Some of the Genetic Evidence for the Evolution of Man

"Well, the other explanation that has been given to you several times already, that they share a common creator, not a common ancestor.

Your information is rather selective and one sided. There is a wide variety of opinions regarding the DNA similarities of people and apes and what that means. I would suggest you research the information available at answers in Genesis."

Well, let's go back to the top now.

If you would read the whole thread, you would see that i spend much of my time on items that are outside the explanation of a common designer. Take a look at the third post, for example.

http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php/topic/66/19.html#000002

Here I start a discussion of retroviral inserts.

Certain viruses, called retroviruses, will insert a segment of their DNA into the genome of their host as part of the infection. HIV is one such virus. Very rarely, this insertion will happen in a germ line cell (sperm or egg) which is used for reproduction. If this happens, then the offspring will also recieve this insertion as a permananet part of their genome.

Now, there is no reason for an intelligent designer to litter the genome with the remains of DNA from different viruses. They serve no function. (Well, we do have an example of an insert that mutated and then became a functional protein, but that is a story for another thread.) Worse than no function, they are the remnants of an infection.

Now, through the eons, there have been enough of these infections that the viral DNA makes up a few percent of your genome. Now the fun comes when you start comparing the inserts between species.

When you compare man and the other apes, you find that they share almost exactly the same set of inserts. They share them so closely that it is the same DNA sequence inserted into the exact same spot on the chromosome. The reference in the post I linked you to says about this that

Because of the extreme odds of getting just one exact sequence in an exact spot twice, one shared insertion is proof of common ancestry. We have much more than that.

Now there are an insertion or two that are not fully shared among all the apes. In addition, since these sequences are non functional, they accumulate mutations with time. So by comparing the homology of the sequences and any differences that there may be in which specific sequences are in each species, it is possible to reconstruct the phylogeny of the apes from these inserts. And wouldn't you know it, the tree is the same as what you get from all the other methods, genetic and anatomical.

 

There is another complication for you in how to get all those inserts in. This is from post 6.

http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php/topic/66/19.html#000005

 

Now, you should be able to find other cases where I have used DNA that is not explainable in a logical way by a common designer to show the same thing. For example in the first post

http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php/topic/66/19.html#000000

I used a wide variety of different types of non-coding DNA to show the same thing.

Again, the same results from a different method. And one that does not use coding DNA. (Though I would assert that even coding DNA is valid because it is the pattern of slight differences that allow us to trace ancestry. You must believe in an awfully deceitful designer if he would make the small differences in all the species follow a pattern which does not exist.)

 

As far as the differences in % go between humans and chimps go, it really depends on how you count.

When counting coding DNA, the numbers you get are the ones close to 100%. But even here there can be differences. For example, in each three "letter" codon that codes for each amino acid, a substitution in the third spot will often result in the same amino acid being made. So some scientists will not count such differences in this third position as a difference. Some will. If you say they are the same if they make the same amino acid, then the similarity is 99.4% in codinf DNA. If you say that it constitutes a difference, then it drop to 98.4%

Coincidentally, this 98.4% is the same number you get if you compare stretches on non-coding DNA ("junk"). (OK, it is not coincidence.)

Now, some have counted by looking at coding DNA but saying that if there are any sequence differences then the whole thing is different. From memory, I think they found something like 85% of the sequences the same. Of course a number of YEers jumped on this result without understanding the methology behind it.

Now, as you hav found, there are stretches of the genome that have been duplicated, shifted, reversed or that have had all sorts of interesting things happen to them through time. If you add these in, meaning you have to compare the whole genome as one big unit, then you get lower numbers.

It all depends on how you count. But I do not see exactly where you wish to build a case against common ancestry through such results.

This is also where your statements about the time required to accumulate the differences falls apart. It is only the beneficial mutations that need to be fixed for evolution to happen. The mutations in the "junk" have no pressure on them to remove them and that is where most of your differences will accumulate.

So, let's go back to you last post on this and the numbers above. There are about 20000 coding genes for humans. 15% of these are different from humans to chimps. So that is about 3000 mutations that need to be fixed.

