Darwin's Doubt

[Philip]

Well, I know Heiser's take on it - not much about Walton. I've tried to deconstruct it by looking for Scripture that would negate it, but I think the available Scriptural arguments against it are rather feeble. So many Christians are not science savvy or they tend to doubt the dates it produces.

[abelcainsbrother]

I really don't see how you cannot see how the Gap Theory is already proven true based on just the fossil record because they prove the former world existed and perished

Because the Gap Theory is directly contradicted by the fossil record (and Scripture).

The fossil record shows continuity between the 'former world' and the 'current world' not discontinuity as the Gap Theory asserts.

There are many examples, but two specific examples that we have already discussed are:
1. Penguins - The fossil record shows that penguins existed in the 'former world' and penguins still exist in the 'current world'.
And Genesis 1:21 explicitly states that God created (bara) birds on Day 5, which takes place after Genesis 1:2.
So the Gap Theory is directly contradicted by both the fossil record and Scripture.
2. Neanderthals - The fossil record also shows that Neanderthals, which existed in the 'former world', coexisted with Human beings (species homo sapiens sapiens). So if humans were created by God on Day 6 (Genesis 1:26-27), then Neanderthals also existed during Day 6. And we have yet another contradiction between the Gap Theory and both the fossil record and Scripture.

So you say that just because certian kinds of life was in both worlds it means we do not have evidence of two totally different worlds? Because we do. Can you prove neanderthals were living here with humans on day 6?

This article from Encyclopedia Britannica provides a nice overview of some of the evidence:
https://www.britannica.com/place/Vindija

Vindija, site of paleoanthropological excavations in the Hrvatsko Zagorje region of Croatia, known for Neanderthal remains found there in the 1970s; Neanderthal DNA has since been successfully isolated from some specimens. The Vindija cave also contains a long, rich sequence of artifacts from the Paleolithic Period dating from more than 200,000 years ago to about 10,000 years ago. The late age and the characteristics of some of the fossils and associated artifacts found at Vindija suggest that Neanderthals (Homo neanderthalensis) and early modern humans (H. sapiens) elsewhere in Europe coexisted for a time.

The oldest fossils from the cave date to about 40,000 years ago and consist of immature and adult pieces of braincase, browridge, upper and lower jaws, isolated teeth, and limb bones. They exhibit a suite of typically Neanderthal skull and dental features and a few aspects of the limb bones. However, despite having body sizes similar to other Neanderthal specimens, these individuals have rather small faces. Also, the browridges are relatively thin and are less projecting than those of other Neanderthals, the jaws are small and exhibit incipient chins, and the shoulder joints closely resemble those of more-recent humans. This evidence indicates a reduction of Neanderthal features in these relatively late central European Neanderthals and thus lessens their contrast with early modern humans in the region.

The more-recent fossils exhibit similar reduction of the brow and lower jaw while retaining several typical Neanderthal features of the face, teeth, and limbs. However, like the Neanderthal remains found at Saint-Césaire in France, they are associated with evidence of a technology normally associated with early modern humans. Moreover, these remains have been directly dated to about 34,000 years ago, which makes them among the most recent Neanderthals known. Their age also means that they were contemporaneous with early modern humans known from neighbouring areas of eastern Europe. This indicates that, when early modern humans spread westward across Europe sometime after about 36,000 years ago, they did not quickly drive the Neanderthals to extinction but lived in neighbouring regions for several millennia. Some scientists suggest that cultural differences between the two groups must therefore have been modest and that there was ample opportunity for them to exchange mates where they came into contact. Others assert that the groups did not interbreed.

First off,you do realize that there is much disagreement about neanderthals,even amongst scientists and this often suggests people just speculating about things.

However even if you believe that about the DNA it still does not prove that they mated with humans and even lived at the same time as humans did. I've considered this before and have considered interpretaing Genesis 1 and 2 as you are but the reason why I ultimately rejected it is because scientists cannot be trusted about alot of the things they claim. I mean they all believe evolution is true and look at all of this evidence as if evolution is true and it is based on evolution. Now I have exposed many lies and myths evolutionists have came up with to push the theory of evolution myth and if they are just making up stuff in order to promote evolution then they'll do it when it comes to neanderthals too.

However even if they are correct about the DNA I would rather trust God's word than what man says is true and I know that fallen angels mated with humans in Genesis 6 producing nephilim giants. So based on Genesis 6 we know fallen angels can alter humanity genetically by mating with them.Based on this we can say angels did the same thing in the former world they did in this world,they appeared to neanderthals as men and then mated with them and this is why we find the DNA. But see you reject Genesis 6 and Nephilim giants but it makes the most sense to me.

