Evolution: Wikis

  
  
  
  
  

Did you know ...


More interesting facts on Evolution

Include this on your site/blog:









Encyclopedia

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Part of the Biology series on
Evolution
Image of the tree of life showing genome size.
Mechanisms and processes
Research and history
Evolutionary biology fields
Biology portal ·  
.In biology, evolution is the change in the inherited traits of a population of organisms through successive generations.^ "Evolution" is a change in the inherited traits of a population from one generation to the next (from Wikipedia).
  • Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]

^ Evolution is NOT totally random (random mutations lead to nonrandom selection leads to change in population - the only random component is the mutation).
  • Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]

^ At the very least he slept through biology (doesn't accept evolution) and history (thinks Lincoln could have prevented the Civil War and that it was only about slavery).
  • Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]

[1] .When a population splits into smaller groups, these groups evolve independently and develop into new species.^ These pressures, in the long term, can also shape a species, and even cause a population of organisms within that species to diverge and become a new one.
  • Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]

^ Humans evolved as a social species, which means we naturally live in groups.
  • Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]

^ According to evolutionary theory there was a common ancestor of apes and men, at which point the lines split, one evolving into apes and one evolving into men.
  • Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]

.Anatomical similarities, geographical distribution of similar species and the fossil record indicate that all organisms are descended from a common ancestor through a long series of these divergence events, stretching back in a tree of life that has grown over the 3,500 million years of life on Earth.^ Note especially the "Cambrian Explosion" about 500 million years ago.
  • Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]

^ These pressures, in the long term, can also shape a species, and even cause a population of organisms within that species to diverge and become a new one.
  • Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]

^ If common descent is true, those sequence homologies between proteins in different species must fall into the same kind of pattern we observe in the fossil record.
  • Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]

[2]
.Evolution is the product of two opposing forces: processes that constantly introduce variation in traits, and processes that make particular variants become more common or rare.^ You're falsely bundling the two ideas and indirectly bashing evolution while you're at it, and it doesn't make your stance sound any less incoherent than Paul's.
  • Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]

^ Evolution means the theory of common descent (more properly a set of theories, but that's not relevant to this discussion).
  • Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]

^ The better verified a theory becomes, the more certain we can be that the theory is true , but that doesn't make the theory a fact ; theories explain facts, they do not become facts.
  • Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]

A trait is a particular characteristic such as eye color, height, or a behavior that is expressed when an organism's genes interact with its environment. Genes vary within populations, so organisms show heritable differences (variation) in their traits. The main cause of variation is mutation, which changes the sequence of a gene. Altered genes are then inherited by offspring. There can sometimes also be transfer of genes between species.
Two main processes cause variants to become more common or rare in a population. .One is natural selection, which causes traits that aid survival and reproduction to become more common, and traits that hinder survival and reproduction to become more rare.^ Katie: Scientists may be divided on the mechanisms by which evolution works, but not on the basic principle that sexual selection, natural selection and mutation cause and continue to affect and effect speciation.
  • Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]

^ One could make just as coherent an argument that having a stable society allows for more reproduction and better survivability, and that stable societies require altruism and cooperation rather than conquering and oppression.
  • Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]

^ I remember many reasons suggested at teh time, but natural selection was not one of them, either from the pro war governments or the people who suggested the had ulterior motives.
  • Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]

[1][3] Natural selection occurs because only a few individuals in each generation will survive, since resources are limited and organisms produce many more offspring than their environment can support. .Over many generations mutations produce successive, small, random changes in traits, which are then filtered by natural selection and the beneficial changes retained.^ I remember many reasons suggested at teh time, but natural selection was not one of them, either from the pro war governments or the people who suggested the had ulterior motives.
  • Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]

^ Natural selection is the process by which favorable traits that are heritable become more common in successive generations of a population of reproducing organisms, and unfavorable traits that are heritable become less common (from Wikipedia).
  • Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]

^ Katie: Scientists may be divided on the mechanisms by which evolution works, but not on the basic principle that sexual selection, natural selection and mutation cause and continue to affect and effect speciation.
  • Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]

.This adjusts traits so they become suited to an organism's environment: these adjustments are called adaptations.^ Adaptation: all organisms adapt to their environments.
  • Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]

^ These pressures, in the long term, can also shape a species, and even cause a population of organisms within that species to diverge and become a new one.
  • Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]

^ Darwinian theory is about the origin if biodiversity - why all the past and present organisms on planet earth have the traits that they do.
  • Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]

[4] Not every trait, however, is an adaptation. .Another cause of evolution is genetic drift, an independent process that produces entirely random changes in how common traits are in a population.^ If evolution were a principle science, instead of a theory, it would provide the consistent application of law throughout the entire process.
  • Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]

^ Natural selection is the process by which favorable traits that are heritable become more common in successive generations of a population of reproducing organisms, and unfavorable traits that are heritable become less common (from Wikipedia).
  • Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]

^ So, what the question - do you believe in evolution - boils down to is - do you believe that life was created by random processes .
  • Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]

.Genetic drift comes from the role that chance plays in whether a trait will be passed on to the next generation.^ "Evolution" is a change in the inherited traits of a population from one generation to the next (from Wikipedia).
  • Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]

Evolutionary biologists document the fact that evolution occurs, and also develop and test theories that explain its causes. .The study of evolutionary biology began in the mid-nineteenth century, when research into the fossil record and the diversity of living organisms convinced most scientists that species changed over time.^ Instead it shows rapid changes of speciation over short periods of time.
  • Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]

^ The only time I have seen Horizontal/Vertical Evolution distinction is where people are referencing changes within a species (horizontal) to speciation (vertical).
  • Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]

^ If common descent is true, those sequence homologies between proteins in different species must fall into the same kind of pattern we observe in the fossil record.
  • Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]

[5][6] .The mechanism driving these changes remained unclear until the theories of natural selection were independently proposed by Charles Darwin and Alfred Wallace.^ Since this is artificial selection, it has nothing to do with Darwin's theories about NATURAL selection.
  • Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]

^ Katie: Scientists may be divided on the mechanisms by which evolution works, but not on the basic principle that sexual selection, natural selection and mutation cause and continue to affect and effect speciation.
  • Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]

^ Evolutionary theory states that speciation, the "diversity of life," is the result of chance variation interacting with a process of natural selection, it does not make claims to explain "any behavior."
  • Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]

.In 1859, Darwin's seminal work On the Origin of Species brought the new theories of evolution by natural selection to a wide audience,[7] leading to the overwhelming acceptance of evolution among scientists.^ Since this is artificial selection, it has nothing to do with Darwin's theories about NATURAL selection.
  • Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]

^ The name of Darwin's book was "Origin of the SPECIES".
  • Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]

^ The Theory of Evolution, as first formed by Darwin, and in its magnificent elucidation since then, does not require one to know anything of biogenesis - in essence, it STARTS with reproducing life forms.
  • Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]

[8][9][10][11] .In the 1930s, Darwinian natural selection was combined with Mendelian inheritance to form the modern evolutionary synthesis,[12] which connected the units of evolution (genes) and the mechanism of evolution (natural selection).^ Yes Darwin studied artificial selection in order to understand natural selection, which is a MECHANISM of evolution, not the same thing as evolution.
  • Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]

^ Natural selection is an observable phenomenon, and mitochondrial DNA, primate genetic studies, and the fossil record provide incontrovertible evidence that the theory of evolution is accurate.
  • Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]

^ Katie: Scientists may be divided on the mechanisms by which evolution works, but not on the basic principle that sexual selection, natural selection and mutation cause and continue to affect and effect speciation.
  • Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]

.This powerful explanatory and predictive theory has become the central organizing principle of modern biology, directing research and providing a unifying explanation for the history and diversity of life on Earth.^ There is ZERO scientific evidence to support the theory of self-organization of inorganic elements into organic Life.
  • Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]

^ Next quote from you: "Theories that have become facts: Tectonic Plates Earth moving around the Sun.
  • Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]

^ Evolutionary theory states that speciation, the "diversity of life," is the result of chance variation interacting with a process of natural selection, it does not make claims to explain "any behavior."
  • Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]

[9][10][13] Evolution is therefore applied and studied in fields as diverse as ecology, psychology, paleontology, philosophy, medicine, agriculture and conservation biology.

Contents

History of evolutionary thought

Around 1854 Charles Darwin began writing out what became On the Origin of Species.
.The scientific inquiry into the origin of species can be dated to at least the 6th century BCE, with the Greek philosopher Anaximander.^ They regard it as a religious myth that was added to Christian belief in the late first century CE and was triggered by a Greek mistranslation of the book of Isaiah from the original Hebrew.
  • Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]

^ Presidents are elected to uphold and defend the constitution and lead the country into greater peace and prosperity, not legislate scientific and philosophical ideas.
  • Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]

[14] .Others who considered evolutionary ideas included the Greek philosopher Empedocles, the Roman philosopher-poet Lucretius, the Afro-Arab biologist Al-Jahiz,[15] the Persian philosopher Ibn Miskawayh, the Brethren of Purity,[16] and the Chinese philosopher Zhuangzi.^ I personally know a number of evolutionary biologists who attend church regularly and believe in God.
  • Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]

^ Others have already pointed out that there are many Christians who support (and have made great contributions to) evolutionary theory.
  • Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]

[17] As biological knowledge grew in the 18th century, evolutionary ideas were set out by a few natural philosophers including Pierre Maupertuis in 1745 and Erasmus Darwin in 1796.[18] The ideas of the biologist Jean-Baptiste Lamarck about transmutation of species influenced radicals, but were rejected by mainstream scientists. .Charles Darwin formulated his idea of natural selection in 1838 and was still developing his theory in 1858 when Alfred Russel Wallace sent him a similar theory, and both were presented to the Linnean Society of London in separate papers.^ Since this is artificial selection, it has nothing to do with Darwin's theories about NATURAL selection.
  • Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]

^ When someone presents evidence that contradicts accepted evolutionary theory, new theories are developed that explain both the older science and the new phenomenon.
  • Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]

^ We sent troops to Iraq to speed up the process of natural selection.
  • Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]

[19] .At the end of 1859 Darwin's publication of On the Origin of Species explained natural selection in detail and presented evidence leading to increasingly wide acceptance of the occurrence of evolution.^ The name of Darwin's book was "Origin of the SPECIES".
  • Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]

^ First of all, you are confusing artifical selection and natural selection with evolution.
  • Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]

^ Tell me why the forces of natural selection operating on a social species wouldn't/couldn't create a sense or moral sentiments.
  • Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]

.Debate about the mechanisms of evolution continued, and Darwin could not explain the source of the heritable variations which would be acted on by natural selection.^ You know, like natural selection, heritable variation and so on.
  • Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]

^ Since this is artificial selection, it has nothing to do with Darwin's theories about NATURAL selection.
  • Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]

^ Evolution doesn't care whether God created bacteria or they formed without assistance over long periods of time; evolution only cares whether those bacteria follow the principles of natural selection, heritable variation, etc.
  • Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]

Like Lamarck, he thought that parents passed on adaptations acquired during their lifetimes,[20] a theory which was subsequently dubbed Lamarckism.[21] In the 1880s August Weismann's experiments indicated that changes from use and disuse were not heritable, and Lamarckism gradually fell from favour.[22][23] .More significantly, Darwin could not account for how traits were passed down from generation to generation.^ Ron Paul supports bad science and could lead to (not the holocaust) but to the collapse of science in America for a generation if he dumbs down the shaky American school systems/Universities.
  • Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]

^ Natural selection is the process by which favorable traits that are heritable become more common in successive generations of a population of reproducing organisms, and unfavorable traits that are heritable become less common (from Wikipedia).
  • Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]

^ Given the spontaneous synthesis of macromolecules, phospholipid bilayers, and RNA that can pass down heritable variation, how can you say it's absolutely impossible for life to spontaneously arise?
  • Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]

In 1865 Gregor Mendel found that traits were inherited in a predictable manner.[24] .When Mendel's work was rediscovered in 1900s, disagreements over the rate of evolution predicted by early geneticists and biometricians led to a rift between the Mendelian and Darwinian models of evolution.^ For example, when we developed the ability to sequence and compare proteins between species, that led to specific predictions that had to be true if common descent was true.
  • Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]

.Yet it was the rediscovery of Gregor Mendel’s pioneering work on the fundamentals of genetics (of which Darwin and Wallace were unaware) by Hugo de Vries and others in the early 1900s that provided the impetus for a better understanding of how variation occurs in plant and animal traits.^ Honestly, your understanding of the word and how you apply it simply doesn't match up with how others on the board are using it (nor how it's used by working scientists in the lab....
  • Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]

^ Each merely needs to understand how they work."
  • Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]

.That variation is the main fuel used by natural selection to shape the wide variety of adaptive traits observed in organic life.^ You know, like natural selection, heritable variation and so on.
  • Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]

^ Natural selection is the process by which favorable traits that are heritable become more common in successive generations of a population of reproducing organisms, and unfavorable traits that are heritable become less common (from Wikipedia).
  • Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]

^ Evolutionary theory states that speciation, the "diversity of life," is the result of chance variation interacting with a process of natural selection, it does not make claims to explain "any behavior."
  • Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]

.Even though Hugo de Vries and other early geneticists rejected gradual natural selection, their rediscovery of and subsequent work on genetics eventually provided a solid basis on which the theory of evolution stood even more convincingly than when it was originally proposed.^ He stated that he rejects the THEORY of evolution.
  • Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]

^ Biology is based on more than evolution.
  • Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]

^ Yeah, he says he rejects the theory of evolution, and his message is pretty sloppy.
  • Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]

[25]
.The apparent contradiction between Darwin’s theory of evolution by natural selection and Mendel’s work was reconciled in the 1920s and 1930s by evolutionary biologists such as J.B.S. Haldane, Sewall Wright, and particularly Ronald Fisher, who set the foundations for the establishment of the field of population genetics.^ Since this is artificial selection, it has nothing to do with Darwin's theories about NATURAL selection.
  • Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]

^ Evolution is an extremely well established theory.
  • Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]

^ The Theory of Evolution, as first formed by Darwin, and in its magnificent elucidation since then, does not require one to know anything of biogenesis - in essence, it STARTS with reproducing life forms.
  • Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]

.The end result was a combination of evolution by natural selection and Mendelian inheritance, the modern evolutionary synthesis.^ Katie: Scientists may be divided on the mechanisms by which evolution works, but not on the basic principle that sexual selection, natural selection and mutation cause and continue to affect and effect speciation.
  • Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]

^ Yes Darwin studied artificial selection in order to understand natural selection, which is a MECHANISM of evolution, not the same thing as evolution.
  • Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]

^ Natural selection is an observable phenomenon, and mitochondrial DNA, primate genetic studies, and the fossil record provide incontrovertible evidence that the theory of evolution is accurate.
  • Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]

[26] In the 1940s, the identification of DNA as the genetic material by Oswald Avery and colleagues and the subsequent publication of the structure of DNA by James Watson and Francis Crick in 1953, demonstrated the physical basis for inheritance. Since then, genetics and molecular biology have become core parts of evolutionary biology and have revolutionized the field of phylogenetics.[12]
In its early history, evolutionary biology primarily drew in scientists from traditional taxonomically oriented disciplines, whose specialist training in particular organisms addressed general questions in evolution. .As evolutionary biology expanded as an academic discipline, particularly after the development of the modern evolutionary synthesis, it began to draw more widely from the biological sciences.^ When someone presents evidence that contradicts accepted evolutionary theory, new theories are developed that explain both the older science and the new phenomenon.
  • Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]

[12] .Currently the study of evolutionary biology involves scientists from fields as diverse as biochemistry, ecology, genetics and physiology, and evolutionary concepts are used in even more distant disciplines such as psychology, medicine, philosophy and computer science.^ Well I have had three semesters of physics, about 8 semesters of chemistry and biochemistry abd I have three degrees in biological sciences including courses in evolutionary biology, systematics, taxonomy, and ecology and I have never heard scientific theories, laws and hypotheses defined and compared the way you do here.
  • Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]

^ Not only this, I've been saying that on the basis of evolutionary theory you can't even define "behavior" as such, let alone "good" or "bad" behavior.
  • Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]

^ States," Congress may ban the use of cannabis even where states approve its use for medicinal purposes."
  • Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]

.In the 21st century, current research in evolutionary biology deals with several areas where the modern evolutionary synthesis may need modification or extension, such as assessing the relative importance of various ideas on the unit of selection and evolvability and how to fully incorporate the findings of evolutionary developmental biology.^ Well, note that I said "a good deal of the research" - and most of the government funded part is basic research that makes the applied research, such as individual drugs, possible.
  • Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]

^ How could any person have gradutated from a decent medical school and fail to accept the theory of evolution in the 21st century?
  • Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]

^ Evolutionary theory states that speciation, the "diversity of life," is the result of chance variation interacting with a process of natural selection, it does not make claims to explain "any behavior."
  • Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]

[27][28]

Heredity

DNA structure. Bases are in the center, surrounded by phosphate–sugar chains in a double helix.
.Evolution in organisms occurs through changes in heritable traits – particular characteristics of an organism.^ Natural selection is the process by which favorable traits that are heritable become more common in successive generations of a population of reproducing organisms, and unfavorable traits that are heritable become less common (from Wikipedia).
  • Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]

^ "Evolution" is a change in the inherited traits of a population from one generation to the next (from Wikipedia).
  • Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]

.In humans, for example, eye color is an inherited characteristic and an individual might inherit the "brown-eye trait" from one of their parents.^ "Evolution" is a change in the inherited traits of a population from one generation to the next (from Wikipedia).
  • Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]

[29] Inherited traits are controlled by genes and the complete set of genes within an organism's genome is called its genotype.[30]
The complete set of observable traits that make up the structure and behavior of an organism is called its phenotype. These traits come from the interaction of its genotype with the environment.[31] As a result, many aspects of an organism's phenotype are not inherited. For example, suntanned skin comes from the interaction between a person's genotype and sunlight; thus, suntans are not passed on to people's children. .However, some people tan more easily than others, due to differences in their genotype; a striking example are people with the inherited trait of albinism, who do not tan at all and are very sensitive to sunburn.^ People want more than hearsay and superstition and "Faith" in the intangible.
  • Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]

^ Sorry for rambling...but thought such a post should have some personal info attached to point out that I don't agree with Ron Paul on everything, but I agree with him on more of what I find important than any other candidate.
  • Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]

^ I do not include this as an argument against any other Christians who may be reading this blog - it is a silly argument in the first place - but I have noticed more TAG proponents, of late.
  • Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]

[32]
.Heritable traits are passed from one generation to the next via DNA, a molecule that encodes genetic information.^ Natural selection is the process by which favorable traits that are heritable become more common in successive generations of a population of reproducing organisms, and unfavorable traits that are heritable become less common (from Wikipedia).
  • Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]

^ "Evolution" is a change in the inherited traits of a population from one generation to the next (from Wikipedia).
  • Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]

[30] DNA is a long polymer composed of four types of bases. The sequence of bases along a particular DNA molecule specify the genetic information, in a manner similar to a sequence of letters spelling out a sentence. .DNA is heritable because the specific pairing of the four bases provides a biochemical mechanism that cells use to accurately transcribe and replicate coded information from one template to another.^ For example, it uses the low "uncaught error" rate to postulate that, er, I dunno, some higher power is keeping the DNA of all the cells on the planet in line.
  • Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]

^ It appears that, in many cases, people have simply exchanged one set of faith-based tenants for another.
  • Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]

^ He might veto one specific kind of law in favor of another kind that does the same thing but in accordance with his Right-wing Constitutionalist viewpoint.
  • Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]

[33][34]
Portions of a DNA molecule that specify a single functional unit are called genes; different genes have different sequences of bases. Within cells, the long strands of DNA form condensed structures called chromosomes. A specific location within a chromosome is known as a locus. If the DNA sequence at a locus varies between individuals, the different forms of this sequence are called alleles. DNA sequences can change through mutations, producing new alleles. .If a mutation occurs within a gene, the new allele may affect the trait that the gene controls, altering the phenotype of the organism.^ These pressures, in the long term, can also shape a species, and even cause a population of organisms within that species to diverge and become a new one.
  • Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]

^ Katie: Scientists may be divided on the mechanisms by which evolution works, but not on the basic principle that sexual selection, natural selection and mutation cause and continue to affect and effect speciation.
  • Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]

However, while this simple correspondence between an allele and a trait works in some cases, most traits are more complex and are controlled by multiple interacting genes.[35][36] The study of such complex traits is a major area of current genetic research. .Another interesting but unsolved question in genetics is if epigenetics is important in evolution, this is where heritable changes occur in organisms without there being any changes to the sequences of their genes.^ Human genomic mapping, for example would not have occured without government funding, but any gene therapies that come out of it will likely be funded by private industry.
  • Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]

^ So there was nothing more for me to add, other than to point out that studies on evolution/morality were and are being performed.
  • Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]

^ Horizontal evolution involves evolution with in the genetic code, modification of sequence, not creation of new sequences.
  • Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]

[37]

Variation

An individual organism's phenotype results from both its genotype and the influence from the environment it has lived in. A substantial part of the variation in phenotypes in a population is caused by the differences between their genotypes.[36] The modern evolutionary synthesis defines evolution as the change over time in this genetic variation. .The frequency of one particular allele will fluctuate, becoming more or less prevalent relative to other forms of that gene.^ We further observe that over time, as new species in that new taxon appear they look less and less like that older species, become more and more diversified and look more and more like the modern members of that taxon.
  • Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]

^ Natural selection is the process by which favorable traits that are heritable become more common in successive generations of a population of reproducing organisms, and unfavorable traits that are heritable become less common (from Wikipedia).
  • Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]

^ But one would think he would care a little more about our country's history and about the particulars of the Constitution, as a politician involved in making that history and debating about that Constitution.
  • Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]

Evolutionary forces act by driving these changes in allele frequency in one direction or another. Variation disappears when a new allele reaches the point of fixation — when it either disappears from the population or replaces the ancestral allele entirely.[38]
.Variation comes from mutations in genetic material, migration between populations (gene flow), and the reshuffling of genes through sexual reproduction.^ In any event, the two prerequisites are readily observable (random mutation or pre-existing genetic variation in a population and selection of certain of those variations), and the phenomenon as a whole is readily observable at least in microbes - and can be reproduced experimentally.
  • Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]

.Variation also comes from exchanges of genes between different species; for example, through horizontal gene transfer in bacteria, and hybridization in plants.^ "One of the things I have noted about evolutionists is that they tend to switch their opinions when it comes to the mechanics of the evolutionary transformation process when it is applied to different species.
  • Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]

^ One of the things I have noted about evolutionists is that they tend to switch their opinions when it comes to the mechanics of the evolutionary transformation process when it is applied to different species.
  • Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]

^ Human genomic mapping, for example would not have occured without government funding, but any gene therapies that come out of it will likely be funded by private industry.
  • Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]

[39] .Despite the constant introduction of variation through these processes, most of the genome of a species is identical in all individuals of that species.^ Evolutionary theory states that speciation, the "diversity of life," is the result of chance variation interacting with a process of natural selection, it does not make claims to explain "any behavior."
  • Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]

^ Language is perhaps the most important of all these abstract patterns created by our brains.
  • Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]

^ "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men evolved out of slime, programmed in their biochemical body processes with certain inalienable rights...
  • Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]

[40] However, even relatively small changes in genotype can lead to dramatic changes in phenotype: chimpanzees and humans differ in only about 5% of their genomes.[41]

Mutation

Duplication of part of a chromosome
.Random mutations constantly occur in the genomes of organisms; these mutations create genetic variation.^ In any event, the two prerequisites are readily observable (random mutation or pre-existing genetic variation in a population and selection of certain of those variations), and the phenomenon as a whole is readily observable at least in microbes - and can be reproduced experimentally.
  • Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]

.Mutations are changes in the DNA sequence of a cell's genome and are caused by radiation, viruses, transposons and mutagenic chemicals, as well as errors that occur during meiosis or DNA replication.^ For example, it uses the low "uncaught error" rate to postulate that, er, I dunno, some higher power is keeping the DNA of all the cells on the planet in line.
  • Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]

^ Even if it were somehow demonstrated that this could not have happened, it would not change any of the evidence that evolution happened Can the creation of a living cell be replicated in a controlled laboratory atmosphere?
  • Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]

[42][43][44] These mutations involve several different types of change in DNA sequences; these can either have no effect, alter the product of a gene, or prevent the gene from functioning. .Studies in the fly Drosophila melanogaster suggest that if a mutation changes a protein produced by a gene, this will probably be harmful, with about 70 percent of these mutations having damaging effects, and the remainder being either neutral or weakly beneficial.^ I saw him reject an absolute position either for or against, which is consistent with his previous statement to Tim Russert about "being allowed a little wiggle now and then."
  • Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]

[45] .Due to the damaging effects that mutations can have on cells, organisms have evolved mechanisms such as DNA repair to remove mutations.^ Katie: Scientists may be divided on the mechanisms by which evolution works, but not on the basic principle that sexual selection, natural selection and mutation cause and continue to affect and effect speciation.
  • Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]

[42] Therefore, the optimal mutation rate for a species is a trade-off between costs of a high mutation rate, such as deleterious mutations, and the metabolic costs of maintaining systems to reduce the mutation rate, such as DNA repair enzymes.[46] Viruses that use RNA as their genetic material have rapid mutation rates,[47] which can be an advantage since these viruses will evolve constantly and rapidly, and thus evade the defensive responses of e.g. the human immune system.[48]
.Mutations can involve large sections of a chromosome becoming duplicated (usually by genetic recombination), which can introduce extra copies of a gene into a genome.^ Tie an immunity gene to a glow-in-the-dark gene and recombine it into a population of bacteria, then expose it to the relevant destructive agent.
  • Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]

[49] Extra copies of genes are a major source of the raw material needed for new genes to evolve.[50] .This is important because most new genes evolve within gene families from pre-existing genes that share common ancestors.^ According to evolutionary theory there was a common ancestor of apes and men, at which point the lines split, one evolving into apes and one evolving into men.
  • Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]

^ They become increasingly diversified and less like those ancestral forms because as new species split off from existing species, new traits evolve as new environmental niches are filled.
  • Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]

