Literature Review: Putting Limits on the Diversity of Life

»	ISCID Forums » General » Literature Review » Putting Limits on the Diversity of Life (Page 3)

This topic is comprised of pages: 1 2 3

Author

Topic: Putting Limits on the Diversity of Life

Argon
Member
Member # 276

posted 10. May 2004 22:12

Fernando writes:
"I refer here to the exchange of nucleic acids amongst bacteria only.

A. tumefaciens produces tumors in plants.

So?
A. tumefaciens transfers DNA to plants which can later be propagated in plant "progeny". That's horizontal transfer.

I do not understand the distinction being made. You say that if bacteria exchange DNA (which typically represents a tiny fraction of the genome at a time), then that is just sex between the same "species". But when DNA is exchanged between different species of which one partner may be a eukaryote, then that is just "pathology". Well, how do you know that genetic exchange between bacterial species isn't like "pathology" as well? After all, why do you think bacteria maintain rather specific DNA methylation and restriction endonuclease systems that cleave "foreign" DNA? Basically, bacterial "sex" across different species of bacteria does not involve an equal sharing of genetic material; it is actually more like an infection. It is because bacterial lineages maintain a cohesive and coherent set of core sequences and functions that we can assign them to groupings of species.

What I am saying is that the "biological species concept" that depends on mating as a diagnostic of a species really applies poorly to organisms such as bacteria that propagate primarily through clonal division and whose mechanisms of genetic exchange are quite different. I suggest that rather than trying to force all forms of life into the same classification scheme, which was known from the start to work poorly for a large number of organisms, you might want to investigate exactly what it is you are trying to classify. There is literally a hundred years of literature on bacterial classification. One might start reading papers by Carl Woese.

Fernando writes:
"Also I refer here to cells that naturally have mitochondria and that in some way may be artificially eliminated.

It is not granted any speculative linear descent."

I am sorry Fernando, but I just do not understand what you mean.

Recall your original question:

quote:
Without mitochondria (or chloroplasts) since the very beginning, how could those cells have been able to work in any way? I.E., has somebody done experiments excluding every mitochondria of a cell to see how, if... can the cell survive?

First, there exist examples of living organisms that have lost their mitochondria and yet can still survive. The "petite" mutants of Saccharomyces cerevisiae (baker's yeast) provide a example that is often cited in introductory microbiology and genetics textbooks. Also, there are living eukaryotes that are known to lack mitochondria in their native ("wild type") form. Basically, having mitochondria is not absolutely essential for all eukaryotes.

IP: Logged

Fernando Castro-Chavez
Member
Member # 1201

posted 10. May 2004 23:14

Putting Limits on the Diversity of Life
(Part Five)

Species-Specific Molecules:

Molecules present in one 'True Species' but absent in the rest. Molecules present in a 'Family' of organisms with high similarities but absent in others.

These 'Species-Specific Molecules' can be seen as a product of Intelligent Design, as these are not present in any other organism, discarding a continuous and gradual evolutionary way of transmission of genetic material, enforcing the discontinuous, non-linear origin of the genomic organization of living beings. I.E., a discontinuous presence of genes, regulatory sequences, RNAs, proteins, etc. specific for humans, not present in any other living organism.

This piece of evidence, together with other species-specific patterns and the sudden appearance of life before and after 'The Great Impact', and the lack of gradualism in the fossil record or in the living beings clearly depicts Intelligent Design and disproves a spontaneous generation of life in an oceanic 'soup' 'evolving' until the 'completion' of all living beings, as the total number of 'True Species' has been determined beforehand. "Everything is Determined", claimed Albert Einstein.

However, even after such compelling evidences, ‘evolutionary thinking’ in science still hinges on gradualism through millennia to try to accommodate an implausible explanation for such phenomena (or to grant their 'official' publications. Links below).

The facts remain the same, the 'official' interpretation of them is the only thing that differs from the actual cumulative evidence.

(See 'The Great Impact')

Some Links:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=12604796

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=15014171

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=12620392

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=12612342

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=11731936

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=14585506

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=10583945&dopt=Abstract

//////////////////

Argon:

"In nature, Agrobacterium tumefaciens invades a plant and infects it with crown gall disease. When using the bacterium to genetically modify plants, scientists remove the disease-causing parts of Agrobacterium's DNA and replace them with genes carrying the characteristics scientists want transferred to the plant."

http://www.uoguelph.ca/news/alumnus/backissues/Spring00/10.html

We need to discern the sharp difference between the human 'Genetic Engineering' and the natural processes.

-----------

"Berger & Yaffe (1998) observed a 40 % reduction in lifespan forpetite mutants. Kirchman et al. (1999) also reported a reduced lifespan for several petite mutants."

"Lifespan analysis of respiratory-deficient yeast suggests that the impact of petite mutations on longevity may be strain specific (Kirchman et al., 1999)." I.E. the strain "YPK9".

http://www.socgenmicrobiol.org.uk/MIC/146/1023/1461023A.PDF

AND

http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/links/doi/10.1046/j.1474-9728.2002.00018.x/abs

We are starting to learn of unicellular organisms that can be aerobic or anaerobic, like many bacteria. My observation is directed to cells coordinately working inside an organism. Your suggestions are worthy of a deeper analysis, thank you again.

[ 11. May 2004, 17:32: Message edited by: Fernando Castro-Chavez ]

IP: Logged

Argon
Member
Member # 276

posted 12. May 2004 21:59

Fernando writes:
"We need to discern the sharp difference between the human 'Genetic Engineering' and the natural processes."

In a small percentage of infections with the wild-type varieties of A. tumefaciens, some of the plasmid-borne, disease-inducing genes are already mutated and rendered naturally non-pathogenic. That is, the mutant Ti-plasmid is still capable of integration into the host DNA but not capable of furthering infection. These are, in essence, duds that can get "stuck" in the genome of transduced plants. This "natural" genetic engineering is similar to phage-mediated transduction in which the defective packaging of phage DNA (or, the packaging of defective phage DNA), occasionally results in horizontal transfer instead of pathogenesis. We humans carry a number of phage remnants as well.

Here is a URL to a 1999 PNAS article which documents a likely horizontal transfer event between Agrobacterium rhizogenes and a species of Nicotiana:

http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=23930

Fernando writes:
We are starting to learn of unicellular organisms that can be aerobic or anaerobic, like many bacteria. My observation is directed to cells coordinately working inside an organism.

Yeast can grow both aerobically and anaerobically: The anaerobic processes of some yeasts were harnessed by humans millenia ago to produce alcohol.

Regarding the observation: The endosymbiotic theory for the origin of mitochondria does not propose that the original, endosymbiotic event happened in a multicellular organism, but instead with a unicellular organism.

[ 12. May 2004, 22:00: Message edited by: Argon ]

IP: Logged

Fernando Castro-Chavez
Member
Member # 1201

posted 13. May 2004 18:44

Argon:

Thank you for the link.

The specific new things that we are just starting to learn regarding amitochondrial unicellular organisms is that they have a mitosome:

Tovar J, Fischer A, Clark CG. The mitosome, a novel organelle related to mitochondria in the amitochondrial parasite Entamoeba histolytica. Mol Microbiol. 1999

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=10361303

More of such organisms still being discovered:

O'Kelly CJ, Silberman JD, Amaral Zettler LA, Nerad TA, Sogin ML. Monopylocystis visvesvarai n. gen., n. sp. and Sawyeria marylandensis n. gen., n. sp.: two new amitochondrial heterolobosean amoebae from anoxic environments.
Protist. 2003 Jul;154(2):281-90

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=13677454

As well as other of their peculiar characteristic:

Chose O, Noel C, Gerbod D, Brenner C, Viscogliosi E, Roseto A. A form of cell death with some features resembling apoptosis in the amitochondrial unicellular organism Trichomonas vaginalis. Exp Cell Res. 2002

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=11978006

Mariante RM, Guimaraes CA, Linden R, Benchimol M. Hydrogen peroxide induces caspase activation and programmed cell death in the amitochondrial Tritrichomonas foetus. Histochem Cell Biol. 2003 Aug;120(2):129-41

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=12844218

etc...

IP: Logged

Argon
Member
Member # 276

posted 13. May 2004 21:30

Fernando writes:
"The specific new things that we are just starting to learn regarding amitochondrial unicellular organisms is that they have a mitosome"

Yes, some do, but some might not. It does appear that the amitochondrial state is a derived condition (a result of reduction) in the organisms studied so far. The root of the eukaryotic "tree" appears very closely linked with the acquisition of mitochondria. (This is distinct from plastid origins which appear to be later events).

IP: Logged

Fernando Castro-Chavez
Member
Member # 1201

posted 18. May 2004 17:47

Putting Limits on the Diversity of Life
(Part 2.2)

The Great Dying

Becker L, Poreda RJ, Basu AR, Pope KO, Harrison TM, Nicholson C, Iasky R. Bedout: A Possible End-Permian Impact Crater Offshore of Northwestern Australia.
Science. 2004 May 13 [Epub ahead of print]

"The Bedout High located on the northwestern continental margin of Australia... Seismic imaging, gravity data and the identification of melt rocks and impact breccias from drill cores located on top of Bedout are consistent with the presence of a buried impact crater. The impact breccias contain nearly pure silica glass (SiO2), fractured and shock-melted plagioclases and spherulitic glass. The distribution of glass and shocked minerals over hundreds of meters of drill core implies that a melt sheet is present. Available gravity and seismic data suggest that the Bedout High represents the central uplift of a crater similar in size to Chicxulub."

Comment of Luann Becker (first author):

"We think that mass extinctions may be defined by catastrophes like impact and volcanism occurring synchronously in time... this is what happened... at Chicxulub but was largely dismissed by scientists as merely a coincidence... I don't think we can call such catastrophes occurring together a coincidence anymore."

http://newsfromrussia.com/science/2004/05/14/53905.html

Other links:

http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2002/28jan_extinction.htm

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/4969840

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/3077507

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/3223708.stm

http://www.astrobio.net/news/article697.html

http://beckeraustralia.crustal.ucsb.edu

http://www.astronomy.com/Content/Dynamic/Articles/000/000/001/732wbrhh.asp

//////////////

Putting Limits on the Diversity of Life
(Part 3.2)

We need the map for life to understand life itself and its history.

Both, the Universe and its Revealed map proceed from the same Author.

I agree completely with the original Biblical record.

////////////////////

More facts related to it can be seen next:

1-
Cichlid species in Lake Victoria are extremely variable, displaying 500 color morphs... in recent years, human activity has caused the water of Lake Victoria to become cloudy. In these areas, the cichlids can't differentiate between species. In these cloudy areas, bright color morphs have disappeared and the fish have become similar and dull in appearance through hybridization (Seehausen et al. 1997).

http://www.cichlidae.com/articles/a110.html
+++++++++
2-
Cichlids in Africa "produce viable, fertile hybrids":

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=11298988

Turner GF, Seehausen O, Knight ME, Allender CJ, Robinson RL. How many species of cichlid fishes are there in African lakes? Mol Ecol. 2001 Mar;10(3):793-806.

[Here again, there is one true species with limitless varieties, with limitless sub-species]
+++++++++
3-
Porpoises: Dall's porpoises (Phocoenoides dalli) and harbour porpoises (Phocoena phocoena) can conceive offspring. According to Baird et al (1998) many individuals with intermediate pigmentation have been observed, indicating that such offspring may be viable:

"Atypically-pigmented porpoises (usually traveling with and behaving like Dall's porpoise) are regularly observed in the area around southern Vancouver Island. We suggest these abnormally-pigmented animals, as well as the previously noted fetus from California, may also represent hybridization events."

http://www.dal.ca/~whitelab/rwb/hybrid.htm [Abstract and full article in PDF]
+++++++++
4-
Dolphin and false killer whale: There has been one case of a female bottlenose dolphin (Tursiops truncatus) and a male false killer whale (Pseudorca crassidens) producing a fertile female hybrid, called a wholphin. She went on to breed with a dolphin and produced a daughter: In 1985, in the Hawaii’s Sea Life Park. Since the offspring in this case are fertile these two genera are really, by definition, a single polytypic biological species [Other members in the group (12 living 'genera') are much more alike than the two that produced the offspring in Hawaii]

http://hotspotshawaii.com/Wolphin.html

Pictures:
http://www2.hawaii.edu/HIMB/Education/Marina&Carrie&Wholphin.jpg

http://www2.hawaii.edu/HIMB/Education/Kristine&Mark&Wholphin.jpg
+++++++++
5-
The Great Whales [fin whale x blue whale]:

Spilliaert R, Vikingsson G, Arnason U, Palsdottir A, Sigurjonsson J, Arnason A. Species hybridization between a female blue whale (Balaenoptera musculus) and a male fin whale (B. physalus): molecular and morphological documentation. J Hered. 1991 Jul-Aug;82(4):269-74.

"In 1986 a large, pregnant, female balaenopterid whale was caught in Icelandic waters. The animal had morphological characteristics of both the blue and the fin whale. Molecular analyses of the whale showed that it was a hybrid between a female blue whale and a male fin whale. The descent of the species hybrid was established without access to either parental specimen. Analysis of the fetus showed that it had a blue whale father. The present report of species hybridization between the two largest cetacean species, the blue and the fin whale, documents the occurrence of cetacean species hybridization in the wild. It is also the first example of any cetacean hybridization giving rise to a fertile offspring."

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=1679066

--------

Arnason U, Spilliaert R, Palsdottir A, Arnason A. Molecular identification of hybrids between the two largest whale species, the blue whale (Balaenoptera musculus) and the fin whale (B. physalus). Hereditas. 1991;115(2):183-9.

"Three anomalous balaenopterid whales, one pregnant female and two sterile males, were investigated by applying molecular approaches in order to establish their identity. The analysis showed that the whales were species hybrids between the blue and the fin whales. The female and one of the males had a blue whale mother and a fin whale father. The other male had a fin whale mother and a blue whale father."

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=1687408

--------

Berube et al. Population genetic structure of North Atlantic, Mediterranean Sea and Sea of Cortez fin whales, Balaenoptera physalus (Linnaeus 1758): analysis of mitochondrial and nuclear loci.
Mol Ecol. 1998 May;7(5):585-99.

"[Recurrent] gene flow between adjacent populations"

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=9633102

Palsboll PJ, Berube M, Aguilar A, Notarbartolo-Di-Sciara G, Nielsen R. Discerning between recurrent gene flow and recent divergence under a finite-site mutation model applied to North Atlantic and Mediterranean Sea fin whale (Balaenoptera physalus) populations. Evolution Int J Org Evolution. 2004 Mar;58(3):670-5.

"Intensive commercial shore-based whaling during the 1920s removed substantial numbers of fin whales in the Strait of Gibraltar and this local population has seemingly since failed to recover."

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=15119452

--------

Page 236-237, National Audubon Society "Guide to Marine Mammals of the World", 2002, Knopf, 528 p.
"Blue Whales are known to occasionally hybridize with Fin Whales, and unlikely as it would seem given the considerable differences in size and morphology between the two species, there is one well-documented report of a Humpback--Blue Whale hybrid from the South Pacific."

http://www.cmnh.org/dinoarch/2002Nov/msg00217.html

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0375411410/102-6048677-3273719

--------

The Humpback/Fin hybrid surprises me more, considering the mating rituals and accompanying singing that Humpbacks engage in. But it confirms that Humpbacks are Rorquels, albiet aberrant forms.

http://www.cmnh.org/dinoarch/2002Nov/msg00174.html
+++++++++
6-
Grampus griseus (risso's dolphin) x Tursiops truncatus (bottlenose dolphin), intermediate characters suggest hybridization

Taken from: Gray AP, Mammalian Hybrids, 1972, Commonwealth Agricultural Bureaux, Farnham Royal, Bucks, England. Book database by 'genus': http://www.bryancore.org/hdb/index.html
+++++++++
7-
Bobcat and lynx: Bobcats (Lynx rufus) and lynxes (Lynx canadensis) can cross; several such crosses have happened naturally in the wild.

http://www.fs.fed.us/rm/main/pa/newsclips/03_06/0604_canadalynx.html

Minnesota bobcat-lynx crosses (in PDF): http://mountain-prairie.fws.gov/endspp/lynx/Q&As%20final.pdf
+++++++++
8-
Raise a baby male zebra finch with a Bengalese mother finch, and the zebra finch will grow up to ignore female zebra finches but devotedly court Bengalese finches (Bischof 1994).

http://www.ratbehavior.org/Hybridization.htm
+++++++++
9-
A new variety of snake, product of a cross between an albino corn snake (Elaphe guttata) and an albino king snake (Lampropeltis triangulum) in a reptile park in Bakersfield, California and belongs to David Jolly, Manager of the Information Department, AiG (USA). Apparently it is fertile.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/magazines/docs/v22n3_liger.asp

Corn snakes are one of the most popular pet snakes in North America, and snake fanciers have bred all sorts of colour variations:

http://members.aol.com/guttata319/Hawkherp/morfs.html
+++++++++
10-
The male 'cama':
Veterinarians in the United Arab Emirates successfully cross-bred a camel and a llama: The ‘cama’ has the cloven hooves of a llama and the short ears and tail of a camel. The scientists hope to combine the best qualities of both into the one animal — the superior fleece and calmer temperament of the llama with the larger size of the camel.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/magazines/docs/v22n3_liger.asp

http://www.cnn.com/EARTH/9801/20/cama.ap

--------

"Skidmore said they won't know whether Rama can reproduce until he reaches puberty in about 18 months to two years... may live 20 or even 30 years if all goes well, and when fully grown should weigh midway between a llama's average weight of 75 kilos and a camel's 450 kilos."

http://www.datadubai.com/cama1.htm

http://www.datadubai.com/cama2.htm

"A third camel-llama cross, the second male, born January of '03":

http://www.taylorllamas.com/Camel-LamaCrossPhotos.html

---------
The female 'cama':
"Like a mule or hinny, the hybrid between a horse and donkey, she is likely to be sterile... born after 343 days which is within the typical gestation period for the llama (335-360 days), but is much shorter than the camel's (385-395 days)... weighed only 5kg at birth. This is less than a newborn llama which weighs around 10kg and much less than a newborn camel at 30kg. It is a striking illustration of how the size of the mother controls the size of the newborn, irrespective of the size of the father... It seems that it is easier for the female llama to conceive from camel semen than for the female camel to conceive from llama semen."

http://www.gulf-news.com/Articles/news.asp?ArticleID=43065
+++++++++
11-

" Lama glama, the llama; Lama pacos, the alpaca; Lama guanico, the Guanaco; and Vicugna vicugna, the Vicuna. They will interbreed and do produce fertile hybrids."

http://www.ansi.okstate.edu/breeds/other/other-w.htm

http://www.fungus.org.uk/camelids.htm

"The Incas domesticated the guanaco to produce the llama and the vicuna to produce the alpaca. All four of these New World camelids can readily be made to hybridise with each other."

http://www.gulf-news.com/Articles/news.asp?ArticleID=43065

http://www.taylorllamas.com/Camel-LamaCrossPhotos.html

“Llamas, guanacos, alpacas and vicunas can interbreed and should therefore be pastured separately.”

http://www.llama-llocater.com/llama_facts.html
+++++++++
12-
Bactrian Camel x Dromedary Camels

"The Bactrian and Dromedary Camels can interbreed. The resulting offspring has a single, elongated hump that extends the length of its back.

http://www.exoticdeer.org/blaschke2b.htm

Arabian camel x Bactrian camel:

http://www.nal.usda.gov/awic/pubs/camels.htm
+++++++++
13-
Ibex x goats:

There are several different species of ibex -- Alpine (or European), Nubian (or Arabian), Siberian (or Asiatic) and walia (or Abyssinian). In Texas, the most common "ibex" is the Iranian ibex, which is not a true ibex, although they are closely related enough to allow interbreeding. A cousin species is the Spanish ibex, which, like the Iranian and the "true" ibex species, can interbreed with domestic and wild goats. Hybrids are quite common, and some crosses have become well-enough established to earn the designation of "Texas ibex."

http://www.exoticdeer.org/blaschke2b.htm
+++++++++
14-
The Plains zebras are also sub-species (Grants x Damaraland cross). The difference is in their striping pattern and range. They can interbreed and have fertile offspring.

http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/Studios/2905/zebxing.html

Zebra born without the stripes in Nairobi, Kenya

Veterinarians have yet to determine the gender of the baby zebra but have determined that it is about 4 weeks old. The purebred zebra is also apparently fitting in with its black and white herd and can be seen hopping and prancing around. Experts do not plan to take the zebra away from its mom or the herd but plan to study it as it grows up.

Stripeless Zebra Puzzles Experts:

http://www.local6.com/news/2999935/detail.html
+++++++++
15-
The American and European bison can interbreed and produce fertile offspring, they have clear differences in their physical characteristics, and geographical separation for a long time.

http://www.csew.com/cattletag/Cattle%20Website/Fact_Sheets/American_Bison/American_Bison.htm
+++++++++
16-
Guinea pigs (Hamsters, 'cobayos'):
Cavia cutleri m x Cavia porcellus, fertile viable F1 hybrids.
Cavia fulgida x Cavia porcellus, sterile viable F1 hybrids, however, Detlefsen reports fertile hybrids in the wild.

Taken from: Gray AP, Mammalian Hybrids, 1972, Commonwealth Agricultural Bureaux, Farnham Royal, Bucks, England. Book database by 'genus': http://www.bryancore.org/hdb/index.html
+++++++++
17-
Northeastern coyotes, product of hybridization between Canadian wolves and Western coyotes:

http://www.wildlifetech.com/pages/necoyote.htm
+++++++++
18-
Red wolves:

Reich DE, Wayne RK, Goldstein DB. Genetic evidence for a recent origin by hybridization of red wolves. Mol Ecol. 1999 Jan;8(1):139-44:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=9919703

Also "red wolf/coyote hybrid litters were born":

http://www.geocities.com/kanamist/Redwolf.html

"Deforestation and loss of habitat allowed coyotes to move eastward and began to interbreed with the red wolf":

http://www.wolfhowl.org/info
+++++++++
19-
Canis familiaris x Vulpes bengalensis (a fox), vixen kept as pet mated with Alsatian x Bull Terrier dog.
Canis familiaris x Vulpes fulva. Hybrids reported.
Canis familiaris x Vulpes vulpes, one F1 may have been conceived.
Canis familiaris dingo x Vulpes vulpes, hybrids have been reported.

Taken from: Gray AP, Mammalian Hybrids, 1972, Commonwealth Agricultural Bureaux, Farnham Royal, Bucks, England. Book database by 'genus': http://www.bryancore.org/hdb/index.html
+++++++++
20-
Wild red foxes x silver foxes:

Prasolova LA, Trut LN, Vsevolodov EB, Latypov IF. Morphology of hair pigmentation in wild red foxes, silver foxes, and their hybrids. Genetika. 2002 Apr;38(4):463-7.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=12018162

Vulpes fulva x Vulpes vulpes, believed fertile.
Alopex lagopus x Vulpes vulpes. Reciprocal crosses are possible, often literature makes no distinction between V. vulpes and V. fulva.
Alopex lagopus x Vulpes fulva, reciprocal crosses have occurred, some sterile others fertile, backcrosses have also occurred. One hybrid had 43 chromosomes compared to 34 for vulpes and 52 for Alopex, through artificial insemination.

Taken from: Gray AP, Mammalian Hybrids, 1972, Commonwealth Agricultural Bureaux, Farnham Royal, Bucks, England. Book database by 'genus': http://www.bryancore.org/hdb/index.html
+++++++++
21-
Hieracium:

Morgan-Richards M, Trewick SA, Chapman HM, Krahulcova A. Interspecific hybridization among Hieracium species in New Zealand: evidence from flow cytometry. Heredity. 2004 May 12

"the majority of field hybrids were pentaploid with a genome size equivalent to four H. pilosella and one H. praealtum haploid chromosome sets. We infer that these are not first-generation hybrids but represent successful backcrossing with H. pilosella and/or hybrid-hybrid crossing, and that sexual tetraploid hybrids have been the parents... our data indicate the emergence of sexual hybrids that provide further opportunity for gene flow among taxa in this complex."

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=15138450
+++++++++
22-
Banksia:
Lamont BB, He T, Enright NJ, Krauss SL, Miller BP. Anthropogenic disturbance promotes hybridization between Banksia species by altering their biology. J Evol Biol. 2003 Jul;16(4):551-7.

"Putative hybrids between Banksia hookeriana and B. prionotes were identified among 12 of 106 populations of B. hookeriana located at or near anthropogenically disturbed sites, mainly roadways, but none in 156 undisturbed populations... By promoting earlier flowering of B. hookeriana plants and prolonging flowering of B. prionotes, anthropogenic disturbance broke the phenological barrier between these two species. We conclude that anthropogenic disturbance promotes hybridization through increasing opportunities for gene flow by reducing interpopulation separation, increasing gamete production and, especially, promoting coflowering."

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=14632219
+++++++++
23-
Tilia:
Fromm M, Hattemer HH. Inheritance of allozymes and hybridization in two European Tilia species. Heredity. 2003 Sep;91(3):337-44.

"Zymograms of 10 spontaneous T. cordata x T. platyphyllos hybrids showed markedly different banding patterns with species-specific alleles at 13 of the 14 described gene loci. Hence, differentiation between both species and their naturally occurring hybrid (T. x europaea) is easily feasible with allozyme studies."

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=12939637
+++++++++
24-
Drosophila:
Garbuz D, Evgenev MB, Feder ME, Zatsepina OG. Evolution of thermotolerance and the heat-shock response: evidence from inter/intraspecific comparison and interspecific hybridization in the virilis species group of Drosophila. I. Thermal phenotype. J Exp Biol. 2003 Jul;206(Pt 14):2399-408.

"Because D. virilis and D. lummei can readily be crossed to yield partially fertile progeny, genetic analysis of interspecific differences is possible. Interspecific hybrids are intermediate to the parental species in basal thermotolerance and inducible thermotolerance and resemble D. virilis in Hsp concentrations after intense heat shock and Hsp70 protein electromorphs."

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=12796457

----------

David J, Lemeunier F, Tsacas L, Bocquet C. Hybridization of a new species, Drosophila mauritiana, with D. melanogaster and D. simulans. Ann Genet. 1974 Dec;17(4):235-41. No abstract available.
+++++++++
25-
In Saccharomyces, "Mating experiments show that there are no barriers to interspecific conjugation of haploid cells":

de Barros Lopes M, Bellon JR, Shirley NJ, Ganter PF. Evidence for multiple interspecific hybridization in Saccharomyces sensu stricto species. FEMS Yeast Res. 2002 Jan;1(4):323-31.

"Fluorescent amplified fragment length polymorphism analysis demonstrates a high level of gene exchange between Saccharomyces sensu stricto species, with some strains having undergone multiple interspecific hybridization events with subsequent changes in genome complexity. Two lager strains were shown to be hybrids between Saccharomyces cerevisiae and the alloploid species Saccharomyces pastorianus. The genome structure of CBS 380(T), the type strain of Saccharomyces bayanus, is also consistent with S. pastorianus gene transfer. The results indicate that the cider yeast, CID1, possesses nuclear DNA from three separate species. Mating experiments show that there are no barriers to interspecific conjugation of haploid cells. Furthermore, the allopolyploid strains were able to undergo further hybridizations with other Saccharomyces sensu stricto yeasts. These results demonstrate that introgression between the Saccharomyces sensu stricto species is likely.'

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=12702336
+++++++++
26-
Xiphophorus (Teleostei: Poeciliidae) fish:
Li HY, Savage T, Obermoeller RD, Kazianis S, Walter RB. Parental 5-methylcytosine methylation patterns are stable upon inter-species hybridization of Xiphophorus (Teleostei: Poeciliidae) fish.
Comp Biochem Physiol B Biochem Mol Biol. 2002 Dec;133(4):581-95.

"Through F(1) inter-species hybridization and succeeding meiosises leading to first generation (BC(1)) and second generation (BC(2)) backcross hybrid progeny, we demonstrate that parental species methylation patterns are stable."

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=12470821
+++++++++
27-
Ground squirrels (spermophilus: Rodentia, Sciuridae):
Ermakov OA, Surin VL, Titov SV, Tagiev AF, Luk'ianenko AV, Formozov NA. Study of hybridization in four species of ground squirrels (spermophilus: Rodentia, Sciuridae) by molecular genetic methods. Genetika. 2002 Jul;38(7):950-64.

"Four species of ground squirrel--yellow (Spermophilus fulvus), russet (S. major), small (S. pygmaeus), and spotted (S. suslicus)--occur in the Volga region. Between S. major and S. pigmaeus, S. major and S. fulvus, and S. major and S. suslicus, sporadic hybridization was reported... 43% of S. major individuals had "alien" mitotypes typical of S. fulvus and S. pygmaeus... Phenotypic hybrids S. fulvus x S. major and S. major x S. pygmaeus) were reliably identified using RAPD-PCR of nuclear DNA."

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=12174588
+++++++++
28-
Corals (the Acropora group):
Van Oppen MJ, Willis BL, Van Rheede T, Miller DJ. Spawning times, reproductive compatibilities and genetic structuring in the Acropora aspera group: evidence for natural hybridization and semi-permeable species boundaries in corals. Mol Ecol. 2002 Aug;11(8):1363-76.

"The breeding trials showed that reproductive compatibility exists between at least some colonies of all the species pairs tested (A. millepora, A. papillare, A. pulchra and A. spathulata), suggesting a large potential for natural hybridization and introgression... observation of A. aspera xA. pulchra F1 hybrids, identified based on additivity of ITS sequences."

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=12144658
+++++++++
29-
Carabid beetles Carabus:
Sota T, Ishikawa R, Ujiie M, Kusumoto F, Vogler AP. Extensive trans-species mitochondrial polymorphisms in the carabid beetles Carabus subgenus Ohomopterus caused by repeated introgressive hybridization. Mol Ecol. 2001 Dec;10(12):2833-47.

"C. insulicola… can hybridize naturally with at least two... Recent one-way introgression of mitochondria from C. arrowianus nakamurai to C. insulicola, and from C. insulicola to C. esakii, was inferred from the frequency of identical sequences between these species and from direct evidence of hybridization in their contact zones. Other intraspecific polymorphisms in the four species may be due to undetected introgressive hybridization (e.g. C. insulicola to C. maiyasanus)...This beetle group has a genital lock-and-key system, with species-specific or subspecies-specific genital morphology that may act as a barrier to hybridization. However, our results demonstrate that introgressive hybridization has occurred multiple times, at least for mitochondria, despite differences among, and stability within, morphological characters that distinguish local populations."

