The jury is still out on evolution

[Dr.Yes]

His quote was..


I did not take the "rocket ship blueprint" bit literally. Although you will see from O Great One's recent post that there are people who want schools to teach that evolution is stupid (or "a fairy tale").

And the bible is undoubtedly a great big science text, not a fairy-tale. It is clearly laid out with instructions on how to use each page as a re-entry heat shield tile on the extrastratospheric vehicle that is explicitly described and diagramed in :revolutions: 174:96. {Note: place tablets of the ten commandments at nose of shuttle. Secure with papyrus pulp.}

In the long run, both the science texts of today and the religious texts of yestermillenia are great expenditures of energy that welcome any practical uses that can possibly and/or potentially be extracted from them and that can be of (good) service to those people studying said texts.

 

[tootin]

I'm a Christian, believe God created me, that Jesus died for me, that the Bible is His word... but I'm not particularly tied to any mechanism of creation. I'm just arguing to try and assert "evolution" isn't "hard fact" (because, as the more intelligent posters will realize, there is no such thing in science - or shouldn't be).

Josh.

If the hypothesis of evolution is true then evolution is a fact, even if in its present form the theory is incorrect or incomplete. If false then the theory must also be false and evolution would be a fiction.

Science is a self correcting knowledge processing algorithm for producing better fact-fitting theories. If evolution is indeed a fact then the theory will gradually reveal more and more to us about its working, as more scientific work is done and the theory itself evolves towards a better fit. Scientific theories must perforce converge towards, and not diverge away from the facts which they attempt to explain. Divergence = poorer fit and other theories will emerge to replace them.

If evolution is not a fact but a fiction, sooner or later, given sufficient time this must become evident. Some cold "hard" fact will emerge which no amount of twisting can bend so that it is forced to fit the shape of the false theory.

 

[Nereid]

And a big Welcome to Physics Forums, tootin and joahua!

A slight digression, if I may ... chose a 'reasonable' definition of life on Earth; chose 10,000 such. In almost all of these, the prokaryotes bacteria (and archaea?) will dominate, overwhelmingly. In this sense, the evolution of multi-cellular eukaryotes, which is of intense interest to a single species of Animalia, must surely be counted as but a (possibly interesting) footnote in a multi-trillion volume tome.

Viewed in this way, 'micro-evolution' is really the main game.

Oh, and to add to what Phobos (I think it was Phobos) said; if someone wants to shove their Christian beliefs down your throat, in the US, is it reasonable to ask "why are religions thus (created) so 'unequal'? And if they are, in fact, so "unequal", why do you not vigourously agitate for the suppression of all non-Christian faiths?"

 

[tootin]

Hello Nereid and thank you; and if we are to put things into greater perspective as you suggest, then surely inorganic chemistry is the only game from a galactical evolutionary point of view rather than a narrow biospherical-centered one! You and Phobos, as fellows of the satellite fraternity, would presumably be agreed about that.

 

[Dr.Yes]

And if they are (religions), in fact, so "unequal", why do you not vigourously agitate for the suppression of all non-Christian faiths?"

It appears that every American tax-payer is "vigourously agitating for the suppression of all non-Christian faiths" at this time. Its fairly obvious that the very troops who are supported by American tax dollars are fighting vigourously under fundimental and extreme Christian orders and values. The same troops are inadvertantly taught (by curcumstance) that it is the extremist ideals of (most) other religions that are to be suppressed. However, it has become harder and harder to distinguish one religious extreme from another just as it is hard to distinguish one extremely henous act from another.

"Vote with your dollar". (Woody Harrilson)

 

[Andre]

Speakig about eukaryotes and evolution, any progress after the excellent work of http://cajal.unizar.es/eng/part/Margulis.html?

 

[selfAdjoint]

Speakig about eukaryotes and evolution, any progress after the excellent work of http://cajal.unizar.es/eng/part/Margulis.html?

Progress in what? Understanding the cell? Her wilder theories as well as he sound ones? What?