[51] .For example, the human eye uses four genes to make structures that sense light: three for color vision and one for night vision; all four are descended from a single ancestral gene.^ For example, it uses the low "uncaught error" rate to postulate that, er, I dunno, some higher power is keeping the DNA of all the cells on the planet in line.
  • Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]

^ All scientific theories are "naturalistic" - every single one of them.
  • Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]

^ Human genomic mapping, for example would not have occured without government funding, but any gene therapies that come out of it will likely be funded by private industry.
  • Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]

[52] New genes can be created from an ancestral gene when a duplicate copy mutates and acquires a new function. .This process is easier once a gene has been duplicated because this increases redundancy; with one gene in the pair acquiring a new function while the other copy still performs its original function.^ One will never have 100% belief in a candidate's positions, but this is trivial....He still is the only honest contender, no wonder he is dissected (unlike EVERY other candidate) .
  • Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]

^ It says absolutely nothing, one way or the other, about God, because God is not a physical thing, or law, or whatever, that can be analyzed by scientific methods.
  • Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]

^ If some 16 year old can't abort her baby in Georgia say, that's not alright because one in New York can.
  • Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]

[53][54] Other types of mutation can even create entirely new genes from previously noncoding DNA.[55][56] The creation of new genes can also involve small parts of several genes being duplicated, with these fragments then recombining to form new combinations with new functions.[57][58] When new genes are assembled from shuffling pre-existing parts, domains act as modules with simple independent functions, which can be mixed together creating new combinations with new and complex functions.[59] .For example, polyketide synthases are large enzymes that make antibiotics; they contain up to one hundred independent domains that each catalyze one step in the overall process, like a step in an assembly line.^ I like it when the rank ignorant make bold declarations about a subject they don't know a goddamn thing about.
  • Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]

^ "One of the things I have noted about evolutionists is that they tend to switch their opinions when it comes to the mechanics of the evolutionary transformation process when it is applied to different species.
  • Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]

^ One of the things I have noted about evolutionists is that they tend to switch their opinions when it comes to the mechanics of the evolutionary transformation process when it is applied to different species.
  • Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]

[60]
.Changes in chromosome number may involve even larger mutations, where segments of the DNA within chromosomes break and then rearrange.^ In the biological evolution, we know, evolution is supposedly based on mutations within DNA. But what about the cultural evolution?
  • Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]

.For example, two chromosomes in the Homo genus fused to produce human chromosome 2; this fusion did not occur in the lineage of the other apes, and they retain these separate chromosomes.^ He, as billions of other human beings believe they are somehow greater than the sum of material processes.
  • Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]

^ These are not only two separate steps, they're two entirely different theories.
  • Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]

^ Most Americans, when asked whether they believe in evolution, will interpret the question in human-centric terms, somewhere along the lines of "did humans evolve from monkeys?"
  • Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]

[61] In evolution, the most important role of such chromosomal rearrangements may be to accelerate the divergence of a population into new species by making populations less likely to interbreed, and thereby preserving genetic differences between these populations.[62]
Sequences of DNA that can move about the genome, such as transposons, make up a major fraction of the genetic material of plants and animals, and may have been important in the evolution of genomes.[63] .For example, more than a million copies of the Alu sequence are present in the human genome, and these sequences have now been recruited to perform functions such as regulating gene expression.^ That it is now understood to mean more than simply Darwin's theory is the fault of all the militant naturalists.
  • Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]

^ For example there is little evidence that born of a "virgin" is any more of a correct reading than born of a "young woman".
  • Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]

^ Somehow these deluded people imagine that it is easier for a house cat to evolve into tigers, lions, cheetahs, and leopards in 4000 years than for humans to evolve from an ape ancestor in tens of millions of years.
  • Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]

[64] Another effect of these mobile DNA sequences is that when they move within a genome, they can mutate or delete existing genes and thereby produce genetic diversity.[43]

Sex and recombination

.In asexual organisms, genes are inherited together, or linked, as they cannot mix with genes of other organisms during reproduction.^ Then they cannot understand why creationists cannot believe it, or see clear science, not understanding that the whole evolution package includes the other 5 theories.
  • Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]

^ Then they cannot understand why creationists cannot believe it, or see clear science, not understanding that the whole evolution package includes the other 5 theories."
  • Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]

In contrast, the offspring of sexual organisms contain random mixtures of their parents' chromosomes that are produced through independent assortment. In a related process called homologous recombination, sexual organisms exchange DNA between two matching chromosomes.[65] Recombination and reassortment do not alter allele frequencies, but instead change which alleles are associated with each other, producing offspring with new combinations of alleles.[66] Sex usually increases genetic variation and may increase the rate of evolution.[67][68] However, asexuality is advantageous in some environments as it can evolve in previously-sexual animals.[69] Here, asexuality might allow the two sets of alleles in their genome to diverge and gain different functions.[70]
Recombination allows even alleles that are close together in a strand of DNA to be inherited independently. However, the rate of recombination is low (approximately two events per chromosome per generation). As a result, genes close together on a chromosome may not always be shuffled away from each other, and genes that are close together tend to be inherited together, a phenomenon known as linkage.[71] This tendency is measured by finding how often two alleles occur together on a single chromosome, which is called their linkage disequilibrium. A set of alleles that is usually inherited in a group is called a haplotype. .This can be important when one allele in a particular haplotype is strongly beneficial: natural selection can drive a selective sweep that will also cause the other alleles in the haplotype to become more common in the population; this effect is called genetic hitchhiking.^ Can one believe in genetic mutation, selection, common descent, etc.
  • Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]

^ And the poster's link to a study showing that the incidence of a particular cancer was associated with greater genetic diversity of the cell population doesn't support his claim one bit.
  • Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]

^ But one would think he would care a little more about our country's history and about the particulars of the Constitution, as a politician involved in making that history and debating about that Constitution.
  • Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]

[72]
When alleles cannot be separated by recombination – such as in mammalian Y chromosomes, which pass intact from fathers to sons – harmful mutations accumulate.[73][74] By breaking up allele combinations, sexual reproduction allows the removal of harmful mutations and the retention of beneficial mutations.[75] In addition, recombination and reassortment can produce individuals with new and advantageous gene combinations. .These positive effects are balanced by the fact that sex reduces an organism's reproductive rate, can cause mutations and may separate beneficial combinations of genes.^ These pressures, in the long term, can also shape a species, and even cause a population of organisms within that species to diverge and become a new one.
  • Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]

^ Katie: Scientists may be divided on the mechanisms by which evolution works, but not on the basic principle that sexual selection, natural selection and mutation cause and continue to affect and effect speciation.
  • Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]

^ It could be argued that his policies on reducing the size of the government have these effects, but at least these are not active, direct measures against an agnostic 'worldview'.
  • Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]

[75] .The reasons for the evolution of sexual reproduction are therefore unclear and this question is still an active area of research in evolutionary biology,[76][77] that has prompted ideas such as the Red Queen hypothesis.^ If we speak of the ability to cross to a new species then we speak of the theory of evolution which is still very un-proven, and therefor a theory.
  • Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]

^ He was speculating - this was not a hypothesis, it was not part of the Theory of Evolution - it was speculation, labeled as such.
  • Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]

^ Another area elucidated by evolution is cancer research.
  • Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]

[78]

Population genetics

 
From a genetic viewpoint, evolution is a generation-to-generation change in the frequencies of alleles within a population that shares a common gene pool.[79] A population is a localized group of individuals belonging to the same species. For example, all of the moths of the same species living in an isolated forest represent a population. A single gene in this population may have several alternate forms, which account for variations between the phenotypes of the organisms. An example might be a gene for coloration in moths that has two alleles: black and white. A gene pool is the complete set of alleles for a gene in a single population; the allele frequency measures the fraction of the gene pool composed of a single allele (for example, what fraction of moth coloration genes are the black allele). Evolution occurs when there are changes in the frequencies of alleles within a population of interbreeding organisms; for example, the allele for black color in a population of moths becoming more common.
To understand the mechanisms that cause a population to evolve, it is useful to consider what conditions are required for a population not to evolve. .The Hardy-Weinberg principle states that the frequencies of alleles (variations in a gene) in a sufficiently large population will remain constant if the only forces acting on that population are the random reshuffling of alleles during the formation of the sperm or egg, and the random combination of the alleles in these sex cells during fertilization.^ Evolution is NOT totally random (random mutations lead to nonrandom selection leads to change in population - the only random component is the mutation).
  • Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]

[80] Such a population is said to be in Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium; it is not evolving.[81]

Gene flow

When they mature, male lions leave the pride where they were born and take over a new pride to mate, causing gene flow between prides.[82]
.Gene flow is the exchange of genes between populations, which are usually of the same species.^ If those relationships were real, then the protein comparisons should show the same degree of relationship between those species.
  • Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]

[83] .Examples of gene flow within a species include the migration and then breeding of organisms, or the exchange of pollen.^ These pressures, in the long term, can also shape a species, and even cause a population of organisms within that species to diverge and become a new one.
  • Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]

Gene transfer between species includes the formation of hybrid organisms and horizontal gene transfer.
Migration into or out of a population can change allele frequencies, as well as introducing genetic variation into a population. Immigration may add new genetic material to the established gene pool of a population. Conversely, emigration may remove genetic material. .As barriers to reproduction between two diverging populations are required for the populations to become new species, gene flow may slow this process by spreading genetic differences between the populations.^ We further observe that over time, as new species in that new taxon appear they look less and less like that older species, become more and more diversified and look more and more like the modern members of that taxon.
  • Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]

^ "One of the things I have noted about evolutionists is that they tend to switch their opinions when it comes to the mechanics of the evolutionary transformation process when it is applied to different species.
  • Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]

^ These pressures, in the long term, can also shape a species, and even cause a population of organisms within that species to diverge and become a new one.
  • Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]

Gene flow is hindered by mountain ranges, oceans and deserts or even man-made structures such as the Great Wall of China, which has hindered the flow of plant genes.[84]
.Depending on how far two species have diverged since their most recent common ancestor, it may still be possible for them to produce offspring, as with horses and donkeys mating to produce mules.^ You may be right that the responses to BoMar were not the most helpful possible, and I'd like to see modelled a more useful set of responses.
  • Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]

^ There are two possible reasons he would say it that way: either he doesn't understand how pointless it is to say it, or he's pandering to those who don't understand how pointless it is to say it (like you).
  • Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]

^ See, since you like Wikipedia so much, I'll link to the most recent S.C. ruling in the drug wars, Gonzales v.
  • Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]

[85] .Such hybrids are generally infertile, due to the two different sets of chromosomes being unable to pair up during meiosis.^ Actually, bstender, what I meant was that previous movements against civil liberties during war demonstrate that such movements go against the grain of American politics and are generally reversible.
  • Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]

.In this case, closely related species may regularly interbreed, but hybrids will be selected against and the species will remain distinct.^ Katie: Scientists may be divided on the mechanisms by which evolution works, but not on the basic principle that sexual selection, natural selection and mutation cause and continue to affect and effect speciation.
  • Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]

^ The phylogenetic tree that was developed based on the fossil data showed what were believed to be ancestral relationships, and they also showed which species are most closely related to which other species.
  • Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]

.However, viable hybrids are occasionally formed and these new species can either have properties intermediate between their parent species, or possess a totally new phenotype.^ These pressures, in the long term, can also shape a species, and even cause a population of organisms within that species to diverge and become a new one.
  • Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]

[86] The importance of hybridization in creating new species of animals is unclear, although cases have been seen in many types of animals,[87] with the gray tree frog being a particularly well-studied example.[88]
.Hybridization is, however, an important means of speciation in plants, since polyploidy (having more than two copies of each chromosome) is tolerated in plants more readily than in animals.^ That it is now understood to mean more than simply Darwin's theory is the fault of all the militant naturalists.
  • Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]

^ Far more important than being "enslaved" to government (is someone forcing your citizenship, BTW?) is the state of enslavement that American culture is in to dishonesty and bullshit.
  • Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]

^ So either he considers his personal beliefs more important than the mountains of evidence, or he simply doesn't know about the mountains of evidence.
  • Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]

[89][90] Polyploidy is important in hybrids as it allows reproduction, with the two different sets of chromosomes each being able to pair with an identical partner during meiosis.[91] .Polyploids also have more genetic diversity, which allows them to avoid inbreeding depression in small populations.^ And the poster's link to a study showing that the incidence of a particular cancer was associated with greater genetic diversity of the cell population doesn't support his claim one bit.
  • Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]

[92]
Horizontal gene transfer is the transfer of genetic material from one organism to another organism that is not its offspring; this is most common among bacteria.[93] .In medicine, this contributes to the spread of antibiotic resistance, as when one bacteria acquires resistance genes it can rapidly transfer them to other species.^ If bacteria did not evolve, then there would be no such thing as MRSA and other drug resistant bugs.
  • Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]

^ And in fact, some of our most effective antibiotics have come from soil microorganisms so it is not surprising that soils would contain bacteria with resistance to some of them.
  • Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]

^ Secondly: A bacteria may develop resistance to one antibiotic (naturally occuring or otherwise) and have cross resistance to another because the antibiotic mechanism is similar.
  • Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]

[94] .Horizontal transfer of genes from bacteria to eukaryotes such as the yeast Saccharomyces cerevisiae and the adzuki bean beetle Callosobruchus chinensis may also have occurred.^ Secondly: A bacteria may develop resistance to one antibiotic (naturally occuring or otherwise) and have cross resistance to another because the antibiotic mechanism is similar.
  • Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]

[95][96] An example of larger-scale transfers are the eukaryotic bdelloid rotifers, which appear to have received a range of genes from bacteria, fungi, and plants.[97] Viruses can also carry DNA between organisms, allowing transfer of genes even across biological domains.[98] Large-scale gene transfer has also occurred between the ancestors of eukaryotic cells and prokaryotes, during the acquisition of chloroplasts and mitochondria.[99]

Mechanisms

.The two main mechanisms that produce evolution are natural selection and genetic drift.^ First of all, you are confusing artifical selection and natural selection with evolution.
  • Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]

^ Katie: Scientists may be divided on the mechanisms by which evolution works, but not on the basic principle that sexual selection, natural selection and mutation cause and continue to affect and effect speciation.
  • Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]

^ Yes Darwin studied artificial selection in order to understand natural selection, which is a MECHANISM of evolution, not the same thing as evolution.
  • Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]

.Natural selection favors genes that aid survival and reproduction.^ Natural selection is the process by which favorable traits that are heritable become more common in successive generations of a population of reproducing organisms, and unfavorable traits that are heritable become less common (from Wikipedia).
  • Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]

^ By changing its environment, you influence natural selection to select for bacteria that have the immunity gene (remember, not all the bacteria get it when you do the recombination).
  • Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]

^ Since not all organisms are equally well adapted to their environment, some will survive and reproduce better than others -- this is known as natural selection.
  • Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]

.Genetic drift is random change in the frequency of alleles, caused by the random sampling of a generation's genes during reproduction.^ Racism is bad does not = genes don't exist or genotypes do not change over generations.
  • Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]

.The relative importance of natural selection and genetic drift in a population varies depending on the strength of the selection and the effective population size, which is the number of individuals capable of breeding.^ You know, like natural selection, heritable variation and so on.
  • Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]

^ In any event, the two prerequisites are readily observable (random mutation or pre-existing genetic variation in a population and selection of certain of those variations), and the phenomenon as a whole is readily observable at least in microbes - and can be reproduced experimentally.
  • Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]

^ Natural selection is the process by which favorable traits that are heritable become more common in successive generations of a population of reproducing organisms, and unfavorable traits that are heritable become less common (from Wikipedia).
  • Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]

[100] .Natural selection usually predominates in large populations, while genetic drift dominates in small populations.^ Natural selection is the process by which favorable traits that are heritable become more common in successive generations of a population of reproducing organisms, and unfavorable traits that are heritable become less common (from Wikipedia).
  • Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]

^ Natural selection is an observable phenomenon, and mitochondrial DNA, primate genetic studies, and the fossil record provide incontrovertible evidence that the theory of evolution is accurate.
  • Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]

.The dominance of genetic drift in small populations can even lead to the fixation of slightly deleterious mutations.^ Evolution is NOT totally random (random mutations lead to nonrandom selection leads to change in population - the only random component is the mutation).
  • Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]

[101] .As a result, changing population size can dramatically influence the course of evolution.^ "Evolution" is a change in the inherited traits of a population from one generation to the next (from Wikipedia).
  • Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]

^ Evolution is NOT totally random (random mutations lead to nonrandom selection leads to change in population - the only random component is the mutation).
  • Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]

Population bottlenecks, where the population shrinks temporarily and therefore loses genetic variation, result in a more uniform population.[38]

Natural selection

Natural selection of a population for dark coloration.
.Natural selection is the process by which genetic mutations that enhance reproduction become, and remain, more common in successive generations of a population.^ Natural selection is the process by which favorable traits that are heritable become more common in successive generations of a population of reproducing organisms, and unfavorable traits that are heritable become less common (from Wikipedia).
  • Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]

^ Can one believe in genetic mutation, selection, common descent, etc.
  • Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]

^ In any event, the two prerequisites are readily observable (random mutation or pre-existing genetic variation in a population and selection of certain of those variations), and the phenomenon as a whole is readily observable at least in microbes - and can be reproduced experimentally.
  • Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]

It has often been called a "self-evident" mechanism because it necessarily follows from three simple facts:
  • Heritable variation exists within populations of organisms.
  • Organisms produce more offspring than can survive.
  • These offspring vary in their ability to survive and reproduce.
These conditions produce competition between organisms for survival and reproduction. .Consequently, organisms with traits that give them an advantage over their competitors pass these advantageous traits on, while traits that do not confer an advantage are not passed on to the next generation.^ Natural selection is the process by which favorable traits that are heritable become more common in successive generations of a population of reproducing organisms, and unfavorable traits that are heritable become less common (from Wikipedia).
  • Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]

^ "Evolution" is a change in the inherited traits of a population from one generation to the next (from Wikipedia).
  • Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]

[102]
.The central concept of natural selection is the evolutionary fitness of an organism.^ Natural selection is the process by which favorable traits that are heritable become more common in successive generations of a population of reproducing organisms, and unfavorable traits that are heritable become less common (from Wikipedia).
  • Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]

^ Evolutionary theory states that speciation, the "diversity of life," is the result of chance variation interacting with a process of natural selection, it does not make claims to explain "any behavior."
  • Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]

^ Since not all organisms are equally well adapted to their environment, some will survive and reproduce better than others -- this is known as natural selection.
  • Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]

[103] Fitness is measured by an organism's ability to survive and reproduce, which determines the size of its genetic contribution to the next generation.[103] However, fitness is not the same as the total number of offspring: instead fitness is indicated by the proportion of subsequent generations that carry an organism's genes.[104] For example, if an organism could survive well and reproduce rapidly, but its offspring were all too small and weak to survive, this organism would make little genetic contribution to future generations and would thus have low fitness.[103]
.If an allele increases fitness more than the other alleles of that gene, then with each generation this allele will become more common within the population.^ The term evolution in common parlance does mean something other than the purely technical meaning you and others are claiming it means.
  • Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]

^ But it's several orders of magnitude more likely to be true than any other theory we've got.
  • Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]

^ These pressures, in the long term, can also shape a species, and even cause a population of organisms within that species to diverge and become a new one.
  • Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]

These traits are said to be "selected for". Examples of traits that can increase fitness are enhanced survival, and increased fecundity. .Conversely, the lower fitness caused by having a less beneficial or deleterious allele results in this allele becoming rarer — they are "selected against".[3] Importantly, the fitness of an allele is not a fixed characteristic, if the environment changes, previously neutral or harmful traits may become beneficial and previously beneficial traits become harmful.^ We further observe that over time, as new species in that new taxon appear they look less and less like that older species, become more and more diversified and look more and more like the modern members of that taxon.
  • Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]

^ Natural selection is the process by which favorable traits that are heritable become more common in successive generations of a population of reproducing organisms, and unfavorable traits that are heritable become less common (from Wikipedia).
  • Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]

^ Otherwise they would be unable to adapt to their environment when it changes.
  • Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]

[1] .However, even if the direction of selection does reverse in this way, traits that were lost in the past may not re-evolve in an identical form (see Dollo's law).^ You're also wrong there - the libertarian position may be (MAY BE - I haven't studied this much) impractical, but it's not a foolish position to take with regards to the law.
  • Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]

^ F=Gm1m2/d2 is a Law - (and is wrong in critical ways) but it does not tell us diddly squat about how gravity works.
  • Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]

^ And, by the way, when that morality evolves, does it have any material carrier, or we have given up on naturalistic explanations whatsoever?
  • Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]

[105][106]
.Natural selection within a population for a trait that can vary across a range of values, such as height, can be categorized into three different types.^ You know, like natural selection, heritable variation and so on.
  • Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]

^ Natural selection is the process by which favorable traits that are heritable become more common in successive generations of a population of reproducing organisms, and unfavorable traits that are heritable become less common (from Wikipedia).
  • Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]

^ Evolutionary theory states that speciation, the "diversity of life," is the result of chance variation interacting with a process of natural selection, it does not make claims to explain "any behavior."
  • Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]

.The first is directional selection, which is a shift in the average value of a trait over time — for example organisms slowly getting taller.^ Natural selection is the process by which favorable traits that are heritable become more common in successive generations of a population of reproducing organisms, and unfavorable traits that are heritable become less common (from Wikipedia).
  • Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]

[107] .Secondly, disruptive selection is selection for extreme trait values and often results in two different values becoming most common, with selection against the average value.^ Natural selection is the process by which favorable traits that are heritable become more common in successive generations of a population of reproducing organisms, and unfavorable traits that are heritable become less common (from Wikipedia).
  • Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]

.This would be when either short or tall organisms had an advantage, but not those of medium height.^ There are two possible reasons he would say it that way: either he doesn't understand how pointless it is to say it, or he's pandering to those who don't understand how pointless it is to say it (like you).
  • Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]

.Finally, in stabilizing selection there is selection against extreme trait values on both ends, which causes a decrease in variance around the average value and less diversity.^ Natural selection is the process by which favorable traits that are heritable become more common in successive generations of a population of reproducing organisms, and unfavorable traits that are heritable become less common (from Wikipedia).
  • Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]

^ Evolutionary theory states that speciation, the "diversity of life," is the result of chance variation interacting with a process of natural selection, it does not make claims to explain "any behavior."
  • Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]

[102][108] .This would, for example, cause organisms to slowly become all the same height.^ These pressures, in the long term, can also shape a species, and even cause a population of organisms within that species to diverge and become a new one.
  • Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]

.A special case of natural selection is sexual selection, which is selection for any trait that increases mating success by increasing the attractiveness of an organism to potential mates.^ Tell me why the forces of natural selection operating on a social species wouldn't/couldn't create a sense or moral sentiments.
  • Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]

^ Natural selection is the process by which favorable traits that are heritable become more common in successive generations of a population of reproducing organisms, and unfavorable traits that are heritable become less common (from Wikipedia).
  • Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]

^ Katie: Scientists may be divided on the mechanisms by which evolution works, but not on the basic principle that sexual selection, natural selection and mutation cause and continue to affect and effect speciation.
  • Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]

[109] .Traits that evolved through sexual selection are particularly prominent in males of some animal species, despite traits such as cumbersome antlers, mating calls or bright colors that attract predators, decreasing the survival of individual males.^ The modification of DNA with in species has been accepted since man first started cultivating crops and animals via selective breeding and planting.
  • Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]

^ Katie: Scientists may be divided on the mechanisms by which evolution works, but not on the basic principle that sexual selection, natural selection and mutation cause and continue to affect and effect speciation.
  • Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]

^ "The modification of DNA with in species has been accepted since man first started cultivating crops and animals via selective breeding and planting.
  • Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]

[110] .This survival disadvantage is balanced by higher reproductive success in males that show these hard to fake, sexually selected traits.^ Natural selection is the process by which favorable traits that are heritable become more common in successive generations of a population of reproducing organisms, and unfavorable traits that are heritable become less common (from Wikipedia).
  • Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]

[111]
.Natural selection most generally makes nature the measure against which individuals, and individual traits, are more or less likely to survive.^ We further observe that over time, as new species in that new taxon appear they look less and less like that older species, become more and more diversified and look more and more like the modern members of that taxon.
  • Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]

^ Truth is the first order of business, and it's more beautiful than libertarianism dysfunctionally marketed, less likely implemented.
  • Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]

^ "Not too hard to make an experiment to demonstrate natural selection.
  • Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]

."Nature" in this sense refers to an ecosystem, that is, a system in which organisms interact with every other element, physical as well as biological, in their local environment.^ The Virgin Birth is theologically essential because if Jesus had two natural parents he would have had a sin nature like every other human, and he would not have lived a sinless life.
  • Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]

^ It's just more subtle, and destroys good sense in ways other than personal/physical direct murder suicide.
  • Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]

^ Since not all organisms are equally well adapted to their environment, some will survive and reproduce better than others -- this is known as natural selection.
  • Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]

Eugene Odum, a founder of ecology, defined an ecosystem as: "Any unit that includes all of the organisms...in a given area interacting with the physical environment so that a flow of energy leads to clearly defined trophic structure, biotic diversity, and material cycles (ie: exchange of materials between living and nonliving parts) within the system."[112] Each population within an ecosystem occupies a distinct niche, or position, with distinct relationships to other parts of the system. These relationships involve the life history of the organism, its position in the food chain, and its geographic range. .This broad understanding of nature enables scientists to delineate specific forces which, together, comprise natural selection.^ Katie: Scientists may be divided on the mechanisms by which evolution works, but not on the basic principle that sexual selection, natural selection and mutation cause and continue to affect and effect speciation.
  • Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]

^ Tell me why the forces of natural selection operating on a social species wouldn't/couldn't create a sense or moral sentiments.
  • Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]

^ Yes Darwin studied artificial selection in order to understand natural selection, which is a MECHANISM of evolution, not the same thing as evolution.
  • Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]

.An active area of research is the unit of selection, with natural selection being proposed to work at the level of genes, cells, individual organisms, groups of organisms and species.^ Tell me why the forces of natural selection operating on a social species wouldn't/couldn't create a sense or moral sentiments.
  • Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]

^ Humans, being the only species that can consider such things on a rational level rather than acting out of instinct, can make rational choices about such things.
  • Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]