It also provides a much,much better understanding for why God flooded the earth in Noah's day also as to kill off the hybrid giants that were altering humanity genetically so God wiped them all out.but also Zeus,Hercules,Atlas,Saturn,etc that the Greeks worshipped as gods were the nephilim giants the bible talks about,which is proof they did really exist and were worshipped as gods by man. Unless we understand this fallen angels and Nephilim thing we lose out on so much biblical knowledge and the ability to minister to the world to reach them with biblical wisdom and knowledge.

[DBowling]

However even if you believe that about the DNA it still does not prove that they mated with humans and even lived at the same time as humans did. I've considered this before and have considered interpretaing Genesis 1 and 2 as you are but the reason why I ultimately rejected it is because scientists cannot be trusted about alot of the things they claim.

A couple of things...

I'm not making any claims here about whether Neanderthals may or may not have mated with Humans... in fact I do not have a firm opinion on that topic.
What I was showing was that the fossil evidence indicates that humans and Neanderthals coexisted in Europe 35,000 to 40,000 years ago.

If you wish to disbelieve the fossil evidence, that of course is your right. But if you are choosing to deny the fossil evidence then you cannot claim that the fossil evidence supports the Gap Theory.
The fact of the matter is that the fossil evidence directly contradicts the Gap Theory.

And more importantly, as we've discussed many times, the Gap Theory is directly contradicted by Scripture as well.

[abelcainsbrother]

However even if you believe that about the DNA it still does not prove that they mated with humans and even lived at the same time as humans did. I've considered this before and have considered interpretaing Genesis 1 and 2 as you are but the reason why I ultimately rejected it is because scientists cannot be trusted about alot of the things they claim.

A couple of things...

I'm not making any claims here about whether Neanderthals may or may not have mated with Humans... in fact I do not have a firm opinion on that topic.
What I was showing was that the fossil evidence indicates that humans and Neanderthals coexisted in Europe 35,000 to 40,000 years ago.

If you wish to disbelieve the fossil evidence, that of course is your right. But if you are choosing to deny the fossil evidence then you cannot claim that the fossil evidence supports the Gap Theory.
The fact of the matter is that the fossil evidence directly contradicts the Gap Theory.

And more importantly, as we've discussed many times, the Gap Theory is directly contradicted by Scripture as well.

I'm not denying the fossil evidence. I am acknowledging neanderthals existed we just disagree that they lived along side humans at the same tme. Also I'm acknowledging that neanderthals lived 35,000 to 40,000 years age and this is a problem because this world was not made until about 6000 years ago(Ussher's Chronology).So Neanderthals could not have lived in this world with humans created in God's image.We can leave them in the former world with hominids and Cro-Magnon races of beings or Pre-Adamite races.

How can the Gap Theory contradict scripture when I have proof based on the fossil record the former world existed and that it was a different kind of world than this world we now live in is?You seem to think that just because certian kinds of life was in both worlds it does not prove there is evidence for two different worlds,but there is and the fossil record proves it and all we have to do to see the proof is compare the fossil record to the kinds of life we have in this world because two different worlds will be proven.This is one way the Gap Theory destroys the Theory of Evolution.

Thus to me it proves the Gap Theory interpretation correct,which you claim contradicts scripture. It is the kind of evidence we should find and it is a fulfilled prediction. The Gap Theory teaches that there was a former world that perished then there was a gap of time when the earth sat in a without form and void state until the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters and this world was made.I'm not just declaring it is true but I'm backing it up with evidence that confirms a former world did indeed exist and it was a different kind of world than this world is. Certian kinds of life being in both worlds does not in no way refute the fact that we do have evidence for two different earth ages.

Also although we disagree I actually liked the challenge you gave me when we discussed it before biblically because it helps me to make sure I am right and even make an even better argument for it.We can agree to disagree and it is not a salvation issue.Still,if I thought you refuted it biblically I would have changed my mind about the Gap Theory just like I did when it comes to young earth creationism,I just don't think you did. To me it seemed like you were trying to find a certian translation to say it the way you want it to say instead of just acknowledging my point of how we know life existed before God made and created the life he did in Genesis 1.I've had others do this too when I'm trying to show them biblically why it is true.They just want to find a certian translation to say what they want it to say and so I learned how to defend the Gap theory using most any translation out there. I no longer have to use just the KJV because eventhough I trust it more than todays translations,not everybody else does and so I can now teach the Gap Theory using the NASB,NIV,etc too.