You claimed that one beneficial mutation being fixed every 300 generations would result in 1667 fixed beneficial mutations in 10 million years. Well, we are not only in the same order of magnitude here, we are only about 50% apart. Now the part of that I will question is the 25 year generation time. Since humans reach sexual maturity in about half that time, I would expect that for most of history, the generation time was much less. Chimpanzees have been observed in zoos to begin reproducing as early as age 5. So there could be as many as 5 times as many generations as you are allowing for. Put it all together and the numbers add up. The differences in coding DNA are achievable by even the estimates that you use. The larger number of mutations outside the coding DNA is not subject to selective pressures and therefore would be easier to fix accounting for those differences as well.

So, no problem.

 

"In your third post your discussion of retroviral inserts is invalid because you exclude several pieces of information. For starters you leave out the fact that while there are similarities between man and the other apes, the similarities differ between the apes themselves. Some of the similarities between Men and Gorillas for example are not present in chimps. Likewise their are similarities between chimps and men that are not found in apes. In order to use this to prove common descent you need a nested set of similarities that does not exist."

Read the thread again, then. I did post numerous sets that all nest to the same results.

As far as the rest, please enlighten me. There have been millions of years of evolution since the last common ancestor of man with the chimps or with man/chimp and hte gorillas. Of course there would be expected to be some things that are in one but not the others.

Which traits do you think do not properly nest?

"To translate that into clear language. If apes and people shared the same food or parasites it is possible that the same insertion to take place as has been observed in the laboratory with flies. This is especially true when it involves viruses that can be transmitted between species."

They might could transfer the sequence but they cannot transfer it into the exact same spot in the genome. This is a multipart step here. It is the sequence and the location and the mutations that have occurred in the sequence. You only went after one leg. You missed the other two.

If your contention was correct, then the mutations that are seen in the sequences would not nest properly. They do. So that rules out lateral transfer as a possibility.

"I believe if God wanted to he could have made the world yesterday including full grown trees and animals and even the memories I have of past things. He is God."

I too believe that He could and the He did not. It makes no sense to make a world in 6 days and then to carefully craft every aspect of it, from the universe to the planet to the organisms to appear just as it would if He had used long ages. That is not the God I believe in. He is not the author of confusion.

"If you go back to the Garden of Eden on the day of creation and cut down one of the trees, will it have rings in it?"

It might have rings. But I doubt the ratio of C14 to C12 would be careful changed in each succesive ring to make it appear as if the tree had really been there for many years.

 

"UTEOTW,Read Job,chapter 38,39.You are right God is not the author of confusoin,but many of your favorite authors are. "

Just what am I supposed to get that is germane? Job questions God so God basically asks wh osi Job to question Him? There was nothing in there relevant. Unless of course you think we should take those things literally and that there really is a house the sun goes to at night and that there really are warehouses where the snow and hail are kept. Hmm, maybe somethings aren't so literal after all but yet still give valuable messages.

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

"That life can be made from non-life by accident"

Abiogenesis is a separate subject from evolution and definately way off topic for a discussion of man's common descent with the other apes, but feel free to start a thread if you wish to discuss it.

"That DNA molecules can combine by accident in nature"

I am not sure what you mean here.

"Mere coincidence causes genetic mutations to form new species"

Huh? Copying errors cause mutations. Selection acts upon the mutations to keep the good and eliminate the bad.

"That Adam and Eve were born 80,000 years apart "

What? Are you kidding me?

I think you must be talking about mitochondrial Eve and a similar thing was done with the Y chromosome for men. This is largely a mathematical construct and has nothing to do with what we are discussing.

"that the historical genetic signal is clear enough for easy interpretation when it is not "

You will have to explain what you mean by that.

"And that the viral insertions used to support your theory could not have occured during a plague concentrated in a small geographical location. You are assuming that the spread of the viral plague(s) could not have spread through many different species at the same time."

Yours fails for the same reason as above. But worse.