 

[Selbstüberschätzug]

It appears that every American tax-payer is "vigourously agitating for the suppression of all non-Christian faiths" at this time. Its fairly obvious that the very troops who are supported by American tax dollars are fighting vigourously under fundimental and extreme Christian orders and values. The same troops are inadvertantly taught (by curcumstance) that it is the extremist ideals of (most) other religions that are to be suppressed. However, it has become harder and harder to distinguish one religious extreme from another just as it is hard to distinguish one extremely henous act from another.

"Vote with your dollar". (Woody Harrilson)

Can you be more specific? Where and way do you see this?
I mean it can't be in the Intrest of the World that Iran hase Wapons of mass distruction. Therfore the war against the Irak coul be resoned without conspiration-theories.

 

[Dr.Yes]

I mean it can't be in the Intrest of the World that Iran hase Wapons of mass distruction.

What do you or I know about Iran or the World?

What difference is there between India, Iran, Britain, France, Russia, China, N.Korea or Pakistan maintaining nuclear weapons?

Is it the religion behind the nukes that determines the validity of their weapon's programs?

Is it the frequency with which these nations have used their nukes that determines whether they should have them or not?

Is it a sign of responsible nuclear arms husbandry if you believe in evolution? Or is that the first step toward a totally indifferent nuclear holicaust?

At some point in our evolution, as a colony of humans on a rock in orbit around a sun, we will work together to solve more pressing problems than the ones we create for ourselves with enriched and/or depleated uranium. Until then, have a blast!

 

[Nereid]

Can we get back on topic please?

 

[Dr.Yes]

Of course, my apologies for de-evolving this discussion. However it has been my experience that the evolution of anything involves de-evolution plus more than what most people see as the linear progression of mud-to cell-to multi-cellular-to social milue (and resulting discussions).

Evolution, in my view, is more like the process of kneading a fruit cake. Some times the dried cherries are on top and other times the walnuts make it into the light of day. Its only at the end of the day that we see what's left on the plate - what's been eaten or what's made it to the compost.

 

[Selbstüberschätzug]

Yes Dr. I thought the same. Evolution has transformed it selfe into a cultural-evolution. In some cases this Evolution works against the biological evolution. Nuclear wapons are a good and maby finanal exempel for this process.

The further we go in the human history the more is the cultural evolution has its overwight... Social-Science are I în the right department?

Is it maybe possible that you (neraid) can put in my last post? Would be very helpfull. Thank you.

 

[Phobos]

In many important ways, cultural evolution is different than biological evolution...however, one certainly affects the other.

 

[Icebreaker]

Son: "Dad, why do children resemble their parents in appearance?"
Dad: "Do you know anything about genetics, son?"
Son: "Well, not very much, please proceed."
Dad: "You resemble your parents because half of the instructions — genes — for making you came from your father and half from your mother. Similarly, your brother or sister also received half of their genetic instructions from each parent, but the set they received is somewhat different from the set you received. That's why they may resemble you, but they are not identical to you."
Son: "So, then my genes were already in existence in the previous generation?"
Dad: "Yep, same with everybody else too."
Son: "Hmmm...I just thought of something. This means evolution is impossible."
Dad: "How so? Please explain."
Son: "Well, if the genes were already in existence in the previous generation then there is really nothing 'new'. I suppose a crude analogy would be that Mom holds 44 playing cards and Dad also holds 44 playing cards. When someone is born 22 cards are selected at random from each and a new unique stack of 44 cards are produced, but none of the cards are really new."
Dad: "Interesting analogy. Yes, that really does seem to chop down the evolution tree."

So... stupid... must... find... non-sarcastic reply...

 

[Selbstüberschätzug]

Dad and Mom have to 2 Genes each: Good and Bad. Brother A becomes Good from Mom and Good from Dad. Brother B Becomes Bad from Mom and Bad from Dad. Brother B has so bad genes that he days before he can be a dad. The bad genes are dying with brother B.