^ Humans evolved as a social species, which means we naturally live in groups.
  • Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]

[113][114] None of these are mutually exclusive and selection can act on multiple levels simultaneously.[115] .An example of selection occurring below the level of the individual organism are genes called transposons, which can replicate and spread throughout a genome.^ Human genomic mapping, for example would not have occured without government funding, but any gene therapies that come out of it will likely be funded by private industry.
  • Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]

[116] .Selection at a level above the individual, such as group selection, may allow the evolution of co-operation, as discussed below.^ Katie: Scientists may be divided on the mechanisms by which evolution works, but not on the basic principle that sexual selection, natural selection and mutation cause and continue to affect and effect speciation.
  • Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]

[117]

Genetic drift

Simulation of genetic drift of 20 unlinked alleles in populations of 10 (top) and 100 (bottom). Drift to fixation is more rapid in the smaller population.
.Genetic drift is the change in allele frequency from one generation to the next that occurs because alleles in offspring are a random sample of those in the parents, as well as from the role that chance plays in determining whether a given individual will survive and reproduce.^ In any event, the two prerequisites are readily observable (random mutation or pre-existing genetic variation in a population and selection of certain of those variations), and the phenomenon as a whole is readily observable at least in microbes - and can be reproduced experimentally.
  • Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]

^ Secondly: A bacteria may develop resistance to one antibiotic (naturally occuring or otherwise) and have cross resistance to another because the antibiotic mechanism is similar.
  • Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]

^ The "fittest" in "Survival of the fittest" refers to individuals in a population that are best able to survive and reproduce in a given environment.
  • Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]

In mathematical terms, alleles are subject to sampling error. As a result, when selective forces are absent or relatively weak, allele frequencies tend to "drift" upward or downward randomly (in a random walk). This drift halts when an allele eventually becomes fixed, either by disappearing from the population, or replacing the other alleles entirely. Genetic drift may therefore eliminate some alleles from a population due to chance alone. .Even in the absence of selective forces, genetic drift can cause two separate populations that began with the same genetic structure to drift apart into two divergent populations with different sets of alleles.^ These pressures, in the long term, can also shape a species, and even cause a population of organisms within that species to diverge and become a new one.
  • Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]

^ In any event, the two prerequisites are readily observable (random mutation or pre-existing genetic variation in a population and selection of certain of those variations), and the phenomenon as a whole is readily observable at least in microbes - and can be reproduced experimentally.
  • Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]

^ These are not only two separate steps, they're two entirely different theories.
  • Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]

[118]
.The time for an allele to become fixed by genetic drift depends on population size, with fixation occurring more rapidly in smaller populations.^ We further observe that over time, as new species in that new taxon appear they look less and less like that older species, become more and more diversified and look more and more like the modern members of that taxon.
  • Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]

^ Natural selection is the process by which favorable traits that are heritable become more common in successive generations of a population of reproducing organisms, and unfavorable traits that are heritable become less common (from Wikipedia).
  • Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]

^ Furthermore, you act as if theories can become something more, which is categorically untrue, as has been explained several times on this comment thread.
  • Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]

[119] The precise measure of population that is important is called the effective population size. The effective population is always smaller than the total population since it takes into account factors such as the level of inbreeding, the number of animals that are too old or young to breed, and the lower probability of animals that live far apart managing to mate with each other.[120]
An example when genetic drift is probably of central importance in determining a trait is the loss of pigments from animals that live in caves, a change that produces no obvious advantage or disadvantage in complete darkness.[121] However, it is usually difficult to measure the relative importance of selection and drift,[122] so the comparative importance of these two forces in driving evolutionary change is an area of current research.[123] .These investigations were prompted by the neutral theory of molecular evolution, which proposed that most evolutionary changes are the result of the fixation of neutral mutations that do not have any immediate effects on the fitness of an organism.^ It is not that any of the theories that form the basis for evolution are necessarily without merit, but they remain, for the most part, as unestablished as their religious counterparts.
  • Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]

^ "Irreducible" complexity is one of the oldest objections to evolutionary theory, and the most refuted.
  • Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]

^ Even if it were somehow demonstrated that this could not have happened, it would not change any of the evidence that evolution happened In other words, it is just theory.
  • Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]

[124] .Hence, in this model, most genetic changes in a population are the result of constant mutation pressure and genetic drift.^ Evolution is NOT totally random (random mutations lead to nonrandom selection leads to change in population - the only random component is the mutation).
  • Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]

[125] .This form of the neutral theory is now largely abandoned, since it does not seem to fit the genetic variation seen in nature.^ The Theory of Evolution, as first formed by Darwin, and in its magnificent elucidation since then, does not require one to know anything of biogenesis - in essence, it STARTS with reproducing life forms.
  • Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]

^ Theory according to my links states To scientists, a theory is a coherent explanation for a large number of facts and observations about the natural world .
  • Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]

^ To scientists, a theory is a coherent explanation for a large number of facts and observations about the natural world.
  • Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]

[126][127] .However, a more recent and better-supported version of this model is the nearly neutral theory, where most mutations only have small effects on fitness.^ It is never "proven", it can only be supplanted by a more complete theory which does a better job of explaining the data.
  • Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]

^ Tyler Computational complexity theory is a theory about efficiency, It attempts to get the most efficient models.
  • Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]

^ The better verified a theory becomes, the more certain we can be that the theory is true , but that doesn't make the theory a fact ; theories explain facts, they do not become facts.
  • Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]

[102]

Outcomes

.Evolution influences every aspect of the form and behavior of organisms.^ That is the form of every single ID argument - "not evolution, therefore God."
  • Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]

^ "He simply does not accept evolution as a theory, as fanatical adherents do, in the materialistic totality that denies the possibility of divine intervention in the process, which is not the same as denying every aspect of that theory."
  • Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]

^ He simply does not accept evolution as a theory, as fanatical adherents do, in the materialistic totality that denies the possibility of divine intervention in the process, which is not the same as denying every aspect of that theory.
  • Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]

Most prominent are the specific behavioral and physical adaptations that are the outcome of natural selection. These adaptations increase fitness by aiding activities such as finding food, avoiding predators or attracting mates. .Organisms can also respond to selection by co-operating with each other, usually by aiding their relatives or engaging in mutually beneficial symbiosis.^ Since not all organisms are equally well adapted to their environment, some will survive and reproduce better than others -- this is known as natural selection.
  • Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]

.In the longer term, evolution produces new species through splitting ancestral populations of organisms into new groups that cannot or will not interbreed.^ If we speak of the ability to cross to a new species then we speak of the theory of evolution which is still very un-proven, and therefor a theory.
  • Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]

^ These pressures, in the long term, can also shape a species, and even cause a population of organisms within that species to diverge and become a new one.
  • Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]

^ We've observed the evolution of new species innumerable times, both in the wild and in the lab.
  • Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]

These outcomes of evolution are sometimes divided into macroevolution, which is evolution that occurs at or above the level of species, such as extinction and speciation, and microevolution, which is smaller evolutionary changes, such as adaptations, within a species or population.[128] In general, macroevolution is regarded as the outcome of long periods of microevolution.[129] .Thus, the distinction between micro- and macroevolution is not a fundamental one – the difference is simply the time involved.^ Then move on to the differences between the races and explain where these differences come from, considering God only made one man and one woman to start the whole human race?
  • Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]

[130] However, in macroevolution, the traits of the entire species may be important. .For instance, a large amount of variation among individuals allows a species to rapidly adapt to new habitats, lessening the chance of it going extinct, while a wide geographic range increases the chance of speciation, by making it more likely that part of the population will become isolated.^ We further observe that over time, as new species in that new taxon appear they look less and less like that older species, become more and more diversified and look more and more like the modern members of that taxon.
  • Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]

^ Also, if you're going to quote more than one person at a time when you're posting, you need to make it clear who you're quoting, and when.
  • Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]

^ These pressures, in the long term, can also shape a species, and even cause a population of organisms within that species to diverge and become a new one.
  • Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]

.In this sense, microevolution and macroevolution might involve selection at different levels – with microevolution acting on genes and organisms, versus macroevolutionary processes such as species selection acting on entire species and affecting their rates of speciation and extinction.^ Katie: Scientists may be divided on the mechanisms by which evolution works, but not on the basic principle that sexual selection, natural selection and mutation cause and continue to affect and effect speciation.
  • Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]

^ "One of the things I have noted about evolutionists is that they tend to switch their opinions when it comes to the mechanics of the evolutionary transformation process when it is applied to different species.
  • Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]

^ Tell me why the forces of natural selection operating on a social species wouldn't/couldn't create a sense or moral sentiments.
  • Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]

[131][132][133]
.A common misconception is that evolution has goals or long-term plans, but in reality, evolution has no long-term goal and does not necessarily produce greater complexity.^ The term evolution in common parlance does mean something other than the purely technical meaning you and others are claiming it means.
  • Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]

^ Contrary to popular myth, the theory of evolution does not end with "...and therefore there is no God."
  • Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]

^ No, evolution does not contradict the 2nd law of thermodynamics and only an ignoramus would claim it does.
  • Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]

[134][135] .Although complex species have evolved, this occurs as a side effect of the overall number of organisms increasing, and simple forms of life remain more common.^ Natural selection is the process by which favorable traits that are heritable become more common in successive generations of a population of reproducing organisms, and unfavorable traits that are heritable become less common (from Wikipedia).
  • Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]

^ Complex life did not evolve by chance any more than the Complete Works of Shakespeare wrote themselves.
  • Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]

^ Are they going to be more persuasive than evidence of punctuated equilibrium (explained by scientists already) or coevolution (explained by scientists already) or evolved complexity (explained by scientists already)?
  • Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]

[136] .For example, the overwhelming majority of species are microscopic prokaryotes, which form about half the world's biomass despite their small size,[137] and constitute the vast majority of Earth's biodiversity.^ Darwinian theory is about the origin if biodiversity - why all the past and present organisms on planet earth have the traits that they do.
  • Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]

[138] Simple organisms have therefore been the dominant form of life on Earth throughout its history and continue to be the main form of life up to the present day, with complex life only appearing more diverse because it is more noticeable.[139] .Indeed, the evolution of microorganisms is particularly important to modern evolutionary research, since their rapid reproduction allows the study of experimental evolution and the observation of evolution and adaptation in real time.^ Most people accept only one slice of evolution and adopt five pieces without any real intensive study.
  • Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]

^ At this time I really think the evolution thing should be put in the back burner for now.
  • Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]

^ Evolutionary theory as a whole has been substantiated by a century and a half of experimentation and theory, and Paul tosses it all aside by saying "It's a theory, the theory of evolution, and I don't accept it."
  • Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]

[140][141]

Adaptation

.Adaptation is one of the basic phenomena of biology,[142] and is the process whereby an organism becomes better suited to its habitat.^ These pressures, in the long term, can also shape a species, and even cause a population of organisms within that species to diverge and become a new one.
  • Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]

^ Natural selection is the process by which favorable traits that are heritable become more common in successive generations of a population of reproducing organisms, and unfavorable traits that are heritable become less common (from Wikipedia).
  • Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]

[143][144] Also, the term adaptation may refer to a trait that is important for an organism's survival. For example, the adaptation of horses' teeth to the grinding of grass, or the ability of horses to run fast and escape predators. .By using the term adaptation for the evolutionary process, and adaptive trait for the product (the bodily part or function), the two senses of the word may be distinguished.^ Only the last two are actually part of evolutionary theory.
  • Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]

^ Part of the problem here is that people use the term 'theory' in different ways.
  • Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]

^ Do tell what evolutionary biologist uses the terms "horizontal evolution and vertical evolution" in the way you suggest here?
  • Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]

Adaptations are produced by natural selection.[145] The following definitions are due to Theodosius Dobzhansky.
1. .Adaptation is the evolutionary process whereby an organism becomes better able to live in its habitat or habitats.^ Natural selection is the process by which favorable traits that are heritable become more common in successive generations of a population of reproducing organisms, and unfavorable traits that are heritable become less common (from Wikipedia).
  • Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]

[146]
2. .Adaptedness is the state of being adapted: the degree to which an organism is able to live and reproduce in a given set of habitats.^ No, that is not another way of stating it Is it possible to show a mathematical probability that any known given conditions would result in the formation of a viable living cell capable of reproducing?
  • Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]

^ Is it possible to show a mathematical probability that any known given conditions would result in the formation of a viable living cell capable of reproducing?
  • Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]

^ Since not all organisms are equally well adapted to their environment, some will survive and reproduce better than others -- this is known as natural selection.
  • Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]

[147]
3. An adaptive trait is an aspect of the developmental pattern of the organism which enables or enhances the probability of that organism surviving and reproducing.[148]
Adaptation may cause either the gain of a new feature, or the loss of an ancestral feature. .An example that shows both types of change is bacterial adaptation to antibiotic selection, with genetic changes causing antibiotic resistance by both modifying the target of the drug, or increasing the activity of transporters that pump the drug out of the cell.^ This example actually says nothing new about our understanding of the evolution of antibiotic resistance.
  • Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]

^ When it comes to bacterial infection, it's enuf to recognize that bacteria mutate (e.g., Staphylococcus mutations arise in penicillin binding proteins, or in the active site of their beta-lactamases), and that this can cause resistance to antibiotics.
  • Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]

^ Are you confusing smallpox innoculations with bacterial resistance to antibiotics?
  • Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]

[149] .Other striking examples are the bacteria Escherichia coli evolving the ability to use citric acid as a nutrient in a long-term laboratory experiment,[150] Flavobacterium evolving a novel enzyme that allows these bacteria to grow on the by-products of nylon manufacturing,[151][152] and the soil bacterium Sphingobium evolving an entirely new metabolic pathway that degrades the synthetic pesticide pentachlorophenol.^ Yes, our knowledge of how resistance to antibiotics evolves allows us to create new chemical entities that are still effective.
  • Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]

^ These pressures, in the long term, can also shape a species, and even cause a population of organisms within that species to diverge and become a new one.
  • Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]

^ If bacteria did not evolve, then there would be no such thing as MRSA and other drug resistant bugs.
  • Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]

[153][154] .An interesting but still controversial idea is that some adaptations might increase the ability of organisms to generate genetic diversity and adapt by natural selection (increasing organisms' evolvability).^ Even if some version of abiogenesis via natural means were established beyond all doubt, religion still could coexist with it.
  • Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]

^ Natural selection is the process by which favorable traits that are heritable become more common in successive generations of a population of reproducing organisms, and unfavorable traits that are heritable become less common (from Wikipedia).
  • Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]

^ Evolutionary theory states that speciation, the "diversity of life," is the result of chance variation interacting with a process of natural selection, it does not make claims to explain "any behavior."
  • Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]

[155][156]
A baleen whale skeleton, a and b label flipper bones, which were adapted from front leg bones: while c indicates vestigial leg bones.[157]
Adaptation occurs through the gradual modification of existing structures. Consequently, structures with similar internal organization may have different functions in related organisms. .This is the result of a single ancestral structure being adapted to function in different ways.^ But not least of all is the fact that faint traces of lunacy often have a method of being detected in different ways to many different people.
  • Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]

.The bones within bat wings, for example, are very similar to those in mice feet and primate hands, due to the descent of all these structures from a common mammalian ancestor.^ First of all, you gave an obvious example yourself (and then tried to hand-wave it off by calling us idiots).
  • Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]

[158] .However, since all living organisms are related to some extent,[159] even organs that appear to have little or no structural similarity, such as arthropod, squid and vertebrate eyes, or the limbs and wings of arthropods and vertebrates, can depend on a common set of homologous genes that control their assembly and function; this is called deep homology.^ Even if some version of abiogenesis via natural means were established beyond all doubt, religion still could coexist with it.
  • Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]

^ As an Atheist woman who may well be partially dependent on my Social Security in my old age, I'm damned glad he's got little to no chance of winning.
  • Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]

^ Fact is, we also need to open our eyes and our mouths and speak up and say no that's not good enough when a candidate hides behind state's rights or some other such nonsense.
  • Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]

[160][161]
.During adaptation, some structures may lose their original function and become vestigial structures.^ There may be some very very brief periods during which government got smaller, but > 95% of the time it grows.
  • Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]

[162] .Such structures may have little or no function in a current species, yet have a clear function in ancestral species, or other closely related species.^ As an Atheist woman who may well be partially dependent on my Social Security in my old age, I'm damned glad he's got little to no chance of winning.
  • Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]

^ The phylogenetic tree that was developed based on the fossil data showed what were believed to be ancestral relationships, and they also showed which species are most closely related to which other species.
  • Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]

Examples include pseudogenes,[163] the non-functional remains of eyes in blind cave-dwelling fish,[164] wings in flightless birds,[165] and the presence of hip bones in whales and snakes.[157] Examples of vestigial structures in humans include wisdom teeth,[166] the coccyx,[162] and the vermiform appendix.[162]
However, many traits that appear to be simple adaptations are in fact exaptations: structures originally adapted for one function, but which coincidentally became somewhat useful for some other function in the process.[167] One example is the African lizard Holaspis guentheri, which developed an extremely flat head for hiding in crevices, as can be seen by looking at its near relatives. However, in this species, the head has become so flattened that it assists in gliding from tree to tree—an exaptation.[167] Within cells, molecular machines such as the bacterial flagella[168] and protein sorting machinery[169] evolved by the recruitment of several pre-existing proteins that previously had different functions.[128] Another example is the recruitment of enzymes from glycolysis and xenobiotic metabolism to serve as structural proteins called crystallins within the lenses of organisms' eyes.[170][171]
A critical principle of ecology is that of competitive exclusion: no two species can occupy the same niche in the same environment for a long time.[172] Consequently, natural selection will tend to force species to adapt to different ecological niches. .This may mean that, for example, two species of cichlid fish adapt to live in different habitats, which will minimize the competition between them for food.^ Humans evolved as a social species, which means we naturally live in groups.
  • Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]

^ You mean different species follow different parts of evolutionary theory?
  • Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]

^ For example, when we developed the ability to sequence and compare proteins between species, that led to specific predictions that had to be true if common descent was true.
  • Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]

[173]
An area of current investigation in evolutionary developmental biology is the developmental basis of adaptations and exaptations.[174] .This research addresses the origin and evolution of embryonic development and how modifications of development and developmental processes produce novel features.^ Now, since the discussion is about evolution, you need to explain how in the world we evolved that "liberty" thing out of our biochemical processes.
  • Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]

^ If they are immaterial, how did material evolution create immaterial processes?
  • Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]

^ How about addressing the fact that the edited part has nothing to do with Paul rejecting evolution?
  • Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]

[175] .These studies have shown that evolution can alter development to create new structures, such as embryonic bone structures that develop into the jaw in other animals instead forming part of the middle ear in mammals.^ It is not that any of the theories that form the basis for evolution are necessarily without merit, but they remain, for the most part, as unestablished as their religious counterparts.
  • Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]

^ Some people would prefer to think of evolution as a fact, and thats their right as long as they don't insist upon others forming the same postulate as they do.
  • Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]

^ It is not that any of the theories that form the basis for evolution are necessarily without merit, but they remain, for the most part, as unestablished as their religious counterparts."
  • Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]

[176] .It is also possible for structures that have been lost in evolution to reappear due to changes in developmental genes, such as a mutation in chickens causing embryos to grow teeth similar to those of crocodiles.^ And nobody rational is denying the possibility of divine intervention in the process, including those who accept evolution as a theory.
  • Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]

^ Katie: Scientists may be divided on the mechanisms by which evolution works, but not on the basic principle that sexual selection, natural selection and mutation cause and continue to affect and effect speciation.
  • Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]

^ And no amount of ignorant posturing by those who don't know the real meaning of evolution is going to magically change the meaning to something it isn't.
  • Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]

[177] It is now becoming clear that most alterations in the form of organisms are due to changes in a small set of conserved genes.[178]

Co-evolution

Interactions between organisms can produce both conflict and co-operation. .When the interaction is between pairs of species, such as a pathogen and a host, or a predator and its prey, these species can develop matched sets of adaptations.^ For example, when we developed the ability to sequence and compare proteins between species, that led to specific predictions that had to be true if common descent was true.
  • Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]

^ When we developed the ability to sequence and compare proteins from different species, for example, we then had a whole new set of data that could have falsified our theory.
  • Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]

.Here, the evolution of one species causes adaptations in a second species.^ Katie: Scientists may be divided on the mechanisms by which evolution works, but not on the basic principle that sexual selection, natural selection and mutation cause and continue to affect and effect speciation.
  • Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]

^ These pressures, in the long term, can also shape a species, and even cause a population of organisms within that species to diverge and become a new one.
  • Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]

^ No one here has claimed that evolution is a fact.
  • Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]

.These changes in the second species then, in turn, cause new adaptations in the first species.^ These pressures, in the long term, can also shape a species, and even cause a population of organisms within that species to diverge and become a new one.
  • Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]

This cycle of selection and response is called co-evolution.[179] An example is the production of tetrodotoxin in the rough-skinned newt and the evolution of tetrodotoxin resistance in its predator, the common garter snake. In this predator-prey pair, an evolutionary arms race has produced high levels of toxin in the newt and correspondingly high levels of toxin resistance in the snake.[180]

Co-operation

.However, not all interactions between species involve conflict.^ If we're comparing, say, a hemoglobin protein between all those species, the human hemoglobin should be closest in sequence to the chimp, next closest with the pig, next closest with the chicken, and so forth.
  • Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]

[181] Many cases of mutually beneficial interactions have evolved. For instance, an extreme cooperation exists between plants and the mycorrhizal fungi that grow on their roots and aid the plant in absorbing nutrients from the soil.[182] This is a reciprocal relationship as the plants provide the fungi with sugars from photosynthesis. Here, the fungi actually grow inside plant cells, allowing them to exchange nutrients with their hosts, while sending signals that suppress the plant immune system.[183]
.Coalitions between organisms of the same species have also evolved.^ If those relationships were real, then the protein comparisons should show the same degree of relationship between those species.
  • Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]

An extreme case is the eusociality found in social insects, such as bees, termites and ants, where sterile insects feed and guard the small number of organisms in a colony that are able to reproduce. .On an even smaller scale, the somatic cells that make up the body of an animal limit their reproduction so they can maintain a stable organism, which then supports a small number of the animal's germ cells to produce offspring.^ Over-reproduction: all organisms tend to reproduce beyond their environment's capacity to support them (this is based on the work of Thomas Malthus, who studied how populations of organisms tended to grow geometrically until they encountered a limit on their population size).
  • Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]

^ They've also pointed out that regardless of how life started, that the theory of evolution best supports how the first organism(s) became as diverse as they are now.
  • Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]

Here, somatic cells respond to specific signals that instruct them whether to grow, remain as they are, or die. If cells ignore these signals and multiply inappropriately, their uncontrolled growth causes cancer.[42]
.Such cooperation within species may have evolved through the process of kin selection, which is where one organism acts to help raise a relative's offspring.^ What is true for one species may not apply to another species when the evidence is contradictory."
  • Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]

^ What is true for one species may not apply to another species when the evidence is contradictory.
  • Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]

^ Katie: Scientists may be divided on the mechanisms by which evolution works, but not on the basic principle that sexual selection, natural selection and mutation cause and continue to affect and effect speciation.
  • Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]

[184] .This activity is selected for because if the helping individual contains alleles which promote the helping activity, it is likely that its kin will also contain these alleles and thus those alleles will be passed on.^ And those materials, in turn, were passed on because they allowed previous ancestors to survive and reproduce.
  • Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]

[185] .Other processes that may promote cooperation include group selection, where cooperation provides benefits to a group of organisms.^ I do not include this as an argument against any other Christians who may be reading this blog - it is a silly argument in the first place - but I have noticed more TAG proponents, of late.
  • Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]

[186]

Speciation

The four mechanisms of speciation.
Speciation is the process where a species diverges into two or more descendant species.[187] Evolutionary biologists view species as statistical phenomena and not categories or types. .This view is counterintuitive since the classical idea of species is still widely held, with a species seen as a class of organisms exemplified by a "type specimen" that bears all the traits common to this species.^ Variation: all organisms are variable in their traits.
  • Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]

^ Darwinian theory is about the origin if biodiversity - why all the past and present organisms on planet earth have the traits that they do.
  • Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]

^ Natural selection is the process by which favorable traits that are heritable become more common in successive generations of a population of reproducing organisms, and unfavorable traits that are heritable become less common (from Wikipedia).
  • Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]

Instead, a species is now defined as a separately evolving lineage that forms a single gene pool. Although properties such as genetics and morphology are used to help separate closely related lineages, this definition has fuzzy boundaries.[188] Indeed, the exact definition of the term "species" is still controversial, particularly in prokaryotes,[189] and this is called the species problem.[190] Biologists have proposed a range of more precise definitions, but the definition used is a pragmatic choice that depends on the particularities of the species concerned.[190] .Typically the actual focus on biological study is the population, an observable interacting group of organisms, rather than a species, an observable similar group of individuals.^ These pressures, in the long term, can also shape a species, and even cause a population of organisms within that species to diverge and become a new one.
  • Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]

^ Humans, being the only species that can consider such things on a rational level rather than acting out of instinct, can make rational choices about such things.
  • Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]

^ Actually, I remember hearing that pre-translation the words used to describe Mary were "young woman" rather than "virgin".
  • Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]

.Speciation has been observed multiple times under both controlled laboratory conditions and in nature.^ We further observe that over time, as new species in that new taxon appear they look less and less like that older species, become more and more diversified and look more and more like the modern members of that taxon.
  • Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]

^ A scientific law is a description of a natural phenomenon or principle that invariably holds true under specific conditions and will occur under certain circumstances.
  • Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]

^ We've observed the evolution of new species innumerable times, both in the wild and in the lab.
  • Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]

[191] In sexually reproducing organisms, speciation results from reproductive isolation followed by genealogical divergence. There are four mechanisms for speciation. The most common in animals is allopatric speciation, which occurs in populations initially isolated geographically, such as by habitat fragmentation or migration. Selection under these conditions can produce very rapid changes in the appearance and behaviour of organisms.[192][193] .As selection and drift act independently on populations isolated from the rest of their species, separation may eventually produce organisms that cannot interbreed.^ These pressures, in the long term, can also shape a species, and even cause a population of organisms within that species to diverge and become a new one.
  • Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]

