"The fact that fossilized bones can't have offspring, and don't have any DNA - and that Yorkshire Terriers and Irish Wolfhounds are both the same species (with very different bones), while gerbils and hamsters are not (with rather similar bones)."
First, both types of dogs are different species depending on the definition you use. Second, you're confusing artificial selection with natural selection here.
No, I'm trying to make a point that morphology does not equal speciation. If the definition of "species" can be used to refer to Yorkies and Great Danes as different species, then, basically, morphology = species, and you've got a much stronger support for straight-up Darwinism. Since, after all, his finches *do* look different, even if they can breed with each other.
It's the differences in DNA that aren't quite as easy to pin down.
"I thought comparitive anatomy *was* morphology."
It is. But you said morphology of the fossil record. You can also compare existing species which have decended from a common ancestor.
"Even on the molecular level, current study is basically showing this species looks like that species."
I'm not quite sure what you're getting at here.
That it's all about this looking like that thing, which may or may not have to do with exclusivity of reproduction (again, if you're definining "species" as something that just looks different from something else, rather than the capability of producing arable offspring, this is a moot point).
That a "common ancestor" may or may not simply be a relative of one species that *looks like* another species. "Common ancestry" is a bit tricky to pin down... like this hominid skull from Ethiopia shows. The scientific community can go back and forth on these things for a while.
There may be things going on at the DNA/molecular level that totally undermine the Darwinian status quo, but we won't know about it because no one's really doing that research - no one dares ask those questions. Except creationists. (In this area, the only science is biased science.)"
This is quite an accusation. If you are saying that scientists are interested in maintaining the status quo in general, then how does scientific progress occur at all? If you are saying that scientists are only interested in maintaining this status quo only, then why have they selected it to the exclusion of other concepts?
I'm saying there are certain questions you can't ask because you'll get branded a "creation scientist."
It's self-interest based on fear. Which is the real shame of the ongoing evolution vs. creation battle.
(I should mention, after a brief glance I'm impressed with what I see here, although I haven't read it in depth.
I'm looking for citations of the shrinking snapper thing, but the only reference I can currently find is on nexis (I can't link to it) and has the only contentious quote as: But Dr. John Gold, a professor of genetics at Texas A&M University, said it was almost impossible to demonstrate empirically that excessive fishing caused genetic changes like a diminution in size. While the simplicity and logic of the theory makes it compelling, he noted that the supposed changes involved several genes whose individual effect was small, cumulative and independent.
"Bohnsack's head and heart are in the right place," said Gold, whose specialty is molecular genetics. "But the idea, although a good one, is very difficult to test."
...which isn't exactly what I remember. I'm not even sure if it was James Bohnsack or a colleague of his named Jerald Ault I remember. They're both very active in fishery protection, so there's a lot of not-quite-related material out there.
Actually, I was objecting to this statement:
"He was into the idea of an invisible hand guiding the forces of mutation & speciation, if I recall right. It wasn't creationism, but it wasn't Darwinism either - and definitely wouldn't adapt itself to "social darwinist" ideas of survival of the fittest..."
If Wallace had an entirely different idea, then why did he co-present with Darwin on this issue?
Darwin and Wallace agreed on the mechanics, but Wallace had an abiding interest in the human soul.
From this 1903 interview:
"Darwin believed that the mental, moral, and spiritual nature of man were alike developed from the lower animals, automatically, by the same processes that evolved his physical structure. I maintain, on the other hand, that there are indications of man having received something that he could not have derived from the lower animals."
"Have you any theory as to how he got that 'something'?"
"I do not think it is possible to form any idea beyond this, that when man's body was prepared to receive it, there occurred an inbreathing of spirit--call it what you will. I believe this influx took place at three stages in evolution--the change (1) from the inorganic to the organic, (2) from the plant to the animal, (3) from the animal to the soul of man. Evolution seems to me to fail to account for these tremendous transitions."
It's worth mentioning that neither of them were explicitly atheist; they just contradicted Biblical ideas about the length of time life had existed on Earth.
I remember a bit more about this in that book I've been hunting for, the one I reviewed for the paper in 1998.
I think this is it, but since there's no cover, I can't be sure. The book's out of print - and if it is the one I'm recalling, then that's a shame. |
God will strike us down! Religious freedom my arse. Hypocrites. 