 

[Dr.Yes]

Dad and Mom have to 2 Genes each: Good and Bad. Brother A becomes Good from Mom and Good from Dad. Brother B Becomes Bad from Mom and Bad from Dad. Brother B has so bad genes that he days before he can be a dad. The bad genes are dying with brother B.

This is an example of what the Washington DC police call a "self-cleaning oven". It is a highly efficent part of evolution. The trouble is, people want to mess with it and bring in social programs and other ideas that will pilfer millions from the taxpayer's coffers into their pockets. Society often works better when you leave it to itself. I think that if we left the politicians to themselves there'd be no polititians left by the end of term. They'd either take off with their corporate donations or have each other snuffed all to hell and back. Then we'd have a fresh batch to deal with.

 

[selfAdjoint]

Dad and Mom have to 2 Genes each: Good and Bad. Brother A becomes Good from Mom and Good from Dad. Brother B Becomes Bad from Mom and Bad from Dad. Brother B has so bad genes that he days before he can be a dad. The bad genes are dying with brother B.

BUT maybe the bad-good combination (bad from one parent, good from the other) gives some advantages. People who inherit bad-bad combinations die young, but bad-goods are, say, more fecund than good-goods. So the bad gene never goers away, you get to an equilibrium where the loss of bads due to bad-bad deaths is balances be the gain of bads due to the extra children of the bad-goods over the good-goods. This really happens, the sickle-cell gene is the poster example. Bad-good has partial immunity to malaria.

I don't know what any of this has to do with Dr. Yes's rant - genetic inheritance is not a class thing, it hits everybody.

 

[Dr.Yes]

BUT maybe the bad-good combination (bad from one parent, good from the other) gives some advantages. People who inherit bad-bad combinations die young, but bad-goods are, say, more fecund than good-goods. So the bad gene never goers away, you get to an equilibrium where the loss of bads due to bad-bad deaths is balances be the gain of bads due to the extra children of the bad-goods over the good-goods. This really happens, the sickle-cell gene is the poster example. Bad-good has partial immunity to malaria.

I don't know what any of this has to do with Dr. Yes's rant - genetic inheritance is not a class thing, it hits everybody.

Rant

I agree selfAdjoint. Whether republican, democrate, good, or bad, take the element that works for the challenge from each. That's the middle of the road approach that is the fittest way to survive the long haul. So that, as you point out, there is no good or bad gene. There are only situations where they are useful and other situations where they're not.

I like think that genes are a person's environment as much as the house they live in, the city their house is in and the country side surrounding their city. Environment is the one and only determining factor on the genetic environment. It may be an environment of personally created stress, calm, chemical imbalance, balance or chaos or order. But, environment is what shapes the environment of the gene.

That is basically what a large part of the theory of evolution is saying.

I'm afraid the "JURY" is out because they thought they were watching "Discovery Channel" when it turned out to be the "Discovery" group. They are insisting they've discovered that the universe is intelligently designed. As in, big bearded guy in robe with lightning bolts designs everying from the top quark to protazoa to super clusters of galaxies.

This "discovery" group demands that their version of "a designed universe" be put in the science classes at the junior level. This is a group of polyester-wearing stay-at-the-golf-club-choir-mamas demanding equal time with Darwin, Newton, Einstein and the like. I think they need a nice vacation, a few times around the world, on the old SS Beagle.

 

[selfAdjoint]

This is a group of polyester-wearing stay-at-the-golf-club-choir-mamas demanding equal time with Darwin, Newton, Einstein and the like. I think they need a nice vacation, a few times around the world, on the old SS Beagle.

Hee Hee! Good one! The problem is tha the average uninformed person hasn't got the ability to distinguish sense from nonsense in this area. And the fact that politicians of both parties are disposed to kow tow to their ignorance is no help at all.

 

[russ_watters]

Hey, don't be bringing golf into this. Golf never did nothin to no one.

Anyway, "good" and "bad" are pretty subjective here. A serial rapist may have a procreation advantage, but that doesn't make his actions "good".