You could have the same viruses in the same location. But now you have the problem of getting them to infect different species. This is not always possible. Then you have to have various species all get infected with the same combination of viruses. Then you have to have them insert the same sequence. Then you must have this sequence be insrted into the same location of the genome each and every time. Then you have to have all of these insertions take place in an egg or sperm cell that is subsequently used for reproduction where the offspring is the common ancestor of all its kind. Then you have to have mutations takes place in these contemporary insertions at much higher than observed rates AND in a pattern that matches phylogenies from other sources.

 

"DNA molecules cannot form by accident in nature ... nor anywhere else."

Well it is a good thing then that no one supposes that DNA molecules formed by accident then.

"Scientifically, the conditions that are considered necessary to formulate the basic DNA of life for basic life forms would be fatal to current life forms. "

I'll use you favorite quote of mine here again.

Huh?

What conditions are those that would be fatal to all current life forms?

"Hence, the quest for extraterrestrial life ..."

Very few people think that life on earth got started through pansperia. Most think that it got started right here.

Second, why is that even germane? No one supposes that the current life that we see just popped intoexistance for no reason. The earliest life would have by definition been suitable for the conditions then. As the earth changed, so did life.

"So, according to modern "science" the basic premise of evolution is not logical. The assumption that life can be formed in conditions that are fatal to life is illogical."

First, it is your assertion so you have the burden of proof of showing thatthe conditions would be fatal. Second, abiogenesis, while an interesting and worthwhile topic, is a separate topic from evolution.

"Further, the necessary assumption that life forms [species] can mutate into new life [new species] is also illogical. "Evolution" is merely natural selection and rendomness. There has never been any support for actual evolution."

How can something that is observed to happen be illogical? There is plenty of support for evolution. The twin nested heirarchy. Genetic vestiges. Developmental. Pseudogenes. Morphological vestiges. The unity of phylogenies from different sources. The known transistional series. The correct chronology of these series. Ontogeny. Biogeography. Molecular parahomology. Anatomical parahomology. Suboptimal function. Transposons. Retroviral inserts.

Just to name a few.

"There has never been a single evolution of a new and observable "species"."

How many do you want?

"A Breed Apart," Scientific American", Feb 1989, page 22

In the early 20th century, three species of European wildflowers called goatsbeards were introduced into America. They caught on in the wild and started expanding their territory. Sometimes the three species would find themselves in mixed populations. Breeding between the three species produced offspring but the offspring were not fertile. In the 1940's, two new species of goatsbeards appeared in Washington state. Evolution had produced two new species from the hybrids that were now capable of reproducing with themselves but not with the three parent species from which they had evolved. The reason is partially because it was a polyploidy event.

We can go well down this path. We have plants. We have animals. We have speciation in the wild. We have speciation in the lab. We have speciation by various mechanisms. I don't know how many are here. Spend some time with http://scholar.google.com/ and search on some of these and read them.

Bullini, L and Nascetti, G, 1991, Speciation by Hybridization in phasmids and other insects, Canadian Journal of Zoology, Volume 68(8), pages 1747-1760.

Sharman, G.B., Close, R.L, Maynes, G.M., 1991, Chromosome evolution, phylogeny, and speciation of rock wallabies, Australian Journal of Zoology, Volume 37(2-4), pages 351-363.

Werth, C. R., and Windham, M.D., 1991, A model for divergent, allopatric, speciation of polyploid pteridophytes resulting from silencing of duplicate- gene expression, AM-Natural, Volume 137(4):515-526.

Spooner, D.M., Sytsma, K.J., Smith, J., A Molecular reexamination of diploid hybrid speciation of Solanum raphanifolium, Evolution, Volume 45, Number 3, pages 757-764.

Arnold, M.L., Buckner, C.M., Robinson, J.J., 1991, Pollen-mediated introgression and hybrid speciation in Louisiana Irises, P-NAS-US, Volume 88, Number 4, pages 1398-1402.

Nevo, E., 1991, Evolutionary Theory and process of active speciation and adaptive radiation in subterranean mole rats, spalax-ehrenbergi superspecies, in Israel, Evolutionary Biology, Volume 25, pages 1-125.