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=11903896
+++++++++
30-
Macaques:
Evans BJ, Supriatna J, Melnick DJ. Hybridization and population genetics of two macaque species in Sulawesi, Indonesia. Evolution Int J Org Evolution. 2001 Aug;55(8):1686-702.

"Hybridization is the interbreeding of individuals from different parental taxa that are distinguishable by one or more heritable characteristics. Because hybridization can affect population structure of the parental taxa, it is an important consideration for conservation management. On the Indonesian island of Sulawesi an explosive diversification of macaques has occurred; seven of 19 species in the genus Macaca live on this island. The contact zone of the subjects of this study, M. maura and M. tonkeana, is located at the base of the southwestern peninsula of Sulawesi... currently two species of Sulawesi macaque, one of which is M. maura, are classified as endangered species... introgression between M. maura and M. tonkeana is restricted to the hybrid zone..."

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=11580028
+++++++++
31-
Butterflies (Parnassius, Lepidoptera, Papilionidae):
Zakharov EV. The demonstration of natural hybridization between two swallowtail species Parnassius nomion and Parnassius bremeri (Lepidoptera, Papilionidae) using RAPD-PCR technique. Genetika. 2001 Apr;37(4):475-84.

"Genetic evidence for interspecific hybridization between Parnassius nomion and Parnassius bremeri in nature is presented... the interspecific hybrids were intermediate with regard to the parental species. Ecological and biological characteristics of two swallowtail species that promote their hybridization in nature are discussed."

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=11421120

-------------

Deschamps-Cottin M, Aubert J, Barascud B, Descimon H. Hybridization and introgression between "full-fledged species". The case of Parnassius apollo and P. phoebus. C R Acad Sci III. 2000 Mar;323(3):327-37.

"Two butterfly species living in the Alps, Parnassius apollo and P. phoebus, frequently hybridize in certain localities of this region... male hybrids are fecund and thus that interspecific gene exchange could take place via backcrosses with the parent species... hybridization can involve both sexes of both species... female hybrids are not sterile."
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=10782337
+++++++++
32-
Typha:
Kuehn MM, Minor JE, White BN. An examination of hybridization between the cattail species typha latifolia and typha angustifolia using random amplified polymorphic DNA and chloroplast DNA markers. Mol Ecol. 1999 Dec;8(12):1981-90.

"Typha glauca represents a significant portion of the biomass of the wetlands surrounding the Great Lakes, USA. It is generally accepted to be a form of hybrid between T. latifolia and T. angustifolia, which itself appears to be an exotic introduction from Europe... our results suggest that hybridization between the native and introduced Typha species has impacted the native population through the spread of the F1 hybrid, T. glauca."

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=10632850
+++++++++
33-
Vanilla:
Nielsen LR, Siegismund HR. Interspecific differentiation and hybridization in vanilla species (Orchidaceae). Heredity. 1999 Nov;83 (Pt 5):560-7.

"...at localities... species coexist. This suggests that the species may hybridize."

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=10620028
+++++++++
34-
Rhododendron:
Milne RI, Abbott RJ, Wolff K, Chamberlain DF. Hybridization among sympatric species of Rhododendron (Ericaceae) in Turkey: morphological and molecular evidence. Am J Bot. 1999 Dec;86(12):1776-1785.

"Rhododendron (Ericaceae) is a large genus in which barriers to hybridization are especially weak... Hybridization among four species of Rhododendron subsect. Pontica, which occur in sympatry in Turkey, was investigated. Material of R. ponticum, R. smirnovii, R. ungernii, and R. caucasicum and their putative hybrids was collected from the wild... Rhododendron ponticum x R. smirnovii was represented by a single individual and R. caucasicum x R. smirnovii by one small group of hybrid plants. The combinations R. ponticum x R. ungernii and R. ungernii x R. smirnovii showed evidence of frequent backcrossing, while R. ponticum x R. caucasicum appeared unusual in that an intermediate hybrid type was abundant, whereas hybrids with phenotypes approaching either parent were rare... The results suggest that natural hybridization among Rhododendron species is common..."

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=10602769
+++++++++
35-
Fritillaria:
Wang Z. Preliminary studies on intervarietal and interspecific hybridization breeding methods of Fritillaria thunbergii Miq. and its kindred species. Zhongguo Zhong Yao Za Zhi. 1991 Jun;16(6):332-4, 381-2.

"Intervarietal F1 hybrids of Fritiliaria thunbergii and interspecific F1 hybrids between F. thunbergii and its kindred species were successfully obtained. The methods of breaking the dormancy of F1 seeds and F1 bulbs were investigated. Moreover, the temperature off-season generational advance was preliminarily grouped."

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=1786092
+++++++++
36-
Sunfish (Lepomis):
Avise JC, Saunders NC. Hybridization and introgression among species of sunfish (Lepomis): analysis by mitochondrial DNA and allozyme markers. Genetics. 1984 Sep;108(1):237-55.

"…interspecific hybrids, all of which appeared to be F1's... the involvement of five sympatric Lepomis species in the production of these hybrids... a tendency for hybridizations to take place preferentially between parental species differing greatly in abundance... a tendency for the rare species in a hybrid cross to provide the female parent."

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=6090268

----------

The same observation appears in a Review:

Wirtz P. Mother species-father species: unidirectional hybridization in animals with female choice. Anim Behav. 1999 Jul;58(1):1-12.

"Hybrid matings are usually between the females of a rare species and the males of a common species, but not vice versa."

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=10413535
+++++++++
37-
Slider:
Big Bend Slider (Trachemys gaigeae)

Common. Rio Grande floodplain only. Sloughs, ponds, and rivers with muddy bottoms and aquatic vegetation. Have been found to interbreed with the introduced Red-eared Slider. This poses a threat to the genetic integrity of the Big Bend Slider. Diurnal and nocturnal.

Red-eared Slider (Trachemys scripta elegans)

Rare but increasing. NON-NATIVE. Common in the beaver pond at Rio Grande Village and along certain sections of the Rio Grande. Introduced to the area and poses a threat to the genetic integrity of the Big Bend Slider, as they have been found to interbreed. Aquatic; primarily diurnal.

http://www.nps.gov/bibe/reptilechecklist.htm

////////////////

Older articles with no Abstract:

38-
Microtus:
Gileva EA, Bol'shakov VN, Polyavina OV, Cheprakov MI. The vole species Microtus arvalis and Microtus rossiaemeridionalis in the Urals: hybridization in the wild. Dokl Biol Sci. 2000 Jan-Feb;370(1-6):47-50. No abstract available.
+++++++++
39-
Simulium:
Boakye DA, Mosha FW. Natural hybridization between Simulium sanctipauli and S. sirbanum, two sibling species of the S. damnosum complex. Med Vet Entomol. 1988 Oct;2(4):397-9. No abstract available.
+++++++++
40-
Ducks:
Deray A. Effects of hybridization on ovary and ovulatory activity in adult hybrid ducks resulting from a cross between Peking males (Anas platyrhynchos) and Muscovy females (Cairina moschata). Comparison with female parent species. Arch Anat Microsc Morphol Exp. 1974 Oct-Dec;63(4):375-95. No abstract available.
+++++++++
41-
Snails:
Barbosa FS. Possible competitive displacement and evidence of hybridization between two Brazilian species of planorbid snails. Malacologia. 1973;14(1-2):401-8. No abstract available.
+++++++++
42-
Ticks:
Oliver JH Jr, Wilkinson PR, Kohls GM. Observations on hybridization of three species of North American Dermacentor ticks. J Parasitol. 1972 Apr;58(2):380-4. No abstract available.
+++++++++
43-
Nematodes (Cooperia):
Isenstein RS. Hybridization of two species of nematodes parasitic in ruminants, Cooperia oncophora (Railliet, 1898) Ransom, 1907, and Cooperia pectinata Ransom, 1907. J Parasitol. 1971 Apr;57(2):320-6. No abstract available.
+++++++++
44-
Gorman GC, Atkins L. Natural hybridization between two sibling species of Anolis lizards: chromosome cytology. Science. 1968 Mar 22;159(821):1358-60. No abstract available.
+++++++++
45-
Podcherniaeva RIa, Sokolov MI, Ratushkina LS. Further studies on the intra-species hybridization of influenza A viruses. Vopr Virusol. 1968 Mar-Apr;13(2):209-12. Russian. No abstract available.
+++++++++
46-
Lacerta:
Darevskii IS, Kulikova VN. Natural triploidy in a polymorphous group of lacerta saxicola eversmann as a consequence of hybridization of bisexual and parthenogenic varieties of this species. Dokl Akad Nauk SSSR. 1964 Sep 1;158:202-5. No abstract available.
+++++++++
47-
Genus Gedoelstia? (Diptera: Oestridae):
Basson PA, Zumpt F, Bauristhene E. Is there a species hybridization in the Genus Gedoelstia? (Diptera: Oestridae). Z Parasitenkd. 1963 Oct 29;23:348-53. No abstract available.
+++++++++
48-
Bacteria:
Baron LS, Spilman WM, Carey WF. Hybridization of Salmonella species by mating with Escherichia coli. Science. 1959 Sep 4;130:566-7. No abstract available.
+++++++++

And more examples:

49-
Brassica:
“Cabbage, cauliflower, Brussels' sprouts, broccoli and knoll-kohl are taxonomic varieties of the same species Brassica oleracea. Grown in the proximity of each other and unattended, these crops freely interbreed and lose their identity in a few generations, because they are not reproductively isolated from each other”

http://www.ipmvenki.com/mboard_mainframe.htm
+++++++++
50-
Hyalodaphnia:
Schwenk K, Posada D, Hebert PD. Molecular systematics of European Hyalodaphnia: the role of contemporary hybridization in ancient species. Proc R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 2000 Sep 22;267(1455):1833-42.

"Many species of the Hyalodaphnia are known to hybridize in nature"

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=11052533
+++++++++
51-
Treefrogs (Genus hyla):
Mable BK, Bogart JP. Hybridization between tetraploid and diploid species of treefrogs (Genus hyla). J Hered. 1995 Nov-Dec;86(6):432-40

"First generation hybrids between a H. versicolor female from Canada (4n = 48) and a H. arborea male from France (2n = 24) were all triploid and appeared to contain two sets of chromosomes from H. versicolor and one set from H. arborea. Males and females were produced in equal numbers but testes in general were more completely developed than ovaries... preferential pairing of chromosomes and gene regulatory biases may help to explain factors that relate to the ability of tetraploids to hybridize with even distantly related taxa and may be involved in the rediploidization process that usually follows polyploidization."

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=8568210
+++++++++
52-
Toads:
Pfennig KS, Simovich MA. Differential selection to avoid hybridization in two toad species. Evolution Int J Org Evolution. 2002 Sep;56(9):1840-8.

"We examined both the frequency and fitness effects of hybridization between plains spadefoot toads (Spea bombifrons) and New Mexico spadefoot toads (S. multiplicata). Hybridization was most frequent in smaller breeding ponds that tend to be ephemeral, and heterospecific pairs consisted almost entirely of S. bombifrons females and S. multiplicata males... hybrid offspring from crosses in which S. bombifrons was maternal outperformed pure S. bombifrons offspring by reaching metamorphosis faster."

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=12389729
+++++++++
53-
Sunflower (Helianthus):
Faure N, Serieys H, Cazaux E, Kaan F, Berville A. Partial hybridization in wide crosses between cultivated sunflower and the perennial Helianthus species H. mollis and H. orgyalis. Ann Bot (Lond). 2002 Jan;89(1):31-9.

"To obtain introgressed sunflower lines with improved disease resistance, interspecific crosses were performed with foreign perennial species... Phenotypes were predominantly similar to the female when cultivated sunflower was the female parent. Progeny from crosses using a wild species as the female parent resembled that parent. Thus, reciprocal crosses led to different progeny. F1 sister progeny shared different sets of molecular markers representing a few of those of the wild species used as the pollen donor. Our results indicate mechanisms leading to the unusual event of partial hybridization."

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=12096817
+++++++++
54-
Aedes:
Taylor DB. Hybridization of Aedes (protomacleaya) zoosophus with Ae. (Pro.) triseriatus group species: hybrid morphology. J Am Mosq Control Assoc. 1988 Mar;4(1):23-8.

"Morphology of hybrids between Aedes (Protomacleaya) zoosophus and Ae. (Pro.) triseriatus group species is described. Aedes brelandi/Ae. zoosophus hybrids are similar to Ae. hendersoni/Ae. zoosophus hybrids."

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=2903902
+++++++++
55-
Ipomopsis (Polemoniaceae):
Wolf PG, Campbell DR, Waser NM, Sipes SD, Toler TR, Archibald JK. Tests of pre- and postpollination barriers to hybridization between sympatric species of Ipomopsis (Polemoniaceae). Am J Bot. 2001 Feb;88(2):213-219.
"The Ipomopsis aggregata species complex (Polemoniaceae) includes species pairs that hybridize readily in nature as well as pairs that meet along contact zones with no apparent hybridization. Artificial hybrids can be made between I: aggregata and I: arizonica, yet morphological intermediates between these two species have not been observed in natural populations... pollen from I. aggregata could, in some cases, sire seeds on I. arizonica."

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=11222244
+++++++++
56-
Fishes, crayfishes, mussels, and other invertebrates:
Perry WL, Lodge DM, Feder JL. Importance of hybridization between indigenous and nonindigenous freshwater species: an overlooked threat to North American biodiversity. Syst Biol. 2002 Apr;51(2):255-75.

"Identification of which species are likely to hybridize after contact is of critical importance to prevent the further loss of native species... species at risk of introgression... Although not a thorough review of all cases of hybridization, this article documents the extent and effects of hybridization in fishes, crayfishes, mussels, and other invertebrates... this approach may be the first step in addressing the potential threat of hybridization between many of the closely related species in North American fresh waters."

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=12028732

Etc…

///////////////////

http://www.iscid.org/boards/ubb-get_topic-f-6-t-000488-p-7.html posted 14. May 2004 15:44

57-
The two different colored snow geese were once thought to be two separate species. However, since the blue and white birds nest together and interbreed, taxonomists have determined that the blue goose is simply a color phase of the snow goose.

http://www.inetshops.com/newipnews/naturewalkl.htm

58-
Many duck species will interbreed, so these species often need to be aviary bred.

http://www.goodzoos.com/Animals/birds.htm

59a and 59b-
This species occurs in two forms in Europe, the all-dark Carrion Crow of western Europe and the grey-bodied 'Hooded Crow' of Scandinavia and Eastern Europe. Although these birds look completely different, they often interbreed where the range overlaps, producing hybrids which look intermediate between the two.

The Carrion Crow is a common resident except in northern Scotland where it is replaced by the Hooded Crow. The two races interbreed and intermediate individuals are common in the zone of overlap.

http://www.birdguides.com/html/vidlib/species/Corvus_corone.htm

60-
12 Sep 1999 AFRICA: Gorillas in a mystery age.
By Graham Phillips

Two groups of mountain gorillas. One lot lives in Virunga, in the Democratic Republic of Congo, the other in Bwindi, Uganda. The two populations are separated by just 40km, yet that distance has been sufficient to prevent them mixing and interbreeding. The result of this separation is the Bwindi and Virunga apes look different and even have different behaviours... both would be in even more precarious situations, with only 300 in each sub-species. What's a caring conservationist to do here? The two groups don't naturally breed with each other, but they would if put in the same jungle... . It turns out the two sub-species of mountain gorilla have been around for only 500 years or so. It was human farmers carving up the forest that separated a single population of mountain gorillas into two distinct groups... there are differences between the two groups of apes: the Virunga are larger and have shaggier coats; the Virunga sleep on the ground while the Bwindi sometimes sleep in trees; the Bwindi eat more fruit... By the old definition of sub-species (there's no interbreeding, and there are visual and behavioural differences) the Virunga and Bwindi are separate... [but] interbreed them [to preserve them]

http://www.yowiehunters.com/crypto/reports/other_crypto_1.htm

61-
Grus rubicundus, related to the other crane species, particularly the Australian sarus crane, with which they can interbreed.

http://www.wellingtonzoo.com/animals/animals/birds_and_fish/brolga.html

62-
The BALTIMORE ORIOLE is an example of a taxonomist's nightmare. Its found throughout eastern North America, ranging as far west as the eastern edge of the Rocky Mountains. Its cousin, the BULLOCK'S ORIOLE is found out west. The two ranges overlap in Cottonwood creek bottoms in western Kansas and Nebraska, where they interbreed... Because BALTIMORE and BULLOCK'S ORIOLES interbreed, they were lumped together into the NORTHERN ORIOLE. There was no more BALTIMORE ORIOLE, much to the dismay of the baseball team.

http://listserv.arizona.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind0103e&L=birdeast&F=&S=&P=1102

63-
“Alder Flycatcher.” Although they were nearly indistinguishable even in the hand, they occupied different habitats and sang different songs. Careful study demonstrated that they rarely, if ever, interbred. Yet portions of their ranges overlapped – i.e. they were “sympatric.”. Using absence of hybridization in areas of sympatry as its main criterion, AOU split them into “Alder Flycatcher” (Empidonax alnorum) and “Willow Flycatcher” (Empidonax traillii)... If the test of a species is whether or not two populations hybridize where their ranges overlap, how do you decide when their ranges do not overlap any where? (The scientific term for not overlapping is, “allopatric”).

Recently, however, some of the most prominent splits have been of geographically-separated populations. Examples are Florida Scrub-Jay, Western Scrub-Jay and Island Scrub-Jay, which formerly were a single species called, “Scrub Jay.” Presumably DNA testing helped to demonstrate that those newly-named species are genetically different enough so that they probably would not hybridize if given the opportunity.

http://www.mobirds.org/Ezine/Ornithology101/Ornithology101.htm

[Where is in the last example an evidence of the second generation fertility test? Here is like going backwards]

64-
the domestic pig and the European wild boar are classified as the same species (Sus scrofa) and freely interbreed.
http://www.americazoo.com/goto/index/mammals/350.htm

European wild hogs and feral hogs interbreed readily, with traits of European wild hogs apparently being dominant.

http://www.trophy-quest.net/wild_boar_hog_info.htm

In the US there are several populations of these feral swine, from the lowlands of South Carolina and Florida to the mountains of North Carolina to the "razorbacks" of Arkansas, to the wild pigs of Texas (and I do not speak of Javelina) and California. Some of the populations reportedly have been interbreed with European or "Russian" boar, leading to larger animals with more typical coloration.

http://home.snafu.de/l.moeller/Wild/Wild_Boar.htm

65-
Savanna and forest elephants interbreed, Science News: Geneticists define new elephant species [should be 'sub-species']:

http://www.findarticles.com/cf_dls/m1200/10_160/78681649/p1/article.jhtml

The two forms interbreed where forest and ecosystems meet:

http://www.wildwatch.com/resources/mammals/elephant.asp

Dwarf African elephants inhabit the forest lowlands and interbreed with the larger form around the forest edge:

http://www.ifaw.org/ifaw/general/default.aspx?oid=12993

These three elephants can interbreed:

http://www.abc.net.au/rn/science/ss/stories/s798390.htm

Unexpectedly, along the Congo-Uganda border the two species do interbreed:

http://www.abc.net.au/rn/science/ss/stories/s82699.htm

Can African and Asian elephants interbreed?
Yes. A hybrid birth did occur in England at the Chester Zoo in 1979. The calf, which was named "Motty," only lived 10 days. This is the only recorded hybrid birth between Loxodonta africana and Elephas maximus, the African and Asian elephant.

http://www.zoo.org/educate/fact_sheets/elephants/elephant3.htm

-----------

In the next categories most typically female hybrids are fertile, while males sterile:

66-
Domestic cats (Felis catus) crossed with servals (Felis serval) produce hybrids called Savannah cats.

http://www.wlbengals.com/savannah.html

67-
Felis catus crossed with Asian leopard cats (Felis bengalensis) produce hybrids called Bengal cats.

http://www.absolutelybengals.com/pages/bengalhist.html

68-
Felis catus crossed with jungle cats (Felis chaus) produce hybrids called chausies.

http://geocities.com/savannahcats

69-
Cattle and bison: Domestic cattle (Bos taurus) and American bison (Bison bison) can be crossed to produce beefalo. Female hybrids are usually fertile, while males are sterile (Steklenev 1995, 1997).

-------------

The next animals generally produce sterile hybrids:

70-
Horse-donkey crosses produce sterile mules. Very rarely, a female mule may be fertile.

http://www.hamill.co.uk/british_mule_soc/fertile.html

71-
Lion-tigress crosses produce sterile offspring called ligers. Tiger-lioness crosses, tigons, are more rare. In some cases, female ligers and tigons have proved to be fertile.

http://www.sierrasafarizoo.com/animals/liger.htm

-----------

72-
a Black-bellied Whistling Duck (Dendrocygna autumnalis - BBWD) has been seen at their site. This South American bird, as far as I can recall, was sighted by a team at Nylsvlei during BBD. The individual BBWD at TWT does not have a ring, sometimes carried by ascaped birds. This bird is capable of interbreeding with Whitefaced and Fulvous Ducks...
The Ruddy Duck (Oxyura jamaicinsis) originating from both America's, has, as far as I can remember, also established sizable feral
breeding populations in Britain and Spain, and have started to interbreed with local species (I can't recall which - tell me please), creating a conservation problems.

http://birdnet.zarf.com/archive/9801/980127.htm

73-
The once dominant and undoubtedly valuable Biological Species Concept places emphasis on the ability of individuals to interbreed: forms that can interbreed and produce fertile offspring are regarded as members of the same species... It is thus often associated with 'lumping', which is the downgrading of similar species into subspecies of a single species. A local example of a situation where application of the Biological Species Concept might be misleading is that of the recently-discovered narrow hybrid zone between Karoo Lark and Barlow's Lark. These two distinctly different species are not even each other's closest relatives, and their inappropriate 'lumping' into one species would obscure the myriad and fascinating differences shown between these forms.

http://peter.maxitec.co.za/birdingafrica/Resources__Taxonomy.html

/////////////

By those references you can see that the two last ones are opposed to interbreed subspecies because (they argue) the diversity of the parental line may 'disappear'.

I think that under a strictly rational and controlled interbreeding between subspecies, instead of the 'disappearance' of the parental lines, we will have 'more diversity'. So it is just question of doing it wisely, don't you think?

That is a straight Mendelian application to preserve the genetic pool of very endangered species before they become actually extinct and then, nothing else could be done.

And again, this destroys any 'speciational' fallacy, as we have been dealing with varieties or subspecies all the time, only.

------------------

http://www.iscid.org/boards/ubb-get_topic-f-6-t-000488-p-8.html

74- Taken From ‘Brainstorms’, posted 17. May 2004 10:08:

All the canis (domestic or feral) can interbreed and have a fertile offspring, being all of them members of the same species:

1-
www.ualberta.ca/~jzgurski/coyote.html

Coyotes and wolves can interbreed and produce fertile offspring. In fact all members
of the genus Canis (dogs, wolves, coyotes and jackals) are interfertile.

2-
http://www.wolf.org/wolves/learn/add_resource/hybrid.asp

Wolves and dogs can interbreed and produce [fertile] offspring. Wolves can be crossed with any breed of dog. The most common hybrids are wolf bred with malamute, husky, or German shepherd. Although wolf hybrids can occur naturally in the wild, this happens very infrequently due to the territorial nature of the wolf. Most hybrids are the result of deliberate breeding in captivity.

3-
www.ualberta.ca/~jzgurski/wwolf.html

[Wolves and dogs] are so closely related that they can interbreed and produce fertile offspring.
One important difference between wolves and domestic dogs is that dogs can breed twice a year and wolves can only breed once a year.
In captivity, wolves typically live to be about thirteen or fourteen years of age, and the oldest wolf on record lived to be eighteen years old. In the wild, however, wolves rarely live past ten years of age, because of disease, injuries, and parasites.
Most wild wolves do not live past five years, although there is one record of a wild wolf living to be thirteen years of age.

4-
http://www.infoplease.com/ce6/sci/A0852593.html

Three wolf species [again those are NOT 'species' but 'subspecies' !] (the gray wolf, red wolf, and coyote) are generally recognized, although there is much local variation within them.

Other living members of the genus Canis are the jackal and the dog. All Canis species can interbreed, producing fertile offspring; the Eskimos have interbred wolves and dogs to produce hardy animals for pulling sleds.

Taken from: The Columbia Encyclopedia, Sixth Edition. 2001 [http://www.bartleby.com/65/wo/wolf.html]

5-
http://dsc.discovery.com/stories/dinos/bbc/howdoweknow/q43.html

Species are usually defined as a population of animals which can only mate with each other to form fertile offspring.
[D]ogs can interbreed with wolves to form fertile wolf-dog hybrids. This tells us that dogs are technically not a different species from wolves. There are many other examples of this.

6-
http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/askasci/bio99/bio99524.htm

Wolves, coyotes and domestic dogs are so closely related that
they can interbreed with fertile offspring.
J. Elliott

7-
http://www.bullovedbulldogs.com/sarf.htm

The Relationship Between The Wolf And The Domestic Dog

As further evidence of the wolf and the domestic dog being a single species, wolves and domestic dogs can also interbreed and produce fully fertile offspring

To deny this to deny a fact of nature.

8-
http://www.courteouscanine.com/isitawolf.shtml

Is It A Wolf And What Will It Do?
By Elisabeth Duman, BA

Wolf-dog hybrids continue to grow in popularity.

If an animal is much wolf at all, it cannot be kept as a simple family pet. I hope that you will be able to help people make educated decisions in keeping these animals safely and humanely.

9-
http://www.api4animals.org/562.htm

Over several generations, the more tractable and useful animals were kept, each forming a breed: a tamed Northern wolf-dog here, an Asian wolf-dog there, a jackal-dog in another place, a dingo-dog some place else, and an African wild dog-dog or coyote-dog in other places and at other times.

Today, wolves, jackals, dingoes, and coyotes can all interbreed with the domestic dog and produce fertile offspring.

------------------

nobody, Member # 145, posted 17. May 2004 11:33

Thanks Fernando,

That's all good information. I don't know your position on Noah's Flood, but it seems to me like this removes one of the key complaints by evolutionists. They say an ark of the size specified in the Bible could not hold all the species. But you are proving that, at least in some cases, evolutionists are using inflated numbers.

------------

http://www.iscid.org/boards/ubb-get_topic-f-6-t-000488-p-7.html posted 04. May 2004 17:05

You wrote:

>"The interesting variations in beak size and shape merely demonstrate the impressive flexibility that we observe as we learn more and more about God's incredible programming of life."

I completely agree with you, and inspired by your comment, I want to add the next, related to the study of cranes (National Geographic, April 2004, pp. 46-47):

http://magma.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/0404/feature2/map.html

I thought that, if all those cranes were also only varietes of one same species, as the finches are, they were then able to interbreed among themselves, and then, they were able to have a fertile offspring (the second generation fertility test.)

In that way, we can save the genetic load of the varieties endangered (the Canadian, the Siberian, and the Japanese), through crossing some of them with varieties not endangered, and according to Mendel's Laws, at least 1/4 of the F2 will present genotypic features corresponding to the endangered ones, and if we cross those, plus backcrosses with the original endangered ones, we can gradually increase and take out of the list the number of the 'endangered' varieties. We don't want those same organisms ever present on those lists.

This is another practical example of a perspective completely based on 'Intelligent Design' and in total opposition to evolution and to the mistakes of the 'morphological' classification of organisms.

Tell me what do you think about that, and how possible is for you or for likeminded researchers to 'team up' to propose a grant, to do such recoveries of 'endangered' organisms. That's a lot of work, but is worthy.

That will shut down the wrong idea of 'speciation', and will preserve and produce deliberately biodiversity in different natural and new locations.

I understand that ISCID is mostly theoretical, but I want to 'move on' and to put into practice those useful principles of ID that I have been posting.

God provided us with every natural resource to use them wisely, not to have them as useless natural 'sanctuaries' of biodiversity (wildlife parks and zoos are different). This is another 'clash' between the evolutionarily static conservationism versus the practical ID Research (as Mendel, and our contemporary breeders are well aware of).

I don't want neither to hide anymore our human ignorance behind useless hypotheses, theories, degrees, and titles that are based on 'evolutionary thinking'.

////////////

Putting Limits on the Diversity of Life
(Part 3.1)

Taken from 'Brainstorms':

http://www.iscid.org/boards/ubb-get_topic-f-6-t-000488-p-3.html

posted 04. April 2004 01:50

Mendel's Laws and the evolutionary censorship.

I held Darwin and its followers responsible, not only for obstructing the progress on the research proposed by Cuvier, but of obstructing other many good projects and ideas. I.E., Nägeli was Evolutionist and he prevented the works of Mendel to become well known, until Bateson in England re-discovered the Laws of Heredity (~30 years after the death of Mendel). Bateson started promoting them boldly, together with other “breeders”. However, no evolutionary “naturalists” were involved in the initial promotion of Mendel’s Laws. They dismissed to publish any paper about it, until the pressure of the evidence was overwhelming:

Mendel in America: Theory and Practice, 1900-1919, by D. B. Paul and B. A. Kimmelman, 1988, U. of Pennsylvania Press:

"The dominant force at the 1902 New York Conference was Bateson; his lead paper combined a straightforward account of Mendel's laws with a discussion of their applied, and especially commercial, importance” “…breeders active in promoting Mendelism were academic biologists.” “These biologists were generally affiliated with the USDA or state agricultural colleges and experiment stations and they aimed to combine practical public interests with theoretical science.”

“In sharp contrast with naturalists…”

“This point is illustrated by the diverse character of articles on Mendelism published in American journals between 1901 and 1903. The first to appear was:

1-) Charles Davenport's "Mendel's Laws of Dichotomy," in the Biological Bulletin, 1901, 2: 307-310.

It was quickly followed by:

2-) E. B. Wilson, "Mendel's Principles of Heredity and the Maturation of the Germ-cells," Science, 1902, 16: 991-992;

3-) Walter Sutton, "On the Morphology of the Chromosome Group in Brachystola magna," Biol. Bull., 1902, 3: 24-39;

4-) W. J. Spillman, "Exceptions to Mendel's Law," Science, 1902, 16: 709-710 and 784-796;

5-) R. A. Emerson, "Preliminary Account of Variation in Bean Hybrids," 15th Annual Report of the Nebraska Experiment Station, 1902; and

6-) Walter A. Cannon, "A Cytological Basis for Mendelian Cases," Bulletin of the Torrey Botanical Club, 1902.