 

[Nereid]

IF 'bad gene' (inherited twice, in higher primates only) = horrible death (99.999999999% certainty) before pubety
THEN bad = objectively bad (i.e. no possibility of descendants).

 

[selfAdjoint]

IF 'bad gene' (inherited twice, in higher primates only) = horrible death (99.999999999% certainty) before pubety
THEN bad = objectively bad (i.e. no possibility of descendants).

Don't need the horrible death. Bad-bad => sterility works just as well.

 

[Dr.Yes]

From mud to monkeys in 4 billion yrs flat

Hee Hee! Good one! The problem is tha the average uninformed person hasn't got the ability to distinguish sense from nonsense in this area. And the fact that politicians of both parties are disposed to kow tow to their ignorance is no help at all.

We sometimes forget that evolution, and all of what we call nature, somehow "works" in the most efficient of manners. The result being that nature continues to exist.

When we curse those people trying to tear down some of the pretty sound theories that have helped us to understand some of the astounding ways that life has been established on earth, (and no doubt throughout the universe...) when we curse these curious people we curse that very mind boggling "machination of nature". Everything produced by nature is used toward an efficient end. Even people who don't know how the "?©º to think for themselves.

Whatever the Latter Day Designated Creationists is or does or wants to do, nature will be the final judge of their Worshipness's overall usefulness to the survival of life, nature, itself, and the universe.

In the mean time, unless the people using bibles-for-blinders ask you for help, you can't help them. What you think you know and what they think they know - these will always have a large gulf betwixt. So I say keel-haul the bunch of 'em, arrrrrrrr. Or give each of them a 10 year penance as a caddy.

 

[Nereid]

Don't need the horrible death. Bad-bad => sterility works just as well.

You can even dispense with the sterility; having all your children die (a horrible, or not) death within minutes of birth works just as well.

 

[selfAdjoint]

You can even dispense with the sterility; having all your children die (a horrible, or not) death within minutes of birth works just as well.

And a 99.999% disposition to chastity trumps even that!

 

[Phobos]

and lest we not forget beauty...or the lack thereof

an "ugly gene" may be bad for reproductive success, but otherwise it can be neutral to the individual's survival

 

[Dr.Yes]

and lest we not forget beauty...or the lack thereof

an "ugly gene" may be bad for reproductive success, but otherwise it can be neutral to the individual's survival

A story about the ugly gene:

A man moved from the east-coast out west to get a job logging. He finally found himself out on an island with 20 loggers for sometimes up to 6 weeks at a time, logging.

For fun, on weekends, all the loggers would have a go at it with the sheep on the island (since there was no one else around). But the east-coaster was nervous about such practices and only worked up the nerve to get to know a sheep around the 3rd week into his isolation.

He was just starting to get to know a sheep when all 20 loggers stuck their heads up over a hill... laughing at him uproarously. The east coaster exclaimed, "what are you laughing at? You guys do this all the time!

One of the loggers said, "yeah but (snicker), you got Agnes... the ugly one"

 

[Ivan Seeking]

On a related note: I already knew that some people are trying to argue physics according to the Quran, but I just learned that we also have Christian Physics!

This would seem to be one source of this concept.

Dr. Wile is currently devoting his full time to the various Apologia ministries. He is dedicated to the concept of home schooling and is trying to keep as many students in home school for as long as possible.

The year 2005 marks ten years that homeschooled high schoolers can benefit from Apologia curriculum.

See the wide range of courses, take a peek at the tables of contents, get your questions answered.

http://www.christianbook.com/Christian/Books/cms_content?page=287399&sp=60624&p=1018818

 

[Dr.Yes]

On a related note: I already knew that some people are trying to argue physics according to the Quran, but I just learned that we also have Christian Physics!

This would seem to be one source of this concept.

http://www.christianbook.com/Christian/Books/cms_content?page=287399&sp=60624&p=1018818

One good thing about Christian Physics would/could be if people exclusively employed the ethics of Christianity and left the dogma outside or in the car.