[DBowling]

I'm not making any claims here about whether Neanderthals may or may not have mated with Humans... in fact I do not have a firm opinion on that topic.
What I was showing was that the fossil evidence indicates that humans and Neanderthals coexisted in Europe 35,000 to 40,000 years ago.

If you wish to disbelieve the fossil evidence, that of course is your right. But if you are choosing to deny the fossil evidence then you cannot claim that the fossil evidence supports the Gap Theory.
The fact of the matter is that the fossil evidence directly contradicts the Gap Theory.

And more importantly, as we've discussed many times, the Gap Theory is directly contradicted by Scripture as well.

I'm not denying the fossil evidence. I am acknowledging neanderthals existed we just disagree that they lived along side humans at the same tme. Also I'm acknowledging that neanderthals lived 35,000 to 40,000 years age and this is a problem because this world was not made until about 6000 years ago(Ussher's Chronology).So Neanderthals could not have lived in this world with humans created in God's image.We can leave them in the former world with hominids and Cro-Magnon races of beings or Pre-Adamite races.

Do you believe that the fossil record shows that Cro-magnons and Neanderthals coexisted in Europe 35,000 to 40,000 years ago?

The fossil record (and archaeology in general for that matter) also shows no evidence of a planet wide catastrophe or mass extinction event 6000 years ago which is a key premise of the Gap Theory... So yet again the fossil record directly contradicts the Gap Theory.

[abelcainsbrother]

I'm not making any claims here about whether Neanderthals may or may not have mated with Humans... in fact I do not have a firm opinion on that topic.
What I was showing was that the fossil evidence indicates that humans and Neanderthals coexisted in Europe 35,000 to 40,000 years ago.

If you wish to disbelieve the fossil evidence, that of course is your right. But if you are choosing to deny the fossil evidence then you cannot claim that the fossil evidence supports the Gap Theory.
The fact of the matter is that the fossil evidence directly contradicts the Gap Theory.

And more importantly, as we've discussed many times, the Gap Theory is directly contradicted by Scripture as well.

I'm not denying the fossil evidence. I am acknowledging neanderthals existed we just disagree that they lived along side humans at the same tme. Also I'm acknowledging that neanderthals lived 35,000 to 40,000 years age and this is a problem because this world was not made until about 6000 years ago(Ussher's Chronology).So Neanderthals could not have lived in this world with humans created in God's image.We can leave them in the former world with hominids and Cro-Magnon races of beings or Pre-Adamite races.

Do you believe that the fossil record shows that Cro-magnons and Neanderthals coexisted in Europe 35,000 to 40,000 years ago?

The fossil record (and archaeology in general for that matter) also shows no evidence of a planet wide catastrophe or mass extinction event 6000 years ago which is a key premise of the Gap Theory... So yet again the fossil record directly contradicts the Gap Theory.

Evolutionists try to make this same argument that there is no evidence of a planet wide extinction event.But first let me say that my understanding is that Cro-Magnons lived at a different time than Neanderthals did. Also I did not say that a planet wide extinction event happened 6000 years ago,I said according to Ussher's Chronology this world was made about 6000 years ago. Do you know when the last ice age happened? Because it was a mass extinction inwhich many kinds of life such as Sabre Teeth Cats,Wooly Mammoths,etc and many other kinds of life went extinct.There have been about 5 mass extinction events that scientists acknowledge,like for instance when Dinosaurs went extinct about 65 million years ago,Snow ball Earth,etc. There have been a number of mass extinction events and the last one was about 12,000 years ago at the last ice age. I believe the former world perished then,then about 6-10,000 years ago God made this world we now live in.

Now why do I believe this? First off I believe in a gap because of what the bible says. 2nd Peter 3:4-5 "And saying.Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep,ALL THINGS CONTINUE AS THEY WERE FROM THE BEGINNING OF THE CREATION." This is exactly what you are claiming. Now sure you are not denying the coming of Jesus but because of evolution influencing our science you have picked up this idea that all things have gone on continually since the beginning of the creation.

I reject this idea because there was a gap. How do I know there was? Because of verse 5. "For this they willingly are ignorant of,that by the word of God the heavens were of old,and the earth standing out of the water and in the water: Whereby the world THAT THEN WAS being overflowed with water PERISHED:"

The only other place in the bible were the earth is out of and in the water is in Genesis 1:2."And the earth was without form and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep.And the Spirit of God moved upon the WATERS."