Other early accounts include:

7-) Liberty Hyde Bailey, "A Discussion of Mendel's Law and its Bearings," Address before the Society for Plant Morphology and Physiology, Washington, D. C., 29 Dec. 1902, published as "Some Recent Ideas on the Evolution of Plants," Science, 1903, 17: 441-454;

8-) Walter Sutton, "The Chromosomes in Heredity," Biol. Bull., 1902, 4: 231-251; and

9-) William Castle, "The Laws of Heredity of Galton and Mendel and some Laws Governing Race Improvement by Selection," Proceedings of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, 1903, 38: 535-548; reprinted as "Mendel's Law of Heredity," in Science, 1903, 18: 396-406, etc.

vs.

a-) Compare with the lack of interest expressed by the Botanical Gazette. The first mention of Mendel is a dismissive comment by the editor, John Merle Coulter, in a review of the third edition of Liberty Hyde Bailey's Plant Breeding (Botanical Gazette, 1904, 37: 471-472).

b-) The American Naturalist was also unimpressed. Other than a passing reference in a Botanical Note of 1902, there is no mention of Mendelism until 1904, and then only in Charles Davenport's book reviews. Editorial notes and articles first appear in 1907.”

Reference: http://www.mendelweb.org/MWpaul.intro.html

'The evolutionary thinking' of his time initially denied the grant requested by Bateson to verify the Laws of Mendel in animals and in plants. Bateson even wrote a full book in defense to Mendel's work but was equally rejected, it was not until he went to U.S. that the USDA became his strongest help to promote the Laws of Mendel, rejected and dismissed by evolution.

http://www.esp.org/foundations/genetics/classical/holdings/b/wb-02g.pdf

http://www.esp.org/books/bateson/mendel/facsimile

The evolutionary indifference towards the work of Mendel:

Key fragment of the Letters of Mendel to Nägeli:

Letter VIII
Of the experiments of previous years, those dealing with Matthiola annua and glabra, Zea, and Mirabilis were concluded last year. Their hybrids behave exactly like those of Pisum. Darwin’s statements concerning hybrids of the genera mentioned in “the variation of animals and plants under domestication,” based on reports of others, need to be corrected in many respects.
Your devoted,
GR. MENDEL
Brünn, 3 July 1870

[My comment: Mendel's 'Advisor' Nägeli did not put any care on that statement.]

http://www.esp.org/foundations/genetics/classical/holdings/m/gm-let.pdf

------------------------

In the early 1860s, Mendel sent his paper to Nägeli who was the nearest of the prominent botanists of the time. Nägeli glanced through the paper but apparently was repelled by the mathematics. He himself was a biologist of the old school and indulged in rather windy and obscure theorizations. A paper by an unknown monk with no theories but with only painstaking countings and ratios seemed worthless to him. He returned it with brief and cold comments, and this effectively chilled Mendel. To be sure, Nägeli offered to grow some of Mendel's seeds, but he never did and the offer was probably not meant seriously. He did not answer Mendel's later letters, and when Nägeli wrote his major work on evolution twenty years later, he did not mention Mendel.

Nägeli's cold reception had undoubtedly disheartened Mendel as did the indifference of the naturalists in Brünn. Nägeli died in 1891, never dreaming what a terrible mistake he had made... several nineteenth-century evolutionists such as Huxley and Nägeli had suggested evolution by jumps, but without evidence [somewhat like the proposals of N. Eldedgre and S.J. Gould].

http://www.rit.edu/~flwstv/genetics.html

[My comment: Mendel's Advisor did not took any care or interest in corroborating Mendel's seeds of Pisum, nor in answering the last letters of Mendel, and the worst was that Nägeli prevented the work of Mendel to be known because he did not even mention Mendel's work in his own works. Nägeli dismissed it. However, Nägeli imposed that only if the hawkweed behaved like Pisum, he will start paying any attention to Mendel's basic discovery, dismissing all the other species that Mendel was mentioning (plus other plant names below)]

------------------------

Karl Wilhelm Von Nägeli, a Swiss botanist, suggested in print that evolution occurred as a series of jumps. Nägeli went so far as to say that there was a drive within a species for these jumps to keep it varying in the same direction... His concept was ‘biological inertia’ and Nägeli called it "orthogenesis."

Mendel wrote up his results and sent them to Nägeli. Nägeli was not impressed because he thought that Mendel was just counting plants instead of working on some fundamental new scheme like his own orthogenesis. Bad break, for Mendel’s theory was of fundamental importance, while Nägeli’s was worthless. But Nägeli had the reputation, Mendel did not. Mendel's work remained unknown and he himself un-honored.

http://epswww.unm.edu/facstaff/zsharp/106/lecture%208,%20mendel.htm

------------------------

Mendel asked one of his fellow monks to send forty special reprints to botanists and other distinguished scientific figures known to be interested in the hybridization of plants. Nine of these reprints have so far come to light. One of the recipients was Carl Wilhelm von Nägeli, probably the most highly acclaimed botanist of the mid-nineteenth century, who was then teaching in Munich. He was the only one of the forty who was prompted to embark on an extended correspondence with Mendel. However, it appears likely that Nägeli had only glanced at the reprint because — although it in fact dealt with no fewer than 355 cross-bred strains and 12,980 resultant hybrids — he described Mendel’s work as "incomplete" and urged him to carry on with his experiments. Nägeli also offered Mendel "fatal" advice: to continue his investigations using the hawkweed (Hieracium), a plant belonging to the family of the asters. It was only later that botanists discovered these plants’ asexual reproduction, which meant that experiments in hybridization with hawkweed were bound to be inconclusive, since the genetic information is transferred exclusively via the maternal line.

http://hjem.get2net.dk/Paleontology/text/mreflect.html

[My comment: Plus, other sites affirm that Nägeli's copy of the work of Mendel was not even completely unwrapped and cut, showing that he did not even took any care on doing a carefully review of the whole work.]

------------------------

The arduous experiments required the use of a microscope, mirrors, fine needles, and artificial light and caused such severe eyestrain and backaches that Mendel was obliged to interrupt his research for long periods of time.

http://astro4.ast.vill.edu/mendel/gregor.htm

------------------------

Carl Nägeli, the botanist to whom Mendel wrote to about his pea plant experiments, was no longer lecturing at Münich. Nägeli, however, knew Correns' parents and took an interest in him. Nägeli was the one who encouraged Correns' interest in botany and advised Correns on his thesis subject. Nägeli and Correns' connection was more than just scientific; Correns eventually married Nägeli's grandniece.

http://www.dnaftb.org/dnaftb/concept_6/con6bio.html

------------------------

Karl von Nägeli, of the University of Munich, had previously experimented with hawkweed, a plant that follows a very unusual reproductive pattern. Mendel started experimenting with hawkweed, and lost confidence in everything he had accomplished studying peas. He finally gave up all experimentation when he became abbot of the monastery, though he continued to dabble in ornamental horticulture.

It's naive to say that Mendel was just a humble monk who never hoped for fame. In fact, he did hope for recognition, but the only recognition that came during his lifetime was as a local meteorologist. He died never knowing how much his findings would change history. Mendel's work was cited in a few papers in the late 19th century, but it wasn't until the dawning of the 20th, motivated in part by a priority dispute about publication, that other scientists took note of the 19th-century genius.

http://www.strangescience.net/mendel.htm

------------------------

More fragments of Mendel's Letters to Nägeli. Emphasis on Nägeli's insistence to Mendel on using Hieracium:

I
In the projected experiments with species of Cirsium and Hieracium I shall be entering a field in which your honor possesses the most extensive knowledge, knowledge that can be gained only through many years of zealous study, observation, and comparison of the manifold forms of these genera in their natural habitat. For the most part I lack this kind of experience… I am afraid that in the course of my experiments, especially with Hieracium, I shall encounter many difficulties, and therefore I am turning confidently to your honor with the request that you not deny me your esteemed interest when I need your advice.
With the greatest esteem and respect for your honor, I subscribe myself,
GREGOR MENDEL
Monastery Capitular and Teacher in the High School.
Brünn, 31 December 1866

II
With respect to the essay which your honor had the kindness to accept, I think I should add the following information: the experiments which are discussed were conducted from 1856 to 1863. I knew that the results I obtained were not easily compatible with our contemporary scientific knowledge, and that under the circumstances publication of one such isolated experiment was doubly dangerous; dangerous for the experimenter and for the cause he represented. Thus I made every effort to verify, with other plants, the results obtained with Pisum.
Your devoted,
G. MENDEL
(AltBrünn, Monastery of St. Thomas)
Brünn, 18 April, 1867

V
HIGHLY ESTEEMED SIR:
Accept my most cordial gratitude for the Hieracium seeds, which arrived in good condition. How grateful I am for this kind shipment, and how much I do appreciate your kindness in promising also a shipment of living plants. I shall do my utmost to produce all the possible hybrids among the species, and if they should be fertile, their progeny will be observed for several generations. I must ask you to please charge the expenses of purchase and transportation, and any others, to my account.
Your devoted friend,
GREGOR MENDEL
Abbot and Prelate of the
Monastery of St. Thomas
Brünn, 4 May 1868

VI
HIGHLY ESTEEMED FRIEND:
Forgive me for being so tardy in expressing my most sincere gratitude for the species of Hieracium which you sent me. I received the little box on May 12. Since I had to start a long tour of inspection on the same day, I could not find the time necessary to thank you in writing. The gardener received instructions to handle the plants with great care, to pot one specimen of each, and plant the rest in the garden.
When I returned a few days ago, I found to my great regret, that half of the potted plants had died, probably the consequence of excessive watering.
Your devoted friend,
GREGOR MENDEL
Brünn, 12 June 1868

VII
Hybrids of Hieracium show, strangely enough, a very different behavior in the production of their progeny, than do those of Cirsium. Cirsium would be an excellent experimental plant for the study of variable hybrids, if it required less space.
Yours always respectfully,
GREGOR MENDEL
Brünn, 15 April 1869

VIII
In Pisum and other plant genera I had observed only uniform hybrids and therefore expected the same in Hieracium. I must admit to you, honored friend, how greatly I was deceived in this respect.
On this occasion I cannot resist remarking how striking it is that the hybrids of Hieracium show a behavior exactly opposite to those of Pisum. Evidently we are here dealing only with individual phenomena...
Your devoted,
GR. MENDEL
Brünn, 3 July 1870

X
The exception which Hieracium seems to make in this respect must find a natural explanation...
I cannot yet give a report on the success of the collection of Moravian hybrids of Hieracium initiated by Prof. Niessl. Shipments from the corresponding members of our society are expected not sooner than this winter.
Yours very respectfully,
GR. MENDEL
Brünn 18/11 1873

http://www.esp.org/foundations/genetics/classical/holdings/m/gm-let.pdf

------------------------

"Nägeli also offered Mendel "fatal" advice: to continue his investigations using the hawkweed (Hieracium), a plant belonging to the family of the asters."

http://mendel.imp.univie.ac.at/mendeljsp/biography/biography.jsp

------------------------

"Nägeli was convinced that hybrids were generally unstable and he could not agree with Mendel's theory that the characters passed onto hybrids from their parents were constant." "Hieracium is a genus that poses difficulties to botanists even today."

http://www.mendel-museum.org/eng/1online/room4.htm

[Hieracium's] seeds are usually produced by apomixis… they are purely maternal in origin and arise without the intervention of meiosis or fertilization (Raunkiär 1903, Ostenfeld 1904). In other words, this was the worst possible choice of material for the study of segregation and recombination - for reasons that could not be guessed at the time [Sturtevant, A. H., 1965, A History of Genetics, Cold Spring Harbor Lab. Press, p. 11]

http://www.esp.org/books/sturt/history/contents/sturt-history-ch-02.pdf

Bateson concludes: The discovery of Ostenfeld and Raunkiaer that Hieracium is frequently parthenogenetic, or apogamous, of course puts an entirely new construction on the results of these experiments [On Hieracium-Hybrids Obtained By Artificial Fertilisation, By Gregor Mendel (Mendel's paragraph mentioning Darwin in that article, "The question of the origin of the numerous and constant intermediate forms has recently acquired no small interest since a famous Hieracium specialist has, in the spirit of the Darwinian teaching, defended the view that these forms are to be regarded as [arising] from the transmutation of lost or still existing species". And at the end of that work, Mendel mentions Pisum, Salix, and… Nägeli: "If finally we compare the described result, still very uncertain, with those obtained by crosses made between forms of Pisum, which I had the honour of communicating in the year 1865, we find a very real distinction. In Pisum the hybrids, obtained from the immediate crossing of two forms, have in all cases the same type, but their posterity, on the contrary, are variable and follow a definite law in their variations", "By the kindness of Dr Nägeli, the Munich Director, who was good enough to send me species which were wanting, especially from the Alps, I am in a position to include a larger number of forms in my experiments. I venture to hope even next year to be able to contribute something more…", "Already in describing the Pisum experiments it was remarked that there are also hybrids whose posterity do not vary, and that, for example, according to Wichura the hybrids of Salix reproduce themselves like pure species", "Whether from this circumstance we may venture to draw the conclusion that the polymorphism of the genera Salix and Hieracium is connected with the special condition of their hybrids is still an open question, which may well be raised but not as yet answered") [Translated and reprinted as an appendix to Bateson, W. 1909. Mendel’s Principles of Heredity. A Defence. Cambridge University Press. Taken from: Mendel, Gregor. 1870. Ueber einige aus künstlichen Befruchtung gewonnen Hieracium-Bastarde. Verhandlungen des naturforschenden Vereines, Abhandlungen, Brünn, Bd. VIII für das Jahr 1869, 26–31]

http://www.esp.org/foundations/genetics/classical/holdings/m/gm-69.pdf

------------------------

Nägeli, Karl von (1817-1891)

"He (Nägeli) did more harm to biology than good, especially in his contemptuous dismissal of Mendel's work on pea plants."

http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/biography/Naegeli.html

[I converge with that statement done by the team that designs the Software "Mathematica". They also show that Nägeli was an Evolutionist but not a Darwinist, as Nägeli himself rejected the main proposals of Darwin, trying to develop his own theory of Evolution, which resembled the one developed a century later by Gould. That evidence demonstrates that there wasn’t then and there is not now any unified theory of evolution but rather, multiple hypotheses on "evolution". Nägeli, the bad advisor of Mendel was a non-Darwinian, however he was indeed an evolutionist. So, being a non-Darwinian evolutionist, even semi-Darwinian or Theistic Evolutionist and their speculations have not been of any useful or practical purpose in biology, or in any science, just the opposite.]

------------------------

[Nägeli] completely failed to appreciate Mendel's work and made some rather pointless criticisms of it in his reply to Mendel's [first] letter. He did not refer to it in his publications… [Mendel] reports [to Nägeli] studies on Mirabilis, maize [Zea], and stocks [Mathiola, "Matthiola annua and glabra"]. Of these three he says, "Their hybrids behave exactly like those of Pisum." The character studied in stocks was hairiness… [also] the [color] experiments had lasted six years and were being continued - this in 1870. He had grown 1500 specimens for the purpose in that year… In Mirabilis he had seen and understood the intermediate color of a heterozygote and had made the appropriate tests to establish this interpretation. He also mentioned experiments with several other plants - Aquilegia, Linaria, Calceolaria, Zea, Ipomoea, Cheiranthus, Tropaeolum (Tropaeoleum), Lychnis, Geum, Cirsium, etc., etc. (se below some of them). The picture that emerges is of a man very actively and effectively experimenting, aware of the importance of his discovery, and testing and extending it on a wide variety of forms. None of these results were published; it is difficult to suppose that his work would have been so completely ignored if he had presented this confirmatory evidence, even though it was not enough to convince Nägeli… [Sturtevant, A. H., 1965, A History of Genetics, Cold Spring Harbor Lab. Press, p. 11-12]

http://www.esp.org/books/sturt/history/contents/sturt-history-ch-02.pdf

Other plants different than Hieracium mentioned by Mendel (excerpts from Mendel's letters to Nägeli):

1-Aquilegia
"The success of the hybridization is evident… The same may be said of the autumn seedlings of the hybrids Aquilegia canadensis+vulgaris A. canadensis+A. atropurpurea, and A. canadensis+A. Wittmaniana… Thus far the three Aquilegia hybrids… are suitable"

2-Linaria
"I have obtained luxuriant plants of Linaria vulgaris+L. purpurea",
"Linaria vulgaris may fairly easily be fertilized by the pollen of other Linaria species; among five attempts made this summer, four were successful. Among them is the combination with the beautiful L.genistifolia; this hybrid is reported to grow in the wild around Brünn"

3-Calceolaria
"The same may be said of Calceolaria salicifolia and C. rugosa"

4-Zea
"Hybrids of Zea Mays major (with dark red seeds)+Z. Mays minor (with yellow seeds) and of Zea Mays major (with dark red seeds)+Zea Cuzko (with white seeds) will develop during the summer"

5-
Mirabilis
"It concerns the opinion of Naudin and Darwin that a single pollen grain does not suffice for fertilization of the ovule. I used Mirabilis Jalappa for an experimental plant, as Naudin had done; the result of my experiment is, however, completely different. From fertilizations with single pollen grains, I obtained 18 well-developed seeds, and from these an equal number of plants, of which ten are already in bloom",
"I want to repeat the experiment; and it should also be possible to prove directly by experiment whether or not two or more pollen grains can participate simultaneously in the fertilization of the ovule in Mirabilis. According to Naudin, at least three are needed!",
"The experiment designed to solve the question whether or not a single pollen grain suffices for fertilization, was repeated with Mirabilis Jalapa, with the same results as last year. Plants obtained from last year’s fertilizations using a single pollen grain cannot be distinguished in any way from those produced by self-fertilization"
"Under way is another experiment with Mirabilis, designed to find out also whether two pollen grains may simultaneously participate in fertilization",
"I have one specimen of the interesting hybrid Mirabilis Jalappa+M. longiflora. A few plants were obtained from the small number of seeds which it bore last summer; they are, however, still too delicate to stand transportation".

6-Antirrhinum
"Antirrhinum vulgare+A. rupestre"

7-Lychnis
"About 200 uniform specimens of the hybrid of Lychnis diurna and L. vespertina",
"Lynchnis diurna+L. vespertina"

8-Geum
"The hybrid Geum urbanum+rivale deserves special attention",
"It is hoped that Geum urbanum+G. rivale can be included in the group of suitable plants",
"Several specimens of the hybrid Geum urbanum+G. rivale (from last year’s hybridization) wintered in the greenhouse. Three are now flowering, the others will follow. Their pollen is fairly well developed, and the plants should be fertile, just as Gärtner states. It seems strange that all the plants now flowering are of the exceptional type mentioned by Gärtner. He says: “Geum urbano-rivale, mostly with large flowers, like rivale, and only a few specimens with small yellow flowers like urbanum.” In my plants the flowers are yellow or yellow-orange, and about half the size of those of G. rivale; the other characters correspond, as far as can be judged at present, to those of G. intermedium Ehrh… I believe I have good reasons for considering my parental species pure. I obtained G. urbanum in the environs of the city, where neither G. rivale, nor any other species of the genus occurs; and I got G. rivale in a damp mountain meadow, where G. urbanum certainly does not occur. This plant has all the characteristics of G. rivale; it is being maintained in the garden, and seedlings have been produced from self-fertilization"

9-Cirsium
"In the projected experiments with species of Cirsium and Hieracium I shall be entering a field in which your honor [Nägeli] possesses the most extensive knowledge, knowledge that can be gained only through many years of zealous study, observation, and comparison of the manifold forms of these genera in their natural habitat… therefore I am turning confidently to your honor…"
"In Cirsium, the dioeciously blooming arvense was fertilized by oleraceum and canum. The flowers were protected against visits of insects by coverings of bolting cloth, this protection appears to be sufficient for Cirsium species. Furthermore, the fertilization of C.canum and C. lanceolatum by C. oleraceum was attempted simply by transmission of pollen…"
"Pollen of C. palustre was transferred to one [to one "late-developing head of a flowering plant of C. praemorsum M. (olerac.+rivulare)], pollen of C. canum to the other. Viable seeds were obtained from both, the resulting plants survived the winter in the greenhouse, and are now developed to a stage at which the success of the hybridization is evident"
"To judge from leaf formation in the young plant, fertilization of Cirsium canum with C. oleraceum was achieved in the same way last year", " Some seedlings of C. praemorsum, others of a hybrid (probably in the group C. canum+plustre and those of a third one, probably C. rivulare+palustre have survived the winter in the open quite well", "The Cirsium arvense+C. oleraceum hybrids, sown in the fall, have died during the winter; one plant of the C. arvense+C. canum hybrid survived"
"I am sending you as promised some hybrids of Hieracium, Cirsium, Geum, and Linaria which I have obtained"
"Hybrids of Hieracium show, strangely enough, a very different behavior in the production of their progeny, than do those of Cirsium. Cirsium would be an excellent experimental plant for the study of variable hybrids, if it required less space"

10-Verbascum
"By accident one plant of the cross Verbascum phoenicium+V. Blattaria was left in the seed bowl (1864)… This summer (1867) the plant made up for everything it had missed, for from June to September it flowered continuously, and produced more than 100 well-formed seeds. It might winter for a third time, since a complete leaf rosette developed after flowering"

11-17 -Other names of plants that are mentioned by Mendel (Ipomoea, Cheiranthus, Antirrhinum, Veronica, Viola, Potentilla, Carex, etc.)
"To study color development in flowers of hybrids, cross-fertilizations were made last year between varieties of Ipomoea purpurea, Cheiranthus annuus and Antirrhinum majus. An experiment with hybrids of Tropaeoleum majus+T. minus (1st generation) must also be mentioned" "For the current year exploratory experiments with Veronica, Viola, Potentilla, and Carex are planned. Unfortunately, I have only a small number of species"

Etc.

http://www.esp.org/foundations/genetics/classical/holdings/m/gm-let.pdf

The most serious matter discussed by Fisher is that Mendel's ratios (yellow:green, 6,022:2,001) are consistently closer to expectations than sampling theory would lead one to expect… it is possible to question the logic of the argument that a fit is too close to expectation. If I report that I tossed 1000 coins and got exactly 500 heads and 500 tails, a statician will raise his eyebrows, though this is the most probable exactly specified result. If I report 480 heads and 520 tails, the statician will say that is about what one would expect - though this result is less probable than the 500:500 one… (Sturtevant's note: Fisher's dates are wrong. He gives them as 1857 to 1864, but it is clear from Mendel's letters to Nägeli that the final year was 1863. Fisher includes the two years of preliminary testing in the eight years that Mendel says the experiments lasted… [However,] these two years preceded the eight years of actual experiments [see also Yule, 1902]… there are two more years available and Fisher's year-by-year reconstruction needs revision. [It may also be pointed out that Mendel used time and garden space to validate his findings in Pisum, also in several other plants, mentioned previously; in p. 11 Sturtevant states that [Mendel's] "productive scientific work was finished about 1871"]… Fisher also quotes extensively from a paper by Nägeli (1865), and concludes that "it is difficult to suppose that these remarks were not intended to discourage Mendel personally, without drawing attention to his researches." But this paper of Nägeli's was published before Mendel's - clearly before Nägeli could have known anything about Mendel's work!)… There is… error in Fisher's expectations… One observer, Tschermak, achieved an even closer approach to 3:1 (yellow:green, 3,580:1,190) than did Mendel… The over-all impression is that the agreement with expectation is neither too good nor too poor… after all, Mendel was right! [Sturtevant, A. H., 1965, A History of Genetics, Cold Spring Harbor Lab. Press, p. 13-16, criticizing the flawed article written by Fisher, R. A., 1936, Has Mendel's work been rediscovered? Ann. Sci. 1:115-137; supporting evidence against Fisher's claims can be seen in the quoted article by: Yule, G. U., 1902, Mendel's laws and their probable relation to intraracial heredity. New Phytol. 1:193-207, 222-238]

http://www.esp.org/books/sturt/history/contents/sturt-history-ch-02.pdf

------------------------

"Shortly after the publication of the Origin, Gregor Mendel published his papers documenting the laws that now bear his name. Carl Naegeli, at that time the czar of European botany, in a letter to Mendel, described Mendel’s findings as “You should regard the numerical expressions as being only empirical, because they can not be proved rational.” (Stern and Sherwood, 1966) Of course that which is empirical doesn’t have to be rational! Wisely, Mendel had elected to publish his work in the Proceedings of the Natural History Society of Brunn, a journal for which he was an editor. It is questionable if his work would have survived a review had Mendel sent it to one of the major botanical journals of the day" [Is Evolution Finished?, by John A. Davison, p. 3, quoting: Stern C. and Sherwood E.R., 1966, The Origin of Genetics: A Mendel Source Book. W.H. Freeman and Company, San Francisco and London.]

http://www.iscid.org/papers/Davison_IsEvolutionFinished_022204.pdf

------------------------

There is the neglect of Mendel's accomplishments during his lifetime and the futility of his years of writing to Nägeli.

http://www.mendelweb.org/archive/MWhartl.txt

[Mendel in Spanish: http://www.geocities.com/fdocc2/mendelz.htm]

[ 25. May 2004, 18:16: Message edited by: Fernando Castro-Chavez ]

IP: Logged

Fernando Castro-Chavez
Member
Member # 1201

posted 01. June 2004 23:40

Scott,

I have updated with more references all the specific studies that demonstrate how "Sexual reproduction is incapable of supporting evolutionary change."

I.E., "In both mammals and nonmammals, the pathway that leads to fusion of an egg with a single sperm consists of many steps that occur in order. These steps include species-specific cellular recognition."

If evidently there are tissue-specific genes, molecules and biochemical processes, why do you think that some people try to dismiss the species-specific ones?

I pray that this may be useful and helpful to those researchers desiring to make a remarkable difference opposed to the evolutionary aeonic paradigms:

http://www.geocities.com/plin9k/sexvsevol.htm

For some, this glass is half-empty, for others, this very same glass is half-full.

The thread is located on:

http://www.arn.org/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=13&t=001218

IP: Logged

Fernando Castro-Chavez
Member
Member # 1201

posted 26. November 2004 21:19

Dear Friends of the "Intelligent Designer",

I posted this in ARN,

Dear Friends of the "Intelligent Designer",

Thank you for your encouragement.

Today is “Thanksgiving Day” (Thursday, Nov. 25, 2004); a day designated to give thanks to God for blessing His land and people. It is unfortunate that groups are threatening our right to give thanks to Our Almighty God. Today I will give thanks to God for His Word, and His Creation, and for all His Miracles and Wonders regardless of those groups.

In molecular research we have “DNA Chips”, which are like DNA and RNA “cameras”, and “dChip”, which is like the “film developer”. The word “Chip” is a computational term applied to molecular research; also in molecular research we have the "genetic program" and the "reprogramming" caused by diseases.

I have applied the concept of “Biological Software” to the “programming of life” located in the nucleic acids (DNA and RNA), and “Biological Hardware” to describe organelles, cells, tissues and organisms, all of them made by proteins, which are the building blocks. The regulatory proteins resemble human “fingers”, initially discovered by Dr. Jonathan Miller, recently at Baylor (BCM), who discovered the first "Zinc Fingers". Those proteins are the points of contact between that "Biological Software" and the "Biological Hardware". The amazing thing about the "Biological Software" is that it produces all the “Biological Hardware” needed for life.

This "Biological Hardware" is like obtaining a third dimensional object out of your printer; i.e., a plastic hand with a programmed movement over the keyboard. The closest comparison is like “macros” deliberately designed to perform specific and automatic routines in a Word Processor. Those “macros” are like the automatic “fingers” which do the work by themselves, performing specific tasks on our behalf without us being there. Those “macros” are also like those regulatory proteins produced by the nucleic acids, proteins product of the Software with a Hardware-like behavior over the keyboard. In the case of Ribozymes, those are like Software with a Hardware-like behavior.

To call the DNA and RNA our “Biological Software” is to continue using our most advanced human grammatical terminology to describe them, even when we know that those molecules are more perfect than the best of our human programs or computers. For example, we call those molecules: “the Code of Life”, the “genetic code”, the “biological code”, as well as “coding sequences” versus “non-coding sequences”, and “codons”, “transcription”, "transcriptomes", “messengers”, “translation”, etc., as in our human languages and in Computational Software. As any code needing to be deciphered, intelligence behind it has made that DNAs and RNAs.

In my understanding of the First Amendment of the Constitution of the U.S.A. * I am inspired as an individual knowing that I can freely exercise my right to glorify God, even in my research field. Unfortunately, as I stated earlier, unbelievers attempt to get rid of God by twisting the words in the First Amendment. I Honor the Creator of matter and spirit. I proudly acknowledge God, The Creator of the Universe, wishing to inspire others to do so as well. I am including a few of my molecular studies showing God as the Creator and Foundation:

Castro-Chavez F. Microarrays, antiobesity and the liver. Ann Hepatol 2004; 3(4): 137-145. URL: http://www.medigraphic.com/pdfs/hepato/ah-2004/ah044c.pdf

Some original points, for example are that, at the end of the penultimate paragraph I wrote about my findings, inspired by Intelligent Design, on the identity of the sequence (and its derivatives) that are contaminating thousands of sequences in Genbank. In the paragraphs before, I include references to some of my ongoing studies, such as the findings of hemoglobin transcripts inside fat cells and heart, and also of species specific sequences. In references 105 and 115 I present my works in progress.

The purpose of the Mexican Journal “Annals of Hepatology” is to publish articles related to the liver. The practical purpose of my paper is to help in the search of antiobesity molecular treatments with microarray tools ("microarreglos", in Spanish).

I am thankful that I was given the opportunity to present God, and His “Intelligent Design” as the foundation of Molecular Biology.

In conclusion, as the original Christian founders of the U.S.A. initially gave thanks to God on this unique day called Thanksgiving Day, I will continue to serve every day of my life as His Child, thanking Him for his many blessings and benefits.

Fernando Castro-Chavez.

* The First Amendment to the Constitution of the U.S.A. textually reads:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

As other member declares: "You want to see ironic? Just observe the scientists who look at the high technology of life and still claim they don't see any intelligent design...."