^ Katie: Scientists may be divided on the mechanisms by which evolution works, but not on the basic principle that sexual selection, natural selection and mutation cause and continue to affect and effect speciation.
  • Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]

[194]
.The second mechanism of speciation is peripatric speciation, which occurs when small populations of organisms become isolated in a new environment.^ We further observe that over time, as new species in that new taxon appear they look less and less like that older species, become more and more diversified and look more and more like the modern members of that taxon.
  • Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]

^ These pressures, in the long term, can also shape a species, and even cause a population of organisms within that species to diverge and become a new one.
  • Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]

^ Natural selection is the process by which favorable traits that are heritable become more common in successive generations of a population of reproducing organisms, and unfavorable traits that are heritable become less common (from Wikipedia).
  • Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]

.This differs from allopatric speciation in that the isolated populations are numerically much smaller than the parental population.^ Firstly, the "rapid changes" are much smaller than you seem to think; secondly, punk eek is compatible with the majority of the few cases where the fossil record has the incredibly high resolution required to see speciation, but not all of them.
  • Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]

^ Not one of them is inexplicable, and all of them are much smaller than you believe.
  • Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]

.Here, the founder effect causes rapid speciation through both rapid genetic drift and selection on a small gene pool.^ Katie: Scientists may be divided on the mechanisms by which evolution works, but not on the basic principle that sexual selection, natural selection and mutation cause and continue to affect and effect speciation.
  • Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]

[195]
The third mechanism of speciation is parapatric speciation. .This is similar to peripatric speciation in that a small population enters a new habitat, but differs in that there is no physical separation between these two populations.^ There is no doubt about the evolution of new species.
  • Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]

^ Is there a similar disclaimer on the social science department's websites separating themselves from all the Marxist who inhabit social science departments?
  • Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]

^ These pressures, in the long term, can also shape a species, and even cause a population of organisms within that species to diverge and become a new one.
  • Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]

.Instead, speciation results from the evolution of mechanisms that reduce gene flow between the two populations.^ There's a huge distinction between ackowledging the mechanism of evolution in the ADAPTATION of existent Life, and claiming it provides a supportable theory explaining the ORIGINS of Life.
  • Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]

^ Katie: Scientists may be divided on the mechanisms by which evolution works, but not on the basic principle that sexual selection, natural selection and mutation cause and continue to affect and effect speciation.
  • Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]

^ However, on many issues, two being The War Between the States and evolution, educated people are divided.
  • Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]

[187] .Generally this occurs when there has been a drastic change in the environment within the parental species' habitat.^ The only time I have seen Horizontal/Vertical Evolution distinction is where people are referencing changes within a species (horizontal) to speciation (vertical).
  • Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]

^ I would like to think that the Creative force would allow species to adapt to changes in their environment over time.
  • Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]

One example is the grass Anthoxanthum odoratum, which can undergo parapatric speciation in response to localized metal pollution from mines.[196] Here, plants evolve that have resistance to high levels of metals in the soil. .Selection against interbreeding with the metal-sensitive parental population produced a gradual change in the flowering time of the metal-resistant plants, which eventually produced complete reproductive isolation.^ Evolution is NOT totally random (random mutations lead to nonrandom selection leads to change in population - the only random component is the mutation).
  • Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]

.Selection against hybrids between the two populations may cause reinforcement, which is the evolution of traits that promote mating within a species, as well as character displacement, which is when two species become more distinct in appearance.^ We further observe that over time, as new species in that new taxon appear they look less and less like that older species, become more and more diversified and look more and more like the modern members of that taxon.
  • Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]

^ These pressures, in the long term, can also shape a species, and even cause a population of organisms within that species to diverge and become a new one.
  • Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]

^ The only time I have seen Horizontal/Vertical Evolution distinction is where people are referencing changes within a species (horizontal) to speciation (vertical).
  • Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]

[197]
Geographical isolation of finches on the Galápagos Islands produced over a dozen new species.
Finally, in sympatric speciation species diverge without geographic isolation or changes in habitat. .This form is rare since even a small amount of gene flow may remove genetic differences between parts of a population.^ And even explicit elucidation of the differences may make little impression, as evidenced by the poster Mike.
  • Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]

[198] .Generally, sympatric speciation in animals requires the evolution of both genetic differences and non-random mating, to allow reproductive isolation to evolve.^ The theory of evolution and creationism need not be mutually exclusive, but both ideas require some flexibility.
  • Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]

^ We've observed the evolution of new species innumerable times, both in the wild and in the lab.
  • Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]

^ A certain element of randomness is required for mutation to happen, so far as I understand, so if you're rejecting that part then it's probably not right to say that you accept evolution.
  • Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]

[199]
.One type of sympatric speciation involves cross-breeding of two related species to produce a new hybrid species.^ These pressures, in the long term, can also shape a species, and even cause a population of organisms within that species to diverge and become a new one.
  • Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]

^ We see the patterns in the fossil record and we infer from them that they were produced by the splitting off of one species from another.
  • Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]

^ If we speak of the ability to cross to a new species then we speak of the theory of evolution which is still very un-proven, and therefor a theory.
  • Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]

This is not common in animals as animal hybrids are usually sterile. This is because during meiosis the homologous chromosomes from each parent are from different species and cannot successfully pair. However, it is more common in plants because plants often double their number of chromosomes, to form polyploids.[200] This allows the chromosomes from each parental species to form a matching pair during meiosis, since as each parent's chromosomes is represented by a pair already.[201] .An example of such a speciation event is when the plant species Arabidopsis thaliana and Arabidopsis arenosa cross-bred to give the new species Arabidopsis suecica.^ If we speak of the ability to cross to a new species then we speak of the theory of evolution which is still very un-proven, and therefor a theory.
  • Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]

^ When we developed the ability to sequence and compare proteins from different species, for example, we then had a whole new set of data that could have falsified our theory.
  • Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]

[202] This happened about 20,000 years ago,[203] and the speciation process has been repeated in the laboratory, which allows the study of the genetic mechanisms involved in this process.[204] .Indeed, chromosome doubling within a species may be a common cause of reproductive isolation, as half the doubled chromosomes will be unmatched when breeding with undoubled organisms.^ These pressures, in the long term, can also shape a species, and even cause a population of organisms within that species to diverge and become a new one.
  • Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]

^ Katie: Scientists may be divided on the mechanisms by which evolution works, but not on the basic principle that sexual selection, natural selection and mutation cause and continue to affect and effect speciation.
  • Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]

[90]
.Speciation events are important in the theory of punctuated equilibrium, which accounts for the pattern in the fossil record of short "bursts" of evolution interspersed with relatively long periods of stasis, where species remain relatively unchanged.^ Historical examples include punctuated equilibrium (long periods with little change punctuated by short periods of rapid speciation/change) and coevolution (where two species with a mutually beneficial relationship evolve together, like some kinds of flower that can only be pollinated by a certain single species of insect).
  • Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]

^ Evolution has a long track record of making such successful predictions, including most recently the finding of the Tiktaalik fossil precisely where it was predicted (the type of sediments it would be found in) and when it was predicted (the age of those sediments).
  • Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]

^ If we speak of the ability to cross to a new species then we speak of the theory of evolution which is still very un-proven, and therefor a theory.
  • Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]

[205] .In this theory, speciation and rapid evolution are linked, with natural selection and genetic drift acting most strongly on organisms undergoing speciation in novel habitats or small populations.^ If we speak of the ability to cross to a new species then we speak of the theory of evolution which is still very un-proven, and therefor a theory.
  • Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]

^ First of all, you are confusing artifical selection and natural selection with evolution.
  • Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]

^ It is not that any of the theories that form the basis for evolution are necessarily without merit, but they remain, for the most part, as unestablished as their religious counterparts.
  • Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]

.As a result, the periods of stasis in the fossil record correspond to the parental population, and the organisms undergoing speciation and rapid evolution are found in small populations or geographically restricted habitats, and therefore rarely being preserved as fossils.^ Evolution has a long track record of making such successful predictions, including most recently the finding of the Tiktaalik fossil precisely where it was predicted (the type of sediments it would be found in) and when it was predicted (the age of those sediments).
  • Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]

^ If we speak of the ability to cross to a new species then we speak of the theory of evolution which is still very un-proven, and therefor a theory.
  • Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]

^ These pressures, in the long term, can also shape a species, and even cause a population of organisms within that species to diverge and become a new one.
  • Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]

[206]

Extinction

Extinction is the disappearance of an entire species. Extinction is not an unusual event, as species regularly appear through speciation, and disappear through extinction.[207] .Nearly all animal and plant species that have lived on earth are now extinct,[208] and extinction appears to be the ultimate fate of all species.^ The modification of DNA with in species has been accepted since man first started cultivating crops and animals via selective breeding and planting.
  • Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]

^ I postulate that we all exist and live on earth and your not just the figment of some weird matrix dream.
  • Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]

^ "The modification of DNA with in species has been accepted since man first started cultivating crops and animals via selective breeding and planting.
  • Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]

[209] These extinctions have happened continuously throughout the history of life, although the rate of extinction spikes in occasional mass extinction events.[210] .The Cretaceous–Tertiary extinction event, during which the non-avian dinosaurs went extinct, is the most well-known, but the earlier Permian–Triassic extinction event was even more severe, with approximately 96 percent of species driven to extinction.^ Several commenters (Julia and Gretchen, eg) went most of the way down this path but for one reason or another stopped short along the way.
  • Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]

[210] The Holocene extinction event is an ongoing mass extinction associated with humanity's expansion across the globe over the past few thousand years. .Present-day extinction rates are 100–1000 times greater than the background rate, and up to 30 percent of species may be extinct by the mid 21st century.^ As I've noted above, evolution is "only" a few thousand times more likely to be true than any other theory we've got to explain a century and a half of experimentation.
  • Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]

[211] Human activities are now the primary cause of the ongoing extinction event;[212] global warming may further accelerate it in the future.[213]
.The role of extinction in evolution is not very well understood and may depend on which type of extinction is considered.^ As an Atheist woman who may well be partially dependent on my Social Security in my old age, I'm damned glad he's got little to no chance of winning.
  • Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]

^ Of course, that may very well change with this new SCOTUS crew.
  • Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]

^ Their belief in a supernatural God very well might inform their belief, or disbelief, in evolution.
  • Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]

[210] .The causes of the continuous "low-level" extinction events, which form the majority of extinctions, may be the result of competition between species for limited resources (competitive exclusion).^ Katie: Scientists may be divided on the mechanisms by which evolution works, but not on the basic principle that sexual selection, natural selection and mutation cause and continue to affect and effect speciation.
  • Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]

[12] If one species can out-compete another, this could produce species selection, with the fitter species surviving and the other species being driven to extinction.[113] .The intermittent mass extinctions are also important, but instead of acting as a selective force, they drastically reduce diversity in a nonspecific manner and promote bursts of rapid evolution and speciation in survivors.^ Tell me why the forces of natural selection operating on a social species wouldn't/couldn't create a sense or moral sentiments.
  • Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]

^ Instead it shows rapid changes of speciation over short periods of time.
  • Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]

^ They've also pointed out that regardless of how life started, that the theory of evolution best supports how the first organism(s) became as diverse as they are now.
  • Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]

[214]

Evolutionary history of life

Origin of life

.The origin of life is a necessary precursor for biological evolution, but understanding that evolution occurred once organisms appeared and investigating how this happens does not depend on understanding exactly how life began.^ Evolution does NOT deal with the origins of life.
  • Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]

^ The Theory of Evolution, as first formed by Darwin, and in its magnificent elucidation since then, does not require one to know anything of biogenesis - in essence, it STARTS with reproducing life forms.
  • Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]

^ And when that "capacity for culture" appeared, we are not talking about biological evolution anymore, it is now "cultural evolution."
  • Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]

[215] .The current scientific consensus is that the complex biochemistry that makes up life came from simpler chemical reactions, but it is unclear how this occurred.^ So to claim that life came from non life (proven by Louis Pasteur as an impossibility), or that all complex chemicals came from hydrogen, to some, like Dr Paul, requires just as much faith as it does to say there is a God.
  • Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]

^ How that first self-replicating life came to be here is irrelevant to the truth of the theory of common descent.
  • Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]

^ "So to claim that life came from non life (proven by Louis Pasteur as an impossibility), or that all complex chemicals came from hydrogen, to some, like Dr Paul, requires just as much faith as it does to say there is a God.
  • Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]

[216] .Not much is certain about the earliest developments in life, the structure of the first living things, or the identity and nature of any last universal common ancestor or ancestral gene pool.^ It is a theory which best explains the data about how life developed on earth.
  • Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]

^ Also things are not so clear about the lack of evidence for natural origins of life as you make it out to be.
  • Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]

^ The Virgin Birth is theologically essential because if Jesus had two natural parents he would have had a sin nature like every other human, and he would not have lived a sinless life.
  • Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]

[217][218] .Consequently, there is no scientific consensus on how life began, but proposals include self-replicating molecules such as RNA,[219] and the assembly of simple cells.^ He just said that there is no way to know for sure how we came to be.
  • Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]

^ Ask Ron Paul if he believes in the immortal human soul, and if he does, where is the scientific proof that there is such a thing?
  • Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]

^ No, therefore we have no scientific evidence concerning the conditions necessary to bring about life.
  • Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]

[220]

Common descent

The hominoids are descendants of a common ancestor.
.All organisms on Earth are descended from a common ancestor or ancestral gene pool.^ Darwinian theory is about the origin if biodiversity - why all the past and present organisms on planet earth have the traits that they do.
  • Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]

[159] .Current species are a stage in the process of evolution, with their diversity the product of a long series of speciation and extinction events.^ Evolutionary theory states that speciation, the "diversity of life," is the result of chance variation interacting with a process of natural selection, it does not make claims to explain "any behavior."
  • Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]

^ And the point in any event is, of course, not whether candidates are knowledgeable in some specialized area but whether they accept scientific consensus as the current best bet on an issue.
  • Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]

^ And with the current context of evolution it is often used to imply origin of species.
  • Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]

[221] The common descent of organisms was first deduced from four simple facts about organisms: First, they have geographic distributions that cannot be explained by local adaptation. .Second, the diversity of life is not a set of completely unique organisms, but organisms that share morphological similarities.^ They've also pointed out that regardless of how life started, that the theory of evolution best supports how the first organism(s) became as diverse as they are now.
  • Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]

Third, vestigial traits with no clear purpose resemble functional ancestral traits, and finally, that organisms can be classified using these similarities into a hierarchy of nested groups – similar to a family tree.[7] However, modern research has suggested that, due to horizontal gene transfer, this "tree of life" may be more complicated than a simple branching tree since some genes have spread independently between distantly related species.[222][223]
Past species have also left records of their evolutionary history. Fossils, along with the comparative anatomy of present-day organisms, constitute the morphological, or anatomical, record.[224] .By comparing the anatomies of both modern and extinct species, paleontologists can infer the lineages of those species.^ If we're comparing, say, a hemoglobin protein between all those species, the human hemoglobin should be closest in sequence to the chimp, next closest with the pig, next closest with the chicken, and so forth.
  • Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]

.However, this approach is most successful for organisms that had hard body parts, such as shells, bones or teeth.^ Well, note that I said "a good deal of the research" - and most of the government funded part is basic research that makes the applied research, such as individual drugs, possible.
  • Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]

Further, as prokaryotes such as bacteria and archaea share a limited set of common morphologies, their fossils do not provide information on their ancestry.
.More recently, evidence for common descent has come from the study of biochemical similarities between organisms.^ Evolution means the theory of common descent (more properly a set of theories, but that's not relevant to this discussion).
  • Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]

^ Natural selection is the process by which favorable traits that are heritable become more common in successive generations of a population of reproducing organisms, and unfavorable traits that are heritable become less common (from Wikipedia).
  • Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]

^ If the common ancestor between humans and chimps was more recent than the common ancestor between humans and pigs, which was more recent than the common ancestor between humans and chickens, which was more recent than the common ancestor between humans and earthworms - as the fossil evidence clearly showed - then we should find the same relationship between shared protein sequences in those species.
  • Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]

.For example, all living cells use the same basic set of nucleotides and amino acids.^ We draw logical inferences using the same kind of deductive reasoning all the time in the sciences.
  • Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]

^ For example, it uses the low "uncaught error" rate to postulate that, er, I dunno, some higher power is keeping the DNA of all the cells on the planet in line.
  • Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]

^ It completely matters who is is talking to here, as that affects how he will use the word (though, in all likelihood, he will use the word the same way in other circumstances, as he is not a specialist).
  • Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]

[225] .The development of molecular genetics has revealed the record of evolution left in organisms' genomes: dating when species diverged through the molecular clock produced by mutations.^ If we concern ourselves only with the fact that species can diversify at the very least with in the species then it is the science of genetics, not evolution.
  • Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]

^ (For the record, I have seen evolution on a petri dish full of bacteria and bacteriophages, and so did everyone else in that first-year molecular biology course.
  • Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]

^ These pressures, in the long term, can also shape a species, and even cause a population of organisms within that species to diverge and become a new one.
  • Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]

[226] .For example, these DNA sequence comparisons have revealed that humans and chimpanzees share 96% of their genomes and analyzing the few areas where they differ helps shed light on when the common ancestor of these species existed.^ "One of the things I have noted about evolutionists is that they tend to switch their opinions when it comes to the mechanics of the evolutionary transformation process when it is applied to different species.
  • Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]

^ If common descent is true, those sequence homologies between proteins in different species must fall into the same kind of pattern we observe in the fossil record.
  • Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]

^ One of the things I have noted about evolutionists is that they tend to switch their opinions when it comes to the mechanics of the evolutionary transformation process when it is applied to different species.
  • Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]

[227]

Evolution of life

Euryarchaeota Nanoarchaeota Crenarchaeota Protozoa Algae Plantae Slime molds Animal Fungus Gram-positive bacteria Chlamydiae Chloroflexi Actinobacteria Planctomycetes Spirochaetes Fusobacteria Cyanobacteria Thermophiles Acidobacteria Proteobacteria
.
Evolutionary tree showing the divergence of modern species from their common ancestor in the center.
^ What do you expect, a stop-motion video depicting the evolution from the common ancestor of Eukarya, Prokarya and Archaea to modern man?
  • Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]

^ The common ancestor is neither modern ape nor modern man (whether it's classifiably in the same genus as apes is a matter for taxonomists).
  • Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]

^ If the common ancestor between humans and chimps was more recent than the common ancestor between humans and pigs, which was more recent than the common ancestor between humans and chickens, which was more recent than the common ancestor between humans and earthworms - as the fossil evidence clearly showed - then we should find the same relationship between shared protein sequences in those species.
  • Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]

[228] The three domains are colored, with bacteria blue, archaea green, and eukaryotes red.
.Despite the uncertainty on how life began, it is generally accepted that prokaryotes inhabited the Earth from approximately 3–4 billion years ago.^ It is a theory which best explains the data about how life developed on earth.
  • Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]

[2][229] No obvious changes in morphology or cellular organization occurred in these organisms over the next few billion years.[230]
The eukaryotes were the next major change in cell structure. These came from ancient bacteria being engulfed by the ancestors of eukaryotic cells, in a cooperative association called endosymbiosis.[99][231] The engulfed bacteria and the host cell then underwent co-evolution, with the bacteria evolving into either mitochondria or hydrogenosomes.[232] An independent second engulfment of cyanobacterial-like organisms led to the formation of chloroplasts in algae and plants.[233] .It is unknown when the first eukaryotic cells appeared though they first emerged between 1.6 – 2.7 billion years ago.^ The first birds appear just like theropod dinosaurs because they split off from a lineage of theropod dinosaurs.
  • Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]

The history of life was that of the unicellular eukaryotes, prokaryotes, and archaea until about 610 million years ago when multicellular organisms began to appear in the oceans in the Ediacaran period.[2][234] .The evolution of multicellularity occurred in multiple independent events, in organisms as diverse as sponges, brown algae, cyanobacteria, slime moulds and myxobacteria.^ They've also pointed out that regardless of how life started, that the theory of evolution best supports how the first organism(s) became as diverse as they are now.
  • Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]

[235]
.Soon after the emergence of these first multicellular organisms, a remarkable amount of biological diversity appeared over approximately 10 million years, in an event called the Cambrian explosion.^ Note especially the "Cambrian Explosion" about 500 million years ago.
  • Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]

^ They've also pointed out that regardless of how life started, that the theory of evolution best supports how the first organism(s) became as diverse as they are now.
  • Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]

.Here, the majority of types of modern animals appeared in the fossil record, as well as unique lineages that subsequently became extinct.^ With the enormous, massive, inexplicable gaps in the fossil record, who here can absolutely defend evolution?
  • Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]

^ Well, it doesn't matter unless he starts pandering to the creationists - which is what he appears to do here.
  • Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]

^ "With the enormous, massive, inexplicable gaps in the fossil record, who here can absolutely defend evolution?"
  • Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]

[236] Various triggers for the Cambrian explosion have been proposed, including the accumulation of oxygen in the atmosphere from photosynthesis.[237] .About 500 million years ago, plants and fungi colonized the land, and were soon followed by arthropods and other animals.^ Note especially the "Cambrian Explosion" about 500 million years ago.
  • Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]

^ The fact that it happened 100 million years ago does not affect the validity of that inference.
  • Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]

^ Like I pointed earlier, ten years ago no one knew about it, today we have to banish them from our forums.
  • Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]

[238] Insects were particularly successful and even today make up the majority of animal species.[239] .Amphibians first appeared around 300 million years ago, followed by early amniotes, then mammals around 200 million years ago and birds around 100 million years ago (both from "reptile"-like lineages).^ For example, we observe that when a new higher level taxon appears in the fossil record, like birds or amphibians, the first species in that taxon to appear are virtually indistinguishable from an already existing species or group.
  • Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]

^ To believe that a kind of animal, like a dog or bird, can adapt to its environment and have variations is proven science and accepted by both evolutionists and creationists.
  • Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]

^ For me to demand an atheist candidate now is like asking for Barack Obama to run against George Washington 200 years ago.
  • Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]

.However, despite the evolution of these large animals, smaller organisms similar to the types that evolved early in this process continue to be highly successful and dominate the Earth, with the majority of both biomass and species being prokaryotes.^ We've observed the evolution of new species innumerable times, both in the wild and in the lab.
  • Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]

^ Now, since the discussion is about evolution, you need to explain how in the world we evolved that "liberty" thing out of our biochemical processes.
  • Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]

^ Natural selection is the process by which favorable traits that are heritable become more common in successive generations of a population of reproducing organisms, and unfavorable traits that are heritable become less common (from Wikipedia).
  • Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]

[138]

Social and cultural responses

As Darwinism became widely accepted in the 1870s, caricatures of Charles Darwin with an ape or monkey body symbolised evolution.[240]
.In the 19th century, particularly after the publication of On the Origin of Species in 1859, the idea that life had evolved was an active source of academic debate centered on the philosophical, social and religious implications of evolution.^ Vertical Evolution rest upon the idea that life can come from nothing.
  • Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]

^ They regard it as a religious myth that was added to Christian belief in the late first century CE and was triggered by a Greek mistranslation of the book of Isaiah from the original Hebrew.
  • Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]

^ That said, the policies of today's Social Democratic parties over most of the world -- and this is what, I suppose, most academics support -- would, for the most part, not even be recognized as socialism by 19th-century socialists.
  • Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]

Nowadays, the fact that organisms evolve is uncontested in the scientific literature and the modern evolutionary synthesis is widely accepted by scientists.[12] However, evolution remains a contentious concept for some theists.[241]
.While various religions and denominations have reconciled their beliefs with evolution through concepts such as theistic evolution, there are creationists who believe that evolution is contradicted by the creation myths found in their respective religions and who raise various objections to evolution.^ There are scientists who don't believe the theory of evolution is correct.
  • Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]

^ Who cares if Ron believes in evolution or not?
  • Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]

^ "Who cares if Ron believes in evolution or not?
  • Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]

[128][242][243] .As had been demonstrated by responses to the publication of Vestiges of the Natural History of Creation in 1844, the most controversial aspect of evolutionary biology is the implication of human evolution that human mental and moral faculties, which had been thought purely spiritual, are not distinctly separated from those of other animals.^ The fact that humans have never deliberately exposed bacteria to an antibiotic does not mean there has been no exposure - either naturally (most antibiotics are naturally occuring) or accidentially through the release of antibiotics into the environment in people or animal feces .
  • Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]

^ Evolution doesn't care whether God created bacteria or they formed without assistance over long periods of time; evolution only cares whether those bacteria follow the principles of natural selection, heritable variation, etc.
  • Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]

^ Thirdly, I would like to know why you continually refuse to countenance the idea that atoms make up much bigger things, and those bigger things interact with each other, and that interaction creates things like morality and society and culture.
  • Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]

[6] .In some countries—notably the United States—these tensions between science and religion have fueled the current creation-evolution controversy, a religious conflict focusing on politics and public education.^ So Ron Paul's beliefs on evolution as the President of the United States should be irrelevant at best, which is why he thought the question was inappropriate.
  • Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]

^ The one thing you can say about a Paul presidency is that he wouldn't involve the state with either science or religion, whatever his personal views on those matters.
  • Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]

^ The unedited version contains this statement, right between Congressman Paul stating that he doesn't accept evolution as a theory and speaking of his personal beliefs: .
  • Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]

[244] .While other scientific fields such as cosmology[245] and earth science[246] also conflict with literal interpretations of many religious texts, evolutionary biology experiences significantly more opposition from religious literalists.^ Fundamentalism is more disturbing in science than in any other field because the veneer of absolutism is thicker in the scientific thickhead.
  • Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]

^ The problem is that Ron Paul, like you and many others, don't have a clue what the word theory means in a scientific context.
  • Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]

^ Your "common parlance" is a cartoon version of evolutionary thought promulgated by fundamentalist young earth creationists who are practicing both bad science AND bad biblical interpretation.
  • Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]

.The teaching of evolution in American secondary school biology classes was uncommon in most of the first half of the 20th century.^ Additionally, just phone a decent university's biology department and ask them what textbook they use to teach evolution.
  • Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]

^ Education "experts" on government payroll who ban teaching of any alternative to evolution in schools are proponents of "free market of ideas"?
  • Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]

^ How could any person have gradutated from a decent medical school and fail to accept the theory of evolution in the 21st century?
  • Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]