The earth is out of and in the water here,this is why the word waters is plural. The earth is not out of and in the water in Noah's flood and so despite how many bible scholors today claiming it was,it was not out of and in the waters,it was just flooded.So that there was a world that perished before this happened to the earth. This is why we find evidence of the former world in the fossil record and we can see it was a different kind of world than this world is.

So I'm going by what God's word reveals first and then examining the fossil record.It seems like you're going by what scientists say first and then going by that in your rejection of the Gap Theory. But I can never accept this idea that all things have gone on continually since the beginning of the creation.It has not because there was a gap somewhere where everything stopped and the earth was flooded and frozen until God decided what to do. The last ice age is when I think it happened.

[DBowling]

I'm not making any claims here about whether Neanderthals may or may not have mated with Humans... in fact I do not have a firm opinion on that topic.
What I was showing was that the fossil evidence indicates that humans and Neanderthals coexisted in Europe 35,000 to 40,000 years ago.

If you wish to disbelieve the fossil evidence, that of course is your right. But if you are choosing to deny the fossil evidence then you cannot claim that the fossil evidence supports the Gap Theory.
The fact of the matter is that the fossil evidence directly contradicts the Gap Theory.

And more importantly, as we've discussed many times, the Gap Theory is directly contradicted by Scripture as well.

I'm not denying the fossil evidence. I am acknowledging neanderthals existed we just disagree that they lived along side humans at the same tme. Also I'm acknowledging that neanderthals lived 35,000 to 40,000 years age and this is a problem because this world was not made until about 6000 years ago(Ussher's Chronology).So Neanderthals could not have lived in this world with humans created in God's image.We can leave them in the former world with hominids and Cro-Magnon races of beings or Pre-Adamite races.

Do you believe that the fossil record shows that Cro-magnons and Neanderthals coexisted in Europe 35,000 to 40,000 years ago?

The fossil record (and archaeology in general for that matter) also shows no evidence of a planet wide catastrophe or mass extinction event 6000 years ago which is a key premise of the Gap Theory... So yet again the fossil record directly contradicts the Gap Theory.

But first let me say that my understanding is that Cro-Magnons lived at a different time than Neanderthals did.

Then I suggest that you take another look at the scientific data. The fossil record indicates that Cro-Magnon man and Neanderthals both coexisted in Europe 35,000 to 40,000 years ago (which pretty much debunked the old theory that humans evolved from Neanderthals).

There have been a number of mass extinction events and the last one was about 12,000 years ago at the last ice age. I believe the former world perished then,then about 6-10,000 years ago God made this world we now live in.

The five big mass extinction events on earth were:
1. End Ordovician, 444 million years ago, 86% of species lost
2. Late Devonian, 375 million years ago, 75% of species lost
3. End Permian, 251 million years ago, 96% of species lost
4. End Triassic, 200 million years ago, 80% of species lost
5. End Cretaceous, 66 million years ago, 76% of all species lost

A number of species did become extinct during the most recent ice age, but the percentage of species that went extinct during the most recent ice age does not come anywhere close to the big five mass extinction events.
In fact, most animals species, and even humans, survived the most recent ice age.
Which gives us yet another direct contradiction between the fossil record and the assertions of the Gap Theory.

So I'm going by what God's word reveals first and then examining the fossil record.It seems like you're going by what scientists say first and then going by that in your rejection of the Gap Theory.

No... I'm starting with the sequence of events in God's Word in Genesis 1.
The Gap Theory asserts that God created plants and animals (some of which still exist today) prior to Genesis 1:2. This directly contradicts Genesis 1 which says that God created plants and animals after Genesis 1:2.
Since Scripture directly contradicts the Gap Theory it comes as no great surprise to me that the fossil record also directly contradicts the Gap Theory.

And since both Scripture and the fossil record both directly contradict the Gap Theory, then I am compelled to reject the Gap Theory as untrue.

[abelcainsbrother]

I'm not making any claims here about whether Neanderthals may or may not have mated with Humans... in fact I do not have a firm opinion on that topic.
What I was showing was that the fossil evidence indicates that humans and Neanderthals coexisted in Europe 35,000 to 40,000 years ago.

If you wish to disbelieve the fossil evidence, that of course is your right. But if you are choosing to deny the fossil evidence then you cannot claim that the fossil evidence supports the Gap Theory.
The fact of the matter is that the fossil evidence directly contradicts the Gap Theory.