I am thankful that I was given the opportunity to present God, and His “Intelligent Design” as the foundation of Molecular Biology:

http://www.arn.org/ubb/ultimatebb.php/ubb/get_topic/f/12/t/001218/p/2.html#000055

And in:

http://www.arn.org/ubb/ultimatebb.php/ubb/get_topic/f/14/t/001048.html

[ 12. January 2005, 12:13: Message edited by: Fernando Castro-Chavez ]

IP: Logged

Fernando Castro-Chavez
Member
Member # 1201

posted 28. December 2004 17:39

Also from ARN, a long set of pertinent postings:

External link with a more expanded list, and the numbers grow day after day:

http://www.geocities.com/plin9k/limiting-species.htm

We need the map for life to understand life itself and its history.

Both, the Universe and its Revealed map proceed from the same Author.

I agree completely with the original and complete Biblical record (in both the OT and the NT). That is the most solid foundation for any human enterprise, being it scientific or for our daily human life.

I have updated with more references all the specific studies of JA Davison that demonstrate how "Sexual reproduction is incapable of supporting evolutionary change."

"Sexual reproduction is a highly conservative device, a virtual standstill, a function which serves to prevent rather than promote progressive change."

Also there, is an Appendix showing how the:

"Sperm-egg recognition and binding in mammals is largely species-specific."

"Changes in the structure of these oligosaccharides (e.g., composition, sequence, linkages, modifications, etc.) account for species-specific binding of sperm to eggs."

"In both mammals and nonmammals, the pathway that leads to fusion of an egg with a single sperm consists of many steps that occur in order. These steps include species-specific cellular recognition."

So, we can see there that in addition to species-specific molecules there are species-specific biochemical processes, mechanisms, strategies, etc.

If evidently there are tissue-specific genes, molecules and biochemical processes, why do you think that some people try to dismiss the species-specific ones?

I pray that this may be useful and helpful to those researchers desiring to make a remarkable difference opposed to the evolutionary aeonic paradigms:

http://www.geocities.com/plin9k/sexvsevol.htm

This is what I have read in my beloved Bible related to "Species-Specific Tissues":

1Co 15:39 All flesh is not the same flesh; but one kind of flesh of men, and another flesh of beasts, and another of fish, and another of birds.

The sharp difference is emphasized between feathers, scales, fur, and skin.

Then, this is what William Bateson declared related to the next (40) verse:

"I do not dare to suggest that in magnitude or splendour the field of Genetics may be compared with that now being disclosed to the physicist or the astronomer; for the glory of the celestial is one and the glory of the terrestrial is another."

[Bateson, W., The Methods And Scope Of Genetics, 1908, Cambridge University Press, P. 3]

A brief on Molecular News:

May 27, 2004 The Scientist.
Chimps are not like humans.
Whole-chromosome comparison reveals much greater genetic differences than expected.
By Cathy Holding.

The vigorous debate on how different chimpanzees are from humans is fuelled by new data in this week's Nature, as the International Chimpanzee Chromosome 22 Consortium reports that 83% of chimpanzee proteins are different from their human counterparts.

The difference is "much more complicated that we initially imagined or speculated," Yoshiyuki Sakaki, who headed the consortium, told The Scientist.

Sakaki said their analysis found about 68,000 insertions or deletions. "That is almost one insertion/deletion every 470 bases," he said.

Early molecular comparisons between humans and chimpanzees suggested that the species are very similar to each other at the nucleotide sequence level—a difference of between 1.23% and 5%, Sakaki said. The results reported this week showed that "83% of the genes have changed between the human and the chimpanzee—only 17% are identical—so that means that the impression that comes from the 1.2% [sequence] difference is [misleading]. In the case of protein structures, it has a big effect," Sakaki said.

"They found a lot of length differences rather than single-base changes, and the fact that those seem to occur in coding sequences more than expected was one of the surprising findings of the paper," said Matthew Webster, from the Evolutionary Biology Centre at Uppsala University, Sweden. "[The authors] also found that there were more changes than you might expect in length within coding sequences which don't interrupt the function."

Webster said that by incorporating gene expression data with comparisons of the human and chimpanzee genes, the authors had provided an approach that would be important in the future, particularly when the chimpanzee genome was finished.

Original Article:
International Chimpanzee Chromosome 22 Consortium, "DNA sequence and comparative analysis of chimpanzee chromosome 22," Nature, 429:382-388, May 27, 2004. http://www.nature.com
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=15164055

Related topic:
Bailey JA, Yavor AM, Viggiano L, Misceo D, Horvath JE, Archidiacono N, Schwartz S, Rocchi M, Eichler EE. Human-specific duplication and mosaic transcripts: the recent paralogous structure of chromosome 22. Am J Hum Genet. 2002 Jan;70(1):83-100.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=11731936

Yoshiyuki Sakaki
http://www.riken.go.jp/engn/r-world/research/lab/genome

Matthew Webster
http://www.egs.uu.se/evbiol/Persons/Matt.html

Original site (free registration):
http://www.biomedcentral.com/news/20040527/01

Looking for clues I found the next that was stated one year before:

"...our perceived sequence divergence of only 1% between these two species appears to be erroneous, because this work... puts both species much further apart" concluded Tatsuya Anzai et al. They used comparative genomics to reveal a total of 64 insertion/deletions (indels) >100 bp long in the human sequence (mismatches were represented by 9% substitutions and by over 90% indels) in the entire MHC region.

The major histocompatibility locus (MHC) contains some 224 genes and is one of the most gene-dense regions of the human genome.

To see the full history:

Holding C: Driving man and chimp apart. Indels, not single base substitutions, in the MHC region account for differential immune responses. Genome Biology. June 26, 2003.

Source:
http://genomebiology.com/researchnews/default.asp?arx_id=gb-spotlight-20030626-01

Tatsuya Anzai not only said 'misleading in brackets' or an 83 % of difference, but expressly declared of those previous ~1 % estimates of divergence between humans and monkeys as being "erroneous" for one of the supposedly most similar regions between men and chimps.

Original article:

Anzai T et al.
Comparative sequencing of human and chimpanzee MHC class I regions unveils insertions/deletions as the major path to genomic divergence.
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2003 Jun 24;100(13):7708-13. Epub 2003 Jun 10.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=12799463

However, in other website, the brackets in [misleading], in the statement of Yoshiyuki Sakaki previously reported still appear:

http://genomebiology.com/researchnews/default.asp?arx_id=gb-spotlight-20040528-01

The Yale DNA Hybridization Scandal - A UC Berkely professor reported on the intentional alteration of hybridization data, which was used to support the theory that humans were more closely related to chimpanzees:

http://www.scricciolo.com/classificazione/sequence6.htm (from Italy)

Originally it was posted in the Universities websites:

http://pantheon.yale.edu/~jmarks/dnahyb2.html

http://garnet.berkeley.edu/~jonmarks/dnahyb1.html

Some of the websites that make reference to it are the next:

http://www.nwcreation.net/evolutionfraud.html

http://www.nwcreation.net/geneticslinks.html

http://nautilus.fis.uc.pt/wwwantr/areas/paleontologia/genero/textos/html/qual%20o%20significado%20e%20pertinencia.htm (from Portugal)

http://www.jmcgowan.com/links.html

The last one mentions the next:

Jonathan Marks
Includes controversies over measurements of the genetic difference between humans and chimpanzees. In particular, Professor Marks challenges the oft-repeated claim that humans and chimpanzees are more closely related than humans and gorillas.

Related to the recent Webpage of Jonathan Marks:

http://personal.uncc.edu/jmarks

Located on the Department of Sociology and Anthropology. UNC-Charlotte, North Carolina.

The recent findings of misleading and erroneous considerations on the relationship between chimps and humans (on the words of the researchers involved themselves, as previously posted by me) provide to the statements of Jonathan Marks a new strength that I want to ponder.

Jonathan Marks conference of 1999:

http://personal.uncc.edu/jmarks/interests/aaa/marksaaa99.htm
Marks stated: "How do you make sense of the fact that chimpanzees have 10% more DNA than humans? That they have more alpha-hemoglobin genes and more Rh bloodgroup genes, and fewer Alu repeats, in their genome than humans? Or that the tips of their chromosomes contain DNA not present at the tips of human chromosomes?"

The two pictures that doesn't display in that site are the ones related to the sharp contrast between G.G.Simpson and Emile Zuckerkandl in relation to hemoglobin. The corrected links to see (with some difficulty) the antagonical statements:

Right: G. G. Simpson:
http://personal.uncc.edu/jmarks/interests/aaa/2.gif

Wrong: Emile Zuckerkandl (Editor-in-Chief of the Journal of Molecular Evolution, Palo Alto, Calif.):
http://personal.uncc.edu/jmarks/interests/aaa/1.gif

The last individual mentioned (E. Zuckerkandl) was the editor of the flawed work of Charles G. Sibley and Jon E. Ahlquist. Of him J. Marks declares:

Marks says: "Emile Zuckerkandl (Editor-in-Chief of the Journal of Molecular Evolution, Palo Alto, Calif.) supported [Charles] Sibley, and refused to make him document the work he had published in the journal."

"After one round of favorable peer-review, the paper [which contained the Sarich, V. M., Schmid, C. W., and Marks, J. criticisms] was re-written and re-reviewed, with the active participation of [Allan C.] Wilson. The second round of reviews was enthusiastic, and Wilson accepted the paper on the journal's behalf. A week later, in consultation with Charles Sibley and Roy Britten (also editorial board members) the editor-in-chief Emile Zuckerkandl un-accepted the paper [which contained the Sarich, V. M., Schmid, C. W., and Marks, J. criticisms]. It was ultimately published in Cladistics (5:3, 1989):"

Sarich, V. M., Schmid, C. W., and Marks, J. (1989) DNA hybridization as a guide to phylogeny: A critical appraisal. Cladistics, 5:3-32.
J. Marks review: "Discussed the broader issues surrounding the manners in which DNA hybridization was not being adequately scrutinized. We called attention to the bulk of the Sibley-Ahlquist corpus on bird phylogeny. They had been justifying their cockamamie unreported corrections to the primate experiments by saying they knew it was okay because they had been doing it to the birds all along. Of course, that meant that the [complete] bird work [of CG Sibley] was entirely compromised."

Vincent M. Sarich, first author of the paper already accepted by Allan C. Wilson and politically rejected later on by the Journal of Molecular Evolution:

http://www.mnsu.edu/emuseum/information/biography/pqrst/sarich_vincent.html (links included)

http://sunsite.berkeley.edu/Anthro/Centennial/evolution/sarich_evolution.html

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=search&term=Sarich+VM

Carl W. Schmid, co-author of the same article:

http://www-chem.ucdavis.edu/people/schmid.shtml

http://www.anthro.utah.edu/~rogers/bio5410/Readings/Schmid-NG-35-15.pdf (Alu: a parasite’s parasite?, Nature Gen. 35(1):15-16, 2003.)

http://www.dbs.ucdavis.edu/alumni/newsletter/winter98/growth.html

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=search&term=Schmid+CW

Allan C. Wilson, who had accepted the article that Sibley, Britten and Zuckerkandl afterwards rejected: http://awcmee.massey.ac.nz/aw.htm

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=search&term=Wilson+AC+birds

Emile Zuckerkandl, the "editor-in-chief of the J. Mol. Evol.":
http://www.austria.org/oldsite/aug98/emile.html

http://www.the-scientist.com/yr1993/july/let2_930726.html
Emile Zuckerkandl says: "In addition to the Society of Molecular Biology and Evolution, the International Society of Molecular Evolution (ISME) has been founded. Its members automatically receive the Journal of Molecular Evolution." "For the ready dissemination of new knowledge, one benefit attributable to the founding of ISME is a very substantial reduction of the cost of the Journal of Molecular Evolution."

[Do you trust on the "editorial" policies of such Journals?]

The Zuckerkandl Prize, or "do as Sibley and you surely will win it":
http://cropsci.uiuc.edu/faculty/gca/GCA.data/PDF/Zuckerkandl.pdf

Regarding to Charles G. Sibley:

http://fieldguide.tripod.com/imsibley.html
According to that site, the Sibley-Ahlquist-Monroe bird classification is "controversial" "...and probably subject to many future changes."

"A somewhat controversial set of studies" D. Dennet (see him below).

"If you can call data falsification controversial." J. Marks.

Searching further in that history of scientific fraud:

The spurious works of Sibley and Ahlquist, related to the supposed genomic closeness of humans and chimps, published blindly by Emile Zuckerkandl received a great deal of publicity (Roger Lewin in Science, Jared Diamond in Nature, and Stephen Jay Gould in Natural History). Based on the writings of Jonathan Marks, some of the "cheerleading" and "cover-up" reactions are next.

Found in: http://personal.uncc.edu/jmarks/DNAHYB/DNAhyb.html

1-) Position of the National Academy of Sciences regarding that fraud:

J. Marks declares: "Charles Sibley, a researcher in molecular evolution who was arrested in the 1970s for smuggling the eggs of endangered bird species out of England and into his starch-gel apparatus (For Sibley's "illegally importing bird parts taken abroad in violation of foreign wildlife laws", I refer readers to the published account which appears to have been of greater concern to falconers than to molecular evolutionists:"
Sports Illustrated 24 June 1974: http://www.angelfire.com/fl/indianbirds/issue4.html "[Sibley,] in the 1980s he resurfaced with a technique [fabricated by Roy Britten] called DNA hybridization, which [supposedly] solved the problems of avian and primate phylogeny with fanfare enough for election into the National Academy [of Sicences]. In 1990, however, he admitted that the phylogenetic resolution had been achieved through the use of data manipulations that had not been mentioned in any of his papers."

J. Marks declares: "It was about the quality and honesty of published research, old news in the primary and secondary literature, and the fact that in spite of well-publicized revelations, no formal adjudication nor even investigation has ever occurred. And especially that the National Academy has never even investigated, in spite of the fact that Sibley is a member, having been elected on account largely of his DNA hybridization work."
http://personal.uncc.edu/jmarks/dnahyb/twelve.html

Sibley CG, Comstock JA, Ahlquist JE. DNA hybridization evidence of hominoid phylogeny: a reanalysis of the data. J Mol Evol. 1990 Mar;30(3):202-36.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=2109085
J. Marks statement: "Sibley had by now been elected to the National Academy of Sciences. Their last paper acknowledges that there were three "correction procedures" that they applied and had not mentioned in any of their previous publications. Most significantly, they concede that had it not been for these unreported alterations (that had it not been for their data alterations, without altering the data), "... it is virtually certain that Sibley and Ahlquist would have concluded that Homo, Pan and Gorilla form a trichotomy" (p. 225)."
http://www.scricciolo.com/classificazione/sequence6.htm

Marks says: "The authors acknowledge the previously undisclosed data alterations and admit that the resolution of the trichotomy was predicated upon them. They also give their delta-Tms, which is the variable measured by Caccone-Powell. Unsurprisingly, these neither resolve the trichotomy, nor match the Caccone-Powell numbers. This obviously raises questions about those numbers."
http://personal.uncc.edu/jmarks/dnahyb/Biblio.html

Sibley, Charles G., and Ahlquist J. (1993) Reviewing misconduct? American Scientist, 81:407.
J. Marks comments: "Sibley and Ahlquist's letter indignantly demands that (as I had suggested in my review) the National Academy of Sciences investigate the matter, knowing they wouldn't. Shortly thereafter Vince Sarich and I separately wrote to the NAS with charges and documentation. You might figure that if both sides clamor for an investigation, they might undertake it. But we received a brief letter in return, saying they wouldn't."

"Of particular significance is the fact that the senior author of the original work (Sibley) is [was] a member of the National Academy of Sciences, and I think it is extraordinary that that body has never investigated the matter [Roy Britten the fabricator of the "DNA-DNA hybridization" methodology is also its member]. I raised this publicly in the American Scientist (81: 382, 1993). In the following issue, Sibley indignantly responded that he would "suggest such an investigation to the National Academy of Sciences Home Secretary." Whether he actually did nor not, I cannot say. However, Vince Sarich and I immediately wrote separately to the Home Secretary (Peter Raven), detailing and documenting the accusations, which were already in the public record. An investigation would seem to have been called for, given the apparent agreement of both sides on the matter. It did not happen, however."

Peter H. Raven's http://flora.huh.harvard.edu/china/editors/raven.htm

Full response, dated October 25, 1993:

************
Dear Dr. Marks:
Thank you very much indeed for your letter and the enclosures. I was extremely interested in what you had to say in reading the enclosures. It is obviously a very complex case and, as I am sure you understand, the National Academy of Sciences would not undertake to conduct a formal review of the activities of its members as a matter of general principle, lacking the judicial machinery to do so properly. I would add, however, that no one is elected to the Academy for a single piece of work, and thus it is incorrect, as a matter of principle, to say that "this is the work that ultimately resulted in Sibley's election to the National Academy of Sciences.....". In summary, I was very interested in the material that you sent. We will be conducting no investigation.
Yours sincerely,
Peter H. Raven
Home Secretary
************

J. Marks comment: "In spite of the fact that the language used in the published papers wildly misled reviewers and readers as to the nature of the data analysis and the robustness of the conclusions, we have not seen a retraction of the work, an inquiry by the National Academy into the nature of the research of its member, nor a public repudiation of the work by the senior community of molecular evolutionists. Rather, those who have spoken out have taken the position that the data alterations were a bad idea (although not bad enough to jeopardize his membership)..."

J. Marks concludes: "it is a matter of subjecting the scientific establishment to examination - showing our students how science works and how it doesn't - so that when they enter the community, they can improve it from within."

http://personal.uncc.edu/jmarks/dnahyb/Biblio.html

////////////////////////

2-) Position of the Yale University, the "Alma Mater" of those frauds:

Sibley CG, Ahlquist JE. The phylogeny of the hominoid primates, as indicated by DNA-DNA hybridization. J Mol Evol. 1984;20(1):2-15. Review.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=6429338
Marks says: "It does not mention any numerical corrections"

Also, J. Marks remarks: "Their 1984 claim in the Journal of Molecular Evolution was that they had "resolved the trichotomy" into human-chimp. In other words, they had found humans and chimpanzees to be especially close relatives genetically, rather than equally close to the gorilla and thereby constituting a three-way evolutionary split, or "trichotomy". They reiterated the claim in a second paper in the Journal of Molecular Evolution in 1987."

Sibley CG, Ahlquist JE. DNA hybridization evidence of hominoid phylogeny: results from an expanded data set. J Mol Evol. 1987;26(1-2):99-121.
[Tiburon Center, San Francisco State University, California 94920]
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=3125341
Marks comment: "Their second paper, containing a larger array of data, gives specific values for each experiment. It also doesn't mention the existence of numerical corrections. (Our inability to match the values given for 40% of their listed experiments is what led to the discovery of the omitted part of the data analysis.)"
http://personal.uncc.edu/jmarks/dnahyb/Biblio.html

Caccone A, DeSalle R, Powell JR. 1988. Calibration of the change in thermal stability of DNA duplexes and degree of base pair mismatch. J. Mol. Evol. 27:212-16.

Caccone, Adalgisa and Powell, Jeffrey R. (1989) DNA divergence among hominoids. Evolution, 43:925-942.
Marks comments: "A second set of DNA hybridization experiments, also from Yale's biology department, claims to have resolved the trichotomy into human-chimp again, and to have matched the altered Sibley-Ahlquist numbers (in spite of having measured a different variable, delta-Tm). The results are attributable to their DNA fragment-length correction, which is impossibly precise."

"Of more esoteric interest is their claim to have replicated the "findings" of Sibley and Ahlquist (1984, 1989), even after themselves did their own "calibration" of the methodology (they declared that "the conversion ratio at 1 degree equals 1.7 % of difference between species, thus humans and chimps would be over 3 % different rather than 1.8 % according to their own calibration). Caccone and Powell claimed to have obtained the same numbers as those reported by of Sibley and Ahlquist and to have obtained the same tree, thus ostensibly validatig both the previous "study" and the technique itself. In fact, they matched numbers that the previous authors admitted had been falsified, which is itself quite a feat; and they matched them with a different measure (delta Tm versus delta T50H) - as if three inches could match three centimeters. Sibley et al (1990) published their true values comparable to those reported by Caccone and Powell (1989), and these neither match, not resolve the phylogeny. The technique is now in disrepute and rarely used [a lenghty discussion can be found at: Marks J. 1991. What's old and new in molecular phylogenetics. Amer. J. Phys. Anthropol. 90:237-46]." "The genetic linkage of humans specifically to chimpanzees is thus not so much a constructed fact as a false one."

In: Marks, J. (2003) 98% Chimpanzee and 35% Daffodil: The Human Genome in Evolutionary and Cultural Context. In: Genetic Nature/Culture: Anthropology and Science Beyond the Two Culture Divide, ed. by A. Goodman, D. Heath, and M. S. Lindee. Berkeley: University of California Press, pp. 132-152.
http://personal.uncc.edu/jmarks/pubs/natureculture.pdf (p. 149)

"The fragment-length numbers, whose precision can have very little biochemical significance, were manipulated to generate the results; and the explicit association of this work [Caccone-Powell Evolution paper, 1989, impossibly precise and also from Yale's biology department] to the Sibley-Ahlquist work [from Yale's biology department] was intended to mislead the scientific community about the quality and integrity of the latter."

Powell, Jeffrey R. (1993) Reviewing misconduct? American Scientist, 81:408.
Marks indicates: "According to Powell, "The Sibley work is good science inasmuch as it is repeatable and independently corroborated." J. Marks replied: Actually, good science is simply carried out competently and honestly. The fact that two people make the same claim doesn't mean the claim is right. In this case, Powell argues that it doesn't matter whether they falsified their data, because they got the right answer. A frightening thought, especially from someone charged with educating the next generation of biology majors at Yale."

Jeffrey R. Powell JR:

http://pantheon.yale.edu/~sv54/main2.html

http://pantheon.yale.edu/~sv54/jeff.html

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=search&term=Powell+JR
http://pantheon.yale.edu/~sv54/powellprojectsbis.html

Adalgisa (Gisella) Caccone:

http://pantheon.yale.edu/~sv54/gisella.html

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=search&term=Caccone+A

http://pantheon.yale.edu/~sv54/Cacconeprojecttris.html

"David Pilbeam wrote in a journal called Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution: "I do not discuss the Sibley et al. (1990) data set here, although I will do so elsewhere, except to note that it is of poorer quality than that of Caccone and Powell." J. Marks replies: Pilbeam, sadly, has never been able to evaluate this work critically, and of course was its earliest promoter in anthropology."

Highley, Aaron M. (1991) DNA hybridization. Yale Scientific, 65:6-10.
Marks says: "A student-run science journal at Yale wrote up the controversy -- if you can call data falsification controversial. But there was never any investigation."

Marks concludes: "The most unfortunate aspect of this story is that the research is intimately associated with the biology department at Yale, and despite extensive publicity and discussion in the primary literature, it has never been the subject of any investigation or adjudication. It is quite likely that if such an investigation were undertaken, it would conclude that the scientific community has been egregiously and willfully misled by these papers, and that this has been an example of the classic triad of fraud, cover-up, and retaliation."

Those spurious manipulations of the methodology of DNA-DNA hybridization makes doubtful not only the results in hominids, but also in birds and in moles:

http://www.ornitaxa.com/SM/SMOrg/sibley2.html

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=search&term=Sibley+CG+evolution

Catzeflis FM, Nevo E, Ahlquist JE, Sibley CG. Relationships of the chromosomal species in the Eurasian mole rats of the Spalax ehrenbergi group as determined by DNA-DNA hybridization, and an estimate of the spalacid-murid divergence time. J Mol Evol. 1989 Sep;29(3):223-32.
[Peabody Museum of Natural History, Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut 06511.]
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=2506357

Catzeflis FM. DNA hybridization as a guide to phylogenies: raw data in muroid rodents. Prog Clin Biol Res. 1990;335:317-45.
"The Normalized Percent of Hybridization, appears to be strongly affected by experimental conditions, and should be used with caution."
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=2408078

Other works of François M. Catzeflis:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=search&term=Catzeflis+FM

http://sfs.snv.jussieu.fr/eindex.html

Other works of Eviatar Nevo (member of The National Academies):

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=search&term=Nevo+E

http://research.haifa.ac.il/~evolut/html/html_eng/eviatar.html

///////////////////////////

About some of the promoters of the spurious paper and its "methodologies":

3-) Jared Diamond:

http://149.142.237.180/faculty/diamond.htm

Specially Jared Diamond had been singing their praises again in Nature's News and Views (332:685, 1988). Jonathan Marks wrote a letter pointing out that the work was as yet still undocumented, and that the rest of the evidence bearing on the problem of the human-chimp-gorilla divergence was highly ambiguous, which made the documentation of this conclusion crucial. Diamond responded pompously:

"While Marks refers to the study of Sibley and Ahlquist as undocumented, these authors gave detailed descriptions of their methods in many earlier papers and presented their hominoid data in two lengthy papers..." (Nature, 334:656, 1988.)

Makrs says: "The problem of course is that we now knew the "detailed descriptions" to be inaccurate. 40% of their numbers didn't match..."

"Science Remembers Reagan (06/11/2004). The leftist liberals who dominate scientific institutions, who are clueless about what really matters in life, should step aside and put their hands over their mouths. Jared Diamond (UCLA) this week in Nature (June 10, 2004), for instance, attributed the differences in the prosperity of nations entirely to geographical factors and natural resources. He discounted almost entirely the bad ideas, false ideologies and lies – and the dictatorships built on them – that are far more responsible for limiting the ability of people to fulfill their potential. If America is allowed to remain the shining city on a hill [as in those days of R. Reagan, or still as today], all people, including scientists, will bask in that light."

http://creationsafaris.com/crev0604.htm

In his sections "Sicence Made Stupid" (in: "Aesop as Sicence") and "Fiction as Sicence" J. Marks includes the next paragraphs:

“Among our darker qualities, murder has now been documented in innumerable animal species." "A zoologist from Outer Space would immediately classify us as just a third species of chimpanzee, along with the pygmy chimp of Zaire and the common chimp of the rest of tropical Africa." (Jared Diamond, The Third Chimpanzee (1992), p. 170 and p. 2.)

http://www.uncc.edu/jmarks/2141/Aesop.pdf

http://www.uncc.edu/jmarks/2141/Fiction_As_Science.pdf

///////////////////////////

4-) Daniel Dennett in his "Darwin's Dangerous Idea":
http://www.iscid.org/encyclopedia/Daniel_Dennett [he is being publicized by ISCID as one "star participant" in "The sixth "Toward a Science of Consciousness Conference" on April 7-11, 2004.]

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=search&term=Dennet+D

Daniel Dennett states:
"When Jared Diamond (cheerleader of Sibley's work) published The Third Chimpanzee in 1992, he drew his title from the recently discovered fact."

Reply by Jonathan Marks:
"Definitely a socially-constructed fact. Some solid, though not well-publicized data suggest it is actually a non-fact (e.g., Djian and Green, PNAS, 86:8447, 1989; Livak et al., PNAS, 92:427, 1995). The problem is that those who invested most heavily in Sibley in the 1980s and are embarrassed by the fact that those data did not show what they purported to show (a clear human-chimp link), are now arguing that it doesn't matter, because other data show human-chimp..."

Daniel Dennett states:
"We are the third chimpanzee..."

Reply by Jonathan Marks:
"Calling us "the third chimpanzee" is senseless; in fact the original title (in England) of Diamond's book was The Rise and Fall of the Third Chimpanzee, invoking William Shirer's chronicle of the Reich as a metaphor for the history of the entire species. Apparently that was a bit too misanthropic for the American publisher."

[ http://www.otr.com/shirer.html , http://2thinkforums.org/anyboard/archive/530.html (William L. Shirer and the Third Reich)]

Daniel Dennett states:
"Diamond cautiously lifted this fascinating fact from the "philological" work on primate DNA by Sibley and Ahlquist (1984 and later papers), and made it clear to his readers that theirs were a somewhat controversial set of studies (Diamond 1992, pp. 20,371-72)"

Reply by Jonathan Marks:
"Not only is this false, it is ridiculous. If Diamond were so up front about the work being controversial, why would he have based his central thesis and title on it?"

Daniel Dennett states:
"Jonathan Marks, an anthropologist at Yale, went into orbit in denunciation of Diamond -- and Sibley and Ahlquist, whose work, he declared, "needs to be treated like nuclear waste: bury it safely and forget about it for a million years" (Marks 1993a, p. 61)"

Reply by Jonathan Marks:
"The quote is accurate... because the data were, as far as anyone can tell, extensively and egregiously falsified. The review appeared in the Journal of Human Evolution, 24:69, 1993. What directly preceded the extracted remark is this: ...by (1) switching experimental controls; (2) making inconsistent adjustments for variation in DNA length, which was apparently not even measured; (3) moving correlated points into a regression line; and (4) not letting anyone know. The rationale for (4) should be obvious; and if (1), (2) and (3) are science, I'm the Princess of Wales..."

Daniel Dennett states:
"Marks... has waged a startlingly vituperative campaign condemning Sibley and Ahlquist"

Reply by Jonathan Marks:
"I admit it. I'm strongly opposed to the falsification of data. For the primary literature, see:
Marks, J., Schmid, C. W., and Sarich, V. M. (1988) DNA hybridization as a guide to phylogeny: Relations of the Hominoidea. Journal of Human Evolution, 17:769-786. Reprinted in: The Human Evolution Source Book, ed. by R. L. Ciochon and J. G. Fleagle. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall (1993, Reprints of scientific papers)."

Works of Russell L. Ciochon:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=search&term=Ciochon+RL

http://www.uiowa.edu/~bioanth

Works of John G. Fleagle:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=search&term=Fleagle+JG

http://gibbon.anat.sunysb.edu/IDPAS/Fleagle.htm

Daniel Dennett states:
"The original findings of Sibley and Ahlquist have been roundly confirmed by more sensitive methods of analysis (theirs was a relatively crude technique, path-breaking at the time, but subsequently superseded by more powerful techniques)"

Reply by Jonathan Marks:
"This argument misses the entire role of replication in science -- it is simply a first-level filter for artifacts. Many things have been replicated but wrong, ranging from Piltdown Man (yes, there was more than one of them fabricated, and that's what convinced a lot of people) to polymerized water in the 1970s (different investigators getting the same artifact), and of course cold fusion. Good science is much more simple to define -- simply carrying out the research rigorously and honestly."
"What matters to me is simply figuring out what the nature of the genetic data bearing on this scientific problem is, and to represent it accurately. If this guy [Daniel Dennett] had spoken to me, that's what I would have told him."

Daniel Dennett states:
"His most recent attack on them, a review of some other books in American Scientist (Marks 1993b)"

Reply by Jonathan Marks:
"The review was of four books on scientific fraud (American Scientist 81:380, 1993). Gee, I wonder why they asked me, of all people, to review them... (After all, I'm really a molecular anthropologist.)"

