aug 2003)
Bird Evolution by Julia Clarke and Kevin Middleton, Current Biology, 16(10): R350-354 (23 May 2006)
Description of the earliest fossil penguin from South America and first Paleogene vertebrate locality of Tierra Del Fuego, Argentina by Julia A. Clarke, Eduard B. Olivero and Pablo Puerta, American Museum of Natural History Novitates, No 3423, pp 1-19 (9 December 2003)
Evolution of the Morphological Innovations of Feathers by Richard O. Prum, Journal of Experimental Zoology Part B: Molecular & Developmental Evolution, 304(6): 570-579 (15 Nov 2005)
The Evolutionary Origin and Diversification of Feathers by Richard O. Prum and Alan H. Brush, Quarterly Review of Biology, 77(3):, 261-295 (September 2002)
When Did Theropods Become Feathered? Evidence For Pre-Archaeopteryx Feathery Appendages by Martin Kundrát, Journal of Experimental Zoology Part B: Molecular & Developmental Evolution, 302(4): 355-64 (15 July 2004)
[7] General vertebrate evolution and important associated features:
Developmental Data and Phylogenetic Systematics: Evolution of the Vertebrate Limb by Paula M. Mabee, Journal of American Zoology, 40: 789-800 (2000)
Tetrapod Phylogeny Inferred from 18S and 28S Ribosomal RNA Sequences, and a Review of the Evidence for Amniote Relationships by S. Blair Hedges, Kirk D. Moberg and Linda R. Maxson, Molecular Biology & Evolution, 7(6): 607-633 (1990) [NOTE: MINOR CORRECTION POSTED IN 1991]
Theropod Forelimb Design And Evolution by Kevin M. Middleton and Stephe M. Gatesby. Zoological Journal of the Linnaean Society, 128: 149-187 (2000)
[8] Phylogenetics and Molecular Phylogeny not covered in papers above, plus genetic and other insights into deep evolutionary time, including the reconstruction of ancient genes and proteins:
Crystal Structure Of An Ancient Protein: Evolution By Conformational Epistasis by Eric A. Ortlund, Jamie T. Bridgham, Matthew R. Redinbo and Joseph W. Thornton, Science, 317: 1544-1548 (14 September 2007)
Fractious Phylogenies by Thomas D Kocher, Nature, Vol 423, pp 489-490, 29 May 2003
Inferring The Historical Patterns Of Biological Evolution by Mark Pagel, Nature, 401: 877-884 (28 October 1999)
Estimating Metazoan Divergence Times With A Molecular Clock by Kevin J. Peterson, Jessica B. Lyons, Kristin S. Nowak, Carter M. Takacs, Matthew J. Wargo & Mark A. McPeek, Proceedings of the National Academy of Science of America, April 2004, 101, 17, 6536-6541
Evolution of Amino Acid Frequencies in Proteins Over Deep Time: Inferred Order of Introduction of Amino Acids into the Genetic Code by Dawn J. Brooks, Jacques R. Fresco, Arthur M. Lesk, and Mona Singh, Molecular Biology and Evolution 19: 1645-1655 (2002)
Resurrecting Ancient Genes: Experimental Analysis Of Extinct Molecules by Joseph W. Thornton, Nature Reviews: Genetics, 5: 366-375 (5 May 2004)
Taxonomic Congruence Versus Total Evidence, and Amniote Phylogeny Inferred from Fossils, Molecules and Morphology by Douglas J. Eernisse and Arnold G. Kluge, Molecular Biology & Evolution, 10(6): 1170-1195 (1993)
The Past As The Key To The Present: Resurrection Of Ancient Proteins From Eosinophils by Steven A. Benner, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA., 99(8): 4760-4761 (16 April 2002)
The Timing Of Eukaryotic Evolution: Does A Relaxed Molecular Clock Reconcile Proteins And fossils? by Emmanuel J.P. Douzery, Elizabeth A. Snell, Eric Bapteste, Frédéric Delsuc & Hervé Philiipe, Proceedings of the National Academy of Science of America, October 2004, 101, 43, 15386-15391
[9] Blind Cave Fishes and their relevance to the evolution of the eye, plus a special paper on eye evolution:
Adaptive Evolution of Eye Degeneration in the Mexican Blind Cavefish by W. R. Jeffrey, journal of Heredity, 96(3): 185-196 (Jan 2005)
Cavefish as a Model System in Evolutionary Developmental Biology by William R. Jeffrey, Devlopmental Biology, 231:, 1-12 (1 Mar 2001)
Hedgehog Signalling Controls Eye Degeneration in Blind Cavefish by Yoshiyuki Yamamoto, David W. Stock and William R. Jeffery, Nature, 431: 844-847 (14 Oct 2004)
The Master Control Gene For Morphgenesis And Evolution Of The Eye by Walter J. Gehrig, Genes To Cells, 1: 11-15, 1996.