And more importantly, as we've discussed many times, the Gap Theory is directly contradicted by Scripture as well.

I'm not denying the fossil evidence. I am acknowledging neanderthals existed we just disagree that they lived along side humans at the same tme. Also I'm acknowledging that neanderthals lived 35,000 to 40,000 years age and this is a problem because this world was not made until about 6000 years ago(Ussher's Chronology).So Neanderthals could not have lived in this world with humans created in God's image.We can leave them in the former world with hominids and Cro-Magnon races of beings or Pre-Adamite races.

Do you believe that the fossil record shows that Cro-magnons and Neanderthals coexisted in Europe 35,000 to 40,000 years ago?

The fossil record (and archaeology in general for that matter) also shows no evidence of a planet wide catastrophe or mass extinction event 6000 years ago which is a key premise of the Gap Theory... So yet again the fossil record directly contradicts the Gap Theory.

But first let me say that my understanding is that Cro-Magnons lived at a different time than Neanderthals did.

Then I suggest that you take another look at the scientific data. The fossil record indicates that Cro-Magnon man and Neanderthals both coexisted in Europe 35,000 to 40,000 years ago (which pretty much debunked the old theory that humans evolved from Neanderthals).

There have been a number of mass extinction events and the last one was about 12,000 years ago at the last ice age. I believe the former world perished then,then about 6-10,000 years ago God made this world we now live in.

The five big mass extinction events on earth were:
1. End Ordovician, 444 million years ago, 86% of species lost
2. Late Devonian, 375 million years ago, 75% of species lost
3. End Permian, 251 million years ago, 96% of species lost
4. End Triassic, 200 million years ago, 80% of species lost
5. End Cretaceous, 66 million years ago, 76% of all species lost

A number of species did become extinct during the most recent ice age, but the percentage of species that went extinct during the most recent ice age does not come anywhere close to the big five mass extinction events.
In fact, most animals species, and even humans, survived the most recent ice age.
Which gives us yet another direct contradiction between the fossil record and the assertions of the Gap Theory.

So I'm going by what God's word reveals first and then examining the fossil record.It seems like you're going by what scientists say first and then going by that in your rejection of the Gap Theory.

No... I'm starting with the sequence of events in God's Word in Genesis 1.
The Gap Theory asserts that God created plants and animals (some of which still exist today) prior to Genesis 1:2. This directly contradicts Genesis 1 which says that God created plants and animals after Genesis 1:2.
Since Scripture directly contradicts the Gap Theory it comes as no great surprise to me that the fossil record also directly contradicts the Gap Theory.

And since both Scripture and the fossil record both directly contradict the Gap Theory, then I am compelled to reject the Gap Theory as untrue.

Well if you want to continue to believe and teach that all things have gone on continually since the beginning of the creation,I can't stop you,but I won't,no matter what man says. The only thing God created in Genesis 1 is certian animals and man,everything else was made and in some cases it was made "after its kind" which means it existed before. So we should expect to find things that had existed before.Plus even the new kinds of animals God created and created "after its kind" it just means new life based on life had had already lived before. It does not contradict the fossil record as we find certian kinds of life that was in both worlds,plus new kinds of life that are totally different than the life we find in the fossil record. So I see no contradiction at all.

So for biblical evidence I have Peter telling us " the WORLD that then WAS perished" and I have evidence for the former world existng and evidence it was a totally different kind of world than this world is. Thus confirmed correct.
Then I have Genesis 1 telling us that God both made and created life "after its kind" which is confirmed correct based on how certian life we find in both worlds which covers the things God made "after its kind" but we also see totally new animals in this world too which is what we would expect with the life God created "after its kind". Plus man God created in his image is new life compared to hominids,cro-magnon and neanderthals. So that I'm not only claiming there was a former world but this interprtation lines up perfectly with the fossil record too.

I think why you can't realize it is because when it says "after its kind" in Genesis 1 you seem to think it is not pointing to previous life like it is,but instead probably think it has something to do with reproduction when it does'nt. It has to do with when God both made and created things after its kind and it definately points to previous life. When it has to do with reproduction the bible says be fruitful and multiply or like in Genesis 8:17. Anyway I was not really trying to get into a scripture debate with you again here. I was just trying to explain how the fossil record confirms the former world existed and that it was a totally different world than this world is,which proves the Gap Theory is true to me.I was just trying to focus on the evidence the Gap Theory is true to convince you. We already debated it scripturally before and I know we disagree already.