Daniel Dennett states:
"Drew a chorus of condemnation from his fellow scientists"

Reply by Jonathan Marks:
"Actually, the chorus was carefully orchestrated [by Sibley], for the letters which appeared in the following issue were solicited. Sibley had issued an empty threat of litigation to the editors, and agreeing to publish the solicited [by Sibley] letters and curtailing my response was their way of placating him [Sibley]. My actual (fully referenced) response was distributed over email." To see it: http://personal.uncc.edu/jmarks/dnahyb/amsci.html

"Daniel Dennett's 1995 book, "Darwin's Dangerous Idea" gave [to] the concept ["the meme", as in "memetics"] a new life among cognitive scientists, and the acolytes are now publishing self-congratulatory e-journals and books." " 'Memes' were coined as elementary units of culture by Richard Dawkins, toward the end of "The Selfish Gene" (1976)... but the interest in them had appropriately fizzled..."

Marks, J. (2002) Review of Darwinizing Culture: The Status of Memetics as a Science, edited by Robert Aunger. American Anthropologist, 104:341-342.
http://personal.uncc.edu/jmarks/pubs/memerev.pdf

///////////////////////////

5-) Maryellen Ruvolo:

http://www.researchmatters.harvard.edu/people.php?people_id=372

http://www.the-scientist.com/yr2002/aug/research1_020819.html

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=search&term=Ruvolo+M

Ruvolo, Maryellen (1995) Seeing the forest through the trees: Replies to J. Marks; J. Rogers and A. G. Comuzzie; H. Green and P. Djian. American Journal of Physical Anthropology, 98:218-232.

Marks comments: "Three critical comments of the work of Maryellen Ruvolo on molecular evolution in the apes, arguing that her published interpretations of her own work, and of the extant literature, are extravagant." "Her response occupied more than twice as much space as the three criticisms combined, and again argues that... it doesn't matter if they falsified because they got the right answer... Vitually everything she says about the work is false, and easily demonstrated to be such. Here is a rebuttal." "Ruvolo's rebuttal... makes a number of false assertions concerning some fairly basic things like outgroup comparisons, and the interpretation of phylogenetic trees. Some of the most egregious misstatements, however, are about... DNA hybridization. Most of these points were made in my paper in the Am. J. Phys. Anth., 85:207 (1991), cited in the comments themselves, but not in Ruvolo's response."

Some works of Ruvolo's some other critics:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=search&term=Comuzzie+AG+Rogers+J

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=search&term=Comuzzie+AG

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=search&term=Rogers+J

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=search&term=Green+H+Djian+P

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=search&term=Green+H

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=search&term=Djian+P

Jonathan Marks explains: "Ruvolo asserts that after all is said and done, the infamous Sibley data actually do associate humans and chimpanzees, to the exclusion of gorillas. Here, she has greater confidence than do the authors themselves... for anyone to argue that these data actually do associate human and chimpanzee, they must accept the data alterations as valid. That is, in my opinion, a frightening prospect, with far-reaching implications for general scientific data analysis." "The pooled result that Ruvolo reports is consequently a simple artifact, and nothing more." "Ruvolo calls the subsequent Caccone-Powell DNA hybridization study "the most sophisticated". In fact the major claim from this study was not so much wrong as impossible... When Powell's Tms are compared to Sibley's unaltered Tms (finally given in the 1990 JME paper, p. 221) they do not in fact match at all. Matching altered and non-comparable numbers frankly requires far more than just technical sophistication." "Ruvolo claims that "the data quality are high" for the Powell corpus, but as has been noted since its publication in 1989, they did not publish any melting profiles, which was the basis of the original criticism of the Sibley work, and is the only basis on which one can actually judge the quality of the data. She further claims that "these data have been freely available on request from the authors," which is directly contrary to my experience. I asked Powell, in person and in writing, several times in 1989 and 1990 for a look at his melting curves or the data on which they were based, and never received any. Vince Sarich received three representative experiments, which he copied for me. They are in fact far cruder than the comparable DNA melting profiles from the Sibley series. They are not at all of high quality, and exactly how data of poorer quality can possibly provide more precise phylogenetic resolution is quite a mystery to me. Ruvolo provides no evidence to the contrary, nor has any such evidence ever seen the light of day." "Ruvolo's criteria for judging the Powell corpus are... the final numbers, rather than the basis on which each number was generated. Since each number in this work was generated from a DNA melting profile with the aid of a "correction" for DNA fragment length, it is possible to ask what effect this "correction" had on the resolution reported... the claimed match to the (published, altered, non-comparable) Sibley numbers... this "correction"... affect the result; not only that, but they determine the result." "Before "correction", there is no consistency to the numbers... after correction, the numbers are perfectly consistent, they now match the altered/published delta-T50H values of Sibley/Ahlquist... Ruvolo does not provide any evidence to support her contention that the length "correction" was not responsible for generating the results, but rather she cites only unpublished "work in preparation"."

J. Marks laments: "It is quite sad that these still have the appearance of being open issues. They should have been formally investigated, adjudicated, and settled years ago, having been discussed in the pages of Science (241:1598, 1988; 241:1756, 1988) and Scientific American (March 1989: 24). Informally, the work has largely been exorcised from the primary literature, and there are hardly any people even using the technique any more, since it appears capable of solving phylogenetic questions only when considerable liberties are taken with the data analysis. (With such liberties in data analysis, after all, any technique will work!) Powell himself quietly abandoned it a few years ago. Ruvolo is nearly alone in clinging to the work, loyal (if uncritical) of it to the end."

Pompously, in 1997 M. Ruvolo declared:

Ruvolo M. Molecular phylogeny of the hominoids: inferences from multiple independent DNA sequence data sets. Mol Biol Evol. 1997 Mar;14(3):248-65.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=9066793

"The implication of the multiple-locus test is that existing DNA sequence data sets provide overwhelming and sufficient support for a human-chimpanzee clade: no additional DNA data sets need to be generated for the purpose of estimating hominoid phylogeny. Because DNA hybridization evidence (Caccone and Powell 1989) also supports a Homo-Pan clade, the problem of hominoid phylogeny can be confidently considered solved."

The boasting of M. Ruvolo was again criticized by a different team, but this time inside a published article:

http://info.med.yale.edu/genetics/kkidd/370.pdf
Evolution of a HOXB6 intergenic region within the great apes and humans. Journal of Human Evolution (1999) 36, 687–703.
Amos Deinard & Kenneth Kidd. Departments of Anthropology and Genetics, Yale University, New Haven, CT 06520,

"...data has yet to be generated for these species, it may be premature to conclude..."

"Recently, however, Ruvolo (1997) has reached a contrary conclusion... several brief criticisms of her analysis and conclusion are warranted; the controversial nature of the DNA hybridization data has been thoroughly discussed elsewhere (Marks, 1993) and need not be reviewed here. The first criticism of Ruvolo’s analysis concerns the ability to precisely identify true synapomorphies among the great apes and humans... the probability of detecting a true synapomorphy (between chimpanzees and humans) is very small (Lanyon, 1988)...Similar predictions have been presented by Saitou & Nei (1986). Consequently, one can legitimately argue that the phylogeny of the African apes may not be resolvable..."

"A second criticism of Ruvolo’s analysis concerns the issue of homoplasy. First, it is worth noting that several studies cited by Ruvolo (1997) as supporting a Pan–Homo clade failed to even use the correct outgroup (e.g., using a macaque sequence rather than an orangutan sequence) in their sequence comparisons... such an approach...increases the possibility that homoplasy (between Gorilla and the distant outgroup) causes derived characters within Gorilla to be used as support of a Homo–Pan clade. Second, the effect of homoplasy may be especially exaggerated in cases of species being separated by short internodes followed by relatively longer periods of independent ancestry... Marks (1994) has pointed out, for example, that the acceptance of a Homo–Pan clade based on the mitochondrial data of Horai et al. (1992) forces one to accept 53% homoplasy among the characters, whereas by accepting a trichotomy (Homo–Pan–Gorilla), only 14% of the characters are homoplasies..."

"The third criticism directly concerns the DNA sequence data sets that Ruvolo (1997) used in her analysis. Of the ten published data sets Ruvolo (1997) cites as supporting a Homo–Pan clade, only two consist of data generated on more than a single individual gorilla and chimpanzee: the mitochondrial data (Ruvolo et al., 1991, 1994; Horai et al., 1995) and our previous HOXB6 data, which incidentally, we argued support a trichotomy (Ruano et al., 1992)... Consequently, one must question the overall significance of Ruvolo’s conclusion given that it is primarily based on the analysis of such limited data."

Conclusions from Abstract: "The most prudent conclusion that can be made from all available data, including morphological, karyotypic and genetic data..." Conclusions from paper: "Most importantly, however, the acceptance of some type of trichotomy acknowledges our inability to resolve the phylogenetic events among these species..."

Links related to these additional critics of the biased works of M. Ruvolo:

http://info.med.yale.edu/genetics/fac/KennethKidd.php

http://info.med.yale.edu/genetics/kkidd/contents.html

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=search&term=Deinard+A+Kidd+K

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=search&term=Kidd+KK

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=search&term=Deinard+AS

So, again, we can apply what Jonathan Marks concluded since long ago: "That she [M. Ruvolo] can make such egregious misstatements in print at this late date is not of great credit to anyone."

Here I include the character that suggested to the Sibley-Ahlquist pair to apply the R. Britten's evolutionary DNA-DNA hybridization in human, chimpanzee and gorilla, the husband of Maryellen Ruvolo:

6-) David Pilbeam

J. Marks declares: “Sibley and Ahlquist's work on bird phylogeny was poorly-understood, and not even terribly interesting, until David Pilbeam (then at Yale, now at Harvard) persuaded them to approach the problem of human-chimp-gorilla phylogeny.”

“Schmid and I then wrote a "cautionary" manuscript for the anthropological community, noting that there were many possible sources of error in this crude technique, it seemed unlikely that the technique as described could resolve such fine-scale branchings, and that the work was undocumented, and therefore skepticism was called for in judging it. We sent it to the Journal of Human Evolution (of which I was on the editorial board), and review was coordinated by Maryellen Ruvolo of Harvard (a supporter of Sibley's, and wife of David Pilbeam, who had suggested applying the technique to the primates in the first place). She received negative reviews from Roy Britten (Sibley's friend and inventor of the technique) and from Jon Ahlquist (!). Eric Delson, editor of the journal, was unsatisfied with the propriety of the reviews, and put me in touch with Britten. Britten felt the ms. should not be published because it was critical, but when I asked him whether anthropologists had the right to know that a widely-cited work was undocumentable, which he would certainly not stand for in his field of physical chemistry, he agreed they had the right to know, but still appeared unswayed.”

http://personal.uncc.edu/jmarks/dnahyb/dnahyb1.html

Works by Eric Delson:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=search&term=Delson+E

http://web.gc.cuny.edu/Anthropology/fac_delson.html

http://research.amnh.org/nycep/faculty/delson/delson.html

As previously stated by Jonathan Marks:

“As far as I know, the last active defenders of the DNA hybridization work in the anthropological community are David Pilbeam and Maryellen Ruvolo at Harvard. They are both heavily invested in it. Pilbeam recently wrote in a journal called Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution: "I do not discuss the Sibley et al. (1990) data set here, although I will do so elsewhere, except to note that it is of poorer quality than that of Caccone and Powell." Pilbeam, sadly, has never been able to evaluate this work critically, and of course was its earliest promoter in anthropology. I, for one, hope he doesn't make good on his threat to discuss it again elsewhere. Mercifully, thus far he hasn't.”

http://personal.uncc.edu/jmarks/dnahyb/Biblio.html

“Her [Maryellen Ruvolo’s] family life also has Harvard roots in the form of husband David Pilbeam, the Henry Ford II Professor of the Social Sciences.”

http://www.news.harvard.edu/gazette/1999/03.18/ruvolo.html

http://www.bayshorehsalumni.org/Inductees/2003/MRuvolo.pdf

http://www.fas.harvard.edu/~palanth/david.html

http://www.mnsu.edu/emuseum/information/biography/pqrst/pilbeam_david.html

Science B-27. Human Evolution,David Pilbeam, Daniel E. Lieberman, and Maryellen Ruvolo

http://www.fas.harvard.edu/~palanth/courses.html

Pilbeam D. Hominoid systematics: the soft evidence. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2000 Sep 26;97(20):10684-6.

http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/97/20/10684

There D. Pilbeam wrote: “… a close chimp-human relationship (surprising because of the marked phenotypic similarity of chimps and gorillas)… relationship was confirmed, after some debate, by DNA-DNA hybridization data showing a clear chimp-human relationship” (Caccone, A. & Powell, J. R. (1989) Evolution 43, 925-942).

My comment: again, Caccone-Powell work is quoted as “bona-fide” as late as 2000 by Pilbeam, even with all that had been stated before. Then David Pilbeam goes on to “cheerlead” the flawed, as showed before, work of his own wife:

“The accumulation of sequence data on a large number of genes, including the entire mitochondrion, has amply confirmed this result. As Ruvolo (Ruvolo, M. 1994. Am. J. Phys. Anthropol. 94, 89-114: Ruvolo, M. 1995. Am. J. Phys. Anthropol. 98, 218-232; Ruvolo, M. 1997. Mol. Biol. Evol. 14, 248-265) has noted these analyses have several important strengths. They are objective, in that different laboratories will generate the same sequence data from the same genes; they are readily analyzed objectively both cladistically and phenetically; genes on different chromosomes, or distant enough on the same chromosome to segregate independently will provide gene trees that are independent assays of evolutionary relationships (species trees); and well-understood genetic and molecular processes (ancestral polymorphism, gene conversion) exist to explain gene tree conflicts. Ruvolo's analysis (Ruvolo, M. 1997. Mol. Biol. Evol. 14, 248-265) of many independent genes demonstrates overwhelmingly that chimps and humans are closest relatives.”

[We have seen here again the “song” of the higher closeness between chimps and humans, and again her criticized work of 1994 on the COII gene of mitochondrial DNA, which shows an apparent human-chimp link and published in the AJPA, is mentioned ignoring any of the critical comments made by three independent research groups: J. Marks; J. Rogers and A. G. Comuzzie; H. Green and P. Djian (links to some of their publications in my previous posting), which argued that her published interpretations of her own work, and of the extant literature are extravagant: http://personal.uncc.edu/jmarks/dnahyb/Biblio.html ]

Before that time, D. Pilbeam had stated:

"I know that, at least in paleoanthropology, data are still so sparse that theory heavily influences interpretations. Theories have, in the past, clearly refelcted our current ideologies instead of the actual data."
(Dr. David Pilbeam (Physical Anthropologist, Yale University, USA), 'Rearranging our family tree'. Human Nature, June 1978, pg. 45)

'David Pilbeam [a well-known expert in human evolution] comments wryly, "If you brought in a smart scientist from another discipline and showed him the meagre evidence we've got he'd surely say, 'forget it: there isn't enough to go on'."
(Richard E. Leakey, The Making of Mankind, Michael Joseph Limited, London, 1981, p. 43).

http://www-acs.ucsd.edu/~idea/humanquotes.htm

These, and the final statements of D. Pibleam match the interesting and right observations of Jonathan Marks, who has demonstrated how evolutionary scientists twist the facts to reflect their own preconceived concepts: http://personal.uncc.edu/jmarks/pubs/main.html

And finally we will read something originally published in St. Louis MetroVoice, March 1995, Vol. 5, No. 3. Making Monkeys Out of Man, by David N. Menton, Ph.D., 1997:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2/4371gc8-28-2000.asp

In one of the most remarkably frank and candid assessments of the whole subject and methodology of paleoanthropology, Dr. David Pilbeam (professor of anthropology at Yale) suggested that:

"Perhaps generations of students of human evolution, including myself, have been flailing about in the dark; that our data base is too sparse, too slippery, for it to be able to mold our theories. Rather the theories are more statements about us and ideology than about the past. Paleoanthropology reveals more about how humans view themselves than it does about how humans came about. But that is heresy." (American Scientist, Vol. 66, p. 379, May/June 1978. David Pilbeam, "Book Review of Leakey's Origins" [also cited in Bird, 1:226]).

“Oh, that these "heretical" words were printed as a warning on every textbook, magazine, newspaper article and statue that presumes to deal with the bestial origin of man!”

With this installment, and based on the original writings of Jonathan Marks, we cover more or less the main individuals that originally promoted or effected the "cover-up" to support a wrongfully chimp-human "closeness":

7-) Roger Lewin

A prolific evolutionary "cheerleader" from "Science" Magazine.

J. Marks declares: "Roger Lewin of Science... wrote a double article at the end of 1988... using two of our figures without our permission. [Roger Lewin is] a Science journalist that sings "DNA hybridization's praises" [see for example]: Lewin, Roger (1984) DNA reveals surprises in human family tree. Science, 226:1179-1182.

Lewin, Roger (1988) DNA clock conflict continues. Science, 241:1756-1759.
J. Marks review: "While our two manuscripts were out for review, Lewin wrote up the controversy as news. He reports that a frightened post-doc named Fred Sheldon removed his name from the 1987 paper [Sibley CG, Ahlquist JE. DNA hybridization evidence of hominoid phylogeny: results from an expanded data set. J Mol Evol. 1987;26(1-2):99-121], and that although Sibley minimizes the number of experiments altered, Sheldon verifies it is about 40%. Lewin uses ad hominem counter-arguments, such as a callout from Roy Britten: "Those manuscripts are not scientific articles, they are weapons with political purposes." He illustrates the articles with figures from our paper without permission. Then he cites Caccone-Powell's unpublished work in support of Sibley-Ahlquist's undocumented work. Lewin provides the first forum for Sibley's defense: It was error, not fraud; the accusers are jerks; and it doesn't matter whether they falsified their data, because they got the right answer. Lewin's conclusion is classic: "There is no doubt that Sibley and Ahlquist were seriously in error in making substantial, unreported alterations to their data.... But the very combative and partisan tone with which the challenges have been made has not advanced Sarich and his colleagues' stated concern with scientific integrity." In other words, you should only accuse people of fraud nicely. (Remember, we still didn't know exactly what they had done [Sibley-Ahlquist]; we tried to discourage him [Roger Lewin] from writing the story until the papers were out; and we tried to keep the focus exclusively on the data.)"

http://personal.uncc.edu/jmarks/dnahyb/Biblio.html

Subject: Ayala Misquoted by Roger Lewin

The [Roger Lewin's] alleged quote from Dr Franciso Ayala:

"The paleontologists have convinced me small changes do not accumulate." as reported by Roger Lewin in his article "Evolutionary Theory Under Fire", Science Magazine, Volume 210, 21 November 1980, pp 883-887.
I have communicated with Dr Ayala on this "quote" and he has informed me as follows:

"I don't know how Roger Lewin could have gotten in his notes the quotation he attributes to me. I presented a paper/lecture and spoke at various times from the floor, but I could not possibly have said (at least as a complete sentence) what Lewin attributes to me. In fact, I don't know what it means. How could small changes NOT accumulate! In any case, virtually all my evolutionary research papers evidence that small (genetic) changes do accumulate."
In other words, Dr Ayala directly denies having said the words attributed to him by Lewin, and in fact expresses his completely opposite opinion.

May I suggest that in the interests of accuracy and intellectual honesty, you remove the offending quote from your web site, or at least add the rider that Dr Ayala denies the accuracy of the quote.

(Please note that Dr Ayala has given me permission to quote him, but not out of context and not using incomplete sentences. I request therefore that if you choose to use the above words from Dr Ayala in your clarification, that you use the entire text and do not paraphrase or condense in any way.)

Richard Arrowsmith
Adelaide, South Australia
July 26, 2001"

http://www.dimensional.com/~jambo/evolution/lewin.html

Response:

"I responded to Mr. Arrowsmith saying that I was happy to provide the correction to the alleged "quotation" by Roger Lewin of Francisco Ayala. In fact, I had puzzled over that sentence for some time, wondering what on earth Dr. Ayala meant by that! I am happy that the puzzle has been solved after 20 years, and I am grateful to Mr. Arrowsmith for delving into this matter and bringing it to my attention."

Carl Drews
July 28, 2001

http://www.theistic-evolution.com/lewin.html

Other deceiving and evolutionary "cheerleading" aspects of Roger Lewin:

http://all-garden-books.com/search_Roger_Lewin/searchBy_Author.html

http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/Author=Lewin,%20Roger/202-8196344-1097406

http://www-users.cs.york.ac.uk/~susan/bib/nf/l/lewin.htm

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=11663807

8-) Roy Britten

The inventor of the DNA-DNA Hybridization methodology.

J. Marks says: "The [DNA-DNA Hybridization] technique had been developed by biochemist Roy Britten in the 1960s as a way of analyzing the composition of the genome."

J. Marks adds: "Unbeknownst to any of us, Britten actually had some of Sibley's data, which he had been given prior to a talk on Sibley's behalf in a 1985 symposium on DNA hybridization at the American Museum of Natural History (Ruvolo also spoke on Sibley's behalf). It was this set of data that he asked Sibley for permission to send me, and I received out of the blue in December 1987. I copied the data and passed them on to Schmid, and to Vince Sarich, with whom I had previously discussed the matter. The problems became quickly apparent -- namely, that there was a far wider scatter of values than Sibley and Ahlquist had published, and this was just 1/8 of their data, and there was no human-chimp link. For example, Sibley and Ahlquist had published that the human-chimp experiments invariably ranged between delta-T = 1.2 to 2.3. But in our small sample we had experiments where the delta-T for human-chimp was calculable as -0.2 and 2.6, well outside the range they had reported. This also raised the issue of how Britten could possibly have failed to notice it -- unless he himself had never looked at it very carefully."

J. Marks declares: "...Wilson accepted the paper on the journal's behalf. A week later, in consultation with Charles Sibley and Roy Britten (also editorial board members) the editor-in-chief Emile Zuckerkandl un-accepted the paper. It was ultimately published in Cladistics (5:3, 1989)."

http://personal.uncc.edu/jmarks/DNAHYB/dnahyb1.html

Britten, Roy J. (1993) Reviewing misconduct? American Scientist, 81:408.
J. Marks wrote: "Britten's critical letter attempts to defend the data alterations. He tries to make it sound like they're okay in the passive voice... Sure glad he cleared that up... I wonder if he treats his own data that way?"

"Lewin uses ad hominem counter-arguments, such as a callout from Roy Britten: "Those manuscripts are not scientific articles, they are weapons with political purposes."

http://personal.uncc.edu/jmarks/dnahyb/Biblio.html

"Roy Britten's circumlocutions do not make the alterations any more legitimate [Britten, Roy J. (1993) Reviewing misconduct? American Scientist, 81:408. In page 407 the other defenders of Sibley's-Ahlquist misconduct are themselves: "Sibley, Charles G., and Ahlquist J" and also in page 408 Jeffrey R. Powell himself, who fabricated a paper, as we have seen before, together with Adalgisa Caccone, to support Sibley's-Ahlquist "results"]. Indeed, the reason the alterations came to light at all was that Britten, in possession of the only data provided to anyone by Sibley (who had steadfastly refused many requests by many scholars), passed them on without having noticed their problematic nature."

The recent works of Britten:

Britten RJ. 2002. Divergence between samples of chimpanzee and human DNA sequences is 5 %, counting indels. PNAS 99:13633-35.2002.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=12368483

"Tabulating both nucleotide substitutions and insertions/deletions, researchers have found the chimp and human genomes not to be over 98 % identical, but closer to 95 % identical."

Roy Britten, a biologist at the California Institute of Technology, recently reports:

"The basic question you would like to answer is what makes the chimp different from humans--what were the basic changes in the genome that mattered.

"A large number of these 5 percent of variations are relatively unimportant. But what matters, according to everyone's idea, is regulation of the genes, which is controlled by the genes that are actually expressed. So to address this issue, you first have to know how different the genomes are, and second, where the differences are located."

http://pr.caltech.edu/media/Press_Releases/PR12291.html

"We're not any more different than we were," says Britten. "But we see a bit more divergence than before because insertions and deletions are taken into account. It almost triples the difference." The result is only based on about one million DNA bases out of the three billion which make up the human and chimp genomes, says Britten. "It's just a glance," he says.

http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99992833

The National Academies
Advisers to the Nation on Science, Engineering, and Medicine
Membership Listing

Britten, Roy J.
California Institute of Technology
Elected to NAS: 1972
Scientific Discipline: Evolutionary Biology
Membership Type: Member
Research Interests: My research interests are in DNA sequence organization-eucaryotes, evolution of DNA, and control of gene expression

http://www4.nationalacademies.org/nas/naspub.nsf

Other aspects of Roy J. Britten:

http://www.dnaftb.org/dnaftb/31/bio

http://www.its.caltech.edu/~mirsky/rbritten.htm

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=12672966

9-) Fred Sheldon

J. Marks reports: "...a frightened post-doc named Fred Sheldon removed his name from the 1987 paper [Sibley CG, Ahlquist JE. DNA hybridization evidence of hominoid phylogeny: results from an expanded data set. J Mol Evol. 1987;26(1-2):99-121], and that although Sibley minimizes the number of experiments altered, Sheldon verifies it is about 40%."

"The alterations and their illegitimacy, however, were recognized by the fearful post-doc who removed his name from the work (Science, 241:1758, 1988); and by Vincent Sarich, Carl Schmid, and myself (J. Hum. Evol., 17:769, 1988; Cladistics, 5:3, 1989).

Catzeflis FM, Sheldon FH, Ahlquist JE, Sibley CG. DNA-DNA hybridization evidence of the rapid rate of muroid rodent DNA evolution. Mol Biol Evol. 1987 May;4(3):242-53.
[Institut des Sciences de L'Evolution, Universite Montpellier II, France.]
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=3447010

Other links to Frederick H. Sheldon:

http://www.biology.lsu.edu/faculty_listings/fac_pages/fsheldon.html

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=search&term=Sheldon+FH

I want to conclude with a pertinent declaration of Thomas Alva Edison:

“There are more frauds in modern science than anywhere else… Take a whole pile of them that I can name, and you will find uncertainty, if not imposition, on half of what they state as scientific truth. They have time and again set down experiments as done by them, curious, out-of-the-way experiments that they never did, and upon which they have founded so-called "scientific truths." I have been thrown off my track often by them, and for months at a time. Try the experiments yourself, and you will find the result altogether different… I tell you I’d rather know nothing about a thing in science, nine times out of ten, than what the books would tell me; for practical purposes, for applied science, the best science, the only science, I’d rather take the thing up and go through with it myself, I’d find out more about it than anyone could tell me, and I’d be sure of what I know. That’s the thing. "Professor" this or that will controvert you out of the books that it can’t be so, though you have it right in the hollow of your hand all the time, and could break his spectacles with it!” [excerpt from an article of TA Edison in the periodical "Suggestive Therapeutics."]

Quoted by: Bullinger, E. W., “Science falsely so-called”, Things to Come, October 1901, 8(4):39-40.

What will the scientists say to this testimony from such an expert? And what will the many who have been accustomed to put so much faith in science say?

Very much of what is called "science" is nothing more than hypothesis; or at best, a mixture of knowledge and hypothesis, which entirely vitiates it. Science is very often only what men "think," and not what they really know.

Concluding, we read in: Bullinger, E. W. “Signs of the Times: Science so-called”, Things to Come, October 1913, 19(10):118-119:

“The “assured” results of yesterday are overthrown by the investigators of today. But, God, “Thy Word is Truth,” and shall stand for ever.”

Now, I have more or less answered "Nobody's" question related to the preposterous origin of the supposed ~98 % genetic similarity on the chimp-human relationship in light of the recent findings that show more than 83% differences in their genes, I proceed to re-quote statements that others said.

Davison wrote:

"Selection can produce substantial changes in the expression of the genetic potential," "in nature, sexual reproduction seems incapable of proceeding beyond the subspecies. I am unaware of a single instance of the production of a new species through the known agency of sexual reproduction."

"Sexual reproduction has one great advantage in its capacity to produce virtually unlimited variation within a narrow range. The sexual mode then could be very useful in adapting the organism to minor environmental changes."

"Sexual reproduction is incapable of producing progressive evolutionary change."

"Sexual reproduction tends to prevent rather than promote chromosome restructuring."

http://www.uvm.edu/~jdavison/dpaper.html

My comment re-quoted: Don’t "deliberately confound "varieties" with "species". "

Even the "hyperevolutionist" Roger Lewin wrote:

"There is no doubt that Sibley and Ahlquist were seriously in error in making substantial, unreported alterations to their data"

Medline and Pubmed, from the NLM, National Institutes of Health quote Davison's "Rivista" articles:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=search&term=Davison+JA+Riv+Biol.

And those are just some of JA Davison's many publications since 1952, which include his publications in: Science, Journal of Heredity, Journal of General Physiology, etc.:

http://www.uvm.edu/~jdavison/jad-cv.html

I don't endorse JA Davison's "semi-meiotic hypothesis", but I am thankful with him for showing me the linked and stated quotations.

"Species-specific" Molecules are also present in a 'Family' of organisms with high similarities but absent in others."

Asmy previous comment is specific regarding 1Co 15:39, where:

"The sharp difference is emphasized between feathers, scales, fur, and skin."

An up-to-date finding by the full comparison of chimp Chr. 22 with human declares "Sakaki said their analysis found about 68,000 insertions or deletions. "That is almost one insertion/deletion every 470 bases," he said."

http://www.biomedcentral.com/news/20040527/01

Ansai affirms:

"...our perceived sequence divergence of only 1% between these two species appears to be erroneous"

http://genomebiology.com/researchnews/default.asp?arx_id=gb-spotlight-20030626-01

Jonathan Marks declared: "Some of the most egregious misstatements [done by Maryellen Ruvolo, wife of David Pibleam, last defenders of the "interspecies evolutionist DNA-DNA Hybridization methodology" and its results], however, are about that horse I thought was dead, DNA hybridization. Rather than go another round in the AJPA, I'll correct the record here for any interested readers."

And we have seen before that as late as in 2000 David Pibleam clings as "factual" on the DNA-Hybridization "data" provided by Caccone and Powell in Evolution, 43:925-942, 1989 (not even quoted by PubMed).

http://personal.uncc.edu/jmarks/dnahyb/Biblio.html

Sibley's conclusions have Absolutely NOT been vindicated by direct DNA-DNA sequence comparisons:

"Early molecular comparisons between humans and chimpanzees suggested that the species are very similar to each other at the nucleotide sequence level—a difference of between 1.23% and 5%, Sakaki said. The results reported this week showed that "83% of the genes have changed between the human and the chimpanzee—only 17% are identical—so that means that the impression that comes from the 1.2% [sequence] difference is [misleading]. In the case of protein structures, it has a big effect," Sakaki said."