The Scopes Trial decision of 1925 caused the subject to become very rare in American secondary biology textbooks for a generation, but it was gradually re-introduced about a generation later and legally protected with the 1968 Epperson v. Arkansas decision. Since then, the competing religious belief of creationism was legally disallowed in secondary school curricula in various decisions in the 1970s and 1980s, but it returned in the form of intelligent design, to be excluded once again in the 2005 Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District case.[247]
.Another example somewhat associated with evolutionary theory that is now widely regarded as unwarranted is "Social Darwinism", a derogatory term associated with the 19th century Malthusian theory developed by Whig philosopher Herbert Spencer.^ That said, the policies of today's Social Democratic parties over most of the world -- and this is what, I suppose, most academics support -- would, for the most part, not even be recognized as socialism by 19th-century socialists.
  • Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]

^ Evolutionary theory as a whole has been substantiated by a century and a half of experimentation and theory, and Paul tosses it all aside by saying "It's a theory, the theory of evolution, and I don't accept it."
  • Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]

^ If Darwin's theory only spoke of the genetic modifications in life it would have been laughed at by the average English farmer who's ancestors have been experts in the art of evolution for centuries."
  • Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]

.It was later expanded by others into ideas about "survival of the fittest" in commerce and human societies as a whole, and led to claims that social inequality, sexism, racism, and imperialism were justified.^ The TOE says nothing about how human society should be organized.
  • Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]

^ You seem to try to build your position on the idea of the mysterious transformation of biological processes into moral and social guidelines.
  • Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]

^ "The Man" (read, Saviour) is missing the point that it has to be about ideas, (and not ideals) and which ideas and plans and organizations are most survival-promoting for YOU in this real world.
  • Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]

[248] However, these ideas contradict Darwin's own views, and contemporary scientists and philosophers consider these ideas to be neither mandated by evolutionary theory nor supported by data.[249][250][251]

Applications

.Evolutionary biology, and in particular the understanding of how organisms evolve through natural selection, is an area of science with many practical applications.^ I remember many reasons suggested at teh time, but natural selection was not one of them, either from the pro war governments or the people who suggested the had ulterior motives.
  • Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]

^ If you've got a degree in double-E, I'm sure you're perfectly able of reading up on and understanding the science behind modern biology.
  • Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]

^ Natural selection is the process by which favorable traits that are heritable become more common in successive generations of a population of reproducing organisms, and unfavorable traits that are heritable become less common (from Wikipedia).
  • Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]

[252] .A major technological application of evolution is artificial selection, which is the intentional selection of certain traits in a population of organisms.^ Natural selection is the process by which favorable traits that are heritable become more common in successive generations of a population of reproducing organisms, and unfavorable traits that are heritable become less common (from Wikipedia).
  • Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]

^ Yes Darwin studied artificial selection in order to understand natural selection, which is a MECHANISM of evolution, not the same thing as evolution.
  • Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]

^ "Evolution" is a change in the inherited traits of a population from one generation to the next (from Wikipedia).
  • Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]

Humans have used artificial selection for thousands of years in the domestication of plants and animals.[253] .More recently, such selection has become a vital part of genetic engineering, with selectable markers such as antibiotic resistance genes being used to manipulate DNA in molecular biology.^ Natural selection is the process by which favorable traits that are heritable become more common in successive generations of a population of reproducing organisms, and unfavorable traits that are heritable become less common (from Wikipedia).
  • Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]

^ Natural selection is an observable phenomenon, and mitochondrial DNA, primate genetic studies, and the fossil record provide incontrovertible evidence that the theory of evolution is accurate.
  • Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]

.It is also possible to use repeated rounds of mutation and selection to evolve proteins with particular properties, such as modified enzymes or new antibodies, in a process called directed evolution.^ "He simply does not accept evolution as a theory, as fanatical adherents do, in the materialistic totality that denies the possibility of divine intervention in the process, which is not the same as denying every aspect of that theory."
  • Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]

^ He simply does not accept evolution as a theory, as fanatical adherents do, in the materialistic totality that denies the possibility of divine intervention in the process, which is not the same as denying every aspect of that theory.
  • Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]

^ Now, since the discussion is about evolution, you need to explain how in the world we evolved that "liberty" thing out of our biochemical processes.
  • Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]

[254]
.Understanding the changes that have occurred during organism's evolution can reveal the genes needed to construct parts of the body, genes which may be involved in human genetic disorders.^ This may come as a surprise to y'all, but providing quality care to human beings suffering from any disease I can think of is not predicated on the belief that evolution is true.
  • Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]

^ I thought we were talking about human behavior, not about parts of the human body.
  • Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]

^ Human genomic mapping, for example would not have occured without government funding, but any gene therapies that come out of it will likely be funded by private industry.
  • Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]

[255] For example, the Mexican tetra is an albino cavefish that lost its eyesight during evolution. Breeding together different populations of this blind fish produced some offspring with functional eyes, since different mutations had occurred in the isolated populations that had evolved in different caves.[256] This helped identify genes required for vision and pigmentation, such as crystallins and the melanocortin 1 receptor.[257] Similarly, comparing the genome of the Antarctic icefish, which lacks red blood cells, to close relatives such as the zebrafish revealed genes needed to make these blood cells.[258]
.As evolution can produce highly optimized processes and networks, it has many applications in computer science.^ Evolution is a science - but many people use evolution as science, do science, and also believe in God, Christian or otherwise.
  • Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]

^ Many, if not most, of the established Christian churches explicitly support honest science, and evolution, in their doctrines.
  • Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]

^ If evolution were a principle science, instead of a theory, it would provide the consistent application of law throughout the entire process.
  • Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]

.Here, simulations of evolution using evolutionary algorithms and artificial life started with the work of Nils Aall Barricelli in the 1960s, and was extended by Alex Fraser, who published a series of papers on simulation of artificial selection.^ The Theory of Evolution, as first formed by Darwin, and in its magnificent elucidation since then, does not require one to know anything of biogenesis - in essence, it STARTS with reproducing life forms.
  • Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]

^ Do tell what evolutionary biologist uses the terms "horizontal evolution and vertical evolution" in the way you suggest here?
  • Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]

^ "With the enormous, massive, inexplicable gaps in the fossil record, who here can absolutely defend evolution?"
  • Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]

[259] .Artificial evolution became a widely recognized optimization method as a result of the work of Ingo Rechenberg in the 1960s and early 1970s, who used evolution strategies to solve complex engineering problems.^ The brain is just your thinking engine, and it was built by evolution based on what made your ancestors more likely to survive and reproduce-- using, of course, what pre-existing raw materials it had to work with.
  • Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]

[260] Genetic algorithms in particular became popular through the writing of John Holland.[261] As academic interest grew, dramatic increases in the power of computers allowed practical applications, including the automatic evolution of computer programs.[262] .Evolutionary algorithms are now used to solve multi-dimensional problems more efficiently than software produced by human designers, and also to optimize the design of systems.^ Ron Paul believes in an intelligent design Creator - GOD. It makes much more sense to me and is much more logical than believing in evolutionary random chance as an explanation of our existance.
  • Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]

^ That it is now understood to mean more than simply Darwin's theory is the fault of all the militant naturalists.
  • Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]

^ Of course, he (and they) have been more than happy to use gubmint power against those they hate, including gays, immigrants, and women.
  • Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]

[263]