This way, the actual study of physics could progress without the bickering and grandstanding that tends to slow the process of the study physics. However, Christian Humans, as I have observed, are as likely to be big blow-hards as any other humans. Take Jimmy Swaggard for example, please.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Shall we all just choose which version of science we like?

I don't know if this is a failure of education, a cultural retreat from rational thought, a blip on the screen, or a sign of more to come. Religion and spirituality has always been a part of the human experience and I wonder if science might be in bit of trouble here. When science tells us something other than what we want to believe - maybe even what many people need to believe - does logic have a chance?

On the flip side, has science been too aggressive in its posture? There is always room for doubt, but we really are taught in a factual way with little room for doubt or alternative points of view. For example, I was taught on no uncertain terms that the universe is expanding, and that the expansion is slowing. This was a fact as far as I knew. Now, the real experts knew there was a margin of error that could mean just the opposite was true, that the expansion is really speeding up, which turns out to be the case [it appears], but this was information found exclusively in the domain of scientists and not in that of a typical elementary school or HS level science teacher. So the average person who never goes on to study science loses confidence and considers it to be just another school of thought. I have seen this happen. A person hears this, that, and the other explanation for something, and pretty soon it all sounds like nonsense.

 

[sage]

Darwin conceded that the lack of fossil evidence for transitions between species of animals (in the sense that macro evolution advocates) is a potential objection to his theory, stating that:

He predicted, however, that future discoveries would vindicate his theory and resolve this stumbling block.

In 1979, David Raup, curator of the Field Museum of Natural History (Chicago) said this:

Apparently the fossil record we do have shows that in rocks dating back roughly 570 million years, nearly all animal phyla appears fully formed and "without a trace of the evolutionary ancestors that Darwinists require."[3]

Thoughts?

[1]Charles Darwin, On the Origin of Species, 6th Ed. (available from Project Gutenberg http://www.gutenberg.org/dirs/etext99/otoos610.txt)
[2]Raup, D. M., "Conflicts between Darwin and Paleontology", Bulletin, Field Museum of Natural History, January 1979, cited in Strobel, L. The Case for Faith, 127.
[3]Johnson, P. E., ]Darwin on Trial, 2nd Ed., 54.

joahua if you are still there.it is simply not true that cambrian explosion was as sudden or rapid event as it's often made out to be.consider the facts presented in the link below talkorigins.org/origins/postmonth/dec97.html .well link isn't working. so here's the entire post.

In article <66iql6$noi@drn.zippo.com>,
>Chris Nedin <cnedin@geology.adelaide.edu.au> wrote:
>>In Ben's case, as in mine, no metazoan fossils are found as *organic*
>>remains (which was the point of the query). In almost all cases, metazoan
>>fossils of Ediacaran age are of the impressions of organisms (usually in
>>sandstone). There is no organic component/residue.
>
>Actually, I really wanted to learn just how good the pre-Ediacaran
>fossil record is, as compared with how good we would expect based on the
>preservation potential of the deposits we've found.

Oh, right. The PRE-Ediacaran record consists basically of single celled organisms or aggregates thereof, i.e. algae-like and bacteria-like. We do find very similar rock lithologies below Ediacaran fossil-bearing rocks, indicative of similar environments, but, with one or two possible exceptions, there are no obviously metazoan fossils. In South Australia, the first Ediacaran fossils occur in eroded channels, suggesting a period of erosion and lower sea level prior to the deposition of fossil-bearing sediments. However, it is becoming clear that the Ediacara fauna can be divided into separate assemblages, with the most diverse and disparate (variation in bodyplan) occurring at the highest (youngest) levels. So while the Ediacaran fauna tends to emerge into the taphonomic spotlight with very little fanfare, the earliest appearances have relatively low disparity.

>I have heard
>suggested several times that the Cambrian explosion might be an artifact
>of fossil preservation, and I was wondering how much data we have to test
>that hypothesis.