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=15164055

http://genomebiology.com/researchnews/default.asp?arx_id=gb-spotlight-20040528-01

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=12799463

http://genomebiology.com/researchnews/default.asp?arx_id=gb-spotlight-20030626-01

Here there, even the 5% estimate given by Roy Britten (see above) is taken as inaccurate by Sakaki.

Next, more links and references, to be up-to-date on this topic (free access, full texts). Check out the double talk on how some news agencies present the same facts (as in Reuters):

Chimp chromosome creates puzzles
First sequence is unexpectedly different from human equivalent.
Nature Science Update 27 May 2004
Laura Nelson
http://www.nature.com/nsu/040524/040524-8.html
"What is the difference between a chimp and a human? There could be a lot more to the answer than scientists thought, according to the first accurate DNA sequence of a chimp chromosome."
Thousands of chimp genes could significantly differ from those in humans. [© Alamy.com] (Picture)
"However, the researchers were in for a surprise. Because chimps and humans appear broadly similar, some have assumed that most of the differences would occur in the large regions of DNA that do not appear to have any obvious function. But that was not the case. The researchers report in Nature that many of the differences were within genes, the regions of DNA that code for proteins. 83% of the 231 genes compared had differences that affected the amino acid sequence of the protein they encoded. And 20% showed "significant structural changes". "
"...says Taylor. "But we have seen a much higher percentage of change than people speculated". "
"20% of the genes showed significant differences in their pattern of activity."
"Chromosome 22 makes up only 1% of the genome, so in total there could be thousands of genes that significantly differ between humans and chimps, says Jean Weissenbach from France's National Sequencing Centre in Evry. This could make it much harder than scientists had hoped to find the key changes that made us human."
" "We have to work out which proteins have a functional impact," says Taylor. "
"The researchers have already identified two genes called NCAM2 and GRIK1, the human versions of which contain large sections that are missing in the chimp. Both genes are known to be involved in neural function."

Nature 429, 353 - 355 (27 May 2004); doi:10.1038/429353a
Genome sequencing: Differences with the relatives
Jean Weissenbach
Genoscope, 91000 Evry, France.
http://www.nature.com/cgi-taf/DynaPage.taf?file=/nature/journal/v429/n6990/full/429353a_r.html&filetype=&dynoptions=
"There are good reasons to continue the endeavour to accumulate genome sequence data from the passengers of Noah's Ark."
"...the frequency and size of the indels are more of a surprise. Although most of the indels are less than 30 nucleotides long, some attain sizes of up to 54,000 nucleotides. Those of about 300 nucleotides or more frequently involve transposable elements — DNA sequences that multiply and insert new copies of themselves throughout a genome."
"Given the broad similarities between chimps and humans, many researchers thought that changes that alter amino-acid sequences would not be very frequent. Surprisingly, however, the consortium found that sequence differences in the protein-coding regions of genes are not a great deal less common than in non-coding genomic regions."
"The consortium could not resist making preliminary studies of the expression of the genes on human chromosome 21 and chimp chromosome 22 as well. Their analyses indicate that — looking at just two tissues — about 20% of these genes show significant variations in their expression."
http://www.nature.com/doifinder/10.1038/429353a

http://www.nature.com/cgi-taf/DynaPage.taf?file=/nature/journal/v429/n6990/full/429353a_fs.html

Nature 429, 382 - 388 (27 May 2004); doi:10.1038/nature02564
DNA sequence and comparative analysis of chimpanzee chromosome 22.
The International Chimpanzee Chromosome 22 Consortium.
http://www.nature.com/cgi-taf/DynaPage.taf?file=/nature/journal/v429/n6990/full/nature02564_r.html&filetype=&dynoptions=
"By comparing the whole sequence with the human counterpart, chromosome 21, we found that 1.44% of the chromosome consists of single-base substitutions in addition to nearly 68,000 insertions or deletions. These differences are sufficient to generate changes in most of the proteins. Indeed, 83% of the 231 coding sequences, including functionally important genes, show differences at the amino acid sequence level... and their biological consequences seem more complex than originally hypothesized."
http://www.nature.com/doifinder/10.1038/nature02564

http://www.nature.com/cgi-taf/DynaPage.taf?file=/nature/journal/v429/n6990/full/nature02564_fs.html

http://www.nature.com/nature/focus/chimpgenome

Some Other Links:

Big Genetic Gap Lies Between Chimpanzee, Human Being
By Kim Tae-gyu
Staff Reporter
The Korea Times
http://times.hankooki.com/lpage/nation/200405/kt2004052717573544430.htm
"Contrary to widespread belief, the gap between chimpanzees and humans is extremely big, according to a study by an international research consortium."
" ``By comparing the whole sequence of the chimpanzee chromosome 22 with the human counterpart, chromosome 21, we found 83 percent of chimpanzee coding sequences differ from that of man,'' said Park Hong-seog, who headed Korean researchers in the consortium."
"This runs counter to the consortium's previous announcement in January 2002 that genome sequencing of humans and chimpanzees correspond 98.77 percent."
" ``Back in 2002, we concluded a high homology exists between humans and chimpanzees through an analysis of genome sequencing. But studies of specific genes tell us a different story,'' Park said."

Study shows chimps are less human
www.chinaview.cn 2004-05-27 20:47:10
Shanghai, May 27 (Xinhuanet)
http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2004-05/27/content_1494504.htm
"There are more differences between a chimpanzee and a human being than once believed, according to a new genetic study."
"They reported in Nature that many of the differences were within genes, the regions of DNA that code for proteins: 83 percent of the 231 genes compared had differences that affected the amino acid sequence of the protein they encoded, and 47 showed "significant structural changes". "
"According to the report, chromosome 22 makes up only one percent of the genome, so in total there could be thousands of genes that significantly differ between humans and chimps..."
"They found differences between chimp and human immune system genes, for instance, and molecules involved in early brain development."
"Besides, significant genetic differences in the brains and livers of the two species, for example, may help explain why chimps rarely have symptoms of complicated human diseases, such as AIDS, malaria and hepatitis C, even after they are infected with the same viruses."

When "small" means "large"
"...the line of reasoning that the Reuters' headline writer had trouble with -- or maybe (s)he never got past the first three words of Maggie Fox's story ("Tiny genetic changes..."). Other headline writers did better, though: the Korea Times has "Big Genetic Gap between Chimpanzee, Human Being"; Xinhua has "Genetic study shows chimps are less human"; and so on."
http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/languagelog/archives/000967.html

Small Changes Separate Man from Ape, Study Shows
Wed May 26, 2004 01:01 PM ET.
Reuters.
By Maggie Fox, Health and Science Correspondent
" "Clearly, the genomic differences between humans and chimps are much more complicated than conventional wisdom has portrayed," Asao Fujiyama of the RIKEN Genomic Sciences Center in Yokohama, Japan"
"These differences are sufficient to generate changes in most of the proteins: indeed, 83 percent of the 231 coding sequences, including functionally important genes, show differences at the amino-acid sequence level," they added.
While there may be no more than about 30,000 to 40,000 human genes, there are more than 250,000 different proteins. [In page 2]
Fujiyama's team found differences that may be more important than the single-letter changes.
BIG PROTEIN DIFFERENCES Continued ... (at the end of page 1)
http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=scienceNews&storyID=5264726

The same story of Maggie Fox with a different title:
"Human, chimp DNA changes mapped"
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/5067906

El cromosoma 22 del chimpancé ha sido secuenciado...
...y comparado con su homólogo el cromosoma 21 humano.
"Un 83% de las secuencias codificantes, incluyendo genes importantes, muestran diferencias capaces de producir versiones diferentes de la mayoría de las proteínas. Estas diferencias son inesperadas."
http://paleofreak.blogalia.com/historias/19007

http://www.genomenewsnetwork.org/categories/index/genome/animals/primate.php

http://chr21.molgen.mpg.de
---------------------

“Species are fixed with limits beyond which they cannot change.”
Gregor Mendel. 1865. Experiments in plant hybridization. Verhandlungen des naturforschenden Vereines in Brünn, Bd. IV für das Jahr 1865, Abhandlungen, 3-47 (Mendel's conclusions, penultimate paragraph).
http://www.mendelweb.org/Mendel.html

Statement by Thomas Hunt Morgan, A. H. Sturtevant, H. J. Muller, and C. B. Bridges (1915):
"The fact that more than one change may take place in the material at a given locus must not be taken to mean that the material is undergoing continuous fluctuating variability…" "…the change can not properly be said to be fluctuating, but is of a fixed nature." (pp. 170-171. The Mechanism of Mendelian Heredity. 1915. NY. Henry Holt and Co.)
http://www.esp.org/books/morgan/mechanism/facsimile

Salvador T. Cordova liked the idea of biological software. Software needs a Turing Machine to run on. So as a complement to Biological Software we have Biological Hardware.

My first attempt on linking, not only the biological software but also the astronomical one, to link not only the programming of life but also the whole programming of the universe is posted in the next link:

http://www.geocities.com/plin9k/genesis6days.htm

(I took the freedom to add there Cordova's quote by Kelvin)

Located inside my root related Website:

http://www.geocities.com/plin9k

(In which I added my "Applying Mendel's Laws to Generate Biodiversity")

Site that also indexes other studies to think about:

http://www.geocities.com/plin9k/indexbr.htm

(where specially notable are the Neanderthal insights given by E. W. Bullinger)

For example, an extra note taken from there: The interval of destruction discovered by scientists ("the great impact", "the great dying" or, "the bombing of the earth by many enormous ice-filled comets") can be seen in "Without Form and Void" done by Arthur C. Custance:

http://www.custance.org/Library/WFANDV/index.html

I am sure that you, dear reader, will make more precise and enrich those studies by "fine-tuning" them (with the guidance from on high).

And a final quest:

I perceive that water altered the composition of every body submerged into it. I want to learn how water was and is altering the dating clocks, as to present in disparity, as if happened on different times, two events that presumably where contemporaneous: the Yucatan and the Australia craters. I perceive that two different ice-filled comets caused both, bombarding the earth at the same time. And also how accurate, do you think, are other dating chronological corrections? For example the next one:

http://personales.com/mexico/guadalajara/RV1960/c14.htm

I have just discovered that on July 29, 2002 Mark Hartwig wrote in the next article:

Wells Vindicated on Multiple Counts.
http://www.arn.org/docs/wedge/mh_wedge_020729.htm
There Hartwig reports how biologist Jonathan Wells, a Berkeley's Ph.D., author of "Icons of Evolution" has been vindicated on multiple counts.

Jonathan Wells' book is: "Icons of Evolution: Science or Myth? 2000, Regnery Publishing, paperback, 362 pp.

http://www.arn.org/arnproducts/books/b038.htm

A book in which:

"Jonathan Wells has news for you. Everything you were taught about evolution was wrong. Every iconic image--from the "primordial soup" to the changing colors of moths in industrial England, to the ascent of man--is, says Dr. Wells, either inconclusive, incomplete, or even outright fraudulent. Wells commands readers to sharpen their critical thinking and challenge the integrity of scientific thought, while arguing for greater honesty..." "Wells argues that the most famous case studies for evolution "no longer convey the spirit or substance of science, but have become instruments of indoctrination--the icons of evolution." These icons deserve to be toppled for the falsehoods that they are."

On 2002 Mark Hartwig declared: "Wells' book stirred up enormous controversy by pointing out that some of the most powerful "evidence" for evolution cited by textbooks is either misleading, false or-in at least one case-fraudulent. Examples include Haeckel's embryos, peppered moths, Darwin's finches, Miller's origin-of-life experiment, and others."

"...textbook authors are apparently dropping some of the icons Wells criticized. Wells himself reports that the high school textbook, Biology, by Kenneth R. Miller and Joseph Levine, has dropped the peppered moth icon."

"Additionally, biologist David Dewitt, of Liberty University, reports that the newest edition of the college textbook, Molecular Biology of the Cell, has dumped at least two icons: Haeckel's embryos and Miller's origin-of-life experiment."

[with full links to http://www.amazon.com provided in Hartwig's original article]

To see the version of 1994 that still includes both "idols" of evolution:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/bv.fcgi?call=bv.View..ShowTOC&rid=cell.TOC&depth=2

Within the full free books online section of the NIH (to be up-to-date in molecules, however, separate "the wheat from the tares"):

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=Books

Hartwig further states: "The omission in the college text is particularly significant because the lead author, Bruce Alberts, is not only a noted cell biologist but also president of the National Academy of Sciences. Alberts' status may put strong pressure on other textbook authors to follow suit."

"Hopefully, there will be more changes to come."

"If the Darwinists stop using all of their icons and begin to take a hard look at their 'evidence,' " he said, "the end of Darwinism will be in sight."

The double talk on evolution is promoted not only by the media (as we saw it as done by Reuters in one of my previous postings), but also by a "split-personality" seen in some of the "high-profile" guys.

See for example, after reading the previous statements:
http://www.arn.org/docs/wedge/mh_wedge_021003.htm

Where Mark Hartwig declares about the media and about evolutionists: "Although their own biases and sloppy reporting provided ample kindling for the fire, the flame was fanned and fed by high-profile Darwinists. Wrapping themselves in the mantle of objective science..."

Then, mentioned again is one of the most dogmatic promoters of evolution, Eugenie C. Scott of the Oakland-based National Center for Science Education (NCSE), an organization dedicated to defending the teaching of evolution in the public schools, and the National Academy of Sciences president Bruce Alberts, who in his letter to National Academy of Science members in Georgia, accused the Cobb board members [from the Cobb County School District] of participating in an anti-evolutionary conspiracy. The Cobb board members declared:

"...the Cobb County School District believes that discussion of disputed views of academic subjects is a necessary element of providing a balanced education, including the study of the origin of the species."

"The purpose of this policy is to foster critical thinking among students, to allow academic freedom consistent with legal requirements..."

However, opposed to that, Bruce Alberts declared, in his letter Sept. 18, 2002:

http://www4.nationalacademies.org/nas/nashome.nsf/urllinks/NAS-5E4MM4?OpenDocument

“These kinds of actions by members of the school board are classic approaches to introduce Intelligent Design theory into the biology curriculum,” Alberts said. “Intelligent Design is a recent permutation of "creation science" that is being touted as an alternative to the modern theory of evolution. It is argued that molecular biology has now revealed that cells are formed from such a complex network of proteins and protein-generating processes that they could not have evolved without the intervention of a special outside intelligence.” "School board members and the public are bombarded with arguments that including more than one approach to origins of life in science curricula promotes fairness, academic freedom, and intellectual openness."

"Given the organizational skills, experience, and political astuteness of those who promote creationism and Intelligent Design, I would suggest that you NOT agree to enter direct debates with the proponents if you have not been involved with such activities before."

"The process of confronting challenges to the teaching of evolution is not likely to end soon."

Then Bruce Alberts goes on to promote two evolutionary doctrinal catechisms:

Teaching About Evolution and the Nature of Science (1998), co-authored by Bruce Alberts and Eugenie Scott, et al.

And

Science and Creationism: A View from the National Academy of Sciences, 2nd ed. (1999), co-authored by Eugenie Scott, et al.

Hartwig concluded:
"Accusations like this have been repeated so often by high-profile folks that the reporters probably felt safe following their lead. That trust was misplaced, and the reporters got burned because of it. No matter what their bias, I suspect they will be a bit more sparing with their trust the next time. At least, I hope so."

The last update next:

"The Council of the National Academy of Sciences has unanimously approved the nomination of Ralph J. Cicerone [an atmospheric chemist from the MIT and U. of Illinois], chancellor of the University of California's Irvine campus, for election as president of the Academy, to succeed Bruce Alberts when his second six-year term as NAS president ends on July 1, 2005." "A Nominating Committee of 28 Academy members, chaired by Peter H. Raven, director of the Missouri Botanical Garden, selected Cicerone after a six-month search."

Ralph J. Cicerone has worked on the plasma physics of Earth's ionosphere, the chemistry of the ozone layer, radiative forcing of climate change, and sources of atmospheric methane, nitrous oxide and of methyl halide gases and in 2001 chaired the landmark study Climate Change Science: An Analysis of Some Key Questions, conducted at the request of the White House.
http://www4.nationalacademies.org/news.nsf/isbn/06152004?OpenDocument

As we have seen before, Peter H Raven in 1993 wrote to Jonathan Marks:

"...the National Academy of Sciences would not undertake to conduct a formal review of the activities of its members as a matter of general principle, lacking the judicial machinery to do so properly."

One of the reforms that the NAS needs is precisely to develop a "judicial machinery to conduct a formal review of the activities of its members."

Because that lacking, promotes in the members of the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) to start acting or to keep acting dishonestly with a "legal" backing up and cover up by the NAS.

Today, Peter H. Raven, Director of the Missouri Botanical Garden, proudly announces that he is "a member of the President's Committee of Advisors on Science and Technology, which is the highest level, private sector advisory group guiding the President on science and technology matters."
http://flora.huh.harvard.edu/china/editors/raven.htm

With such power in the hands of Peter H. Raven, here in the 2004, has already a "judicial machinery to conduct a formal review of the activities of its [NAS] members" been implemented?

To keep a balance and to don't reach again those fanatic evolutionist heights promoting the NAS evolutionist diatribes; like how Bruce Alberts, the present president of the NAS has blindly promoted them, or like the NAS member David Pilbeam and his uncritical published support of the biased 99% ape-works of his wife M. Ruvolo and of Caccone and Powell, and the same can be said of other NAS members as of Roy J. Britten and Jared Diamond, or of the Eric S. Lander's blind support of the evolutionary thinking, or of the NAS awarding of the "Daniel Giraud Elliot Medal " to Jon Edward Ahlquist and Charles Gald Sibley in 1988 "For their application of DNA hybridization techniques to bird classification which revolutionized taxonomy by showing at last how to distinguish evolutionary relationships from convergent similarities." Works that we have seen that were biased and "improperly" done:

In http://www4.nas.edu/nas/nashome.nsf search for Sibley Charles G

Hopefully Ralph J. Cicerone, or whoever ends heading the NAS, will be able to change and to revolutionize all of that! That's my prayer!

I have enjoyed very much Cordova's postings, i.e. at:

http://www.arn.org/ubb/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=13;t=001286

Some excerpts:

Proverbs 25:2 (Salvador's paraphrase):

"It is the glory of the Intelligent Designer to conceal a matter; to search out a matter is the glory of scientists and engineers."

Salvador says:
"Gödel... showed that faith is the foundation from which knowledge is made possible..."

"In the book Mere Creation (edited by William Dembski), David Berlinski, Princeton Mathematician, extends Godel's observation."

In the chapter, "Gödel's Question", Berlinski quotes Godel:

"The formation within geological time of a human body by the laws of physics (or any other laws of similar nature), starting from a random distribution of elementary particles and the field, is as unlikely as the separation by chance of the atmosphere into it's components."

[Kurt Gödel to the logician Hao Wang]

The eminent particle physcist John Polkinhorne writes:

"Our concern is with the search for truth. A religious belief can do all sorts of things for us. It can sustain us in life and in the approach of death, it can add meaning when there is none to be found, but it cannot do these things with integrity unless it is founded on the truth..... God is known because he has chosen to make himself known, through gracious disclosure."

His beliefs are summarized in the book "Faith of a Physicist."

http://www.starcourse.org/jcp/qanda.html

http://yalepress.yale.edu/YupBooks/viewbook.asp?isbn=0300098553

Salvador's comment: "Polkinhorne arrived at his views because of the evidence, not in spite of it."

Then, excerpts from:

Two operative concepts for the post-genomic era: the "mémoire vive" of the cell and a molecular algebra. Simone Bentolila
University Marne la Vallée -Cité Descartes.

"We are attempting to learn the underlying language for this program, including syntax, semantics and alphabet. This molecular algebra was first developed to describe the series of operations: "Biological Binding Operators" (Bentolila 1996)."

"Since the discovery of DNA and the genetic code and the identification of a "genetic program" of species, the questions remain: Where is the program? Is DNA the program or the data? What is the engine? Are proteins only the data of the program, or are they the elements of the machine itself? H. Atlan considers the classical metaphor of the genetic program (Atlan 90, 98)."

http://conferences.computer.org/bioinformatics/CSB2003/PDF/reg_pprs/009-CSB03-Bentolila.ps.pdf

Salvador's declaration: "Biology is exceptional in that it generates not only self-replicating software but self-replicating hardware!!!!!"

Salvador also states: "Ultimately, we are only able to know anything by having a small seed faith in something. This faith is as elementary as a little child believing he exists and that he must put his faith and trust someone to provide for him....."

I think that those in official science need to change things to don't be biased towards wrong evolutionary hypotheses and assumptions (i.e., check next).

Complex 'human-made' "biological software" (it did not appeared spontaneously) to understand the even more complex and precise 'God-made' and real "Biological Software" (that neither appeared spontaneously):

http://bioweb.pasteur.fr/seqanal/soft-pasteur.html

http://bioweb.pasteur.fr/intro-uk.html

http://www.biosis.org/free_resources/reviews/software.html

http://www.genet.sickkids.on.ca/bioinfo_resources/software.html

http://www.sciencekomm.at/home/lists/biosoftware.html

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?CMD=pubmed&cmd=search&term=biological+software

Articles using the word "reprogramming" in PubMed:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?CMD=pubmed&cmd=search&term=reprogramming

Articles using the word "programming" in PubMed:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?CMD=pubmed&cmd=search&term=programming

Articles using the words "genetic program" in PubMed:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?CMD=pubmed&cmd=search&term="genetic+program"

[Note: Select Limits on Title to restrict the search]

"Satsukikun" has also pointed out to a very interesting Website. From there, I have found further the next very interesting information and observations, first regarding the fall of the false evolutionary "icon" of the ~98 % similarity between chimps and humans:

"[The journal] Nature... states, "Thousands of chimp genes could significantly differ from those in humans," and, "Chimp chromosome creates puzzles; First sequence is unexpectedly different from human equivalent." (The same issue of Nature also contains the first detailed analyses of human chromosomes 9 and 10.)" "Some of the 300-nucleotide sections could be explained as transposable elements, particularly Alu repeats, which seem to have occurred more often in humans."

"Even if the major physical, physiological and behavioural differences between the two species do not result simply from an accumulation of many small alterations, the challenge to find the most crucial changes is still ahead." Maybe his whimsical opening sentence has some prescient overtones: "There are good reasons to continue the endeavour to accumulate genome sequence data from the passengers of Noah's Ark."

http://www.nature.com/nsu/040524/040524-8.html

"Did you catch that? Weissenbach just said, "Even if the major physical, physiological and behavioural differences between the two species do not result simply from an accumulation of many small alterations..." - that indirectly but clearly says they don't. Now what, do you recall, did Charlie [Charles Darwin] propose as a test to confirm or falsify his theory? "If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down." Thank you, Charlie! The implosion was very entertaining. (If you think this will make evolutionists pack up and go home, you underestimate the power of the Darwin Party to change the rules.)"

"Creationists have always expected similarities as evidence of common design, and evolutionists have desperately longed for empirical evidence of common descent... Now that Darwinism has been falsified [that is, "to show to be false"] (if we can connect Weissenbach's comment to Darwin's test literally), there are still good reasons to gather information from the passengers of Noah's Ark."

Comment Source: http://creationsafaris.com/crev0504.htm#earlyman93 (slow downloads, long files, which are an excellent source of sound knowledge.)

"One defining human trait that chimpanzees lack is language. Although some captive chimpanzees and bonobos have been laboriously taught to use sign-language or communicate using icons on a keyboard, it seems that their communicative abilities in the wild fall far short of what we do with language, and so this chimpanzee-human difference remains profound." [Linda Vigilant, "Chimps," Current Biology, Vol 14, R369-R371, 25 May 2004.]

http://www.current-biology.com

"Language... truly is a "profound" difference, with no parallel in the animal world. But what is language without cognition, and what is cognition without the ability to think in abstract thoughts? ...recognize many other human distinctives, such as conscience, bipedalism, naked skin and enhanced touch, blushing, laughter, the moral sense, art, music and religion... Understood... as the handwork of a Designer who wants to be known by creatures made in His image, [humans] make possible a unique realm of communication with one another and with our Maker that no animal can share. Chimps have nostrils, but what makes us distinctively human is that our Creator breathed into our common (human) ancestor's biological nostrils the breath of life, and man became a Psychozoa, a living soul (Gen. 2:7). Yes, we deserve a kingdom of our own, but what's a kingdom without a King? Read the following passages with this view of man in mind... 1 John [Chapters] 1-2. They express issues and ideas no chimp will ever comprehend."

"It's time to lay to rest once for all this mythoid that humans are 98.5% similar to apes. It's a prime example of the misuse of statistics and the use of card stacking. Some gullible souls swallowed this bogus statistic and reasoned that chimpanzees should have the same civil rights as human children; others took it and decided humans should be lumped into the same genus with Bonzo. Good grief. Now at last the truth is coming to light."

Source: http://creationsafaris.com/crev0504.htm#earlyman94

Science made... "Aesop":

“The Chimpanzee Collaboratory says chimpanzees are so close to humans - sharing 98.7% of our genetic make-up - that they deserve to get the same kind of legal representation as children.”

http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/sci/tech/newsid_1952000/1952902.stm

"Evolutionists are driven by the desire to show there is no essential difference between me and thee and the chimpanzee. The genetic similarity of 98.7% is an oft-quoted piece of... misinformation [!]. We don’t mind if apes get legal representation, so long as they hire their own lawyers from within their own species and pay for them out of their own banana banks. We’ll even grant them the right of a peel, so long as they leave it on the floor in the path of an animal rights activist."

http://creationsafaris.com/crev0502.htm#earlyman39

"The authors’ disclaimer [from the article: Enard et al., Intra- and Interspecific Variation in Primate Gene Expression Patterns, Science 2002 296: 340-343] about the metric used ["...the extent of the acceleration is highly dependent on the metric used.”"] means that you can pick and choose the data that support your conclusion. It also means that comparative gene studies have little value in constructing evolutionary family trees, because a simple gene count or comparison won’t necessarily tell you which genes get expressed."

"This paper cites the oft-quoted statistic that human and ape DNA is 98.7% identical, a doubtful measure since ape genomes have not been completely mapped yet... Regardless, this paper shows that by selecting the metric you can spin the story either way. Dr. Gary Parker likes to quip that a 2% difference can mean a lot; both clouds and watermelons are 98% water."

http://creationsafaris.com/crev0402.htm#darwin109

"Human-Ape Differences Grow Wider (10/25/2002). Elisabeth Pennisi writes in the Oct. 25 issue of Science about two California teams that independently showed that humans and chimpanzees are genetically further apart than previously believed".

"For almost 30 years, researchers have asserted that the DNA of humans and chimps is at least 98.5% identical. Now research reported here last week at the American Society for Human Genetics meeting suggests that the two primate genomes might not be quite as similar after all. A closer look has uncovered nips and tucks in homologous sections of DNA that weren’t noticed in previous studies."

"Pennisi says that neither team would commit to a new value for the difference, but “both agree that the previously accepted 98.5% mark is too high.” "

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/298/5594/719b

"Thumb’s Second Postulate: ...an easily-understood, workable falsehood is more useful than a highly complex, incomprehensible truth. Useful to whom? A propagandist. We have heard evolutionists for years using this 98.5% figure as proof that humans are almost identical to apes, the implication being we are closely evolved cousins. How do we undo 30 years of “useful” damage?"

http://creationsafaris.com/crev1002.htm#mammal41

"Whoops, We Were Wrong: Human-Ape Difference Just Tripled (09/23/2002). How many times have you heard that human and chimpanzee DNA differs by only 2% or even 1.5%? That estimate, it turns out, was based on measuring the temperature at which matching DNA of two species comes apart. New Scientist now reports that the developer of that technique, Roy Britten of Caltech, had second thoughts about the oft-quoted figure, and checked it out with new methods, now that the chimpanzee genome has been published... it is still a long way off before we will understand what other epigenetic factors make us different, such as gene expression... Britten concludes his paper: “One interesting observation is that the sequence divergence between chimp and human is quite large, in excess of 20% for a few regions. Some of the larger gaps are broken by regions within them that align with appropriate segments of the other species’ DNA sequence but only have distant similarity. These observations suggest that complex processes, presumably involving repeated sequences and possible conversion events, may occur that will require detailed study to understand.” "

http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/abstract/172510699v1

"Human-chimp DNA difference trebled. By Andy Coghlan (22:00 23 September 02). We are more unique than previously thought, according to new comparisons of human and chimpanzee DNA. It has long been held that we share 98.5 per cent of our genetic material with our closest relatives. That now appears to be wrong... Ironically, that number was originally derived from a technique that Britten himself developed decades ago at Caltech with colleague Dave Kohne... there are two other major types of variation that the previous analyses ignored. "Insertions" occur whenever a whole section of DNA appears in one species but not in the corresponding strand of the other. Likewise, "deletions" mean that a piece of DNA is missing from one species... Together, they are termed "indels", and Britten seized his chance to evaluate the true variation between the two species when stretches of chimp DNA were recently published on the internet by teams from the Baylor College of Medicine in Houston, Texas, and from the University of Oklahoma... the differences were equally split between "junk" regions that do not have any genes, and gene-rich parts of the genome, suggesting they may be evenly distributed. Britten thinks... the real secrets could lie in "regulatory" regions of DNA that control whole networks of genes. "It'll be a while before we understand them," he says."

http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99992833

"Statistics can be so misleading... Even the current figure is only statistical, and measures only one parameter... Though we act like beasts much of the time, there is a nonmaterial part of us that makes us build spacecraft, write and perform symphonies, weep over evil, blush with guilt, and sense the need to worship God. That difference is 100%."

http://creationsafaris.com/crev0902.htm#mammal39

///////////////////////

Then, regarding to the second fall of the already fallen false evolutionary "icon" of the Peppered Moth (same site), the next interesting observations:

Originally taken from: Fiona Proffitt, "Michael Majerus Profile: In Defense of Darwin and a Former Icon of Evolution," Science, Vol 304, Issue 5679, 1894-1895, 25 June 2004.

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/304/5679/1894

"Michael Majerus [the "Angry Evolutionist [who] Seeks to Revive [the] Peppered Moth Story", from the U. of Cambridge]... had confessed that the simplified textbook story of the peppered moth was inaccurate... [However,] his tedious work on peppered moth ecology has another purpose; ammunition. Majerus is preparing to do battle. His defense is to resuscitate the reputation of Kettlewell..."