See also


References

  1. ^ a b c Futuyma, Douglas J. (2005). Evolution. Sunderland, Massachusetts: Sinauer Associates, Inc. ISBN 0-87893-187-2. 
  2. ^ a b c Cavalier-Smith T (2006). "Cell evolution and Earth history: stasis and revolution". Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci 361 (1470): 969–1006. doi:10.1098/rstb.2006.1842. PMID 16754610. 
  3. ^ a b Lande R, Arnold SJ (1983). "The measurement of selection on correlated characters". Evolution 37 (6): 1210–26. doi:10.2307/2408842. 
  4. ^ Ayala FJ (2007). "Darwin's greatest discovery: design without designer". Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 104 (Suppl 1): 8567–73. doi:10.1073/pnas.0701072104. PMID 17494753. PMC 1876431. http://www.pnas.org/content/104/suppl.1/8567.full. 
  5. ^ Ian C. Johnston (1999). "History of Science: Early Modern Geology". Malaspina University-College. http://records.viu.ca/~johnstoi/darwin/sect2.htm. Retrieved 2008-01-15. 
  6. ^ a b Bowler, Peter J. (2003). Evolution:The History of an Idea. University of California Press. ISBN 0-52023693-9. 
  7. ^ a b Darwin, Charles (1859). On the Origin of Species (1st ed.). London: John Murray. p. 1. http://darwin-online.org.uk/content/frameset?itemID=F373&viewtype=text&pageseq=16. . Related earlier ideas were acknowledged in Darwin, Charles (1861). On the Origin of Species (3rd ed.). London: John Murray. xiii. http://darwin-online.org.uk/content/frameset?itemID=F381&viewtype=text&pageseq=20. 
  8. ^ AAAS Council (December 26, 1922). "AAAS Resolution: Present Scientific Status of the Theory of Evolution". American Association for the Advancement of Science. http://archives.aaas.org/docs/resolutions.php?doc_id=450. 
  9. ^ a b "IAP Statement on the Teaching of Evolution" (PDF). The Interacademy Panel on International Issues. 2006. http://www.interacademies.net/Object.File/Master/6/150/Evolution%20statement.pdf. Retrieved 2007-04-25.  Joint statement issued by the national science academies of 67 countries, including the United Kingdom's Royal Society
  10. ^ a b Board of Directors, American Association for the Advancement of Science (2006-02-16). "Statement on the Teaching of Evolution" (PDF). American Association for the Advancement of Science. http://www.aaas.org/news/releases/2006/pdf/0219boardstatement.pdf.  from the world's largest general scientific society
  11. ^ "Statements from Scientific and Scholarly Organizations". National Center for Science Education. http://ncse.com/media/voices/science. 
  12. ^ a b c d e Kutschera U, Niklas K (2004). "The modern theory of biological evolution: an expanded synthesis". Naturwissenschaften 91 (6): 255–76. doi:10.1007/s00114-004-0515-y. PMID 15241603. 
  13. ^ "Special report on evolution". New Scientist. 2008-01-19. http://www.newscientist.com/topic/evolution. 
  14. ^ Wright, S (1984). Evolution and the Genetics of Populations, Volume 1: Genetic and Biometric Foundations. The University of Chicago Press. ISBN 0-226-91038-5. 
  15. ^ Zirkle C (1941). "Natural Selection before the "Origin of Species"". Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society 84 (1): 71–123. 
  16. ^ Muhammad Hamidullah and Afzal Iqbal (1993), The Emergence of Islam: Lectures on the Development of Islamic World-view, Intellectual Tradition and Polity, p. 143-144. Islamic Research Institute, Islamabad.
  17. ^ "A Source Book In Chinese Philosophy", Chan, Wing-Tsit, p. 204, 1962.
  18. ^ Terrall, M (2002). The Man Who Flattened the Earth: Maupertuis and the Sciences in the Enlightenment. The University of Chicago Press. ISBN 978-0226793610. 
  19. ^ Wallace, A (1858). "On the Tendency of Species to form Varieties, and on the Perpetuation of Varieties and Species by Natural Means of Selection". Journal of the Proceedings of the Linnean Society of London. Zoology 3: 53–62. doi:10.1098/rsnr.2006.0171. http://darwin-online.org.uk/content/frameset?itemID=F350&viewtype=text&pageseq=1. Retrieved 2007-05-13. 
  20. ^ Darwin, Charles (1872). "Effects of the increased Use and Disuse of Parts, as controlled by Natural Selection". The Origin of Species. 6th edition, p. 108. John Murray. http://darwin-online.org.uk/content/frameset?viewtype=text&itemID=F391&pageseq=136. Retrieved 2007-12-28. 
  21. ^ Leakey, Richard E.; Darwin, Charles (1979). The illustrated origin of species. London: Faber. ISBN 0-571-14586-8.  p. 17-18
  22. ^ Ghiselin, Michael T. (September/October 1994). "Nonsense in schoolbooks: 'The Imaginary Lamarck'". The Textbook Letter. The Textbook League. http://www.textbookleague.org/54marck.htm. Retrieved 2008-01-23. 
  23. ^ Magner, LN (2002). A History of the Life Sciences, Third Edition, Revised and Expanded. CRC. ISBN 978-0824708245. 
  24. ^ Weiling F (1991). "Historical study: Johann Gregor Mendel 1822–1884". Am. J. Med. Genet. 40 (1): 1–25; discussion 26. doi:10.1002/ajmg.1320400103. PMID 1887835. 
  25. ^ Quammen, D. (2006). The reluctant Mr. Darwin: An intimate portrait of Charles Darwin and the making of his theory of evolution. New York, NY: W.W. Norton & Company.
  26. ^ Bowler, Peter J. (1989). The Mendelian Revolution: The Emergence of Hereditarian Concepts in Modern Science and Society. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. ISBN 978-0801838880. 
  27. ^ Pigliucci M (December 2007). "Do we need an extended evolutionary synthesis?". Evolution 61 (12): 2743–9. doi:10.1111/j.1558-5646.2007.00246.x. PMID 17924956. 
  28. ^ Winther RG (August 2008). "Systemic darwinism". Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 105 (33): 11833–8. doi:10.1073/pnas.0711445105. PMID 18697926. 
  29. ^ Sturm RA, Frudakis TN (2004). "Eye colour: portals into pigmentation genes and ancestry". Trends Genet. 20 (8): 327–32. doi:10.1016/j.tig.2004.06.010. PMID 15262401. 
  30. ^ a b Pearson H (2006). "Genetics: what is a gene?". Nature 441 (7092): 398–401. doi:10.1038/441398a. PMID 16724031. 
  31. ^ Visscher PM, Hill WG, Wray NR (April 2008). "Heritability in the genomics era—concepts and misconceptions". Nat. Rev. Genet. 9 (4): 255–66. doi:10.1038/nrg2322. PMID 18319743. 
  32. ^ Oetting WS, Brilliant MH, King RA (1996). "The clinical spectrum of albinism in humans". Molecular medicine today 2 (8): 330–5. doi:10.1016/1357-4310(96)81798-9. PMID 8796918. 
  33. ^ Watson, J. D.; Crick, F. H. C. (1953). "Molecular structure of nucleic acids.". Nature 171 (4356): 737-738. http://www.nature.com/nature/dna50/watsoncrick.pdf. 
  34. ^ Maynard Smith, J. and Szathmáry, E. (1997). The Major Transitions in Evolution. Oxfordshire: Oxford University Press. ISBN 0-198-50294-X. 
  35. ^ Phillips PC (November 2008). "Epistasis—the essential role of gene interactions in the structure and evolution of genetic systems". Nat. Rev. Genet. 9 (11): 855–67. doi:10.1038/nrg2452. PMID 18852697. 
  36. ^ a b Wu R, Lin M (2006). "Functional mapping – how to map and study the genetic architecture of dynamic complex traits". Nat. Rev. Genet. 7 (3): 229–37. doi:10.1038/nrg1804. PMID 16485021. 
  37. ^ Richards EJ (May 2006). "Inherited epigenetic variation—revisiting soft inheritance". Nat. Rev. Genet. 7 (5): 395–401. doi:10.1038/nrg1834. PMID 16534512. 
  38. ^ a b Harwood AJ; Harwood, J (1998). "Factors affecting levels of genetic diversity in natural populations". Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Lond., B, Biol. Sci. 353 (1366): 177–86. doi:10.1098/rstb.1998.0200. PMID 9533122. 
  39. ^ Draghi J, Turner P (2006). "DNA secretion and gene-level selection in bacteria". Microbiology (Reading, Engl.) 152 (Pt 9): 2683–8. doi:10.1099/mic.0.29013-0. PMID 16946263. 
    *Mallet J (2007). "Hybrid speciation". Nature 446 (7133): 279–83. doi:10.1038/nature05706. PMID 17361174. 
  40. ^ Butlin RK, Tregenza T (1998). "Levels of genetic polymorphism: marker loci versus quantitative traits". Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Lond., B, Biol. Sci. 353 (1366): 187–98. doi:10.1098/rstb.1998.0201. PMID 9533123. 
  41. ^ Wetterbom A, Sevov M, Cavelier L, Bergström TF (2006). "Comparative genomic analysis of human and chimpanzee indicates a key role for indels in primate evolution". J. Mol. Evol. 63 (5): 682–90. doi:10.1007/s00239-006-0045-7. PMID 17075697. 
  42. ^ a b c Bertram J (2000). "The molecular biology of cancer". Mol. Aspects Med. 21 (6): 167–223. doi:10.1016/S0098-2997(00)00007-8. PMID 11173079. 
  43. ^ a b Aminetzach YT, Macpherson JM, Petrov DA (2005). "Pesticide resistance via transposition-mediated adaptive gene truncation in Drosophila". Science 309 (5735): 764–7. doi:10.1126/science.1112699. PMID 16051794. 
  44. ^ Burrus V, Waldor M (2004). "Shaping bacterial genomes with integrative and conjugative elements". Res. Microbiol. 155 (5): 376–86. doi:10.1016/j.resmic.2004.01.012. PMID 15207870. 
  45. ^ Sawyer SA, Parsch J, Zhang Z, Hartl DL (2007). "Prevalence of positive selection among nearly neutral amino acid replacements in Drosophila". Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 104 (16): 6504–10. doi:10.1073/pnas.0701572104. PMID 17409186. 
  46. ^ Sniegowski P, Gerrish P, Johnson T, Shaver A (2000). "The evolution of mutation rates: separating causes from consequences". Bioessays 22 (12): 1057–66. doi:10.1002/1521-1878(200012)22:12<1057::AID-BIES3>3.0.CO;2-W. PMID 11084621. 
  47. ^ Drake JW, Holland JJ (1999). "Mutation rates among RNA viruses". Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 96 (24): 13910–3. doi:10.1073/pnas.96.24.13910. PMID 10570172. PMC 24164. http://www.pnas.org/content/96/24/13910.long. 
  48. ^ Holland J, Spindler K, Horodyski F, Grabau E, Nichol S, VandePol S (1982). "Rapid evolution of RNA genomes". Science 215 (4540): 1577–85. doi:10.1126/science.7041255. PMID 7041255. 
  49. ^ Hastings, P J; Lupski, JR; Rosenberg, SM; Ira, G (2009). "Mechanisms of change in gene copy number". Nature Reviews. Genetics 10 (8): 551–564. doi:10.1038/nrg2593. PMID 19597530. 
  50. ^ Carroll SB, Grenier J, Weatherbee SD (2005). From DNA to Diversity: Molecular Genetics and the Evolution of Animal Design. Second Edition. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing. ISBN 1-4051-1950-0. 
  51. ^ Harrison P, Gerstein M (2002). "Studying genomes through the aeons: protein families, pseudogenes and proteome evolution". J Mol Biol 318 (5): 1155–74. doi:10.1016/S0022-2836(02)00109-2. PMID 12083509. 
  52. ^ Bowmaker JK (1998). "Evolution of colour vision in vertebrates". Eye (London, England) 12 (Pt 3b): 541–7. PMID 9775215. 
  53. ^ Gregory TR, Hebert PD (1999). "The modulation of DNA content: proximate causes and ultimate consequences". Genome Res. 9 (4): 317–24. doi:10.1101/gr.9.4.317 (inactive 2009-11-14). PMID 10207154. http://genome.cshlp.org/content/9/4/317.full. 
  54. ^ Hurles M (July 2004). "Gene duplication: the genomic trade in spare parts". PLoS Biol. 2 (7): E206. doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.0020206. PMID 15252449. 
  55. ^ Liu N, Okamura K, Tyler DM (2008). "The evolution and functional diversification of animal microRNA genes". Cell Res. 18 (10): 985–96. doi:10.1038/cr.2008.278. PMID 18711447. PMC 2712117. http://www.nature.com/cr/journal/v18/n10/full/cr2008278a.html. 
  56. ^ Siepel A (October 2009). "Darwinian alchemy: Human genes from noncoding DNA". Genome Res. 19 (10): 1693–5. doi:10.1101/gr.098376.109. PMID 19797681. PMC 2765273. http://genome.cshlp.org/content/19/10/1693.full. 
  57. ^ Orengo CA, Thornton JM (2005). "Protein families and their evolution-a structural perspective". Annu. Rev. Biochem. 74: 867–900. doi:10.1146/annurev.biochem.74.082803.133029. PMID 15954844. 
  58. ^ Long M, Betrán E, Thornton K, Wang W (November 2003). "The origin of new genes: glimpses from the young and old". Nat. Rev. Genet. 4 (11): 865–75. doi:10.1038/nrg1204. PMID 14634634. 
  59. ^ Wang M, Caetano-Anollés G (2009). "The evolutionary mechanics of domain organization in proteomes and the rise of modularity in the protein world". Structure 17 (1): 66–78. doi:10.1016/j.str.2008.11.008. PMID 19141283. 
  60. ^ Weissman KJ, Müller R (April 2008). "Protein-protein interactions in multienzyme megasynthetases". Chembiochem 9 (6): 826–48. doi:10.1002/cbic.200700751. PMID 18357594. 
  61. ^ Zhang J, Wang X, Podlaha O (2004). "Testing the chromosomal speciation hypothesis for humans and chimpanzees". Genome Res. 14 (5): 845–51. doi:10.1101/gr.1891104. PMID 15123584. 
  62. ^ Ayala FJ, Coluzzi M (2005). "Chromosome speciation: humans, Drosophila, and mosquitoes". Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 102 (Suppl 1): 6535–42. doi:10.1073/pnas.0501847102. PMID 15851677. PMC 1131864. http://www.pnas.org/content/102/suppl.1/6535.full. 
  63. ^ Hurst GD, Werren JH (2001). "The role of selfish genetic elements in eukaryotic evolution". Nat. Rev. Genet. 2 (8): 597–606. doi:10.1038/35084545. PMID 11483984. 
  64. ^ Häsler J, Strub K (2006). "Alu elements as regulators of gene expression". Nucleic Acids Res. 34 (19): 5491–7. doi:10.1093/nar/gkl706. PMID 17020921. 
  65. ^ Radding C (1982). "Homologous pairing and strand exchange in genetic recombination". Annu. Rev. Genet. 16: 405–37. doi:10.1146/annurev.ge.16.120182.002201. PMID 6297377. 
  66. ^ Agrawal AF (2006). "Evolution of sex: why do organisms shuffle their genotypes?". Curr. Biol. 16 (17): R696. doi:10.1016/j.cub.2006.07.063. PMID 16950096. 
  67. ^ Peters AD, Otto SP (2003). "Liberating genetic variance through sex". Bioessays 25 (6): 533–7. doi:10.1002/bies.10291. PMID 12766942. 
  68. ^ Goddard MR, Godfray HC, Burt A (2005). "Sex increases the efficacy of natural selection in experimental yeast populations". Nature 434 (7033): 636–40. doi:10.1038/nature03405. PMID 15800622. 
  69. ^ Fontaneto D, Herniou EA, Boschetti C (April 2007). "Independently evolving species in asexual bdelloid rotifers". PLoS Biol. 5 (4): e87. doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.0050087. PMID 17373857. Lay summary. 
  70. ^ Pouchkina-Stantcheva NN, McGee BM, Boschetti C (October 2007). "Functional divergence of former alleles in an ancient asexual invertebrate". Science 318 (5848): 268–71. doi:10.1126/science.1144363. PMID 17932297. Lay summary. 
  71. ^ Lien S, Szyda J, Schechinger B, Rappold G, Arnheim N (February 2000). "Evidence for heterogeneity in recombination in the human pseudoautosomal region: high resolution analysis by sperm typing and radiation-hybrid mapping". Am. J. Hum. Genet. 66 (2): 557–66. doi:10.1086/302754. PMID 10677316. 
  72. ^ Barton, N H (2000). "Genetic hitchhiking". Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological Sciences 355 (1403): 1553–1562. doi:10.1098/rstb.2000.0716. PMID 11127900. PMC 1692896. http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/picrender.fcgi?artid=1692896&blobtype=pdf. Retrieved 2009-09-23. 
  73. ^ Muller H (1964). "The relation of recombination to mutational advance". Mutat. Res. 106: 2–9. PMID 14195748. 
  74. ^ Charlesworth B, Charlesworth D (November 2000). "The degeneration of Y chromosomes". Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Lond., B, Biol. Sci. 355 (1403): 1563–72. doi:10.1098/rstb.2000.0717. PMID 11127901. 
  75. ^ a b Otto S (1 July 2003). "The advantages of segregation and the evolution of sex". Genetics 164 (3): 1099–118. PMID 12871918. 
  76. ^ Doncaster CP, Pound GE, Cox SJ (March 2000). "The ecological cost of sex". Nature 404 (6775): 281–5. doi:10.1038/35005078. PMID 10749210. 
  77. ^ Butlin R (April 2002). "Evolution of sex: The costs and benefits of sex: new insights from old asexual lineages". Nat. Rev. Genet. 3 (4): 311–7. doi:10.1038/nrg749. PMID 11967555. 
  78. ^ Salathé M, Kouyos RD, Bonhoeffer S (August 2008). "The state of affairs in the kingdom of the Red Queen". Trends Ecol. Evol. (Amst.) 23 (8): 439–45. doi:10.1016/j.tree.2008.04.010. PMID 18597889. 
  79. ^ Stoltzfus A (2006). "Mutationism and the dual causation of evolutionary change". Evol. Dev. 8 (3): 304–17. doi:10.1111/j.1525-142X.2006.00101.x. PMID 16686641. 
  80. ^ O'Neil, Dennis (2008). "Hardy-Weinberg Equilibrium Model". The synthetic theory of evolution: An introduction to modern evolutionary concepts and theories. Behavioral Sciences Department, Palomar College. http://anthro.palomar.edu/synthetic/synth_2.htm. Retrieved 2008-01-06. 
  81. ^ Bright, Kerry (2006). "Causes of evolution". Teach Evolution and Make It Relevant. National Science Foundation. http://evoled.dbs.umt.edu/lessons/causes.htm#hardy. Retrieved 2007-12-30. 
  82. ^ Packer C, Gilbert DA, Pusey AE, O'Brieni SJ. (June 1991). "A molecular genetic analysis of kinship and cooperation in African lions". Nature 351: 562–65. doi:10.1038/351562a0. 
  83. ^ Morjan C, Rieseberg L (2004). "How species evolve collectively: implications of gene flow and selection for the spread of advantageous alleles". Mol. Ecol. 13 (6): 1341–56. doi:10.1111/j.1365-294X.2004.02164.x. PMID 15140081. 
  84. ^ Su H, Qu L, He K, Zhang Z, Wang J, Chen Z, Gu H (2003). "The Great Wall of China: a physical barrier to gene flow?". Heredity 90 (3): 212–9. doi:10.1038/sj.hdy.6800237. PMID 12634804. 
  85. ^ Short RV (1975). "The contribution of the mule to scientific thought". J. Reprod. Fertil. Suppl. (23): 359–64. PMID 1107543. 
  86. ^ Gross B, Rieseberg L (2005). "The ecological genetics of homoploid hybrid speciation". J. Hered. 96 (3): 241–52. doi:10.1093/jhered/esi026. PMID 15618301. 
  87. ^ Burke JM, Arnold ML (2001). "Genetics and the fitness of hybrids". Annu. Rev. Genet. 35: 31–52. doi:10.1146/annurev.genet.35.102401.085719. PMID 11700276. 
  88. ^ Vrijenhoek RC (2006). "Polyploid hybrids: multiple origins of a treefrog species". Curr. Biol. 16 (7): R245. doi:10.1016/j.cub.2006.03.005. PMID 16581499. 
  89. ^ Wendel J (2000). "Genome evolution in polyploids". Plant Mol. Biol. 42 (1): 225–49. doi:10.1023/A:1006392424384. PMID 10688139. 
  90. ^ a b Sémon M, Wolfe KH (2007). "Consequences of genome duplication". Curr Opin Genet Dev 17 (6): 505–12. doi:10.1016/j.gde.2007.09.007. PMID 18006297. 
  91. ^ Comai L (2005). "The advantages and disadvantages of being polyploid". Nat. Rev. Genet. 6 (11): 836–46. doi:10.1038/nrg1711. PMID 16304599. 
  92. ^ Soltis P, Soltis D (June 2000). "The role of genetic and genomic attributes in the success of polyploids". Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 97 (13): 7051–7. doi:10.1073/pnas.97.13.7051. PMID 10860970. 
  93. ^ Boucher Y, Douady CJ, Papke RT, Walsh DA, Boudreau ME, Nesbo CL, Case RJ, Doolittle WF (2003). "Lateral gene transfer and the origins of prokaryotic groups". Annu Rev Genet 37: 283–328. doi:10.1146/annurev.genet.37.050503.084247. PMID 14616063. 
  94. ^ Walsh T (2006). "Combinatorial genetic evolution of multiresistance". Curr. Opin. Microbiol. 9 (5): 476–82. doi:10.1016/j.mib.2006.08.009. PMID 16942901. 
  95. ^ Kondo N, Nikoh N, Ijichi N, Shimada M, Fukatsu T (2002). "Genome fragment of Wolbachia endosymbiont transferred to X chromosome of host insect". Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 99 (22): 14280–5. doi:10.1073/pnas.222228199. PMID 12386340. 
  96. ^ Sprague G (1991). "Genetic exchange between kingdoms". Curr. Opin. Genet. Dev. 1 (4): 530–3. doi:10.1016/S0959-437X(05)80203-5. PMID 1822285. 
  97. ^ Gladyshev EA, Meselson M, Arkhipova IR (May 2008). "Massive horizontal gene transfer in bdelloid rotifers". Science 320 (5880): 1210–3. doi:10.1126/science.1156407. PMID 18511688. 
  98. ^ Baldo A, McClure M (1 September 1999). "Evolution and horizontal transfer of dUTPase-encoding genes in viruses and their hosts". J. Virol. 73 (9): 7710–21. PMID 10438861. 
  99. ^ a b Poole A, Penny D (2007). "Evaluating hypotheses for the origin of eukaryotes". Bioessays 29 (1): 74–84. doi:10.1002/bies.20516. PMID 17187354. 
  100. ^ Whitlock M (1 June 2003). "Fixation probability and time in subdivided populations". Genetics 164 (2): 767–79. PMID 12807795. 
  101. ^ Ohta T (2002). "Near-neutrality in evolution of genes and gene regulation". Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 99 (25): 16134–7. doi:10.1073/pnas.252626899. PMID 12461171. PMC 138577. http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/abstract/252626899v1. 
  102. ^ a b c Hurst LD (February 2009). "Fundamental concepts in genetics: genetics and the understanding of selection". Nat. Rev. Genet. 10 (2): 83–93. doi:10.1038/nrg2506. PMID 19119264. 
  103. ^ a b c Orr HA (August 2009). "Fitness and its role in evolutionary genetics". Nat. Rev. Genet. 10 (8): 531–9. doi:10.1038/nrg2603. PMID 19546856. 
  104. ^ Haldane J (1959). "The theory of natural selection today". Nature 183 (4663): 710–3. doi:10.1038/183710a0. PMID 13644170. 
  105. ^ Goldberg, Emma E; Igić, B (2008). "On phylogenetic tests of irreversible evolution". Evolution 62 (11): 2727–2741. doi:10.1111/j.1558-5646.2008.00505.x. PMID 18764918. 
  106. ^ Collin, Rachel; Miglietta, MP (2008). "Reversing opinions on Dollo's Law". Trends in Ecology & Evolution 23 (11): 602–609. doi:10.1016/j.tree.2008.06.013. PMID 18814933. 
  107. ^ Hoekstra H, Hoekstra J, Berrigan D, Vignieri S, Hoang A, Hill C, Beerli P, Kingsolver J (July 2001). "Strength and tempo of directional selection in the wild". Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 98 (16): 9157–60. doi:10.1073/pnas.161281098. PMID 11470913. 
  108. ^ Felsenstein (1 November 1979). "Excursions along the Interface between Disruptive and Stabilizing Selection". Genetics 93 (3): 773–95. PMID 17248980. 
  109. ^ Andersson M, Simmons L (2006). "Sexual selection and mate choice". Trends Ecol. Evol. (Amst.) 21 (6): 296–302. doi:10.1016/j.tree.2006.03.015. PMID 16769428. 
  110. ^ Kokko H, Brooks R, McNamara J, Houston A (2002). "The sexual selection continuum". Proc. Biol. Sci. 269 (1498): 1331–40. doi:10.1098/rspb.2002.2020. PMID 12079655. 
  111. ^ Hunt J, Brooks R, Jennions M, Smith M, Bentsen C, Bussière L (2004). "High-quality male field crickets invest heavily in sexual display but die young". Nature 432 (7020): 1024–7. doi:10.1038/nature03084. PMID 15616562. 
  112. ^ Odum, EP (1971) Fundamentals of ecology, third edition, Saunders New York
  113. ^ a b Gould SJ (February 1998). "Gulliver's further travels: the necessity and difficulty of a hierarchical theory of selection". Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Lond., B, Biol. Sci. 353 (1366): 307–14. doi:10.1098/rstb.1998.0211. PMID 9533127. 
  114. ^ Mayr E (1997). "The objects of selection". Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 94 (6): 2091–4. doi:10.1073/pnas.94.6.2091. PMID 9122151. 
  115. ^ Maynard Smith J (1998). "The units of selection". Novartis Found. Symp. 213: 203–11; discussion 211–7. PMID 9653725. 
  116. ^ Hickey DA (1992). "Evolutionary dynamics of transposable elements in prokaryotes and eukaryotes". Genetica 86 (1–3): 269–74. doi:10.1007/BF00133725. PMID 1334911. 
  117. ^ Gould SJ, Lloyd EA (1999). "Individuality and adaptation across levels of selection: how shall we name and generalize the unit of Darwinism?". Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 96 (21): 11904–9. doi:10.1073/pnas.96.21.11904. PMID 10518549. 
  118. ^ Lande R (1989). "Fisherian and Wrightian theories of speciation". Genome 31 (1): 221–7. PMID 2687093. 
  119. ^ Otto S, Whitlock M (1 June 1997). "The probability of fixation in populations of changing size". Genetics 146 (2): 723–33. PMID 9178020. 
  120. ^ Charlesworth B (March 2009). "Fundamental concepts in genetics: Effective population size and patterns of molecular evolution and variation". Nat. Rev. Genet. 10 (3): 195–205. doi:10.1038/nrg2526. PMID 19204717. 
  121. ^ Protas, Meredith; Conrad, M; Gross, JB; Tabin, C; Borowsky, R (2007). "Regressive evolution in the Mexican cave tetra, Astyanax mexicanus". Current Biology 17 (5): 452–454. doi:10.1016/j.cub.2007.01.051. PMID 17306543. PMC 2570642. http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?tool=pubmed&pubmedid=17306543#R2. 
  122. ^ Mitchell-Olds, Thomas; Willis, JH; Goldstein, DB (2007). "Which evolutionary processes influence natural genetic variation for phenotypic traits?". Nature Reviews Genetics 8 (11): 845–856. doi:10.1038/nrg2207. PMID 17943192. 
  123. ^ Nei M (2005). "Selectionism and neutralism in molecular evolution". Mol. Biol. Evol. 22 (12): 2318–42. doi:10.1093/molbev/msi242. PMID 16120807. 
  124. ^ Kimura M (1991). "The neutral theory of molecular evolution: a review of recent evidence". Jpn. J. Genet. 66 (4): 367–86. doi:10.1266/jjg.66.367. PMID 1954033. http://www.jstage.jst.go.jp/article/jjg/66/4/66_367/_article. 
  125. ^ Kimura M (1989). "The neutral theory of molecular evolution and the world view of the neutralists". Genome 31 (1): 24–31. PMID 2687096. 
  126. ^ Kreitman M (August 1996). "The neutral theory is dead. Long live the neutral theory". Bioessays 18 (8): 678–83; discussion 683. doi:10.1002/bies.950180812. PMID 8760341. http://www.cs.ucsb.edu/~ambuj/Courses/bioinformatics/neutral-theory. 
  127. ^ Leigh E.G. (Jr) (2007). "Neutral theory: a historical perspective.". Journal of Evolutionary Biology 20: 2075–91. doi:10.1111/j.1420-9101.2007.01410.x. 
  128. ^ a b c Scott EC, Matzke NJ (May 2007). "Biological design in science classrooms". Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 104 Suppl 1: 8669–76. doi:10.1073/pnas.0701505104. PMID 17494747. 
  129. ^ Hendry AP, Kinnison MT (2001). "An introduction to microevolution: rate, pattern, process". Genetica 112–113: 1–8. doi:10.1023/A:1013368628607. PMID 11838760. 
  130. ^ Leroi AM (2000). "The scale independence of evolution". Evol. Dev. 2 (2): 67–77. doi:10.1046/j.1525-142x.2000.00044.x. PMID 11258392. 
  131. ^ Gould 2002, pp. 657–8
  132. ^ Gould SJ (July 1994). "Tempo and mode in the macroevolutionary reconstruction of Darwinism". Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 91 (15): 6764–71. doi:10.1073/pnas.91.15.6764. PMID 8041695. PMC 44281. http://www.pnas.org/cgi/pmidlookup?view=long&pmid=8041695. 
  133. ^ Jablonski, D. (2000). "Micro- and macroevolution: scale and hierarchy in evolutionary biology and paleobiology". Paleobiology 26 (sp4): 15–52. doi:10.1666/0094-8373(2000)26[15:MAMSAH2.0.CO;2]. http://www.bioone.org/perlserv/?request=get-abstract. 
  134. ^ Michael J. Dougherty. Is the human race evolving or devolving? Scientific American July 20, 1998.
  135. ^ TalkOrigins Archive response to Creationist claims – Claim CB932: Evolution of degenerate forms
  136. ^ Carroll SB (2001). "Chance and necessity: the evolution of morphological complexity and diversity". Nature 409 (6823): 1102–9. doi:10.1038/35059227. PMID 11234024. 
  137. ^ Whitman W, Coleman D, Wiebe W (1998). "Prokaryotes: the unseen majority". Proc Natl Acad Sci U S a 95 (12): 6578–83. doi:10.1073/pnas.95.12.6578. PMID 9618454. 
  138. ^ a b Schloss P, Handelsman J (December 2004). "Status of the microbial census". Microbiol Mol Biol Rev 68 (4): 686–91. doi:10.1128/MMBR.68.4.686-691.2004. PMID 15590780. 
  139. ^ Nealson K (1999). "Post-Viking microbiology: new approaches, new data, new insights". Orig Life Evol Biosph 29 (1): 73–93. doi:10.1023/A:1006515817767. PMID 11536899. 
  140. ^ Buckling A, Craig Maclean R, Brockhurst MA, Colegrave N (February 2009). "The Beagle in a bottle". Nature 457 (7231): 824–9. doi:10.1038/nature07892. PMID 19212400. 
  141. ^ Elena SF, Lenski RE (June 2003). "Evolution experiments with microorganisms: the dynamics and genetic bases of adaptation". Nat. Rev. Genet. 4 (6): 457–69. doi:10.1038/nrg1088. PMID 12776215. 
  142. ^ Williams, George C. 1966. Adaptation and natural selection: a critique of some current evolutionary thought. Princeton. "Evolutionary adaptation is a phenomenon of pervasive importance in biology." p5
  143. ^ Mayr, Ernst 1982. The growth of biological thought. Harvard. p483: "Adaptation... could no longer be considered a static condition, a product of a creative past, and became instead a continuing dynamic process."
  144. ^ The Oxford Dictionary of Science defines adaptation as "Any change in the structure or functioning of an organism that makes it better suited to its environment".
  145. ^ Orr H (2005). "The genetic theory of adaptation: a brief history". Nat. Rev. Genet. 6 (2): 119–27. doi:10.1038/nrg1523. PMID 15716908. 
  146. ^ Dobzhansky T. 1968. On some fundamental concepts of evolutionary biology. Evolutionary biology 2, 1–34.
  147. ^ Dobzhansky T. 1970. Genetics of the evolutionary process. Columbia, N.Y. p4–6, 79–82, 84–87
  148. ^ Dobzhansky T. 1956. Genetics of natural populations XXV. Genetic changes in populations of Drosophila pseudoobscura and Drosphila persimilis in some locations in California. Evolution 10, 82–92.
  149. ^ Nakajima A, Sugimoto Y, Yoneyama H, Nakae T (2002). "High-level fluoroquinolone resistance in Pseudomonas aeruginosa due to interplay of the MexAB-OprM efflux pump and the DNA gyrase mutation". Microbiol. Immunol. 46 (6): 391–5. PMID 12153116. http://www.jstage.jst.go.jp/article/mandi/46/6/46_391/_article/-char/en. 
  150. ^ Blount ZD, Borland CZ, Lenski RE (June 2008). "Inaugural Article: Historical contingency and the evolution of a key innovation in an experimental population of Escherichia coli". Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 105 (23): 7899–906. doi:10.1073/pnas.0803151105. PMID 18524956. PMC 2430337. http://www.pnas.org/cgi/pmidlookup?view=long&pmid=18524956. 
  151. ^ Okada H, Negoro S, Kimura H, Nakamura S (1983). "Evolutionary adaptation of plasmid-encoded enzymes for degrading nylon oligomers". Nature 306 (5939): 203–6. doi:10.1038/306203a0. PMID 6646204. 
  152. ^ Ohno S (April 1984). "Birth of a unique enzyme from an alternative reading frame of the preexisted, internally repetitious coding sequence". Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 81 (8): 2421–5. doi:10.1073/pnas.81.8.2421. PMID 6585807. PMC 345072. http://www.pnas.org/cgi/pmidlookup?view=long&pmid=6585807. 
  153. ^ Copley SD (June 2000). "Evolution of a metabolic pathway for degradation of a toxic xenobiotic: the patchwork approach". Trends Biochem. Sci. 25 (6): 261–5. doi:10.1016/S0968-0004(00)01562-0. PMID 10838562. 
  154. ^ Crawford RL, Jung CM, Strap JL (October 2007). "The recent evolution of pentachlorophenol (PCP)-4-monooxygenase (PcpB) and associated pathways for bacterial degradation of PCP". Biodegradation 18 (5): 525–39. doi:10.1007/s10532-006-9090-6. PMID 17123025. 
  155. ^ Colegrave N, Collins S (May 2008). "Experimental evolution: experimental evolution and evolvability". Heredity 100 (5): 464–70. doi:10.1038/sj.hdy.6801095. PMID 18212804. http://www.nature.com/hdy/journal/v100/n5/full/6801095a.html. 
  156. ^ Kirschner M, Gerhart J (July 1998). "Evolvability". Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 95 (15): 8420–7. doi:10.1073/pnas.95.15.8420. PMID 9671692. 
  157. ^ a b Bejder L, Hall BK (2002). "Limbs in whales and limblessness in other vertebrates: mechanisms of evolutionary and developmental transformation and loss". Evol. Dev. 4 (6): 445–58. doi:10.1046/j.1525-142X.2002.02033.x. PMID 12492145. 
  158. ^ Young, Nathan M.; Hallgrímsson, B (2005). "Serial homology and the evolution of mammalian limb covariation structure". Evolution 59 (12): 2691. doi:10.1554/05-233.1. PMID 16526515. http://www.bioone.org/doi/abs/10.1554/05-233.1. Retrieved 2009-09-24. 
  159. ^ a b Penny D, Poole A (1999). "The nature of the last universal common ancestor". Curr. Opin. Genet. Dev. 9 (6): 672–77. doi:10.1016/S0959-437X(99)00020-9. PMID 10607605. 
  160. ^ Hall, Brian K (2003). "Descent with modification: the unity underlying homology and homoplasy as seen through an analysis of development and evolution". Biological Reviews of the Cambridge Philosophical Society 78 (3): 409–433. PMID 14558591. 
  161. ^ Shubin, Neil; Tabin, C; Carroll, S (2009). "Deep homology and the origins of evolutionary novelty". Nature 457 (7231): 818–823. doi:10.1038/nature07891. PMID 19212399. 
  162. ^ a b c Fong D, Kane T, Culver D (1995). "Vestigialization and Loss of Nonfunctional Characters". Ann. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 26: 249–68. doi:10.1146/annurev.es.26.110195.001341. http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0066-4162%281995%2926%3C249%3AVALONC%3E2.0.CO%3B2-2. 
  163. ^ Zhang Z, Gerstein M (August 2004). "Large-scale analysis of pseudogenes in the human genome". Curr. Opin. Genet. Dev. 14 (4): 328–35. doi:10.1016/j.gde.2004.06.003. PMID 15261647. 
  164. ^ Jeffery WR (2005). "Adaptive evolution of eye degeneration in the Mexican blind cavefish". J. Hered. 96 (3): 185–96. doi:10.1093/jhered/esi028. PMID 15653557. 
  165. ^ Maxwell EE, Larsson HC (2007). "Osteology and myology of the wing of the Emu (Dromaius novaehollandiae), and its bearing on the evolution of vestigial structures". J. Morphol. 268 (5): 423–41. doi:10.1002/jmor.10527. PMID 17390336. 
  166. ^ Silvestri AR, Singh I (2003). "The unresolved problem of the third molar: would people be better off without it?". Journal of the American Dental Association (1939) 134 (4): 450–5. doi:10.1146/annurev.es.26.110195.001341. PMID 12733778. http://jada.ada.org/cgi/content/full/134/4/450. 
  167. ^ a b Gould 2002, pp. 1235–6
  168. ^ Pallen, Mark J.; Matzke, NJ (2006-10). "From The Origin of Species to the origin of bacterial flagella". Nat Rev Micro 4 (10): 784–790. doi:10.1038/nrmicro1493. PMID 16953248. http://home.planet.nl/~gkorthof/pdf/Pallen_Matzke.pdf. Retrieved 2009-09-18. 
  169. ^ Clements, Abigail; Bursac, D; Gatsos, X; Perry, AJ; Civciristov, S; Celik, N; Likic, VA; Poggio, S et al. (2009). "The reducible complexity of a mitochondrial molecular machine". Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 106 (37): 15791–15795. doi:10.1073/pnas.0908264106. PMID 19717453. PMC 2747197. http://www.pnas.org/content/106/37/15791.long. Retrieved 2009-09-18. 
  170. ^ Piatigorsky J, Kantorow M, Gopal-Srivastava R, Tomarev SI (1994). "Recruitment of enzymes and stress proteins as lens crystallins". EXS 71: 241–50. PMID 8032155. 
  171. ^ Wistow G (August 1993). "Lens crystallins: gene recruitment and evolutionary dynamism". Trends Biochem. Sci. 18 (8): 301–6. doi:10.1016/0968-0004(93)90041-K. PMID 8236445. 
  172. ^ Hardin G (April 1960). "The competitive exclusion principle". Science 131: 1292–7. doi:10.1126/science.131.3409.1292. PMID 14399717. http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/pmidlookup?view=long&pmid=14399717. 
  173. ^ Kocher TD (April 2004). "Adaptive evolution and explosive speciation: the cichlid fish model". Nat. Rev. Genet. 5 (4): 288–98. doi:10.1038/nrg1316. PMID 15131652. http://hcgs.unh.edu/staff/kocher/pdfs/Kocher2004.pdf. 
  174. ^ Johnson NA, Porter AH (2001). "Toward a new synthesis: population genetics and evolutionary developmental biology". Genetica 112–113: 45–58. doi:10.1023/A:1013371201773. PMID 11838782. 
  175. ^ Baguñà J, Garcia-Fernàndez J (2003). "Evo-Devo: the long and winding road". Int. J. Dev. Biol. 47 (7–8): 705–13. PMID 14756346. http://www.ijdb.ehu.es/web/paper.php?doi=14756346. 
    *Love AC. (2003). "Evolutionary Morphology, Innovation, and the Synthesis of Evolutionary and Developmental Biology". Biology and Philosophy 18 (2): 309–345. doi:10.1023/A:1023940220348. http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/archive/00000375/00/LondonPaper.doc. 
  176. ^ Allin EF (1975). "Evolution of the mammalian middle ear". J. Morphol. 147 (4): 403–37. doi:10.1002/jmor.1051470404. PMID 1202224. 
  177. ^ Harris MP, Hasso SM, Ferguson MW, Fallon JF (2006). "The development of archosaurian first-generation teeth in a chicken mutant". Curr. Biol. 16 (4): 371–7. doi:10.1016/j.cub.2005.12.047. PMID 16488870. 
  178. ^ Carroll SB (July 2008). "Evo-devo and an expanding evolutionary synthesis: a genetic theory of morphological evolution". Cell 134 (1): 25–36. doi:10.1016/j.cell.2008.06.030. PMID 18614008. 
  179. ^ Wade MJ (2007). "The co-evolutionary genetics of ecological communities". Nat. Rev. Genet. 8 (3): 185–95. doi:10.1038/nrg2031. PMID 17279094. 
  180. ^ Geffeney S, Brodie ED, Ruben PC, Brodie ED (2002). "Mechanisms of adaptation in a predator-prey arms race: TTX-resistant sodium channels". Science 297 (5585): 1336–9. doi:10.1126/science.1074310. PMID 12193784. 
    *Brodie ED, Ridenhour BJ, Brodie ED (2002). "The evolutionary response of predators to dangerous prey: hotspots and coldspots in the geographic mosaic of coevolution between garter snakes and newts". Evolution 56 (10): 2067–82. PMID 12449493. 
    *Sean B. Carroll (December 21, 2009). "Remarkable Creatures – Clues to Toxins in Deadly Delicacies of the Animal Kingdom". New York Times. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/22/science/22creature.html?hpw. 
  181. ^ Sachs J (2006). "Cooperation within and among species". J. Evol. Biol. 19 (5): 1415–8; discussion 1426–36. doi:10.1111/j.1420-9101.2006.01152.x. PMID 16910971. 
    *Nowak M (2006). "Five rules for the evolution of cooperation". Science 314 (5805): 1560–3. doi:10.1126/science.1133755. PMID 17158317. 
  182. ^ Paszkowski U (2006). "Mutualism and parasitism: the yin and yang of plant symbioses". Curr. Opin. Plant Biol. 9 (4): 364–70. doi:10.1016/j.pbi.2006.05.008. PMID 16713732. 
  183. ^ Hause B, Fester T (2005). "Molecular and cell biology of arbuscular mycorrhizal symbiosis". Planta 221 (2): 184–96. doi:10.1007/s00425-004-1436-x. PMID 15871030. 
  184. ^ Reeve HK, Hölldobler B (2007). "The emergence of a superorganism through intergroup competition". Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 104 (23): 9736–40. doi:10.1073/pnas.0703466104. PMID 17517608. 
  185. ^ Axelrod R, Hamilton W (2005). "The evolution of cooperation". Science 211 (4489): 1390–6. doi:10.1126/science.7466396. PMID 7466396. 
  186. ^ Wilson EO, Hölldobler B (2005). "Eusociality: origin and consequences". Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 102 (38): 13367–71. doi:10.1073/pnas.0505858102. PMID 16157878. 
  187. ^ a b Gavrilets S (2003). "Perspective: models of speciation: what have we learned in 40 years?". Evolution 57 (10): 2197–215. doi:10.1554/02-727. PMID 14628909. 
  188. ^ De Queiroz K (December 2007). "Species concepts and species delimitation". Syst. Biol. 56 (6): 879–86. doi:10.1080/10635150701701083. PMID 18027281. 
  189. ^ Fraser C, Alm EJ, Polz MF, Spratt BG, Hanage WP (February 2009). "The bacterial species challenge: making sense of genetic and ecological diversity". Science 323 (5915): 741–6. doi:10.1126/science.1159388. PMID 19197054. 
  190. ^ a b de Queiroz K (May 2005). "Ernst Mayr and the modern concept of species". Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 102 (Suppl 1): 6600–7. doi:10.1073/pnas.0502030102. PMID 15851674. PMC 1131873. http://www.pnas.org/cgi/pmidlookup?view=long&pmid=15851674. 
  191. ^ Rice, W.R.; Hostert (1993). "Laboratory experiments on speciation: what have we learned in 40 years". Evolution 47 (6): 1637–1653. doi:10.2307/2410209. http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0014-3820(199312)47%3A6%3C1637%3ALEOSWH%3E2.0.CO%3B2-T. Retrieved 2008-05-19. 
    *Jiggins CD, Bridle JR (2004). "Speciation in the apple maggot fly: a blend of vintages?". Trends Ecol. Evol. (Amst.) 19 (3): 111–4. doi:10.1016/j.tree.2003.12.008. PMID 16701238. 
    *Boxhorn, J (1995). "Observed Instances of Speciation". TalkOrigins Archive. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html. Retrieved 2008-12-26. 
    *Weinberg JR, Starczak VR, Jorg, D (1992). "Evidence for Rapid Speciation Following a Founder Event in the Laboratory". Evolution 46 (4): 1214–20. doi:10.2307/2409766. 
  192. ^ Herrel, A.; Huyghe, K.; Vanhooydonck, B.; Backeljau, T.; Breugelmans, K.; Grbac, I.; Van Damme, R.; Irschick, D.J. (2008). "Rapid large-scale evolutionary divergence in morphology and performance associated with exploitation of a different dietary resource". Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 105 (12): 4792–5. doi:10.1073/pnas.0711998105. PMID 18344323. 
  193. ^ Losos, J.B. Warhelt, K.I. Schoener, T.W. (1997). "Adaptive differentiation following experimental island colonization in Anolis lizards". Nature 387 (6628): 70–3. doi:10.1038/387070a0. 
  194. ^ Hoskin CJ, Higgle M, McDonald KR, Moritz C (2005). "Reinforcement drives rapid allopatric speciation". Nature 437: 1353–356. doi:10.1038/nature04004. 
  195. ^ Templeton AR (1 April 1980). "The theory of speciation via the founder principle". Genetics 94 (4): 1011–38. PMID 6777243. PMC 1214177. http://www.genetics.org/cgi/reprint/94/4/1011. 
  196. ^ Antonovics J (2006). "Evolution in closely adjacent plant populations X: long-term persistence of prereproductive isolation at a mine boundary". Heredity 97 (1): 33–7. doi:10.1038/sj.hdy.6800835. PMID 16639420. http://www.nature.com/hdy/journal/v97/n1/full/6800835a.html. 
  197. ^ Nosil P, Crespi B, Gries R, Gries G (2007). "Natural selection and divergence in mate preference during speciation". Genetica 129 (3): 309–27. doi:10.1007/s10709-006-0013-6. PMID 16900317. 
  198. ^ Savolainen V, Anstett M-C, Lexer C, Hutton I, Clarkson JJ, Norup MV, Powell MP, Springate D, Salamin N, Baker WJr (2006). "Sympatric speciation in palms on an oceanic island". Nature 441 (7090): 210–3. doi:10.1038/nature04566. PMID 16467788. 
    *Barluenga M, Stölting KN, Salzburger W, Muschick M, Meyer A (2006). "Sympatric speciation in Nicaraguan crater lake cichlid fish". Nature 439 (7077): 719–23. doi:10.1038/nature04325. PMID 16467837. 
  199. ^ Gavrilets S (2006). "The Maynard Smith model of sympatric speciation". J. Theor. Biol. 239 (2): 172–82. doi:10.1016/j.jtbi.2005.08.041. PMID 16242727. 
  200. ^ Wood TE, Takebayashi N, Barker MS, Mayrose I, Greenspoon PB, Rieseberg LH (August 2009). "The frequency of polyploid speciation in vascular plants". Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 106 (33): 13875–9. doi:10.1073/pnas.0811575106. PMID 19667210. 
  201. ^ Hegarty Mf, Hiscock SJ (2008). "Genomic clues to the evolutionary success of polyploid plants". Current Biology 18 (10): 435–44. doi:10.1016/j.cub.2008.03.043. 
  202. ^ Jakobsson M, Hagenblad J, Tavaré S (2006). "A unique recent origin of the allotetraploid species Arabidopsis suecica: Evidence from nuclear DNA markers". Mol. Biol. Evol. 23 (6): 1217–31. doi:10.1093/molbev/msk006. PMID 16549398. 
  203. ^ Säll T, Jakobsson M, Lind-Halldén C, Halldén C (2003). "Chloroplast DNA indicates a single origin of the allotetraploid Arabidopsis suecica". J. Evol. Biol. 16 (5): 1019–29. doi:10.1046/j.1420-9101.2003.00554.x. PMID 14635917. 
  204. ^ Bomblies K, Weigel D (2007). "Arabidopsis-a model genus for speciation". Curr Opin Genet Dev 17 (6): 500–4. doi:10.1016/j.gde.2007.09.006. PMID 18006296. 
  205. ^ Niles Eldredge and Stephen Jay Gould, 1972. "Punctuated equilibria: an alternative to phyletic gradualism" In T.J.M. Schopf, ed., Models in Paleobiology. San Francisco: Freeman Cooper. pp. 82–115. Reprinted in N. Eldredge Time frames. Princeton: Princeton Univ. Press. 1985
  206. ^ Gould SJ (1994). "Tempo and mode in the macroevolutionary reconstruction of Darwinism". Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 91 (15): 6764–71. doi:10.1073/pnas.91.15.6764. PMID 8041695. 
  207. ^ Benton MJ (1995). "Diversification and extinction in the history of life". Science 268 (5207): 52–8. doi:10.1126/science.7701342. PMID 7701342. 
  208. ^ Raup DM (1986). "Biological extinction in earth history". Science 231: 1528–33. doi:10.1126/science.11542058. PMID 11542058. 
  209. ^ Avise JC, Hubbell SP, Ayala FJ. (August 2008). "In the light of evolution II: Biodiversity and extinction". Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 105 (Suppl 1): 11453–7. doi:10.1073/pnas.0802504105. PMID 18695213. PMC 2556414. http://www.pnas.org/content/105/suppl.1/11453.full. 
  210. ^ a b c Raup DM (1994). "The role of extinction in evolution". Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 91 (15): 6758–63. doi:10.1073/pnas.91.15.6758. PMID 8041694. 
  211. ^ Novacek MJ, Cleland EE (2001). "The current biodiversity extinction event: scenarios for mitigation and recovery". Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 98 (10): 5466–70. doi:10.1073/pnas.091093698. PMID 11344295. 
  212. ^ Pimm S, Raven P, Peterson A, Sekercioglu CH, Ehrlich PR (2006). "Human impacts on the rates of recent, present, and future bird extinctions". Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 103 (29): 10941–6. doi:10.1073/pnas.0604181103. PMID 16829570. 
    *Barnosky AD, Koch PL, Feranec RS, Wing SL, Shabel AB (2004). "Assessing the causes of late Pleistocene extinctions on the continents". Science 306 (5693): 70–5. doi:10.1126/science.1101476. PMID 15459379. 
  213. ^ Lewis OT (2006). "Climate change, species-area curves and the extinction crisis" (PDF). Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Lond., B, Biol. Sci. 361 (1465): 163–71. doi:10.1098/rstb.2005.1712. PMID 16553315. PMC 1831839. http://www.journals.royalsoc.ac.uk/content/711761513317h856/fulltext.pdf. 
  214. ^ Jablonski D (May 2001). "Lessons from the past: evolutionary impacts of mass extinctions". Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 98 (10): 5393–8. doi:10.1073/pnas.101092598. PMID 11344284. 
  215. ^ Isaak, Mark (2005). "Claim CB090: Evolution without abiogenesis". TalkOrigins Archive. http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB090.html. Retrieved 2008-12-26. 
  216. ^ Peretó J (2005). "Controversies on the origin of life" (PDF). Int. Microbiol. 8 (1): 23–31. PMID 15906258. http://www.im.microbios.org/0801/0801023.pdf. 
  217. ^ Luisi PL, Ferri F, Stano P (2006). "Approaches to semi-synthetic minimal cells: a review". Naturwissenschaften 93 (1): 1–13. doi:10.1007/s00114-005-0056-z. PMID 16292523. 
  218. ^ Trevors JT, Abel DL (2004). "Chance and necessity do not explain the origin of life". Cell Biol. Int. 28 (11): 729–39. doi:10.1016/j.cellbi.2004.06.006. PMID 15563395. Forterre P, Benachenhou-Lahfa N, Confalonieri F, Duguet M, Elie C, Labedan B (1992). "The nature of the last universal ancestor and the root of the tree of life, still open questions". BioSystems 28 (1–3): 15–32. doi:10.1016/0303-2647(92)90004-I. PMID 1337989. 
  219. ^ Joyce GF (2002). "The antiquity of RNA-based evolution". Nature 418 (6894): 214–21. doi:10.1038/418214a. PMID 12110897. 
  220. ^ Trevors JT, Psenner R (2001). "From self-assembly of life to present-day bacteria: a possible role for nanocells". FEMS Microbiol. Rev. 25 (5): 573–82. doi:10.1111/j.1574-6976.2001.tb00592.x. PMID 11742692. 
  221. ^ Bapteste E, Walsh DA (2005). "Does the 'Ring of Life' ring true?". Trends Microbiol. 13 (6): 256–61. doi:10.1016/j.tim.2005.03.012. PMID 15936656. 
  222. ^ Doolittle WF, Bapteste E (February 2007). "Pattern pluralism and the Tree of Life hypothesis". Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 104 (7): 2043–9. doi:10.1073/pnas.0610699104. PMID 17261804. PMC 1892968. http://www.pnas.org/cgi/pmidlookup?view=long&pmid=17261804. 
  223. ^ Kunin V, Goldovsky L, Darzentas N, Ouzounis CA (2005). "The net of life: reconstructing the microbial phylogenetic network". Genome Res. 15 (7): 954–9. doi:10.1101/gr.3666505. PMID 15965028. PMC 1172039. http://www.genome.org/cgi/pmidlookup?view=long&pmid=15965028. 
  224. ^ Jablonski D (1999). "The future of the fossil record". Science 284 (5423): 2114–16. doi:10.1126/science.284.5423.2114. PMID 10381868. 
  225. ^ Mason SF (1984). "Origins of biomolecular handedness". Nature 311 (5981): 19–23. doi:10.1038/311019a0. PMID 6472461. 
  226. ^ Wolf YI, Rogozin IB, Grishin NV, Koonin EV (2002). "Genome trees and the tree of life". Trends Genet. 18 (9): 472–79. doi:10.1016/S0168-9525(02)02744-0. PMID 12175808. 
  227. ^ Varki A, Altheide TK (2005). "Comparing the human and chimpanzee genomes: searching for needles in a haystack". Genome Res. 15 (12): 1746–58. doi:10.1101/gr.3737405. PMID 16339373. 
  228. ^ Ciccarelli FD, Doerks T, von Mering C, Creevey CJ, Snel B, Bork P (2006). "Toward automatic reconstruction of a highly resolved tree of life". Science 311 (5765): 1283–87. doi:10.1126/science.1123061. PMID 16513982. 
  229. ^ Schopf J (2006). "Fossil evidence of Archaean life". Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci 361 (1470): 869–85. doi:10.1098/rstb.2006.1834. PMID 16754604. 
    *Altermann W, Kazmierczak J (2003). "Archean microfossils: a reappraisal of early life on Earth". Res Microbiol 154 (9): 611–17. doi:10.1016/j.resmic.2003.08.006. PMID 14596897. 
  230. ^ Schopf J (1994). "Disparate rates, differing fates: tempo and mode of evolution changed from the Precambrian to the Phanerozoic". Proc Natl Acad Sci U S a 91 (15): 6735–42. doi:10.1073/pnas.91.15.6735. PMID 8041691. 
  231. ^ Dyall S, Brown M, Johnson P (2004). "Ancient invasions: from endosymbionts to organelles". Science 304 (5668): 253–57. doi:10.1126/science.1094884. PMID 15073369. 
  232. ^ Martin W (2005). "The missing link between hydrogenosomes and mitochondria". Trends Microbiol. 13 (10): 457–59. doi:10.1016/j.tim.2005.08.005. PMID 16109488. 
  233. ^ Lang B, Gray M, Burger G (1999). "Mitochondrial genome evolution and the origin of eukaryotes". Annu Rev Genet 33: 351–97. doi:10.1146/annurev.genet.33.1.351. PMID 10690412. 
    *McFadden G (1999). "Endosymbiosis and evolution of the plant cell". Curr Opin Plant Biol 2 (6): 513–19. doi:10.1016/S1369-5266(99)00025-4. PMID 10607659. 
  234. ^ DeLong E, Pace N (2001). "Environmental diversity of bacteria and archaea". Syst Biol 50 (4): 470–8. doi:10.1080/106351501750435040. PMID 12116647. 
  235. ^ Kaiser D (2001). "Building a multicellular organism". Annu. Rev. Genet. 35: 103–23. doi:10.1146/annurev.genet.35.102401.090145. PMID 11700279. 
  236. ^ Valentine JW, Jablonski D, Erwin DH (1 March 1999). "Fossils, molecules and embryos: new perspectives on the Cambrian explosion". Development 126 (5): 851–9. PMID 9927587. http://dev.biologists.org/cgi/reprint/126/5/851. 
  237. ^ Ohno S (1997). "The reason for as well as the consequence of the Cambrian explosion in animal evolution". J. Mol. Evol. 44 Suppl 1: S23–7. doi:10.1007/PL00000055. PMID 9071008. 
    *Valentine J, Jablonski D (2003). "Morphological and developmental macroevolution: a paleontological perspective". Int. J. Dev. Biol. 47 (7–8): 517–22. PMID 14756327. http://www.ijdb.ehu.es/web/paper.php?doi=14756327. 
  238. ^ Waters ER (2003). "Molecular adaptation and the origin of land plants". Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 29 (3): 456–63. doi:10.1016/j.ympev.2003.07.018. PMID 14615186. 
  239. ^ Mayhew PJ (August 2007). "Why are there so many insect species? Perspectives from fossils and phylogenies". Biol Rev Camb Philos Soc 82 (3): 425–54. doi:10.1111/j.1469-185X.2007.00018.x. PMID 17624962. 
  240. ^ Browne, Janet (2003). Charles Darwin: The Power of Place. London: Pimlico. pp. 376–379. ISBN 0-7126-6837-3. 
  241. ^ For an overview of the philosophical, religious, and cosmological controversies, see: Dennett, D (1995). Darwin's Dangerous Idea: Evolution and the Meanings of Life. Simon & Schuster. ISBN 978-0684824710. 
    *For the scientific and social reception of evolution in the 19th and early 20th centuries, see: Johnston, Ian C.. "History of Science: Origins of Evolutionary Theory". And Still We Evolve. Liberal Studies Department, Malaspina University College. http://records.viu.ca/~johnstoi/darwin/sect3.htm. Retrieved 2007-05-24. 
    *Bowler, PJ (2003). Evolution: The History of an Idea, Third Edition, Completely Revised and Expanded. University of California Press. ISBN 978-0520236936. 
    *Zuckerkandl E (2006). "Intelligent design and biological complexity". Gene 385: 2–18. doi:10.1016/j.gene.2006.03.025. PMID 17011142. 
  242. ^ Ross, M.R. (2005). "Who Believes What? Clearing up Confusion over Intelligent Design and Young-Earth Creationism" (PDF). Journal of Geoscience Education 53 (3): 319. http://www.nagt.org/files/nagt/jge/abstracts/Ross_v53n3p319.pdf. Retrieved 2008-04-28. 
  243. ^ Hameed, Salman (2008-12-12). "Science and Religion: Bracing for Islamic Creationism". Science 322 (5908): 1637–1638. doi:10.1126/science.1163672. PMID 19074331. http://helios.hampshire.edu/~sahCS/Hameed-Science-Creationism.pdf. Retrieved 2009. 
  244. ^ Spergel D. N.; Scott, EC; Okamoto, S (2006). "Science communication. Public acceptance of evolution". Science 313 (5788): 765–66. doi:10.1126/science.1126746. PMID 16902112. 
  245. ^ Spergel, D. N.; Verde, L.; Peiris, H. V.; Komatsu, E.; Nolta, M. R.; Bennett, C. L.; Halpern, M.; Hinshaw, G. et al. (2003). "First-Year Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) Observations: Determination of Cosmological Parameters". The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series 148: 175–94. doi:10.1086/377226. 
  246. ^ Wilde SA, Valley JW, Peck WH, Graham CM (2001). "Evidence from detrital zircons for the existence of continental crust and oceans on the Earth 4.4 Gyr ago". Nature 409 (6817): 175–78. doi:10.1038/35051550. PMID 11196637. 
  247. ^ Understanding Creationism after Kitzmiller 2007
  248. ^ On the history of eugenics and evolution, see Kevles, D (1998). In the Name of Eugenics: Genetics and the Uses of Human Heredity. Harvard University Press. ISBN 978-0674445574. 
  249. ^ Darwin strongly disagreed with attempts by Herbert Spencer and others to extrapolate evolutionary ideas to all possible subjects; see Midgley, M (2004). The Myths we Live By. Routledge. p. 62. ISBN 978-0415340779. 
  250. ^ Allhoff F (2003). "Evolutionary ethics from Darwin to Moore". History and philosophy of the life sciences 25 (1): 51–79. doi:10.1080/03919710312331272945. PMID 15293515. 
  251. ^ Gowaty, Patricia Adair (1997). Feminism and evolutionary biology: boundaries, intersections, and frontiers. London: Chapman & Hall. ISBN 0-412-07361-7. 
  252. ^ Bull JJ, Wichman HA (2001). "Applied evolution". Annu Rev Ecol Syst 32: 183–217. doi:10.1146/annurev.ecolsys.32.081501.114020. 
  253. ^ Doebley JF, Gaut BS, Smith BD (2006). "The molecular genetics of crop domestication". Cell 127 (7): 1309–21. doi:10.1016/j.cell.2006.12.006. PMID 17190597. 
  254. ^ Jäckel C, Kast P, Hilvert D (2008). "Protein design by directed evolution". Annu Rev Biophys 37: 153–73. doi:10.1146/annurev.biophys.37.032807.125832. PMID 18573077. 
  255. ^ Maher B. (April 2009). "Evolution: Biology's next top model?". Nature 458 (7239): 695–8. doi:10.1038/458695a. PMID 19360058. 
  256. ^ Borowsky R (January 2008). "Restoring sight in blind cavefish". Curr. Biol. 18 (1): R23–4. doi:10.1016/j.cub.2007.11.023. PMID 18177707. 
  257. ^ Gross JB, Borowsky R, Tabin CJ (January 2009). "A novel role for Mc1r in the parallel evolution of depigmentation in independent populations of the cavefish Astyanax mexicanus". PLoS Genet. 5 (1): e1000326. doi:10.1371/journal.pgen.1000326. PMID 19119422. 
  258. ^ Yergeau DA, Cornell CN, Parker SK, Zhou Y, Detrich HW (July 2005). "bloodthirsty, an RBCC/TRIM gene required for erythropoiesis in zebrafish". Dev. Biol. 283 (1): 97–112. doi:10.1016/j.ydbio.2005.04.006. PMID 15890331. 
  259. ^ Fraser AS (1958). "Monte Carlo analyses of genetic models". Nature 181 (4603): 208–9. doi:10.1038/181208a0. PMID 13504138. 
  260. ^ Rechenberg, Ingo (1973) (in German). Evolutionsstrategie – Optimierung technischer Systeme nach Prinzipien der biologischen Evolution (PhD thesis). Fromman-Holzboog. 
  261. ^ Holland, John H. (1975). Adaptation in Natural and Artificial Systems. University of Michigan Press. ISBN 0262581116. 
  262. ^ Koza, John R. (1992). Genetic Programming. MIT Press. ISBN 0262111705. 
  263. ^ Jamshidi M (2003). "Tools for intelligent control: fuzzy controllers, neural networks and genetic algorithms". Philosophical transactions. Series A, Mathematical, physical, and engineering sciences 361 (1809): 1781–808. doi:10.1098/rsta.2003.1225. PMID 12952685. 