Well one explosion is. There are two aspects to Early Cambrian evolution which although separate are often confused as one and the same. One is the rapid diversification of life during the earliest Cambrian, and the other is the rapid appearance of organisms in the fossil record. Neither event was instantaneous.

The rapid diversification of life in the earliest Cambrian was almost certainly derived from a pre-existing stem stock of organisms, representatives of which appear in the Ediacaran fauna. The Ediacaran fauna appears to contain organisms with a cnidarian-grade of organisation, as well as the more derived, bilaterally symmetric, triploblasic annelid-grade, arthropod-grade and probably mollusc-grade. Trace fossils associated with, but not necessarily formed by, Ediacaran organisms clearly indicate organisms with a coelomic-grade of organisation (triploblasts). These are much smaller than the more commonly found fossils and occur in higher (younger) strata.

All this indicates that Ediacaran organisms appear to have taken two strategic pathways during the late Neoproterozoic. One group (composed of representatives of several -grades) opted for passive acquisition of oxygen via the 'skin' and simple diffusion through the tissues. This allowed them to grow to very large sizes (c. 1 metre) provided they remained very thin (oxygen will not diffuse very far through tissues). The other group, comprised of the triploblasts, opted for oxygen delivery via oxygenated fluids (from oxygen acquired through the 'skin'). This strategy resulted in the ability to have a body plan with a circular cross section (the deeper tissues being supplied via fluids and not simple diffusion) and thus a coelom. With a coelom, centimetric organisms can be mobile and produce simple traces, seen as trace fossils in the rocks. Ediacaran trace fossils are always horizontal - i.e. they do not burrow, probably because 1) there was plenty of organic matter at or near the surface; 2) burrowing covered up the 'skin' cutting down the supply of oxygen.

It seems likely that new biochemical pathways were also being explored, resulting in the production of the metazoan stalwart - collagen. A real tough customer, providing support and strength with flexibility, and difficult to break down.

Since all the Ediacaran organisms so far discovered appear to lack any hard parts it is likely that there were no mobile megascopic predators around (no hard parts = no teeth, its very difficult to gum something to death!). Thus, the presence of possible novel biocompounds, the lack of mobile predators and the lack of burrowers, all combined to provide a taphonomic 'window' which allowed the preservation of soft-bodied organisms. By the start of the Cambrian, this system was breaking down.

It is likely that while the big guns were simply getting bigger, the little guns were getting more complex. The triploblasts were beginning to toy with differentiation (something the arthropod body plan is particularly good at), specifically concentration the job of oxygen scavenging to specific body parts (= gills).

Now, by the very end of the Late Neoproterozoic, two things happened. Probably a combination of increasing dissolved oxygen levels in the oceans, but also probably due to the recognition of gills as a smart move. Whatever the reason(s), organisms began to burrow.

Burrowing is right up there in the list of brilliant tactical manoeuvers. It confers protection, both from dirtyfilthystinkingrottencarbonateprecititators (see below) and from storm activity and the odd vicious undertow. As an added bonus, it allows access to buried food sources which are denied the third-dimensionally challenged suckers confined the the top of the sediment. The possession of gills is a big advantage when burrowing because you can either hang them out in the current while keeping the rest of the body safely in the burrow, or by waving them back and forth, you can create a current which brings oxygenated water into the burrow.

The other thing that happened, was that organisms were toying with the precipitation of calcium carbonate (calcite). This first appears in the Latest Neoproterozoic as the calcified inner lining of worm tubes (a trace fossil called Cloudina). Granted it may well have only been a worm with a flare for interior design, but it was an important first step. From there it is only a short peristaltic motion to the mineralization of the tips of such body parts as legs and jaws. After all it makes burrowing much easier, plus it has the added bonus of allowing access to all that concentrated protein wrapped up in collagen! Predation probably took off faster than you can rub two mineralised jaw elements together.