"Judith Hooper's scathing account of the men behind the peppered moth story in her 2002 book "Of Moths and Men: The Untold Story of Science and the Peppered Moth"... helped fuel an anti-evolutionist campaign to remove Biston from school textbooks. "A lot of [the campaign] is pointed at the peppered moth as being the example that Darwinism is debunked," says Majerus..."

"Jerry Coyne wrote Nature in 5 November 1998 that "for the time being, we must discard Biston as a well-understood example..."

However, Jerry Coyne "Kerryied" in his opinion: "For a later opinion by Jerry Coyne, including a link to his 1998 article, see his review of Judith Hooper's book mentioned in the 07/05/2002 headline":

http://creationsafaris.com/crev0702.htm#darwin145

(all the monthly news reviews' presented on that Website are very good)

Interesting comments there:

"...it was funny when Coyne described hearing the truth about Kettlewell's experiments was like finding out that Santa Claus was really his dad. Yes, it was damaging to learn that Kettlewell's coworkers glued peppered moths to the trunks of trees for some of the famous photographs... this most famous example of evolution was based on flawed experiments."

"Both varieties of moths already existed. Both are members of one species, Biston betularia. The only change was in relative numbers of pre-existing dark and light moths. Kettlewell's blunders are amusing in hindsight, but they have little to do with the real issue: Nothing evolved."

"One 60s high school biology text [wrongfully] called it [the moth issue]... "a classic example of evolution in action" (Otto and Towle, Modern Biology 1969, pp. 193-194)"

"While it is admirable that Majerus is attempting to accumulate definitive data on the little insects and their behaviors, and prove once and for all whether or not birds eat more of them on contrasting backgrounds, peppered moths are a dead issue to evolution. Like the Sioux proverb advises, the best strategy when riding a dead horse is to dismount."

"Phillip Johnson hit the nail on the head. He has written repeatedly that the problem in the creation-evolution issue is not over evidence, but rather that evolutionists are committed to a materialist philosophy before the evidence has a chance to speak. Science, to them, is no longer a search for the truth, a commitment to follow the evidence wherever it leads; it is a naturalistic philosophy that cannot stomach the thought of a Creator... the alternative, that there really is a God who made the world and the things in it, is philosophically repugnant to them. Their atheism demands a philosophy of science that can describe an unbroken chain of natural causes in a closed system. To suggest otherwise is "dangerous" [as Majerus himself openly declared it] to them because it threatens their chosen world view."

"Thus [for evolutionists] it is necessary... to keep the peppered moths in the textbooks and prevent the students from hearing the problems with the moth myth. [For evolutionists] it is necessary to "make a public stand against teaching creationism and 'intelligent design' in biology classes." "

"... [However] what is [really] dangerous to science is dishonesty, cover-up, lack of scientific rigor, 'just-so' storytelling, extrapolation, and obscurantism."

"Let's ask Bacon, Kepler, Newton, Boyle, Maxwell, Pasteur, Carver, von Braun and a few other minor players in the history of science for their opinions":

http://creationsafaris.com/wgcs.htm

Today I want to conclude my collaboration, this time with a very important aspect of the crisis in Education. It is remarkable that "the doctrine of evolution" is not even mentioned there (yet !), if it were, our perspective of the most real educational crisis that we are living today will be even more clear [!].

[Back to] An Education with a Godly Foundation (Noah Webster's Example):

http://www.geocities.com/plin9k/education.htm

The facts are overwhelmingly in favor of design, so all we need to do is get people to look at the facts. Then they will be able to see through all the smoke and mirrors.

But meanwhile, it is good that the some universities, mostly students rather than teachers or researchers are now awake. For example in the University of California, San Diego, the IDEA group:

http://acs.ucsd.edu/~idea/cells2complex.htm

There, Casey Luskin, Kirk Jensen, and Mike Kostura quote the evolutionary breakdown prescribed by Darwin himself, that we have seen in my previous posting, and their surprise that the 'scientific establishment' is fearfully and willingly blind to it, they say:

"Charles Darwin, in The Origins of Species, said, "If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down." "

"...how does a pathway arise? Two choices are left. The first is that all necessary parts of a function appeared simultaneously through a miraculous and highly improbable mutation creating many new enzymes. The second choice is that the function was created instantaneously by intelligent design."

"We assert that intelligent design is the best possible explanation."

"Darwin himself said that if any biological feature "which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive slight modifications" was discovered, his theory of evolution would "break down." It is our sincere hope that the scientific community will recognize the existence of such features and not close its eyes to the possibility of design."

And also, at least in the eyes of those with the desire to see, the human-chimp high similarity "icon of evolution" has been clearly demolished.

The full quote of Kelvin is:

"We have the sober scientific certainty that the heavens and earth shall ‘wax old as doth a garment’ ... Dark indeed would be the prospects of the human race if unilluminated by that light which reveals ‘new heavens and a new earth.’ "

Comment: 'wax old as doth a garment' is from Psalm 102:26. and the quote marks around ‘new heavens and a new earth’ is from Revelation 21:1.

From Greatest Creationist Scientists

David F. Coppedge is doing a very faithful and constant work, his monthly scientific news and views are excellent (my prayers also go to him and to you, Christian reader). An example is next.

Other References:

Microscopic Magnificence. Antony van Leeuwenhoek found God's great glory in His tiny creations. Issue 76, Fall 2002, Vol. XXI, No. 10, Page 42, by David F. Coppedge, a network engineer at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory and president of the Bible-Science Association, San Fernando Valley, California.
http://www.christianitytoday.com/ch/2002/004/16.42.html

Taken from the Issue: http://www.ctlibrary.com/ch/2002/76

Also significant for this board are:

Molecular Calibration of Anthropoid Molecular Clocks ("Chimpanzees throwing darts at financials?")
http://home.att.net/~DNAPaleoAnth/MoleCalib.html
"In the media it is made seem as species is 'cut and dried' issue." "Defining modern species is easy [chuckle], but defining ancient species is not... how can we distinguish ancient species from subspecies?"

Root Directory: http://home.att.net/~DNAPaleoAnth
"I caution everyone on taking anyone's conclusion without question, not even [the conclusions of] a professional, simply because you don't understand how to interpret [the] data. In the absence of critique, anything can be published, and not every paper is rigorously refereed before publishing, not every error is found. Sometimes obvious errors are overlooked... Many accepted theories are later rebutted or heavily amended…"

Full Articles (in PDF) to see some more criticisms on the contradictory and confusing phylogenetic of to-day, from 'Reading List 3'(Berkeley Instructor Kip Will et al):
http://ib.berkeley.edu/courses/ib200a/readings.html

Grant, T, and A. G. Kluge. 2003. Data exploration in phylogenetic inference: scientific, heuristic, or neither. Cladistics: 19:379-418.
http://ib.berkeley.edu/courses/ib200a/pdfs/grantkluge.pdf

Sanderson, M.J. 1995. Objections to boostraping phylogenies: a critique. Syst. Biol. 44(3):299-320:
http://ib.berkeley.edu/courses/ib200a/pdfs/sanderson95.pdf (Big: 3.61 MB)

Felsenstein, J. 1985. Confidence limits on phylogenies: An approach using the bootstrap. Evolution 39:783-791.
http://ib.berkeley.edu/courses/ib200a/pdfs/felsenstein85.pdf

Bryant, D. 2003. A classification of consensus methods for phylogenetics. In Janowitz, M., Lapointe, F.J., McMorris, F., Mirkin, B. Robers, F. (eds.) Bioconsensus. DIMACS-AMS. 163-184.
http://ib.berkeley.edu/courses/ib200a/pdfs/Bryant-Bioconsensus2003.pdf

de Queiroz, A., M. J. Donoghue and J. Kim. 1995. Separate versus combined analysis of phylogenetic evidence. Ann. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 26: 657-681.
http://ib.berkeley.edu/courses/ib200a/pdfs/dequeiroz95.pdf (1.57 MB)

An earlier report that also takes a new significance in light of the recent findings on tearing down the false and farce evolutionary 'human-chimp identity icon', can be found at:
Human/chimp DNA, by Don Batten. Creation 19(1):21–22. Dec. 1996:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v19/i1/dna.asp

Excerpts from Don Batten's article:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/2453.asp

"...the [central] point of this article: to refute one widely parroted ‘proof’ that humans evolved from apes..."

"Certain biochemical capacities are common to all living things, so there is even a degree of similarity between the DNA of yeast, for example, and that of humans... Some of the sequences, for example, those that code for the MHC (Major Histocompatibility Complex) proteins, are almost identical."

"Similarity (‘homology’) is not evidence for common ancestry (evolution) as against a common designer (creation)... Why do these two very different cars have so many similarities? Because they had the same designer! Whether similarity is morphological (appearance), or biochemical, is of no consequence to the lack of logic in this argument for evolution."

"The DNA similarity data don’t quite mean what the evolutionary popularizers claim!"

"The human DNA has at least 3,000,000,000 nucleotides in sequence. Chimp DNA has not been anywhere near fully sequenced so that a proper comparison can be made (using a lot of computer time to do it—imagine comparing two sets of 1000 large books, sentence by sentence, for similarities and differences!)."

"Where did the ‘97% similarity’ come from then? It was inferred from a fairly crude technique called DNA hybridization [Sibley and Ahlquist, 1987, J. Molec. Evol. 26:99–121)] where small parts of human DNA are split into single strands and allowed to re–form double strands (duplex) with chimp DNA. However, there are various reasons why DNA does or does not hybridize, only one of which is degree of similarity (homology). Consequently, this somewhat arbitrary figure is not used by those working in molecular homology (other parameters, derived from the shape of the ‘melting’ curve, are used). Why has the 97% figure been popularised then? One can only guess that it served the purpose of evolutionary indoctrination of the scientifically illiterate."

"The figures quoted vary: 97%, 98%, or even 99%, depending on just who is telling the story."

"Interestingly, the original papers did not contain the basic data and the reader had to accept the interpretation of the data ‘on faith’. Sarich et al [Sarich et al. 1989. Cladistics 5:3–32] obtained the original data and used them in their discussion of which parameters should be used in homology studies. Sarich discovered considerable sloppiness in Sibley and Ahlquist’s generation of their data as well as their statistical analysis. Upon inspecting the data, I discovered that, even if everything else was above criticism, the 97% figure came from making a very basic statistical error—averaging two figures without taking into account differences in the number of observations contributing to each figure... However, there is no true replication in the data, so no confidence can be attached to the figures published by Sibley and Ahlquist."

"The amount of information in the 3 billion base pairs in the DNA in every human cell has been estimated to be equivalent to that in 1,000 books of encyclopaedia size [Michael Denton, 1985. Evolution: Theory in Crisis. (Burnett Books, London).] If humans were ‘only’ 4% different [to chimps] this still amounts to 120 million base pairs, equivalent to approximately 12 million words, or 40 large books of information. This is surely an impossible barrier for mutations (random changes) to cross [...in 10 million years (twice the time since the chimp/human common ancestor is alleged to have lived), only 1667 substitutions could occur, or 0.001% of the difference... And this understates the problem by assuming perfect efficiency of natural selection and ignoring deleterious processes like inbreeding and genetic drift, as well as problems posed by pleiotropy (one gene controlling more than one characteristic) and polygeny (more than one gene controlling one characteristic)—most real genes. See W.J. ReMine, The Biotic Message (St. Paul Science, St. Paul, Minnesota, 1993), pp. 215–217.]"

"The methods used to generate the figures so often quoted (and misquoted!) are very clumsy. They do not lend legitimacy to the claims that people and chimps are related in an evolutionary sense. The more we learn of the complexities of the biochemical systems in our cells, the more marvellous they become. Furthermore, even if we accept the data as legitimate there is no way that mutations could bridge the gap between chimps and humans. Chimps are just animals. We are made in the image of God (no chimps will be reading this)."

"...varieties of finch on the islands today—just as all the breeds of dogs in the world today were artificially bred from an original wild dog/wolf kind not long ago."

//////////////

"The uniqueness of humans among the primates."

Excerpts taken from the Introduction of the book by Jonathan Marks: What It Means to Be 98% Chimpanzee. Apes, People, and Their Genes.

http://www.ucpress.edu/books/pages/9172/9172.intro.html

"Here we will see that the universe of genetic similarities is quite different from our preconceptions of what similarities mean. For example, the very structure of DNA compels it to be no more than 75% different, no matter how diverse the species being compared are. Yet the fact that our DNA is more than 25% similar to a dandelion's does not imply that we are over one-quarter dandelion."

"The extent to which our DNA resembles an ape's predicts nothing about our general similarity to apes, much less about any moral or political consequences arising from it."

"C.P. Snow, who was both a scientist and a novelist, observed in a classic essay from the 1950s that the sciences and the humanities were coming apart... two communities that speak different languages, see the world in different ways, don't understand each other, and regard each other with suspicion. Each thinks itself superior to the other. This rift is probably irreparable ."

"An anthropological or cultural perspective allows us to examine critically some of the assumptions that we often take for granted about genetics itself."

"The perspective of molecular anthropology-a social science of heredity-will shed light on both the science itself and the uses of the science."

"On the one hand, technology permits us to study aspects of the human condition in far greater detail than was previously thought possible... On the other hand, the scientists themselves have often employed that information to prop up dubious political assertions; or else they have interpreted the information through cultural lenses of various tints, and often with striking naïveté."

"In more recent decades, anthropology has assumed the political role of mediator for aboriginal populations (usually the objects of anthropological study, of course) and colonial powers (usually the ones sending the anthropologist out)."

"Where human lives, welfare, and rights are concerned, genetics has historically provided excuses for those who wish to make other people's lives miserable, to justify their subjugation, or to curry favor with the wealthy and powerful by scapegoating the poor and voiceless. It is therefore now obliged to endure considerably higher levels of scrutiny..."

"...in the 1920s... geneticists sought to rewrite our understanding of social issues by blaming poverty on the genes of the poor. (The stock market crash and Depression had a sobering effect on the geneticists.)
It was also true in the 1960s, when genetics became molecular and its practitioners began to make observations of seeming profundity, such as "from the standpoint of hemoglobin, man is just an abnormal gorilla." It seems not to have occurred to the sanguine speaker [Emile Z.] that the standpoint of hemoglobin might just be a poor one for the problem at hand: from the top of the Empire State Building, Chicago and Los Angeles appear to be in the same place over the horizon. But not from the Golden Gate Bridge. That's a classic anthropological question: Whose standpoint is superior?"

"The standpoint of science is widely held to be superior to all rivals. Especially by scientists. But once again, it is useful to acknowledge that there may be more than one scientific standpoint, and that the meaning of any particular scientific pronouncement may not be self-evident. And thus in the 1990s, we routinely heard that we are just 1 or 2% different from chimpanzees genetically, and therefore . . . what?
Should we accord the chimpanzees human rights, as some activists have suggested?
Should we acknowledge and accept as natural the promiscuity and genocidal violence that lurks just underneath the veneer of humanity and occasionally surfaces, as some biologists have implied? [Jared Diamond]
Or should we perhaps all simply go naked and sleep in trees as the chimpanzees do?
None of these suggestions, of course, necessarily follows from the genetic similarity of humans to apes, although the first two have been proposed within the academic community and promoted in the popular media over the past few years. (Mercifully, the third has not.)"

//////////////

Excerpt from Chimps and Chumps, by Steve Sailer, President of the Human Biodiversity Institute. Published in National Review, 9/27/99

"…anybody can turn to their favorite primate for support for their favorite lifestyle."

"…bonobos are Darwinian duds. As appealing as their genetic programming may be to the students and faculty of Smith College, their genes have not succeeded in replicating themselves widely: there are fewer than 10,000 bonobos alive, no more than 1/20th the number of those testosterone-addled common chimps. Second, due to this relative failure to go forth and multiply, we really don't know much yet about bonobos… It took the great Jane Goodall over a decade to notice that the males in her beloved troop of common chimps were genocidal brutes."

"…the oft-cited 98% figure for shared DNA is less impressive than it looks. Most DNA is unused, so natural selection never changes it. Another big chunk of your personal DNA controls the basics of earthly carbon-based life, and is extremely common across multitudinous organisms. Thus, one study found we share 70% of our DNA with yeast! Perhaps if you don't have a great ape around, you can scrape by letting a packet of Fleischmann's Quick-Rise pinch-hit as your role model."

"primatologyst Dr. Frans De Waal asserts [in Scientific American] that the news about the bonobo lifestyle "commands attention because the bonobo shares more than 98 percent of our genetic profile … making it as close to a human as, say, a fox is to a dog."

"De Waal's statement that a chimp is as genetically similar to a human as a fox is to a dog may be true, but it should remind us of the striking number of gene-driven differences seen merely among dog breeds. A collie is identical to a pit bull in all but a tiny fraction of its genes, yet the two breeds differ radically in size, shape, behavior, mental, and personality. Small genetic differences can have big consequences."

/////////////

Then, in "A Miracle Happens Here:" Darwin's Enemies on the Right. Part I of a Two Part Series, also by Steve Sailer (11/20/99)

http://www.isteve.com/Darwin-EnemiesonRight.htm

"...in 1974 cosmologist Brandon Carter revived the ancient Argument from Design for the existence of God. This had held that the existence of a well-designed item like a sword or a bird's wing implies the existence of a designer."

"The odds against such a coincidence happening by chance appear, well, astronomical."

"Philosopher Robert C. Koons notes, "Originally, atheists prided themselves on being no-nonsense empiricists, who limited their beliefs to what could be seen and measured. Now, we find ourselves in a situation in which the only alternative to belief in God is belief in an infinite number of unobservable parallel universes!..." At minimum, we now know that our natural world cannot account for its own existence. To do that, we need to assume the existence of some sort of supernatural word."

"In summary, for reasons stretching from the gritty world of tactical politics to the most ethereal conjectures about the cosmos (or cosmoses), those who claim to be skeptics should try harder to keep their minds open."

/////////////

The Coming War over Genes: Darwin's Enemies on the Left. Part II of a Two Part Series, also by Steve Sailer
http://www.isteve.com/Darwin-EnemiesonLeft.htm

"…what selection selects are genetic differences. In "The Descent of Man," Darwin wrote, "Variability is the necessary basis for the action of selection." "

"Consider the full title of Darwin's epochal book: "The Origin of Species By Means of Natural Selection or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life." "

""Stephen Jay Gould, a famous sports nut, cannot even turn on his TV without being confronted by lean East Africans outdistancing the world's runners, massive Samoans flattening quarterbacks, lithe Chinese diving and tumbling for gold medals, or muscular athletes of West African descent out-sprinting, out-jumping, and out-hitting all comers. No wonder Gould is reduced to insisting we chant 'Say it five times before breakfast tomorrow: … Human equality is a contingent fact of history,' "

"According to Berkeley anthropologist Vincent Sarich, no mammal exceeds our species in physical variation, except for dogs and a few other artificially selected animals."

"…considering the vast range of geographic and social environments found across the face of the Earth, the only way we could flourish in so many places yet retain our unity is to adapt endlessly. To stay one species, we have to be many races."

"…Darwin clashes with the left. While "diversity" and "equality" are both considered Good Things by multiculturalists, that does not make them synonyms. They are antonyms."

"…during the media firestorm following Dr. Tsien's genetic engineering breakthrough [Dr. Joe Tsien made the cover of Time magazine by genetically engineering mice with better memories], many worried that rich people could someday pay to have their kids' IQ's enhanced. Would having more smart people around help or hurt society as a whole?… we can investigate whether high-IQ immigrants hurt or help society compared to average-IQ immigrants. Canada discriminates more in favor of intelligent immigrants than the United States. Which country has benefited more?"

"Progressives and Third Way centrists are likely to initially insist on outlawing human genetic engineering. Already, professional activists for the disabled worry that genetic engineering will put them out of business by reducing the number of disabled peoples."

"What could be more equal than a world of clones?"

/////////////

Finally, related to justice in science we have the letter written by Forrest M. Mims III, in Jul 11 1996 to Newsgroups: sci.geo.geology

http://www.yarchive.net/env/fmims.html

"There was a time when scientists freely expressed their religious faith in speeches and publications. Today they do so at great risk to their career and reputation, and it is highly unlikely that an aspiring naturalist would jeopardize his career by sending a manuscript to NATURE that advocated the creationist view that the conical pitfall of the ant lion larva (Myrmeliontidae) is a product of intelligent design. Yet this is precisely the view given by Charles Darwin in Journal of Researches (1839) about his voyage on H.M.S. Beagle [Darwin, C. Voyage of the Beagle, 324-325, Penguin Books (London, 1989)], a now classical work published the same year Darwin was elected a Fellow of the Royal Society."

"In recent years the position about religious faith held by some outspoken scientists has devolved from tolerant coexistence to ridicule and even bigotry and discrimination. I experienced an unpleasant consequence of this a few years ago at the hands of SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN, a magazine whose founder advocated belief in a "Creator God" in its premier issue [Porter, R., Sci. Amer., 1, 1, 2-3 (1845)]."

"…the [SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN] editor severed my relationship with the magazine and denied he had agreed to publish the columns after he concluded that certain tenets of my Christian faith about which I was questioned by him and his staff, viz. my rejection of Darwinian evolution and abortion, would somehow embarrass SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN [Piel, J. & Mims, F. Harpers, 282, 1690, 28-30 (1991)]."

"The columns were published only after the president of SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN intervened on my behalf…"

" Scores of scientists sent letters of support, often accompanied by copies of protest letters to SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN. Some of these scientists identified themselves as atheists or agnostics; others were observant Christians or Jews. Several confided that their careers would be ruined if they were to publicly acknowledge their belief that life is a product of intelligent design by a Supreme Being."

"Although various organizations offered to take SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN to court on my behalf, I instead appealed to the American Association for the Advancement of Science. The 16-member Committee on Scientific Freedom and Responsibility of the AAAS investigated the matter, and its unanimous statement is quite relevant to the ongoing debate over the relationship of science and technology."

" 29 October 1990 Dear Mr. Mims:
"… The legal questions that may be involved in this matter are beyond the purview of the Committee. However, the Committee does wish to affirm its commitment to the principle that articles submitted for publication in journals devoted to science, technology and medicine should be judged exclusively on their scientific merit."

"Sincerely, [signed] Sheldon Krimsky, Ph.D., Chair Committee on Scientific Freedom and Responsibility."

"Yet my subsequent applications to resume writing "The Amateur Scientist" were rebuffed, SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN publicly compared me with those who believe the Earth is flat, and the attorney for SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN threatened me with legal action if I made public statements about the affair."

"Despite the critical views about theology that have appeared in its editorial pages, the editors of NATURE have never interrogated me about my personal, but now well known, belief in a Creator God. They have instead published several of my letters, including the one about the Nimbus-7 ozone retrieval error [Mims, F. Nature, 361, 505 (1993)] discovered by the instrument I was not permitted to describe in SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN."

"I am optimistic that the commendable objectivity NATURE applies to its authors can be extended to Cambridge's new lectureship..."

[My comment: The still recent atheism of "Scientific American" is again betraying his own founder]

That history in full:
Defending Darwinism: How Far is Too Far?
http://www.arn.org/docs/orpages/or131/mimsrpt3.htm
Essay on Scientific American's firing of veteran science writer Forrest Mims because he didn't believe in Darwin's theory of evolution. File Date: 3.11.97. Origins Research 13:1. PDF file (12640 bytes):
http://www.arn.org/docs/orpages/or131/mimsrpt3.pdf

Forrest M. Mims III technical Website:
http://www.forrestmims.org

As Batten and others wisely have pointed out, more detailed comparisons of the chromosomes between humans and chimps will show an increasingly clearer picture. Then we will be able to see more precisely the full ammount of differences, but the work done in one chromosome is indeed a very good start showing a lot of difference.

I have been doing Biblical research related to "gifts of healings" detailing the methodology used by our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, by his disciples, and by us, his brothers and sisters:

http://www.geocities.com/fdocc3/healings.htm

That study is in Spanish, but will also include more links in English showing its practical results, i.e. in India, where signs, miracles and wonders are happening because of the gift of holy spirit within them plus their firm believing in its manifestation (with its nine evidences and producing its nine-fold fruit).

The central point is that:

"By comparing the whole sequence with the human counterpart, chromosome 21, we found that 1.44% of the chromosome consists of single-base substitutions in addition to nearly 68,000 insertions or deletions. These differences are sufficient to generate changes in most of the proteins. Indeed, 83% of the 231 coding sequences, including functionally important genes, show differences at the amino acid sequence level... and their biological consequences seem more complex than originally hypothesized."
http://www.nature.com/doifinder/10.1038/nature02564

It is the Abstract itself the one that says that 83% of the 231 "Coding Sequences" show differences at the amino acid sequence level... and their biological consequences seem more complex than originally hypothesized. That's why Sakaki said that their analysis found about 68,000 insertions or deletions and that "That is almost one insertion/deletion every 470 bases".

"But we see a bit more divergence than before because insertions and deletions are taken into account." The result is only based on about one million DNA bases out of the three billion which make up the human and chimp genomes, says Britten. "It's just a glance," he says.

So, the authors themselves seem to be more humbled with the findings that many high-minded individuals.

Also for me, being a non-evolutionist does not mean to be a non-scientist or to infer anything else. Whenever a wise observation is done, that is what matters. It is wise to say that until the full genomes and "Coding Sequences" are compared we will have the full landscape, but that the evidence that we have thus far points in the direction of higher differences than previously thought, even in coding sequences, that means in proteins also. That is not my own opinion or comment, but of the researchers involved in that work. Other people before them was saying the same things.

Nelson Alonso declared "The examples that I know of go along with Dembski's statement that they produce "disconnected messes". For example, loss of vitamin D signaling, or, under non physiological conditions, where there is overexpression of so-called dominant negative forms of proteins (this occurs during some oncogenic viral infections, and in cancer). Since different classes of transcription factors recruit common cofactors (and ultimately the same RNA polymerase), dominant negative proteins can disrupt transcription controlled by several signal transduction pathways. Thank God for proofreading I'd say."

The link to the article on proofreading during transcription (April 17, 2004) is important evidence on how the Life’s Design as a working hypothesis allowed Mike Gene to accurately infer something about the biological world.

Nothing in Darwinian theory led anyone to suspect that RNA polymerase was proofreading, it is not even discussed in the 2004 edition of Lodish et al.’s "Molecular Biology of the Cell".

Mike Gene presented how ID thinking did indeed lead him to suspect this. In that important piece of information we can see Intelligent Design generating testable hypotheses.

A researcher sent me a personal message with an interesting article related to the previous posting with something that he found in Science (Science 292(5523):1824-1827, 8 Jun 2001):
http://www.evcforum.net/DataDropsite/SpeedyEvolution.html

In that you can see the increase of the prescribed variability of organisms under special circumstances of stress.

From the many things that trapped my attention on that review article, there was:

"Bacteria can also acquire this ability by amplifying the lactose-digesting genes, a temporary phenomenon"

That reminded me when Thomas Hunt Morgan reported in the early XX Century that he had found that the changes in the Drosophila's nucleotides were reversible.

The same happens with prions (i.e. prion PSI+) in yeast that seem to act as helpers on gene restoration, and after that, those naturally flip back to their nonprion shape (PSI+ reverts to protein Sup35).

The recently discovered "emergency polymerases" cope with damaging stress to keep life going under extreme situations by a "less-than-perfect", but possible, DNA replication (i.e., Pol IV co-discovered by Susan Rosenberg from the Baylor College of Medicine, and other SOS polymerases, also called "mutases" by some).

"The cells may be turning the lights off to keep the whole system from crashing, just trying to hang on," says geneticist Paul Sniegowski of the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia.

These enzymes where designed and selected for this explicit purpose during creation.

That article also explains how the organisms (examples of the bacteria E. coli and yeast provided) are designed to counteract a gene deficiency by extraordinary repair systems that restore the function of a gene previously deranged or deactivated (by working specifically over its "hot regions" for hypermutation).

The "combined wisdom of theory and experiment" is demonstrating at the end the greatness of the creation and its creator, at least for those with eyes to see!

IP: Logged

Fernando Castro-Chavez
Member
Member # 1201

posted 12. January 2005 12:14

From ARN again, important references:

Intelligent design study appears. Publication of paper in peer-reviewed journal..., Trevor Stokes
©2004, The Scientist Inc. in association with BioMed Central.
http://www.biomedcentral.com/news/20040903/04

In an article entitled "The origin of biological information and the higher taxonomic categories," which was made available online on August 28 by the Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington, Stephen Meyer concludes: "what natural selection lacks, intelligent selection–purposive or goal-directed design–provides." Meyer is a senior fellow at the Discovery Institute, which, according to its Web site "supports research by scientists and other scholars developing the scientific theory known as intelligent design."

Intelligent design, or the design hypothesis, is the "idea that the origin of information is best explained by an act of intelligence rather than a strictly materialistic process," Meyer told The Scientist.

Richard Sternberg, a staff scientist at the National Center for Biotechnology Information who was an editor of the Proceedings at the time, told The Scientist via E-mail that the three peer reviewers of the paper "all hold faculty positions in biological disciplines at prominent universities and research institutions, one at an Ivy League university, one at a major US public university, and another at a major overseas research institute."

"The reviewers did not necessarily agree with Dr. Meyer's arguments but all found the paper meritorious, warranting publication," Sternberg said.

Sternberg said he was concerned that some in the science community have labeled him and Meyer as creationists. "It's fascinating how the 'creationist' label is falsely applied to anyone who raises any questions about neo-Darwinian evolutionary theory," he said. "The reaction to the paper by some [anti-creationist] extremists suggests that the thought police are alive and well in the scientific community."

Sternberg has ties to the intelligent design community, but he identifies himself as "a structuralist who has given several papers and presentations critiquing creationism." He is on the editorial board of the Baraminology Study Group at Bryan College, Dayton, Tenn. Baraminology, a term introduced in 1990, views biological creation as happening instantly, rather than through evolutionary descent. Sternberg is slated to attend a meeting in October entitled "Evolution, Intelligent Design, and the Future of Biology." The meeting's Web site describes Sternberg's talk as an explanation of why "biology is better understood as a product of intelligent design."

Robert L. Crowther, director of communications at the Discovery Institute, drew a clear distinction "between the scientific theory of intelligent design and creationism."

"Dr. Meyer is a well-known proponent of intelligent design and that is what his paper is about," Crowther wrote in an E-mail to The Scientist. "To try and characterize him as a creationist is just an attempt to stigmatize him and marginalize his paper, all the while avoiding the scientific issues that it raises."