Further reading

Introductory reading
History of evolutionary thought
Advanced reading

External links

This audio file was created from a revision dated 2005-04-18, and does not reflect subsequent edits to the article. (Audio help)
More spoken articles
General information
History of evolutionary thought
On-line lectures

Quotes

Up to date as of January 14, 2010

From Wikiquote

.Evolution is change in populations of organisms over generations.^ Natural selection is the process by which favorable traits that are heritable become more common in successive generations of a population of reproducing organisms, and unfavorable traits that are heritable become less common (from Wikipedia).
  • Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]

^ "Evolution" is a change in the inherited traits of a population from one generation to the next (from Wikipedia).
  • Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]

^ Evolution is NOT totally random (random mutations lead to nonrandom selection leads to change in population - the only random component is the mutation).
  • Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]

Offspring differ from their parents in various ways. .When these differences are helpful, the offspring have a greater chance of surviving and reproducing, making the differences more common in the next generation.^ Natural selection is the process by which favorable traits that are heritable become more common in successive generations of a population of reproducing organisms, and unfavorable traits that are heritable become less common (from Wikipedia).
  • Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]

.In this way, differences can accumulate over time, leading to major changes in a population.^ Evolution is NOT totally random (random mutations lead to nonrandom selection leads to change in population - the only random component is the mutation).
  • Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]

.The scientific theory of evolution—the explanation for how evolution occurs—states that all living things are descended, at some point in the distant past, from a single common ancestor.^ All scientific theories are "naturalistic" - every single one of them.
  • Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]

^ Evolution is a scientific theory.
  • Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]

^ He stated that he rejects the THEORY of evolution.
  • Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]

This is called common descent. .Since the beginning of life, evolution has transformed the first species into more and more different species as life has found a variety of ways to survive and flourish.^ The Theory of Evolution, as first formed by Darwin, and in its magnificent elucidation since then, does not require one to know anything of biogenesis - in essence, it STARTS with reproducing life forms.
  • Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]

^ "One of the things I have noted about evolutionists is that they tend to switch their opinions when it comes to the mechanics of the evolutionary transformation process when it is applied to different species.
  • Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]

^ And in The Origin itself, his famous "there is grandeur in this view of life" quote spoke of the first life forms having been 'breathed' into existence.
  • Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]

This has resulted in the many diverse forms of life that exist today.