Why cavefish are blind by N.M. Tian & D.J. Price, Bioessays, 27: 235-238 (Mar 2005)
[10] Evolution of photosynthesis:
Early evolution of Photosynthesis: Clues from Nitrogenase and Chlorophyll Iron Proteins by Donald H. Burke, John E. Hearst and Arend Sidow, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, Vol. 90, No. 15, pp 7134-7138 (1st August 1993)
Evolution: When Did Photosynthesis Emerge on Earth? by David J. Des Marais, Science, Vol 289, pp 1703-1705 (8th September 2000)
Molecular evidence for the early evolution of photosynthesis by Jin Xiong, William M. Fischer, Kazuhito Inoue, Masaaki Nakahara and Carl E. Bauer, Science, Vol 289, pp 1724-1730 (8 September 2000)
Origin and early evolution of photosynthesis by Robert E. Blankenship, Photosynthesis Research, Vol 33, No 2, pp 91-111 (August 1992)
Tracking major evolution of photosynthesis by characterisation of a major photosynthesis gene cluster from Heliobacillus mobilis by Jin Xiong, Kazuhto Inoue and Carl E. Bauer, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA, vol 95, Issue 25, pp 14581-14586 (8th December 1998)
[11] General evolutionary theory and supporting evidence:
Empirical Fitness Landscapes Reveal Accessible Evolutionary Paths by Frank J. Poelwijk, Daniel J. Kiviet, Daniel M. Weinreich and Sander J. Tans, Nature, 445: 383-386 (25 January 2007)
Evolution of Biological Information by Thomas D. Schneider, Nucleic Acids Research, 28: 2794-2799 (2000)
Genetic Variability, Twin Hybrids and Constant hybrids in a Case of Balanced Lethal Factors by Hermann Joseph Müller, Genetics, 3(5): 422-499 (1918)
The Cost of Natural Selection Revisited by Leonard Nunney, Ann. Zool. Fennici, Vol 40, 185-194, 30 April 2003
[12] Hominid Ancestry
A New Primate from the early Eocene of Myanmar and the Asian Early Origin of Anthropoids by J.-J. Jaeger, Tin Thein, M. Benammi, Y. Chaimanee, Aung Naing Soe, Thit Lwin, Than Tun, San Wai and S. Ducrocq, Science, 286: 528-520 (15 October 1999)
Initial Sequenceing of the Chimpanzee Genome and Comparison with the Human Genome, The Chimpanzee Genome Sequencing Consortium, Nature, Vol 437, pp 69-87, 1 September 2005
The oldest known anthropoid postcranial fossils and the early evolution of higher primates by D.L. Gebo, M, D'Agosto, K.C. Beard, T, Qi and J Wang, Nature, vol 404 (6775), pp 276-78, 16 March 2002
Mr... you will make me a believer by providing just one piece of real evidence supporting evolution........ I eagerly await.
You're already a believer. I can spot them a mile away.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
