[cth]

Actually, I have some difficulty to understand your point Renge. But, perhaps we are not talking about the same thing? When you said:

Yes, but it introduces the idea that life may not have originated directly here on earth in a pool of chemicals which is the central argument in what we call the "abiotic theory".

You are mentioning "earthly abiogenesis", while I am refering to abiogenesis in general (be it earthly or extraterrestrial). Am I right?

[renge ishyo]

You are mentioning "earthly abiogenesis", while I am refering to abiogenesis in general (be it earthly or extraterrestrial). Am I right?

Yes, I am not disagreeing with you at all cth! The seeding theory IS also an abiogenetic theory as far as I am concerned (that's my argument; it should be on equal footing as far as testing is concerned with the other). Although some have pointed out to me that it is not *necessarily* an abiogenetic theory (which umm...is why I think it is not on equal footing); nevertheless, it is strongly implied by the details that scientists put forth concerning how it come about that it is abiogenetic (and when I talk about a theory put forth by others it carries with it the ideas put forth by others). This is what I mean when I say it should be tested along with other ideas such as the one currently in vogue that life originated here directly on earth in a pool of chemicals and not elsewhere. Borek is right when he says that the seeding theory pushes back the problem, but that is O.K. with me, especially if one day evidence shows up and it ends up being true! Why should evolution operate on our proposed time table here on earth anyways? The theory might even get stronger if that linear timetable suddenly is blasted right open.

Nevertheless, it is not what modern students are taught when they are introduced to the "abiotic theory". The term "abiotic theory" is now being directly associated with "earthly abiogenesis" in the mainstream community with the miller-urey experiment as its strongest experimental support. This theory, whether you are for it or not, is questionable at present. The reason why this theory is so popular is because evolutionary descriptions are currently focused on linking one species to another here on earth. Adding in the possibility of new genes being delivered to species here on earth from space would basically invalidate all the work these scientists are doing if it was shown to be the case. So the earth abiogenesis then becomes the accepted theory for modern evolutionists out of convenience. Yay! In the past, there have been other terms used for the earthly abiogenesis theory such as "spontaneous generation", but the problem there is who is to say the seeding theory can't have seeds that "spontaneously generated" themselves somewhere in space? It would be easier to get the terminology straightened out if we would at least acknowledge that some issues concerning evolution still remain to be conclusively resolved.

[Mitch]

You guys are funny. The term law is used when there is a formula E=mc^2, the term theory is used when describing nature. This strict usage has slackened starting in the early 1900s.

To address the OP's question, I believe the first speciation event was observed by David Reznick. As I'm not a biologist I'm not familiar with the exact paper. However the public's misconceptions of evolution are addressed in this 2009 paper by none other than David Reznick. It is forum policy not to distribute copyright material, but in this instance I think it would be prudent to bend that rule. See attachment.

[renge ishyo]

Mitch (what happened to Dr. Mitch?) that article was mostly about finding molecular justification for a few of Darwin's original ideas. The funny thing that both sides don't seem to get is that most of the criticism of "Darwinian Evolution" has nothing to do with Darwin's ideas, but with ideas lumped in with it later on. When someone says "Darwinian Evolution" it is sort of like how "Newtonian Physics" came to represent all of classical physics including classical electrodynamics even though Newton personally said nothing on these matters. While there are some that deny all of evolution and so would disagree with the ideas in the Origin of Species, these people are just as nuts as the people that accept the whole thing at face value.

[Mitch]

Still a doctor, it was just a passive way to let everyone know.

[typhoon2028]

Another theory that should at least be thoroughly tested at the molecular level is Lamarckism. This was the old idea that there might be molecular mechanisms that allow an organism to modify it's genetic code based on adaptations to the environment.

I do not believe evolution to be a feedback system, as Lamarckism suggests.  I believe the evidence is showing that gradual changes, give rise to slightly better survival odds.  better survival = higher probability to reproduce & pass on genes.  We we see everyday is a result of many gradual changes.

Those are my two cents, but I must pay respect to Mayner, Darwin, Dawkins, and few other authors I have read.

[renge ishyo]

I do not believe evolution to be a feedback system, as Lamarckism suggests.  I believe the evidence is showing that gradual changes, give rise to slightly better survival odds.  better survival = higher probability to reproduce & pass on genes.  We we see everyday is a result of many gradual changes.

And this is precisely what the molecular evidence doesn't go along with...gradual changes. Even if you take into account extinctions, the taxonomy at the DNA level overall does not reinforce the simple linear macroscopic designations. The most obvious example of this are the archaea, which were supposed to be the primordial species that gradually changed into bacteria which in turn gradually changed into us. Except err...it is now known that genetically the archaea have more in common with us than they do with the bacteria (although they still do have a lot of overlap with bacteria as well in ways that we don't)! Crap. And sometimes we see strange things down there, like two species thought to be unrelated at all showing more genetic overlap in certain places than ones we believed were more related, etc. Basically the nice gradual change idea is sort of like an idealized family tree whereas the genetic code indicates things were more like a Shakespeare play...

[billnotgatez]

you forgot mutation which can add genetic information

[typhoon2028]

I don't remember what the original question was.  My thoughts are most people are confused about "Evolution."  They struggle with gradualism and the concept of time.  Most people want prove (for example), one day there was a reptile, it laid an egg, and the egg hatched into a bird.  This would easily connect the reptile to bird theory, but it simply did not happen & could not happen this way.  Another example would be an ancient cat birthed two cubs, one with stripes and one with a mane; giving rise to tigers and lions.  This did not happen, either.   Speciation requires group separation with low probability of interbreeding.  This takes time.

Speciation has been proven in plants.  For example, scientists have found "Plant C" (in the wild), it looks a little like "Plant A"  but also looks similar to "Plant B".  In a lab this scientists cross pollenate Plant A with Plant B, and "Plant C" is formed.