Meyer said: "I have received a number of private communications from scientists expressing their agreement or intrigue with the arguments that I develop in my article. Public reaction to the article, however, has been mainly characterized by hysteria, name-calling and personal attack." Labels, he said, "are ultimately a diversion."

Links for this article
Meyer, S.C. "The origin of biological information and the higher taxonomic categories," Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington, 117[2]:213-239, August 4, 2004. Republished online August 28, 2004 at
http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view& id=2177

Additional information about The Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington
http://apt.allenpress.com/aptonline/?request=get-moreinfo&issn= 0006-324X

Occasional Papers of the Baraminology Study Group, Bryan College, Dayton, Tenn.
http://www.bryancore.org/bsg/opbsg/

Evolution, Intelligent Design, and the Future of Biology seminar information
http://www.studium.helsinki.fi/koulutus/ala/index.asp?Tnro=1044&title=Evolution%2C+Intelligent+Design%2C+and+the+Future+of+Biology

---------

I also want to present two notes appeared in Sci. News:
1-
Intelligent Design Book Survives "Nature" Relatively Unscathed 06/24/2004
http://creationsafaris.com/crev0604.htm

Considering the intemperate disdain intelligent design books usually receive from the major journals – when they are even noticed, a new ID book fared surprisingly well. In Nature (D. A. Vakoch, “Bright blue dot,” Nature 429, 808 - 809 (24 June 2004), doi:10.1038/429808b). D. A. Vakoch reviewed the new book by Guillermo Gonzalez and Jay Richards, The Privileged Planet (Regnery, 2004). This book presents the thesis that earth’s location seems optimized for both habitability and scientific discovery (measurability)... proposing, optimistically, that the earth appears intelligently designed for life.

Vakoch straightforwardly summarized the main ideas of the book without ridicule. His only criticisms were that the criteria for measurability appear subjective, and that we don’t yet have enough data to determine how rare earth is.

Gonzalez and Richards build a convincing case for design, but they tend to accept uncritically current scientific models as facts. Too much trust in today’s conventional wisdom can render books obsolete when paradigm shifts occur... the authors rely without qualification on age estimates that are built on unverifiable assumptions about the unobservable past.

The more we study the heavens and the earth, the more we see conditions favorable to our existence that cannot be all due to chance. Evidence of design is not enough to save a soul, but it removes a major stumbling block to faith. That is, however, an important – often indispensable – prerequisite.

/////////////////////////////

2-
Readers respond [to the] Story on intelligent design...
David L. Bump
Flushing, Michigan
The Scientist, September 22, 2004.

How sad to see the knee-jerk reaction to one intelligent design (ID) paper being published in a relatively minor journal! I've read science news magazines for years, and over the past year I've studied Nature carefully, and articles with ID themes are common. The only difference is that they toss in some speculation about how evolution might have somehow produced features that have just been compared to advanced human technology. Even some of the cover stories trumpeting new evidence for evolution actually turn out to be completely consistent with current creationists' expectations.

So why all the fuss? The answer isn't complicated: a large part of the scientific community is determined to make science a field of endeavor that can simultaneously explain away all theistic ideas, while never allowing the possibility of support or even allowing much room for theism in human thought. They're happy to trot out scientists who somehow cling to belief... they dare not allow one paper to point out the incredible design in living things that doesn't at least toss a bone to the gods of evolutionism: time, chance, and survival (natural selection). Having censored anything that doesn't toe the party line, they then turn around and use this shutout as support for their argument that ID isn't scientific. This gives them all the more motivation for keeping the blinders of censorship in place.

The similarities of the mechanisms and systems in living things and those in the most advanced human technologies are obvious, and it is also clear that living things are in some ways far more complex and "hi tech" than anything we've produced so far. It's also clear that after almost 150 years of efforts, we've found no forces or processes of inanimate nature that produce complex organization, we're still far from reproducing the origin of life through our intelligent efforts, and we are still struggling with the most basic questions of speciation and natural selection. Scientists should be willing to consider that living things were produced by an alien intelligence, even if it's one that existed before our universe, just as they are willing to search for extraterrestrial intelligence and speculate about infinite forms of universes and such.

---------

Neandertals from Portugal, Holland and Poland, where it is described a Neandertal hybrid in Armor (like Goliath):

http://www.geocities.com/plin9k/polska.htm

Other of the Nephilim races was reported in Nature:

http://www.nature.com/news/specials/flores/index.html

To see the papers on that Homo floresiensis:

http://webapp.utexas.edu/blogs/archives/sarkarlab/002416.html

And an insight in Spanish:

http://www.geocities.com/fdocch/explorando.htm

IP: Logged

spiro
Member
Member # 1534

posted 17. January 2005 05:33

Congratulations Fernando!

IP: Logged

Fernando Castro-Chavez
Member
Member # 1201

posted 20. January 2005 12:54

Dear Dr. Spiro,

Most especially you also deserve congratulations for your several important and indexed experimental publications, done recently in topics such as gene activation and gene modulation, transcription factors, and your work on the mechanisms for a higher order within the DNA complex, etc.

I also want to point out for you the classic statement by Thomas Hunt Morgan et al, who declared: "we know that mutations and even "reverse" mutations actually occur".

If you wish to read science carefully under the context of "Intelligent Design", go to pages 169-170 (from Chapter 7, entitled "Multiple Allelomorphs") of Morgan's et al book:

Morgan, Thomas H., Sturtevant, A. H., Muller, H. J., and C. B. Bridges (1915). The Mechanism of Mendelian Heredity. New York: Henry Holt and Company. URL: http://www.esp.org/books/morgan/mechanism/facsimile

Also, under the context of "Intelligent Design", check the full text for an excellent review available Online for contemporary findings on that subject:

Hirschhorn R (2003) In vivo reversion to normal of inherited mutations in humans. J. Med. Genet. 40, 721-728.

http://jmg.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/full/40/10/721

I conclude by declaring that I deeply thank God for the reversion to normal of inherited mutations in humans.

In Christ,

Fernando Castro-Chavez.

IP: Logged

Fernando Castro-Chavez
Member
Member # 1201

posted 10. August 2005 11:54

ARN's Mark Hartwig, since 09/23/04 wrote a detailed explanation of Sternberg's situation:

"according to Darwin and most subsequent biologists, taxa at all taxonomic ranks (phyla, classes, orders, families, genera, species) can only be understood as historical accidents, the unplanned product of random variation and selection. Evolutionary theory, then, is the basis of modern systematics. Meyer argues that some kind of deep purpose (which he characterizes as ‘intelligent design’) underlies living systems; if he is right, the whole basis of systematics would be radically altered. Instead of being a historical record of ‘successful’ (surviving) accidents, systematics becomes the study of the putative designer's plans and their interrelationships.”

"They [ID opponents] are also aimed at making an example of Sternberg, lest anyone consider publishing another pro-ID paper."

"As the ID movement continues to grow, adding new talent to its ranks, there will certainly be more peer-reviewed ID publications.[In fact, such publications already exist... But I won’t list off any more because the authors and journals don’t need the kind of treatment Sternberg has been receiving] ID opponents understand this and are perhaps backing away from the peer-review gambit."

"[Biologist Kenneth Miller, listed on the Eugenie Scott's NCSE Web site as one of their “supporters,” told Nature that more such articles would undoubtedly appear] Miller says that, despite criticism of the journal, versions of the theory will find their way into the scientific literature "

"There’s still a lot of work ahead—not to mention suffering. But the ID movement is gaining ground.

Count on it."

http://www.arn.org/blogs/index.php/2/2004/09

/////////////////////////////////////////

Wall Street Journal's "The Branding of a Heretic", by David Klinghoffer "The Branding of a Heretic"

Reader Responses
Other highlight Sternberg's story can be seen in:

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=42600

Where we read:

Meyer's article, "The Origin of Biological Information and the Higher Taxonomic Categories," cites mainstream biologists and paleontologists from schools such as the University of Chicago, Yale, Cambridge and Oxford who are critical of certain aspects of Darwinism.

Klinghoffer notes the Biological Society of Washington released a statement regretting its association with Meyer's article but did not address its arguments.

Darwinian mechanism would require more time for the necessary genetic "information" to be generated, and intelligent design offers a better explanation.

////////////

The opportunity to publish in peer-reviewed journals, not to say the "indexed" ones, has not been given to Intelligent Design research, except for Meyer's paper.

If the scientific establishment don't support Intelligent Design research, how do you want us to publish expensive experimental research? I need at least a private funding to demonstrate all the practical benefits of Intelligent Design, the Intelligent Programming of Life, the Creation scenarios, etc., and every other approaches non-evolutionary and non-darwinian.

The damage of evolutionism and darwinism against the alternatives can be seen through all the history, time after time, let's pick just some examples:

1-
"Of the experiments of previous years, those dealing with Matthiola annua and glabra, Zea, and Mirabilis were concluded last year. Their hybrids behave exactly like those of Pisum. Darwin’s statements concerning hybrids of the genera mentioned in “the variation of animals and plants under domestication,” based on reports of others, need to be corrected in many respects." (Letter VIII, GR. MENDEL, Brünn, 3 July 1870.)

Mendel's 'Advisor', the punctuationist evolutionist Nägeli did not put any care on that statement and completely ignored the work of Mendel in his own evolutionary books.

http://www.esp.org/foundations/genetics/classical/holdings/m/gm-let.pdf

2-
Link to the denied grant that Bateson requested for his study on the Laws of Mendel applied to animals and plants, grant denied by the dominant evolutionism of his time, even when he attached his full book defending the work of Mendel:

http://www.esp.org/foundations/genetics/classical/holdings/b/wb-02g.pdf

2-
Breeders active in promoting Mendelism were biologists generally affiliated with the USDA or state agricultural colleges and experiment stations and they aimed to combine practical public interests with theoretical science. “In sharp contrast with naturalists…” The first mention of Mendel is a dismissive comment by the editor of the Botanical Gazette, John Merle Coulter, in a review of the third edition of Liberty Hyde Bailey's Plant Breeding (Botanical Gazette, 1904, 37: 471-472). The American Naturalist was also unimpressed. Other than a passing reference in a Botanical Note of 1902, there is no mention of Mendelism until 1904, and then only in Charles Davenport's book reviews. Editorial notes and articles first appear in 1907.” (Mendel in America: Theory and Practice, 1900-1919, by D. B. Paul and B. A. Kimmelman, 1988, U. of Pennsylvania Press)

http://www.mendelweb.org/MWpaul.intro.html

3-
Rejection of abrupt mass extinction due to the blind belief in the writings of Darwin and of Charles Lyell prevailed until the late 1970s. The Creationist scientist Georges Cuvier (1769-1832) first developed the concept of mass extinction based on the recognition of abrupt changes in the fossil record, linking the extinctions to a single catastrophic event. "Here lies the frontier, which is in part ideological because many geologists still hold tight to the views of Lyell."

http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/95/19/11028

4-
It was 1951, Arthur Custance was a Ph.D. candidate in Anthropology, the first such candidate for that Department in the University of Toronto. He enjoyed the next three years, completing the course with excellent marks. His thesis was approved and had almost completed the orals when, at the very last moment, disaster struck. One professor, at the very end, said he had just one last question to ask: Do you believe that Adam and Eve were real people? Custance answered YES! And ultimately, because of his last answer, his Ph.D. he had worked so hard for in anthropology was not granted. "As his work became increasingly oriented towards physiology, he was invited, with the full approval and encouragement of the Department of National Defence, to complete his Ph.D., as a guest of the Physiology Department in the Medical School of the University of Ottawa, and in 1959 was granted a Ph.D."

http://www.custance.org/insight.html

5-
"…I am painfully aware of the close-mindedness of the scientific community to non-orthodoxy, and I think it is counterproductive. But on the other hand we have fixed page limits for each month's issue, and there are many more good submissions than we can accept. So, your unorthodox theory would have to displace something that would be extending the current paradigm…" (Re: inquiry about submission. Date: Mon, 7 Jun 1999 10:21:54. From: [the editor]. To: "Michael J. Behe")

http://www.trueorigin.org/behe07.asp

6-
"I experienced the witch-hunting activity of the Darwinist police at first hand when I published Shattering the Myths of Darwinism and found myself subjected to a campaign of vilification. I had expected controversy and heated debate, because that is in the nature of Darwinism. But it was deeply disappointing to find myself being described by a prominent academic, Oxford zoologist Richard Dawkins, as 'loony', 'stupid' and 'in need of psychiatric help' in response to purely scientific reporting..." "Dawkins contacted the editor (of the British weekly newspaper, "The Times Higher Education Supplement"), Auriol Stevens".. and Milton's paper was blocked.
http://www.alternativescience.com/thes_and_richard_dawkins.htm

7-
"Collins wrote a paper on sexual selection as an anomaly in Darwinian theory… Collins says, 'In the paper I tried to extend further my doubts about the assumptions in Darwinian evolutionary theory. Out of courtesy I circulated the expanded paper to my distinguished tutor prior to the conference. Before I was due to take the stand, Professor Maynard Smith stood up in front of the conference and roundly denounced the premises of my paper.' After the conference Maynard Smith told Collins that 'he would use his considerable influence to block publication of any further papers of mine which questioned the fundamental premises of Darwinian theory.' Collins has, indeed, found it impossible to have any further papers published up to as recently as 1994, when a paper he submitted to Nature was rejected without reason."

http://www.alternativescience.com/censorship.htm

8-
Forrest Mims lost his Scientific American job after telling the editor he didn't believe in Darwinism:
http://www.alternativescience.com/scientific-american.htm

////////////

Personally, I have heard such statements of the "experts" and their journals, like the next ones: "your findings are jeopardizing the established knowledge", "we better be serving the scientific community without your contributions", "we apologize but your work goes beyond the scope of our journal", "you have published a fraud" etc., etc.

We can also go through the solid scientific evidence and the observations presented in Meyer's paper itself, the centerpiece of the standing of Sternberg and of this thread, instead of just deriding it, for example, here are just some excerpts:

"neo-Darwinism affirms that new functional sections of the genome arise by trial and error process of mutation and subsequent selection. For this reason, historically many neo-Darwinists expected or predicted that the large non-coding regions of the genome--so-called “junk DNA”--would lack function altogether (Orgel & Crick 1980). On this line of thinking, the nonfunctional sections of the genome represent nature's failed experiments that remain in the genome as a kind of artifact of the past activity of the mutation and selection process. Advocates of the design hypotheses on the other hand, would have predicted that non-coding regions of the genome might well reveal hidden functions, not only because design theorists do not think that new genetic information arises by a trial and error process of mutation and selection, but also because designed systems are often functionally polyvalent."

"like meaningful sentences or lines of computer code, genes and proteins are also specified with respect to function. Just as the meaning of a sentence depends upon the specific arrangement of the letters in a sentence, so too does the function of a gene sequence depend upon the specific arrangement of the nucleotide bases in a gene. Thus, molecular biologists beginning with Crick equated information not only with complexity but also with “specificity,” where “specificity” or “specified” has meant “necessary to function” (Crick 1958:144, 153; Sarkar, 1996:191)"

"if one understands organismal form as resulting from constraints on the possible arrangements of matter at many levels in the biological hierarchy--from genes and proteins to cell types and tissues to organs and body plans--then clearly biological organisms exhibit many levels of information-rich structure."

"an increase in the number of cell types implies (at a minimum) a considerable increase in the amount of specified genetic information."

"alterations in sequencing would likely result in loss of protein function before fundamentally new function could arise (Eden 1967, Denton 1986). Nevertheless, neither the extent to which genes and proteins are sensitive to functional loss as a result of sequence change, nor the extent to which functional proteins are isolated within sequence space, has been fully known"

"Dawkins (1996), for example, likens an organism to a high mountain peak. He compares climbing the sheer precipice up the front side of the mountain to building a new organism by chance. He acknowledges that his approach up “Mount Improbable” will not succeed."

"recent protein studies (often using mutagenesis experiments) have shown that functional requirements place significant constraints on sequencing even at non-active site positions (Bowie & Sauer 1989, Reidhaar-Olson & Sauer 1990, Chothia et al. 1998, Axe 2000, Taylor et al. 2001)."

"In particular, Axe (2000) has shown that multiple as opposed to single position amino acid substitutions inevitably result in loss of protein function, even when these changes occur at sites that allow variation when altered in isolation. Cumulatively, these constraints imply that proteins are highly sensitive to functional loss as a result of alterations in sequencing, and that functional proteins represent highly isolated and improbable arrangements of amino acids -arrangements that are far more improbable, in fact, than would be likely to arise by chance alone in the time available (Reidhaar-Olson & Sauer 1990; Behe 1992; Kauffman 1995:44; Dembski 1998:175-223; Axe 2000, 2004)."

"mutagenesis experiments cast doubt on each of the two scenarios by which neo-Darwinists envisioned new information arising from the mutation/selection mechanism (for review, see Lonnig 2001). For neo-Darwinism, new functional genes either arise from non-coding sections in the genome or from preexisting genes. Both scenarios are problematic."

"to turn one protein into another with a completely novel structure and function requires specified changes at many sites. Indeed, the number of changes necessary to produce a new protein greatly exceeds the number of changes that will typically produce functional losses. Given this, the probability of escaping total functional loss during a random search for the changes needed to produce a new function is extremely small--and this probability diminishes exponentially with each additional requisite change (Axe 2000)."

"lethal disadvantage: any process of random mutation or rearrangement in the genome would in all probability generate nonfunctional intermediate sequences before fundamentally new functional genes or proteins would arise"

"If an engineer modifies the length of the piston rods in an internal combustion engine without modifying the crankshaft accordingly, the engine won't start. Similarly, processes of development are tightly integrated spatially and temporally such that changes early in development will require a host of other coordinated changes in separate but functionally interrelated developmental processes downstream."

"This problem has led to what McDonald (1983) has called “a great Darwinian paradox” (p. 93). McDonald notes that genes that are observed to vary within natural populations do not lead to major adaptive changes, while genes that could cause major changes--the very stuff of macroevolution--apparently do not vary. In other words, mutations of the kind that macroevolution doesn't need (namely, viable genetic mutations in DNA expressed late in development) do occur, but those that it does need (namely, beneficial body plan mutations expressed early in development) apparently don't occur."

"DNA alone does not determine how individual proteins assemble themselves into larger systems of proteins; still less does it solely determine how cell types, tissue types, and organs arrange themselves into body plans (Harold 1995:2774, Moss 2004). Instead, other factors--such as the three-dimensional structure and organization of the cell membrane and cytoskeleton and the spatial architecture of the fertilized egg--play important roles in determining body plan formation during embryogenesis."

"it is not possible to predict the structure of the cytoskeleton of the cell from the characteristics of the protein constituents that form that structure (Harold 2001:125)."

"Two analogies may help further clarify the point. At a building site, builders will make use of many materials: lumber, wires, nails, drywall, piping, and windows. Yet building materials do not determine the floor plan of the house, or the arrangement of houses in a neighborhood. Similarly, electronic circuits are composed of many components, such as resistors, capacitors, and transistors. But such lower-level components do not determine their own arrangement in an integrated circuit."

"Biological symptoms also depend on hierarchical arrangements of parts. Genes and proteins are made from simple building blocks--nucleotide bases and amino acids--arranged in specific ways. Cell types are made of, among other things, systems of specialized proteins. Organs are made of specialized arrangements of cell types and tissues. And body plans comprise specific arrangements of specialized organs. Yet, clearly, the properties of individual proteins (or, indeed, the lower-level parts in the hierarchy generally) do not fully determine the organization of the higher-level structures and organizational patterns (Harold 2001:125). It follows that the genetic information that codes for proteins does not determine these higher-level structures either."

"the mechanism of natural selection acting on random mutations in DNA cannot in principle generate novel body plans".

"centrosome structure and membrane patterns as a whole convey three-dimensional structural information that helps determine the structure of the cytoskeleton and the location of its subunits (McNiven & Porter 1992:313-329)."

"In ciliates, microsurgery on cell membranes can produce heritable changes in membrane patterns, even though the DNA of the ciliates has not been altered (Sonneborn 1970:1-13, Frankel 1980:607-623; Nanney 1983:163-170). This suggests that membrane patterns (as opposed to membrane constituents) are impressed directly on daughter cells. In both cases, form is transmitted from parent three-dimensional structures to daughter three-dimensional structures directly and is not wholly contained in constituent proteins or genetic information (Moss 2004)"

"Cellular structures are built from proteins, but proteins find their way to correct locations in part because of preexisting three-dimensional patterns and organization inherent in cellular structures."

"this necessary tuning involves an intelligent programmer selecting certain parameters and excluding others--that is, inputting information"

"[Kauffman] concludes that body plans, once established, will not change"

"the fossil record does show a curious (from a neo-Darwinian point of view) top-down pattern of appearance, in which higher taxa (and the body plans they represent) appear first, only later to be followed by the multiplication of lower taxa representing variations within those original body designs (Erwin et al. 1987, Lewin 1988, Valentine & Jablonski 2003:518). Further, as Kauffman expects, body plans appear suddenly and persist without significant modification over time."

"Kauffman acknowledges that mutations that occur early in development are almost inevitably deleterious."

"the kind of form that physical laws produce is not analogous to biological form--at least not when compared from the standpoint of (algorithmic) complexity."

"Further, physical laws lack the information content to specify biology systems. As Polyanyi (1967, 1968) and Yockey (1992:290) have shown, the laws of physics and chemistry allow, but do not determine, distinctively biological modes of organization. In other words, living systems are consistent with, but not deducible, from physical-chemical laws (1992:290)."

"distinctively biological regularities depend upon preexisting biological information. Thus, appeals to higher-level biological laws presuppose, but do not explain, the origination of the information necessary to morphogenesis."

"Budd and Jensen (Cladism) do not explain what causes the origination of biological form and information", because they simply concluded: "the alleged phenomenon of the phyla appearing early and remaining morphologically static is not seen to require particular explanation” (Budd & Jensen 2000:253).

Conway Morris himself intimates that all of this has been “underpinned by a purpose” (2000:8, 2003b:511)"

"Could the notion of purposive design help provide a more adequate explanation for the origin of organismal form generally? Are there reasons to consider design as an explanation for the origin of the biological information necessary to produce the higher taxa and their corresponding morphological novelty?"

"scientists and philosophers of science have considered teleological explanations for the origin of form and information despite strong methodological prohibitions against design as a scientific hypothesis (Gillespie 1979, Lenior 1982:4)"

"Neo-Darwinists such as Ayala (1994:5), Dawkins (1986:1), Mayr (1982:xi-xii) and Lewontin (1978) have long acknowledged that organisms appear to have been designed. Of course, neo-Darwinists assert that what Ayala (1994:5) calls the “obvious design” of living things is only apparent since the selection/mutation mechanism can explain the origin of complex form and organization in living systems without an appeal to a designing agent. Indeed, neo-Darwinists affirm that mutation and selection--and perhaps other similarly undirected mechanisms--are fully sufficient to explain the appearance of design in biology. Self-organizational theorists and punctuationalists modify this claim, but affirm its essential tenet. Self-organization theorists argue that natural selection acting on self organizing order can explain the complexity of living things--again, without any appeal to design. Punctuationalists similarly envision natural selection acting on newly arising species with no actual design involved"

"this review has argued that neo-Darwinism does not adequately account for the origin of all appearances of design, especially if one considers animal body plans, and the information necessary to construct them, as especially striking examples of the appearance of design in living systems. Indeed, Dawkins (1995:11) and Gates (1996:228) have noted that genetic information bears an uncanny resemblance to computer software or machine code."

"could the emergence of novel information-rich genes, proteins, cell types and body plans have resulted from actual design, rather than a purposeless process that merely mimics the powers of a designing intelligence?"

"This review, and much of the literature it has surveyed, suggests that four of the most prominent models for explaining the origin of biological form fail to provide adequate causal explanations for the discontinuous increases of CSI (“complex specified information”) that are required to produce novel morphologies. Yet, we have repeated experience of rational and conscious agents--in particular ourselves--generating or causing increases in complex specified information, both in the form of sequence-specific lines of code and in the form of hierarchically arranged systems of parts."

"A computer user who traces the information on a screen back to its source invariably comes to a mind--that of a software engineer or programmer. The information in a book or inscriptions ultimately derives from a writer or scribe--from a mental, rather than a strictly material, cause. Our experience-based knowledge of information-flow confirms that systems with large amounts of specified complexity (especially codes and languages) invariably originate from an intelligent source from a mind or personal agent."

"the highly specified hierarchical arrangements of parts in animal body plans also suggest design, again because of our experience of the kinds of features and systems that designers can and do produce. At every level of the biological hierarchy, organisms require specified and highly improbable arrangements of lower-level constituents in order to maintain their form and function "

"Genes require specified arrangements of nucleotide bases; proteins require specified arrangements of amino acids; new cell types require specified arrangements of systems of proteins; body plans require specialized arrangements of cell types and organs. Organisms not only contain information-rich components (such as proteins and genes), but they comprise information-rich arrangements of those components and the systems that comprise them."

"As Berlinski (2000) has argued, genetic algorithms need something akin to a “forward looking memory” in order to succeed."

"we know, based on our present experience of cause and effect relationships, that design engineers--possessing purposive intelligence and rationality--have the ability to produce information-rich hierarchies in which both individual modules and the arrangements of those modules exhibit complexity and specificity--information so defined. Individual transistors, resistors, and capacitors exhibit considerable complexity and specificity of design; at a higher level of organization, their specific arrangement within an integrated circuit represents additional information and reflects further design."

"Conscious and rational agents have, as part of their powers of purposive intelligence, the capacity to design information-rich parts and to organize those parts into functional information-rich systems and hierarchies."

"Clearly, we have good reason to doubt that mutation and selection, self-organizational processes or laws of nature, can produce the information-rich components, systems, and body plans necessary to explain the origination of morphological novelty"

"What natural selection lacks, intelligent selection--purposive or goal-directed design--provides."

"the construction of complex technological objects and products, such as bridges, circuit boards, engines and software, result from the application of goal-directed constraints (Polanyi 1967, 1968). Indeed, in all functionally integrated complex systems where the cause is known by experience or observation, design engineers or other intelligent agents applied boundary constraints to limit possibilities in order to produce improbable forms, sequences or structures."

"Analysis of the problem of the origin of biological information, therefore, exposes a deficiency in the causal powers of natural selection that corresponds precisely to powers that agents are uniquely known to possess. Intelligent agents have foresight. Such agents can select functional goals before they exist. They can devise or select material means to accomplish those ends from among an array of possibilities and then actualize those goals in accord with a preconceived design plan or set of functional requirements. Rational agents can constrain combinatorial space with distant outcomes in mind. The causal powers that natural selection lacks--almost by definition--are associated with the attributes of consciousness and rationality--with purposive intelligence. Thus, by invoking design to explain the origin of new biological information, contemporary design theorists are not positing an arbitrary explanatory element unmotivated by a consideration of the evidence. Instead, they are positing an entity possessing precisely the attributes and causal powers that the phenomenon in question requires as a condition of its production and explanation."

"For this reason, recent scientific interest in the design hypothesis is unlikely to abate as biologists continue to wrestle with the problem of the origination of biological form and the higher taxa."

To see the source references, go to: http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=2177

////////////////////

As their specialty, an evolutionist tried to downgrade Meyer's paper by declaring that "oh, it's just another work on the Cambrian explosion". No Sir, that was just one example provided by Meyer to illustrate his full "The Origin of Biological Information and the Higher Taxonomic Categories."

Evolution is not a fact, is a fabrication, a mirage. Its strongest subfields are biased; for example "speciation" was launched with the central purpose to try to 'support' evolution, to "prove" evolution without any attempt to produce anything useful or practical. Dog breeders and other breeders can distinguish among varieties of dogs without declaring that "the bark of the Chihuahua" is which is making it a new and different species from the "Great Dane", to use one of the most extreme examples in dogs. Today, the simple logic of 'varieties' is totally and "conveniently", as Darwin himself did it, distorted to make it to mean "species", instead of "varieties"! Yes, there is change and variability, but there are clear boundaries and limits in biological change. It is time to replace the impossible mount assumed and imposed by the current transformism in biology, by starting with a fair treatment of what is just "variability" within similar groups of organisms, instead of such fallacy called "speciation". The practical prospects to do so are enormous, with a side product: the removal of the evolutionary concept of "speciation", in the same way that the "spontaneous generation" ("abiogenesis") was teared down time ago by the great non-evolutionist Louis Pasteur.

At this point, I think that all of us at ARN, in its ID board, support Sternberg, as we all, at this very moment, agree with the central conclusions of David Klinghoffer himself, from his article "The Branding of a Heretic", Are religious scientists unwelcome at the Smithsonian?" (The Wall Street Journal, Friday, January 28, 2005), as nobody has yet complained or commented about his next specific remarks (maybe, it won't be but after this posting, that the orthodox evolutionists will show up with their habitual style commenting on it, if not, they assume the veracity of the next Klinghoffer's statements):

"Note the circularity: Critics of ID have long argued that the theory was unscientific because it had not been put forward in a peer-reviewed scientific journal. Now that it has, they argue that it shouldn't have been because it's unscientific." "Darwinism, by contrast, is an essential ingredient in secularism, that aggressive, quasi-religious faith without a deity. The Sternberg case seems, in many ways, an instance of one religion persecuting a rival, demanding loyalty from anyone who enters one of its churches--like the National Museum of Natural History."

If Sternberg still believes that this cause is worth fighting, he will receive the necessary strength to go through all of this and succeed, and we will back him up.

In the same way as Meyer concludes his paper, I can affirm that, for all of our design-driven projects, even with all evolutionists and darwinists still "circularly" blocking us, while at the same time "conveniently" claiming that "we do not have experimental results", this is just the beginning, so help us God!…

Taken from ARN Board: Wall St Journal on Rick Sternberg

See also:

ARN Board: Wall St Journal on Rick Sternberg, part 2

As well as Bryan Andrew Leonard's Thesis:

ARN Board: Darwinist professors take aim at graduate students

IP: Logged

All times are East Coast

This topic is comprised of pages: 1 2 3

Printer-friendly view of this topic

Hop To:

The ISCID Forums are aimed at generating insight into the nature of complex systems (e.g. biological complexity, organizational complexity, etc.) and the ontological status of purpose, especially from the vantage point of various information- and design-theoretic models.

Indexed by UBB Spider Hack | Powered by Infopop Corporation UBB.classic^TM 6.3.1.1