Here read Ezekiel 26:15-21 and tell me what you think it is referring to. I'm posting this blindly right now because I've read the KJV and this is the NASB.Let's see what it says.

[DBowling]

This doesn't have much to do with Darwin's concern about the impact of the Cambrian Explosion on his Theory of Evolution
... but let's go with it anyway...

Here read Ezekiel 26:15-21 and tell me what you think it is referring to.

Ezekiel 26:15 actually tells us what Ezekiel is referring to. This passage is part of a larger prophecy (Ezekiel 26:1 - 28:19) that Ezekiel made regarding Tyre around 586 BC.

Shortly after Ezekiel's prophecy, Nebuchadnezzar laid siege to Tyre for 13 years and captured mainland Tyre.
Then, in 332 BC Alexander the Great took the rubble from mainland Tyre and built a causeway to the island city of Tyre and destroyed the island city.
Alexander the Great completed the destruction of Tyre and the fulfillment of the prophecy that Ezekiel had made over 200 years earlier.

[PaulSacramento]

Just an FYI:

http://www.amnation.com/vfr/archives/012477.html

February 10, 2009
Genes Offer New Clues in Old Debate on Species’ Origins
By CAROL KAESUK YOON
Charles Darwin called it the “mystery of mysteries,” a problem so significant and one he was so sure he had solved that he named his world-changing work after it: “On the Origin of Species.” So he might be surprised to learn that 150 years after the publication of his book, the study of how species originate, a process known as speciation, is not only one of the field’s most active areas of study, but also one of its most contentious.

[LA comments: if the explanation of how species originate is “one of the most contentious areas of study” in Darwinism, then the core of the Darwinian theory is not proved, is it?]

While researchers agree that many of the recent breakthroughs would have come as a huge surprise to the grand old man, they seem to disagree about almost everything else, from what a species is to what exactly is meant by the origin of species and even whether Darwin shed any light on the process at all.

[LA comments: Take that in: many evolutionary researchers believe that Darwin “shed no light at all” on the origin of species. Does William Jennings Bryan get rehabilitated for having said the same?]

“Speciation is definitely one of the big-picture grand themes of evolutionary biology,” said Mary Jane West-Eberhard, an evolutionary biologist at the Smithsonian Tropical Research Institute in Panama. She described study of the process as “an apparent turmoil that might be misunderstood by an outsider as a caldron of doubts and uncertainties but that in fact is a vitally alive science.”

[LA comments: Yes, evolutionary science is “vitally alive”—because the scientists are still desperately looking for the proof that they claim to have already found!]

Part of the difficulty with studying the origin of species comes from the vastness of the question—how did the diversity of all life on Earth arise, from orchids to elephants to bacteria to ourselves? It is difficult, too, to try to reconstruct events—the birth of species—long past.

[LA replies: No kidding! Which underscores the fact that the Darwinians have had no business in claiming for all these years to have demonstrated something—the origin of new species by random genetic mutations and natural selection—that they have never demonstrated.]

“A decade ago, the joke was that spell-checkers regularly attempted to substitute the word ‘speciation’ with ‘speculation,’” Mohamed Noor, an evolutionary biologist at Duke University, wrote in a commentary in the journal Nature. But he added, “Speculation in this area will soon be a thing of the past.”

[LA replies: Oh, I see: speculation will “soon” be a thing of the past! Haven’t I always said that the scientific truth about evolution is that we do not know how new species originated? Now the Darwinians themselves are admitting they don’t know, but are only speculating.]

To support such optimism, researchers point to the recent discovery of so-called speciation genes. Most biologists define a species as a group that is reproductively isolated—it cannot interbreed or exchange genes with any other. The newly discovered genes cause reproductive isolation between two groups by causing their offspring, or hybrids, to be infertile or die. Scientists say the identities of the long-sought genes, several of which have recently been pinpointed in fruit flies, mice, fish and yeast, came as a surprise.

[LA comments: The Darwinians’ assertion of “optimism” about the prospect of their getting beyond speculation to knowledge shows that they don’t yet have such knowledge. Yet they simultaneously tell us that anyone who doubts that Darwinism is a proven fact is a faith-based ignoramus and an enemy of society. The Darwinian orthodoxy parades itself as the established, unquestionable, unassailable truth, when in reality it is getting by on a shoeshine and a smile. That’s why I call it the biggest intellectual fraud in history.]