Thus, with predation mopping soft-bodied organisms off the surface, and burrowing destroying buried remains, the Ediacaran taphonomic window was shut. The 'big is beautiful' organisms inevitably lost out. After all, you may be the biggest redwood in the forest, but you are always going to lose out to the wimp with a chainsaw!

Once the constraints of oxygen scavenging had been confined to a specific part of the body, the body plan in general becomes a good deal more plastic (loose a limb here, fuse some segments there). Thus the seeds of the great Cambrian Diversification were sowed. Fertilized with a rising sea level to open up new living space, organisms rapidly, but not instantly, diversified.

The appearance of organisms in the fossil record is a related issue, resulting from the mineralisation, and hence vastly increased preservation potential, of organisms. However, this too was not an instantaneous event.

At the start of the Cambrian, we find the first evidence of mineralised tissues in the form of what appear to be annelid jaw elements and "small shelly fossils" which are the separate elements of interlocking body armour worn by annelids, molluscs, halkiirids and probably arthropods. This meshwork armour was a first attempt and was composed of separate elements rather than a continuous sheet as it would be later. All this probably came about because of the segregation of oxygen scavenging to a particular part of the body, freeing up the rest of the body and enabling THE fashion accessory of the Early Cambrian to be worn - the calcium carbonate overcoat - without feat of suffocation. The overcoat provided extra support for muscles, allowing better movement, and some protection from predators. It also greatly enhanced the preservation potential of the organism or more importantly wrt arthropods, moults of the organism (thus one trilobite can leave behind several images of itself as it grows, with the added bonus of documenting the growth pattern at the same time - trilobites are cool, they are the best thing on 24 legs!).

Thus the rapid diversification of life during the Early Cambrian and the appearance of organisms in the fossil record are related, but separate, phenomenon. Neither are "sudden" or "instantaneous", but show a sequential, progressive increase.

in short evolution of calcified body parts rapidly changed the way ecosystems work and opened up new opportunities for life to exploit.also my hunch is that the phyla were already existing, but only fossilized after they evolved hard parts during the cambrian period.also note that speciation when and where they occur are very rapid events. a few examples will suffice.
1) most stunning is the rapid speciation of cichlid fishes in the 3 freshwater lakes of Malawi,Tanganyika and Victoria. there are(or were before the introduction of predatory Nile Perch) 2000 distict species cichlids living in these three lakes. victoria alone houses 500 different species and all of these arose from a single ancestral species which somehow entered the lake not more than 12400 years ago(which incidentally was when Victoria was first formed)
2)seafloor sediments of the ordovician period also shows an instance of rapid speciation. in early ordovician seabottom was oxygen poor and hence very few(4 or 5) species lived there. then suddenly, due to some shift in ocean current oxygen concentration rapidly increased. a rapid rise in the number of species are observed.within a few thousand years number of species rose to 10, a few thousand years hence it went upto 15 and so on. within a million years there are 40 species living on the ocean floor, and all of them newly evolved on situ.
3)codling moth are small grey brown insect that attacks apples and pears. it was always confined in europe, but was accidentally introduced in North America in the middle of the 18th century whence they promptly infested apple and pear orchards in USA.but in 1912 codling moth began attacking walnut trees that grew near apple orchards. the walnut infestation grew until in 1930 another strain began attacking plums. studies have shown that these strains are already becoming distinct and chances of interbreeding have decreased substantially. one species is well on the way of becoming 3 distinct species in a period of 150 years.many other examples exist.

what all this shows is simply that speciation depends on opening of new opportunities and are extremely rapid events when they do occur.explosions are the rule rather than the exception.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Scientists Speak Up on Mix of God and Science

Another related story

At a recent scientific conference at City College of New York, a student in the audience rose to ask the panelists an unexpected question: "Can you be a good scientist and believe in God?"

Reaction from one of the panelists, all Nobel laureates, was quick and sharp. "No!" declared Herbert A. Hauptman, who shared the chemistry prize in 1985 for his work on the structure of crystals. [continued]

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/23/national/23believers.html