Sourced

.
  • The antagonism between science and religion, about which we hear so much, appears to me to be purely factitious–fabricated, on the one hand, by short-sighted religious people who confound a certain branch of science, theology, with religion; and, on the other, by equally short-sighted scientific people who forget that science takes for its province only that which is susceptible of clear intellectual comprehension; and that, outside the boundaries of that province, they must be content with imagination, with hope, and with ignorance.^ Faith may do the same, depending on the flavor of your religion, but takes about 100 years longer to make half as much adjustment in it's dogma, compared to scientific theory.
    • Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]

    ^ There are people who do whatever they can get away with.
    • Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]

    ^ Unless you want to take the position that no scientific theory is ever an accurate explanation for a given set of data - and only an idiot would take such a position - this is equally pointless.
    • Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]

  • Anthropological, biological, and genetic evidence all put the origin of modern humans at between 200,000 and 100,000 years ago, probably in Africa. .There is also much data that show an outburst of cultural behavior occurring around 50,000-40,000 years ago in Europe.^ I know that there is much more cultural acceptance of the kind of mythologies that Paul (at the least) is paying lip service to - so he's not that crazy - but come on.
    • Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]

    ^ I wonder if you realize TAG wasn't around 10 years ago, and today is so influential.
    • Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]

    .That's when archaeologists date the oldest evidence of burial ceremonies, body ornaments, and cave paintings.^ All evidence to date suggests quite the contrary, that you are your body, and what your body is made of and what happens to it determines what kind of person you become.
    • Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]

    .
    • William J. Cromie, Facing up to Modern Man; Harvard Gazette
  • I find it hard to swallow that I have only ten times more genes than those lowly bacteria in my gut.^ We further observe that over time, as new species in that new taxon appear they look less and less like that older species, become more and more diversified and look more and more like the modern members of that taxon.
    • Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]

    ^ Evolution doesn't care whether God created bacteria or they formed without assistance over long periods of time; evolution only cares whether those bacteria follow the principles of natural selection, heritable variation, etc.
    • Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]

    ^ Also, if you're going to quote more than one person at a time when you're posting, you need to make it clear who you're quoting, and when.
    • Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]

    .I had always liked the fact that they have ten thousand times less DNA than I did - that felt about right - but a factor of ten was carrying democracy a bit too far.^ I have heard him talk about his religion far less than any of the other candidates that I've seen coverage on.
    • Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]

    ^ We further observe that over time, as new species in that new taxon appear they look less and less like that older species, become more and more diversified and look more and more like the modern members of that taxon.
    • Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]

    ^ Truth is the first order of business, and it's more beautiful than libertarianism dysfunctionally marketed, less likely implemented.
    • Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]

    • Gottfried Schatz in "Jeff's view on science and scientists", Amsterdam, Elsevier Butterworth-Heinemann, 2006, ISBN 978-0-444-52133-0, ISBN 0-444-52133-X (pbk.), p. 22, "Me and My Genome"
  • Authors of the highest eminence seem to be fully satisfied with the view that each species has been independently created. .To my mind it accords better with what we know of the laws impressed on matter by the Creator, that the production and extinction of the past and present inhabitants of the world should have been due to secondary causes, like those determining the birth and death of the individual.^ Thirdly, I would like to know why you continually refuse to countenance the idea that atoms make up much bigger things, and those bigger things interact with each other, and that interaction creates things like morality and society and culture.
    • Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]

    ^ Anyone who is as educated as Paul should know better.
    • Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]

    ^ You say: I just wanted to call you a religious idiot cause Ive nothing better to do with my time and I don't want to read your guys conversation.
    • Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]

    .When I view all beings not as special creations, but as the lineal descendants of some few beings which lived long before the first bed of the Silurian system was deposited, they seem to me to become ennobled.^ Definitely descended from some simian species.
    • Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]

    ^ We further observe that over time, as new species in that new taxon appear they look less and less like that older species, become more and more diversified and look more and more like the modern members of that taxon.
    • Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]

    ^ For example, it uses the low "uncaught error" rate to postulate that, er, I dunno, some higher power is keeping the DNA of all the cells on the planet in line.
    • Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]

  • If I did not think you a good tempered and truth-loving man I should not tell you that ... .I have read your book with more pain than pleasure.^ For example there is little evidence that born of a "virgin" is any more of a correct reading than born of a "young woman".
    • Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]

    ^ It's just that when you insult the people he cares about the most, his instincts tell him to use his "loyalty" neurons more quickly than his "book-learnin'" neurons.
    • Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]

    ^ Far more important than being "enslaved" to government (is someone forcing your citizenship, BTW?) is the state of enslavement that American culture is in to dishonesty and bullshit.
    • Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]

    .Parts of it I admired greatly; parts I laughed at till my sides were almost sore; other parts I read with absolute sorrow; because I think them utterly false and grievously mischievous.^ I just don't think we're at a point where anybody has the absolute truth on any side.""
    • Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]

    ^ It says absolutely nothing, one way or the other, about God, because God is not a physical thing, or law, or whatever, that can be analyzed by scientific methods.
    • Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]

    ^ First off, what he said was: "I don't think we're at a point where anybody has the absolute truth on either side."
    • Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]

    You have deserted - after a start in that tram-road of all solid physical truth - the true method of induction ...
    • Adam Sedgwick, Letter to Charles Darwin from Adam Sedgwick (his mentor), November 24th, 1859, in The Correspondence of Charles Darwin vol. 7, pg. .396, after reading The Origin of Species.
  • The most preposterous notion that H. sapiens has ever dreamed up is that the Lord God of Creation, Shaper and Ruler of all the Universes, wants the saccharine adoration of His creatures, can be swayed by their prayers, and becomes petulant if He does not receive this flattery.^ Apparently, Gretchen, you don't read my posts, and therefore you can't see that my argument is not based on physical make up, but on what you believe about the origin of man.
    • Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]

    ^ God gave our bodies reasoning ability - which is what all that business of brain-created patterns adds up to - and I think we're expected to use it to study his world without preconceptions and learn what we can of how that world works.
    • Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]

    ^ He can not be on the question of origins because the Bible clearly says "In the beginning God created..."
    • Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]

    .Yet this absurd fantasy, without a shred of evidence to bolster it, pays all the expenses of the oldest, largest, and least productive industry in all history.^ For Paul to say he doesn't accept evolution means he rejects, at the least, certain key factors in evolution, all of which have loads of evidence behind them.
    • Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]

    ^ But people who do so at least have a reason - that is, that there's far too much evidence for evolution to point to ALL of it.
    • Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]

  • [A] curious aspect of the theory of evolution is that everybody thinks he understands it. .
    • Jacques Monod (1910-1979) On the Molecular Theory of Evolution (1974) (French Biochemist, Nobel Prize Medicine 1965)
  • Orgel's Second Rule: Evolution is cleverer than you are.^ The term evolution in common parlance does mean something other than the purely technical meaning you and others are claiming it means.
    • Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]

    ^ The fact that you keep spitting out your evolution theory is pretty sad, cant you get another example?
    • Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]

    ^ Everyone of you that believes in "evolution theory" what means "survive of the fittest" has to accept, that a strong guy comes along and knocks you out.
    • Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]

    • Francis Crick (British molecular biologist, 1916- ) quoted by Daniel C. Dennett in Elbow Room (1984)
  • "Evolution is a tinkerer.
    • Francois Jacob (French biochemist 1920- )"Evolution and Tinkering" (1977). See "Bricolage"
  • A hen is only an egg's way of making another egg. .
  • [Natural Selection] has not vision, no foresight, no sight at all.^ First of all, you are confusing artifical selection and natural selection with evolution.
    • Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]

    ^ Evolutionary theory states that speciation, the "diversity of life," is the result of chance variation interacting with a process of natural selection, it does not make claims to explain "any behavior."
    • Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]

    ^ By changing its environment, you influence natural selection to select for bacteria that have the immunity gene (remember, not all the bacteria get it when you do the recombination).
    • Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]

    If it can be said to be play the role of watchmaker in nature, it is the *blind* watchmaker. .
  • Evolution is a change from an indefinite, incoherent, homogeneity to a definite, coherent, heterogeneity, through continuous differentiations and integrations.^ I'd refer you to Dawkins' "The Blind Watchmaker", but his political idiocy has alienated people to the point where they ignore the good science in his early work.
    • Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]

    ^ Doug: Read The Blind Watchmaker by Richard Dawkins.
    • Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]

    .
  • Evolution is a change from a no-howish untalkaboutable all-alikeness by continous sticktogetheration and somethingelsification.^ First of all, you are confusing artifical selection and natural selection with evolution.
    • Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]

    ^ And no amount of ignorant posturing by those who don't know the real meaning of evolution is going to magically change the meaning to something it isn't.
    • Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]

    ^ Feel free to make that assumption yourself; it has no bearing at all on the truth of the theory of evolution.
    • Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]

    .
    • A parody of the above quote, often attributed to William James, 1880 (Lecture Notes 1880-1897), but see [1].
  • Darwinian man though well behaved, is really but a monkey shaved!^ Red Phillips MD: "In modern terms, as this site amply illustrates, evolution does not just mean a theory of common descent, survival of the fittest, etc.
    • Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]

    ^ Red Phillips: "I submit the above as evidence of my assertion that scientific naturalism often leads to philosophical naturalism."
    • Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]

  • "Intelligent Design" is a sham. .Promote Darwin's Evolution, the REAL thing!^ At this time I really think the evolution thing should be put in the back burner for now.
    • Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]

    ^ Yes Darwin studied artificial selection in order to understand natural selection, which is a MECHANISM of evolution, not the same thing as evolution.
    • Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]

    .
  • We conclude - unexpectedly - that there is little evidence for the neo-Darwinian view: its theoretical foundations and the experimental evidence supporting it are weak, and there is no doubt that mutations of large effect are sometimes important in adaptation.^ There's a huge distinction between ackowledging the mechanism of evolution in the ADAPTATION of existent Life, and claiming it provides a supportable theory explaining the ORIGINS of Life.
    • Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]

    ^ Sure, evolution is more likely, because there is more tangible and verifiable evidence to support that conclusion.
    • Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]

    ^ Evolution may or may not be true, but if there's one thing I always have strong doubts about, it's 'overwhelming evidence.'
    • Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]

    .
    • Orr, H. Allen [Center for Population Biology, University of California, Davis], & Coyne, Jerry A. [Department of Ecology and Evolution, University of Chicago], "The Genetics of Adaptation: A Reassessment," The American Naturalist, Vol.^ Population genetics, genomics, developmental biology are all tied in to the overarching theory.
      • Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]

      ^ Additionally, just phone a decent university's biology department and ask them what textbook they use to teach evolution.
      • Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]

      ^ Why does Behe's department have a disclaimer on its website that he only speaks for himself and not the university or biology department?
      • Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]

      140, No. .5, November 1992, p.726; Sourced at: http://members.iinet.net.au/~sejones/darwin03.html.
  • Why don't we see gradual transition in the sequences of fossils?^ I don't see that anyone changed their vote over this, so why do you think anyone's changing their opinion of Ron Paul's candidacy over it?
    • Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]

    ^ See both versions of Paul's response here: http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/018118.html .
    • Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]

    ^ I don't see why.
    • Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]

    .According to Darwin, and the current neo-Darwinists, the fossil record has gaps in it because of the haphazard way in which fossilization occurs-it is bound to be an imperfect record of the history of life.^ "With the enormous, massive, inexplicable gaps in the fossil record, who here can absolutely defend evolution?"
    • Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]

    ^ There are not "enormous, massive, inexplicable gaps in the fossil record."
    • Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]

    ^ Darwin himself stated that his theory would be greatly compromised if the fossil record did not show evidence of such a transition.
    • Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]

    But is it? .Is the jerky and abrupt nature of the record really just due to 'gaps', or does it reflect the way evolution actually happened?^ Even if it were somehow demonstrated that this could not have happened, it would not change any of the evidence that evolution happened In other words, it is just theory.
    • Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]

    ^ By the way, doctorgoo, did you ever actually try to answer my questions, or were you just watching out for trolls?
    • Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]

    ^ I really am starting to think that you have no idea what evolution actually is.
    • Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]

    .There is a strong feeling among leading palaeontologists that the punctuated history shown by fossils reflects the way life has evolved-in leaps and bounds rather than in gradual transition.^ Complex life did not evolve by chance any more than the Complete Works of Shakespeare wrote themselves.
    • Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]

    ^ I appreciate that you respond to the comments, rather than just tossing something out there and observing the ensuing dogfight from a distance.
    • Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]

    ^ I don't have strong faith, yet I believe if there is a God, he wouldn't necessarily do things in a way we could or could not trace his steps.
    • Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]

    .There is also a growing sense that there is much more to understanding 'macroevolution' - the large-scale picture one gets from the fossils - than the simple idea of natural selection can alone explain.^ He was challenging much more than that.
    • Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]

    ^ Obviously Ron Paul understands that there is more to evolution than just a simple yes or no answer that Fox demanded in the Republican debate.
    • Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]

    ^ Yes Darwin studied artificial selection in order to understand natural selection, which is a MECHANISM of evolution, not the same thing as evolution.
    • Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]

    .
  • The world has arisen in some way or another.^ Since this is artificial selection, it has nothing to do with Darwin's theories about NATURAL selection.
    • Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]

    .How it originated is the great question, and Darwin's theory, like all other attempts to explain the origin of life, is thus far merely conjectural.^ He just doesn't accept that it is a viable theory explaining the Origins of Life.
    • Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]

    ^ He just doesn't accept that it is a viable theory explaining the Origins of Life."
    • Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]

    ^ It is not a viable theory for the Origins of Life.
    • Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]

    .I believe he has not even made the best conjecture possible in the present state of our knowledge.^ I don't see how not believing in evolution would slightly matter to determining which animals have the best DNA match to ours.
    • Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]

    ^ By using our knowledge of how their biological differences evolved, and determining which species are likely to match ours the best.
    • Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]

    .
  • Charles Darwin's evolution theory states that the strong eat the weak.^ He stated that he rejects the THEORY of evolution.
    • Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]

    ^ The Theory of Evolution, as first formed by Darwin, and in its magnificent elucidation since then, does not require one to know anything of biogenesis - in essence, it STARTS with reproducing life forms.
    • Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]

    ^ "Basically there are 6 types of evolution, 5 are theory and one is fact."
    • Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]

    .According to Darwin's evolution theory we are the worst people.^ Way to equate people who accept evolution as a theory with fanatical adherents.
    • Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]

    ^ If "the theory of evolution" were called "the empirically established paradigm for evolution", it would be harder for people to flippantly dismiss it as "just a theory".
    • Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]

    ^ Tim: "People mean different things when they say theory of evolution.
    • Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]

    But it is actually not so. It is a natural universal law. .If we take Darwin's evolution theory literally then God is the worst kind of being.^ The Theory of Evolution, as first formed by Darwin, and in its magnificent elucidation since then, does not require one to know anything of biogenesis - in essence, it STARTS with reproducing life forms.
    • Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]

    ^ Contrary to popular myth, the theory of evolution does not end with "...and therefore there is no God."
    • Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]

    ^ It is an unknown factor in the equation of evolution and yet we tend to take the later parts of evolution granted as factual based upon a primordial progenitor theory."
    • Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]

    .Because God planned creation in a certain way.^ One can believe God created the earth without thinking he did it the way it is recorded in Genesis.
    • Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]

    ^ They arose because sinful man wanted to rebel against that pesky God that actually expected certain moral norms.
    • Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]

    ^ It says absolutely nothing, one way or the other, about God, because God is not a physical thing, or law, or whatever, that can be analyzed by scientific methods.
    • Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]

    When love is involved there is no evil. Even mother birds sacrifice their own lives for the sake of their babies. .
  • We share most of our DNA with chimpanzees, but nowhere in the genome have we found what it is that makes us so different from chimps.^ As far as I can tell as an outsider to US politics this doesn't make any significant difference since Mr Paul was never going to get a serious number of votes anyway.
    • Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]

    ^ IMO , we will inevitably "make up" different things and just have to accommodate those differences.
    • Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]

    ^ All these things are part of our physical bodies.
    • Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]

  • Life and love by love
    We passed through the cycles strange,
    And breath by breath and death by death
    We followed the chain of change.^ January 27, 2009 11:49 PM .
    • Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]

    ^ We have them, we know they are real, we just don't know how we got them, except through some mysterious process of "interaction" that we are not able to explain, we just assume it is there.
    • Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]

    ^ And in The Origin itself, his famous "there is grandeur in this view of life" quote spoke of the first life forms having been 'breathed' into existence.
    • Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]

Unsourced

  • To surrender to ignorance and call it God has always been premature, and it remains premature today. .
  • When non-biologists talk about biological evolution they often confuse two different aspects of the definition.^ Remember that there are TWO aspects of "Evolution".
    • Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]

    ^ And when that "capacity for culture" appeared, we are not talking about biological evolution anymore, it is now "cultural evolution."
    • Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]

    ^ "One of the things I have noted about evolutionists is that they tend to switch their opinions when it comes to the mechanics of the evolutionary transformation process when it is applied to different species.
    • Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]

    .On the one hand there is the question of whether or not modern organisms have evolved from older ancestral organisms or whether modern species are continuing to change over time.^ We further observe that over time, as new species in that new taxon appear they look less and less like that older species, become more and more diversified and look more and more like the modern members of that taxon.
    • Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]

    ^ The question is, why didn't he raise his hand in the May 3rd event when everyone of the Republican candidates were asked whether they believe in evolution.
    • Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]

    ^ These pressures, in the long term, can also shape a species, and even cause a population of organisms within that species to diverge and become a new one.
    • Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]

    On the other hand there are questions about the mechanism of the observed changes... how did evolution occur? .Biologists consider the existence of biological evolution to be a fact. It can be demonstrated today and the historical evidence for its occurrence in the past is overwhelming.^ Even if it were somehow demonstrated that this could not have happened, it would not change any of the evidence that evolution happened In other words, it is just theory.
    • Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]

    ^ Humans, as Ed said, have the good fortune to have evolved a mind capable of considering the fact of their own evolution.
    • Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]

    ^ Evolution likewise can be studied by the evidence left behind, but there every single living thing (and many non-living things as well) bears the stamps of what happened in the past.
    • Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]

    .However, biologists readily admit that they are less certain of the exact mechanism of evolution; there are several theories of the mechanism of evolution.^ "Basically there are 6 types of evolution, 5 are theory and one is fact."
    • Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]

    ^ Basically there are 6 types of evolution, 5 are theory and one is fact.
    • Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]

    ^ It is not that any of the theories that form the basis for evolution are necessarily without merit, but they remain, for the most part, as unestablished as their religious counterparts.
    • Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]

    .
    • Laurence Moran
  • The 3 1/2" floppy drive came first, and then evolution kicked in, thus creating a chicken who laid an egg.^ Who cares what his beliefs are on creation, evolution, UFOs, ghosts or the tooth fairy.
    • Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]

    • Louise Barros
  • Books must follow sciences, and not sciences books.
  • Science has proof without any certainty. Creationists have certainty without any proof. .
  • Some creationists suggest that Noah took not dogs, wolves, and foxes on the ark with him, but only one animal which after the flood generated all the species of canines.^ Also, if you're going to quote more than one person at a time when you're posting, you need to make it clear who you're quoting, and when.
    • Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]

    ^ You only know what you read on some creationist blog.
    • Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]

    ^ In the remaining 40 seconds Ron Paul says more about how unimportant the issue is to him and makes another verbal gaffe, classifying it as a theological issue.
    • Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]

    This is actually stupider than simply saying "God just did it; don't ask questions." It seems to come from a worry that, after all, canines do seem to be genetically related; but then it sweeps away the genetic relationship to felines, primates, birds, chordates, etc.

See also

Wikipedia
Wikipedia has an article about:
Wiktionary-logo-en.png
Look up evolution in Wiktionary, the free dictionary
The following pages include extensive additional material on this subject:

Source material

Up to date as of January 22, 2010

From Wikisource

Evolution
by Langdon Smith
.When you were a tadpole and I was a fish
  In the Paleozoic time,
And side by side on the ebbing tide
  We sprawled through the ooze and slime,
Or skittered with many a caudal flip
  Through the depths of the Cambrian fen
My heart was rife with the joy of life,
  For I loved you even then.
^ What is different and even Darwin needed to devote time and effort to, was the creation of life from inorganic matter.
  • Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]

^ And even if you do find credible evidence, I'll just cover my ears and shout 'LALALALALA, I CAN'T HEAR YOU'....
  • Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]



Mindless we lived and mindless we loved
  And mindless at last we died;
And deep in the rift of the Caradoc drift
  We slumbered side by side.
.The world turned on in the lathe of time,
  The hot lands heaved amain,
Till we caught our breath from the womb of death
  And crept into life again.
^ And in The Origin itself, his famous "there is grandeur in this view of life" quote spoke of the first life forms having been 'breathed' into existence.
  • Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]



We were amphibians, scaled and tailed,
  And drab as a dead man's hand;
We coiled at ease 'neath the dripping trees
  Or trailed through the mud and sand.
Croaking and blind, with our three-clawed feet
  Writing a language dumb,
With never a spark in the empty dark
  To hint at a life to come.

Yet happy we lived and happy we loved,
  And happy we died once more;
Our forms were rolled in the clinging mold
  Of a Neocomian shore.
The eons came and the eons fled
  And the sleep that wrapped us fast
Was riven away in a newer day
  And the night of death was past.

Then light and swift through the jungle trees
  We swung in our airy flights,
Or breathed in the balms of the fronded palms
  In the hush of the moonless nights;
And oh! what beautiful years were these
  When our hearts clung each to each;
When life was filled and our senses thrilled
  In the first faint dawn of speech.

Thus life by life and love by love
  We passed through the cycles strange,
And breath by breath and death by death
  We followed the chain of change.
Till there came a time in the law of life
  When over the nursing sod
The shadows broke and the soul awoke
  In a strange, dim dream of God.
.
I was thewed like an Auroch bull
  And tusked like the great Cave Bear;
And you, my sweet, from head to feet
  Were gowned in your glorious hair.
^ My contention which you so pointedly ignored while you bull-rushed ahead with your witticisms, was that: Posted by: Ed Brayton "Theory is the highest level of certainty in science, not an indication of a lack of certainty."
  • Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]

^ Knowing your great affection for Sandra Day O'Conner, I'm guessing you use a "totality of the circumstances" tripartite balancing test.
  • Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]

^ And so, perhaps you should not be adulterating the education of my Christian children with your theoretical piffle.
  • Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]


Deep in the gloom of a fireless cave,
  When the night fell o'er the plain
And the moon hung red o'er the river bed
  We mumbled the bones of the slain.

I flaked a flint to a cutting edge
  And shaped it with brutish craft;
I broke a shank from the woodland dank
  And fitted it, head to haft;
Then I hid me close to the reedy tarn,
  Where the mammoth came to drink;
Through brawn and bone I drave the stone
  And slew him upon the brink.

Loud I howled through the moonlit wastes,
  Loud answered our kith and kin;
From west to east to the crimson feast
  The clan came trooping in.
O'er joint and gristle and padded hoof
  We fought and clawed and tore,
And cheek by jowl with many a growl
  We talked the marvel o'er.

I carved that fight on a reindeer bone
  With rude and hairy hand;
I pictured his fall on the cavern wall
  That men might understand.
.For we lived by blood and the right of might
  Ere human laws were drawn,
And the age of sin did not begin
  Til our brutal tusks were gone.
^ He might veto one specific kind of law in favor of another kind that does the same thing but in accordance with his Right-wing Constitutionalist viewpoint.
  • Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]


.
And that was a million years ago
  In a time that no man knows;
Yet here tonight in the mellow light
  We sit at Delmonico's.
^ Note especially the "Cambrian Explosion" about 500 million years ago.
  • Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]

^ The fact that it happened 100 million years ago does not affect the validity of that inference.
  • Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]

^ Like I pointed earlier, ten years ago no one knew about it, today we have to banish them from our forums.
  • Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]


.Your eyes are deep as the Devon springs,
  Your hair is dark as jet,
Your years are few, your life is new,
  Your soul untried, and yet —

Our trail is on the Kimmeridge clay
  And the scarp of the Purbeck flags;
We have left our bones in the Bagshot stones
  And deep in the Coralline crags;
Our love is old, our lives are old,
  And death shall come amain;
Should it come today, what man may say
  We shall not live again?
^ If some 16 year old can't abort her baby in Georgia say, that's not alright because one in New York can.
  • Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]

^ There may come a time when scientists can look at the universe and confidently say "There is no God", but we are a long way from there.
  • Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]

^ So your saying Dawkins and Darwin do not make a distinction between the birth of life from non organic matter, and the modification of DNA based on surrounding conditions?
  • Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]


.
God wrought our souls from the Tremadoc beds
 And furnish’d them wings to fly;

He sowed our spawn in the world's dim dawn,
 And I know that it shall not die,
Though cities have sprung above the graves
  Where the crook-boned men made war
And the ox-wain creaks o'er the buried caves
  Where the mummied mammoths are.
^ The Bible itself tells us that God made our bodies, not directly out of nothing, but out of dirt.
  • Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]

^ I believe that Christ came to redeem the world through love that connects and joins together our broken connections with God.
  • Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]

^ For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature--have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.
  • Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]



For we know the clod, by the grace of God
  Will quicken with voice and breath;
And we know that Love, with gentle hand
  Will beckon from death to death.
And so, as we linger at luncheon here
  O'er many a dainty dish,
Let us drink anew to the time when you
  Were a Tadpole and I was a Fish.
PD-icon.svg This work published before January 1, 1923 is in the .public domain worldwide because the author died at least 100 years ago.^ The fact that it happened 100 million years ago does not affect the validity of that inference.
  • Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]


1911 encyclopedia

Up to date as of January 14, 2010

From LoveToKnow 1911

EVOLUTION. The modern doctrine of evolution or " evolving," as opposed to that of simple creation, has been defined by Prof. James Sully in the 9th edition of this encyclopaedia as a " natural history of the cosmos including organic beings, expressed in physical terms as a mechanical process." The following exposition of the historical development of the doctrine is taken from Sully's article, and for the most part is in his own words.
.
In the modern doctrine of evolution the cosmic system appears as a natural product of elementary matter and its laws.
^ Cosmic evolution - the origin of time, space, and matter.
  • Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]

^ They weren't there before man appeared, so they must be the product of evolution, right?
  • Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]

.The various grades of life on our planet are the natural consequences of certain physical processes involved in the gradual transformations of the earth.^ I think that our very physical structure, with our natural desire to protect our offspring and the empathy permitted by our brain functioning, can cause us to long for connection and wholeness.
  • Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]

^ Evolutionary theory states that speciation, the "diversity of life," is the result of chance variation interacting with a process of natural selection, it does not make claims to explain "any behavior."
  • Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]

^ "There is the altar of traditional evolutionary theory that expresses itself in a gradual process and then there is the altar "punctuate equilibrium" to explain extremely rapid life-burst of accelerated evolution.
  • Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]

Conscious life is viewed as conditioned by physical (organic and more especially nervous) processes, and as evolving itself in close correlation with organic evolution. .Finally, human development, as exhibited in historical and prehistorical records, is regarded as the highest and most complex result of organic and physical evolution.^ So part of the evolution of the human mind likely was the development of moral feelings, an innate sense of right and wrong, that helped keep social order.
  • Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]

.
This modern doctrine of evolution is but an expansion and completion of those physical theories (see below) which opened the history of speculation.
^ No army of nutjobs was trying to get labels put on physics books stating that those were "just theories" and hence simply alternatives to creation "theory" - as is well-known by any reasonably aware person to be currently the case with evolution.
  • Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]

^ Then they cannot understand why creationists cannot believe it, or see clear science, not understanding that the whole evolution package includes the other 5 theories."
  • Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]

^ Add to it the fact that those patterns were constructed in interaction with my environment, including what I've read about science, brains, and the theory of evolution, and I can agree.
  • Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]

It differs from them in being grounded on exact and verified research. .As such, moreover, it is a much more limited theory of evolution than the ancient.^ He was challenging much more than that.
  • Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]

^ Biology is based on more than evolution.
  • Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]

^ But, of course, this is irrelevant because Ron Paul didn't respect evolution to the point of studying it and realizing that it can coexist with religious beliefs, or that there's a bit more than spit and a prayer holding the theory up.
  • Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]

.It does not necessarily concern itself about the question of the infinitude of worlds in space and in time.^ So if he was asked does he think that its possible for plants and animals DNA to modify itself, he would have a different question to answer then do you believe in evolution.
  • Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]

.It is content to explain the origin and course of development of the world, the solar or, at most, the sidereal system which falls under our own observation.^ It explains our observations.
  • Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]

^ It is true that currently, there is no fully developed and/or tested theory (that I'm aware of) that explains the origin of life.
  • Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]

It would be difficult to say what branches of science had done most towards the establishment of this doctrine.
.
We must content ourselves by referring to the progress of physical (including chemical) theory, which has led to the great generalization of the conservation of energy; to the discovery of the fundamental chemical identity of the matter of our planet and of other celestial bodies, and of the chemical relations of organic and inorganic bodies; to the advance of astronomical speculation respecting the origin of the solar system, &c.; to the growth of the science of geology which has necessitated the conception of vast and unimaginable periods of time in the past history of our globe, and to the rapid march of the biological sciences which has made us familiar with the simplest types and elements of organism; finally, to the development of the science of anthropology (including comparative psychology, philology, &c.
^ "Thus, God could make the law of noncontradiction false; in other words, God could arrange matters so that a proposition and its negation were true at the same time."
  • Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]

^ It it thus as well established as any other theory in science, including the vast range of theories you would not even think to question.
  • Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]

^ Ron Paul supports bad science and could lead to (not the holocaust) but to the collapse of science in America for a generation if he dumbs down the shaky American school systems/Universities.
  • Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]

), and to the vast extension and improvement of all branches of historical study.
Table of contents

History of the Idea of Evolution

The doctrine of evolution in its finished and definite form is a modern product. .It required for its formation an amount of scientif