On Friday, Daven Presgraves, an evolutionary biologist at the University of Rochester, and colleagues published a paper in the journal Science identifying the latest such gene to be discovered. It is the second one that the team has found in fruit flies. The newly discovered gene, Nup 160, like its predecessor, Nup 96, causes reproductive isolation between the species Drosophila melanogaster and Drosophila simulans.

Unexpectedly, the genes both produce proteins that are part of a large piece of cellular machinery known as the nuclear pore complex, a gateway that controls what molecules move into and out of the nucleus. It is still unclear why, in what Dr. Presgraves describes as a blind search for genes that cause problems in hybrids, his team twice pulled out genes involved in the nuclear pore complex or why the complex might be particularly important in the evolution of reproductive isolation.

“The question is,” said Douglas Futuyma, an evolutionary biologist at the State University of New York at Stony Brook, “what the hell does this have to do with hybrid sterility?”

One reason some scientists object to the use of the term “speciation genes” is that although the genes cause reproductive isolation, it is not clear whether the genes in question caused the initial reproductive isolation responsible for the origin of the species.

To get closer to the crucial early stages of reproductive isolation, Kirsten Bomblies, an evolutionary biologist at the Max Planck Institute for Developmental Biology in T�bingen, Germany, and colleagues study hybrids that are the offspring of crosses between strains of plants within a single species. Surprisingly, even among different strains of the weed Arabidopsis thaliana, Dr. Bomblies said, “some crosses fail catastrophically.” The hybrids are “tiny, their leaves are twisted and warped, they have massive die-off of cells, and the worst cases are unable to flower.”

As with the Drosophila genes, the function of the hybrid-disrupting genes found in Arabidopsis has come as a surprise. They appear to be genes for disease resistance, suggesting that the rapid evolution of disease resistance in different strains may be the beginning of the evolution of reproductive isolation between them. The study may have significance far beyond Arabidopsis; Dr. Bomblies, who last year won a MacArthur Foundation fellowship for her research, notes that breeders have noticed the withering of different strains’ offspring in a variety of species, including wheat, tobacco, cotton and the houseplant Streptocarpus.

Loren Rieseberg, an evolutionary biologist at the University of British Columbia who was not involved with the study, said the work was important because it suggested that an entire class of genes, those involved with fending off disease, and a particular kind of natural selection—that imposed by disease organisms—could be broadly important in speciation in plants. (Read comments by Dr. Rieseberg’s on “On the Origin of Species.”)

The surprises now being found in the DNA of diverging species are, of course, things Darwin could never have guessed at. Having written “Origin of Species” decades before Gregor Mendel’s genetic work was rediscovered, he certainly did not anticipate such findings in his vision of the diversification of life.

“Genetics was one area where he really fell down,” said Jerry Coyne, an evolutionary biologist at the University of Chicago and the author of “Why Evolution Is True” (Penguin, 2009).

Yet the strongest pattern emerging from the study of these speciation genes is one Darwin might well have expected. The single widespread commonality is that nearly all appear to have diverged to produce reproductive isolation as a result of adaptation under powerful natural selection.

More than anything else, Darwin focused on adaptation via natural selection in the shaping of the diversity of life. The finding comes as something of a surprise to modern biologists, however, because in the absence of evidence, it was plausible that random divergence over time might also have been an important force leading groups to becoming distinct species.

“Probably the most important finding,” Dr. Rieseberg said, “is that selection is driving the process.”

The harking back to Darwin’s emphasis on selection goes well beyond studies of DNA. A particularly powerful type of selection that Darwin emphasized was sexual selection, as when females choose showy mates and male suitors violently combat one another, which can lead to the evolution of things like peacock tails or massive deer antlers.

Now new studies are providing increasing evidence that sexual selection is capable not only of producing outrageous structures but also new species, an idea of Darwin’s that Dr. West-Eberhard describes as “almost completely forgotten for nearly a century.”

A small Amazonian frog known as Physalaemus petersi provides a particularly strong example of how females’ choosiness in mates may be driving the formation of a new species. Males of the mottled brown species reach just over an inch in length and can be found singing in choruses to attract females. In some populations, the males’ song is what is called a “whine”—a kind of frog meow. But in other populations, males whine and add a squawk. Michael J. Ryan, an evolutionary biologist at the University of Texas, Austin, and colleagues have found that the difference evolved because females in one population preferred pure whine, whereas in another they preferred whine and squawk.

What is particularly interesting about petersi, though, is that the female frogs’ preference for different songs in different populations also appears to be causing the populations to begin to evolve into distinct species. When given a choice of songs from either population, females nearly uniformly prefer their own population’s song, as strictly as if the two populations belonged to two long separated species. The researchers have even gathered evidence that the populations that prefer different songs, while very closely related, appear to be beginning to diverge from one another genetically, suggesting they are moving down the path toward becoming separate species.

So if Darwin pointed out the importance of selection, and even the power of sexual selection, why the often heard claim that the “Origin” has little to say about how species originate?

The problem lies in how biologists define a species. Today, the most common definition of a species is a group that is reproductively isolated from other groups, the biological species concept set out by the evolutionary biologist Ernst Mayr in 1942. As a result, the origin of species is, necessarily, considered the origin of reproduction isolation. Yet both concepts would have been rather foreign to Darwin.

Darwin, who once wrote that species were “indefinable,” might have described a species as a segment of a branch on the ever-expanding tree of life, the same tree he drew as the only figure in the “Origin.” Or he might have said it was something more distinct than a variety and less than a genus.

And there are some biologists today who say that Darwin in all his vagueness, not modern biologists, had the definition right. David Wake, an evolutionary biologist at the University of California, Berkeley, has studied Ensatina salamanders for decades. He says their patterns of interbreeding and adaptation simply do not yield to their being divided into species as dictated by the biological species concept.

His salamanders, he said, like so many other real living things, are “much messier” than a definition like the biological species concept allows. Consider asexual species. If a species is an entity that does not exchange genes with others, then every asexual organism, every individual bacterium, for example, could be considered a separate species, hardly a useful distinction. And the complications go on and on.

So perhaps Darwin hit the mark, at least the mark he intended, when he chose his famed title.

“I think he’s not referring to how do you get two species of finch out of one,” Dr. Futuyma said of “Origin of Species.” “I think what he means is something much more embracing, something we would today call the origin of biological diversity.

[PaulSacramento]

Also:
In their 2005 book, The Plausibility of Life: Resolving Darwin’s Dilemma (dilemma? dilemma? Darwin has a dilemma?), evolutionary scientists Marc Kirschner and John Gerhart come right out and declare that up to this point, evolutionary science has not shown how Darwinian evolution produces new organs, new species, new life forms. The fly leaf of the book says:
In the 150 years since Darwin, the field of evolutionary biology has left a glaring gap in understanding how animals developed their astounding variety and complexity. The answer has been that small genetic mutations accumulate over time to produce wondrous innovations such as eyes and wings. Drawing on cutting-edge research across the spectrum of modern biology, Marc Kirschner and John Gerhart demonstrate how this stock answer is woefully inadequate. [LA replies: Meaning, the Darwinian theory of evolution by random genetic mutations and natural selection is woefully inadequate.] Rather they offer an original solution to the long-standing puzzle of how small random genetic change can be converted into complex useful innovations.
So, an entirely original theory is needed to explain how random mutations can accumulate into functional new biological forms. Meaning that the explanations offered up to this point have been wrong. Meaning that everything we’ve been told about how evolutionary theory has the status of proven fact has been false.

Yet (remember, we’re living in an Orwellian world) Kirschner and Gerhart’s astounding admission has not entered into the general public consciousness. One reason it hasn’t can be seen in Paul R. Gross’s review of the book in the New York Sun in 2005. Gross spent the first half of the review pounding his chest about how perfect and complete and absolutely unquestionable the Darwinian theory is, until, in the second half of the review, he quietly admitted that some eentsy teentsy issues still remain to be demonstrated, like, you know, how new species evolved. Yet so assured was Gross’s propaganda in the first half of the article, that his dramatic admission in the second half made no impact. Only a careful reader would notice it. And most people do not read carefully.

[Philip]

I think Paul's quote above left out important words:

"Rather they FAILED TO offer an original solution to the long-standing puzzle of how small random genetic change can be converted into complex useful innovations.

[thatkidakayoungguy]

ACB, for one final time, Neanderthals were an early variety of human being. Don't you see how they adapted to different environments and used complex tools, among other things, which also were used by early modern humans? I see you won't believe the DNA evidence, so I will go on another topic: we know Aborigines, that are humans today as I'm sure you know, have a culture that dates back 50,000 years. The Hadza of Africa appear to recall back that far if not more since they remember giant humans, ancestors they claim were the first to live in caves, use fire, and medicine. In Tanzania, the only people who resemble this are either the H. erectus, or the H. sapiens rhodesiansis/heild.