Ahearn, J. N. 1980. Evolution of behavioral reproductive isolation in a laboratory stock of Drosophila silvestris. Experientia. 36:63-64.

Barton, N. H., J. S. Jones and J. Mallet. 1988. No barriers to speciation. Nature. 336:13-14.

Baum, D. 1992. Phylogenetic species concepts. Trends in Ecology and Evolution. 7:1-3.

Boraas, M. E. 1983. Predator induced evolution in chemostat culture. EOS. Transactions of the American Geophysical Union. 64:1102.

Breeuwer, J. A. J. and J. H. Werren. 1990. Microorganisms associated with chromosome destruction and reproductive isolation between two insect species. Nature. 346:558-560.

Budd, A. F. and B. D. Mishler. 1990. Species and evolution in clonal organisms -- a summary and discussion. Systematic Botany 15:166-171.

Bullini, L. and G. Nascetti. 1990. Speciation by hybridization in phasmids and other insects. Canadian Journal of Zoology. 68:1747-1760.

Butters, F. K. 1941. Hybrid Woodsias in Minnesota. Amer. Fern. J. 31:15-21.

Butters, F. K. and R. M. Tryon, jr. 1948. A fertile mutant of a Woodsia hybrid. American Journal of Botany. 35:138.

Brock, T. D. and M. T. Madigan. 1988. Biology of Microorganisms (5th edition). Prentice Hall, Englewood, NJ.

Callaghan, C. A. 1987. Instances of observed speciation. The American Biology Teacher. 49:3436.

Castenholz, R. W. 1992. Species usage, concept, and evolution in the cyanobacteria (blue-green algae). Journal of Phycology 28:737-745.

Clausen, J., D. D. Keck and W. M. Hiesey. 1945. Experimental studies on the nature of species. II. Plant evolution through amphiploidy and autoploidy, with examples from the Madiinae. Carnegie Institute Washington Publication, 564:1-174.

Cracraft, J. 1989. Speciation and its ontology: the empirical consequences of alternative species concepts for understanding patterns and processes of differentiation. In Otte, E. and J. A. Endler [eds.] Speciation and its consequences. Sinauer Associates, Sunderland, MA. pp. 28-59.

Craig, T. P., J. K. Itami, W. G. Abrahamson and J. D. Horner. 1993. Behavioral evidence for host-race fromation in Eurosta solidaginis. Evolution. 47:1696-1710.

Cronquist, A. 1978. Once again, what is a species? Biosystematics in agriculture. Beltsville Symposia in Agricultural Research 2:3-20.

Cronquist, A. 1988. The evolution and classification of flowering plants (2nd edition). The New York Botanical Garden, Bronx, NY.

Crossley, S. A. 1974. Changes in mating behavior produced by selection for ethological isolation between ebony and vestigial mutants of Drosophilia melanogaster. Evolution. 28:631-647.

de Oliveira, A. K. and A. R. Cordeiro. 1980. Adaptation of Drosophila willistoni experimental populations to extreme pH medium. II. Development of incipient reproductive isolation. Heredity. 44:123-130.

de Queiroz, K. and M. Donoghue. 1988. Phylogenetic systematics and the species problem. Cladistics. 4:317-338.

de Queiroz, K. and M. Donoghue. 1990. Phylogenetic systematics and species revisited. Cladistics. 6:83-90.

de Vries, H. 1905. Species and varieties, their origin by mutation.

de Wet, J. M. J. 1971. Polyploidy and evolution in plants. Taxon. 20:29-35.

del Solar, E. 1966. Sexual isolation caused by selection for positive and negative phototaxis and geotaxis in Drosophila pseudoobscura. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (US). 56:484-487.

Digby, L. 1912. The cytology of Primula kewensis and of other related Primula hybrids. Ann. Bot. 26:357-388.

Dobzhansky, T. 1937. Genetics and the origin of species. Columbia University Press, New York.

Dobzhansky, T. 1951. Genetics and the origin of species (3rd edition). Columbia University Press, New York.

Dobzhansky, T. and O. Pavlovsky. 1971. Experimentally created incipient species of Drosophila. Nature. 230:289-292.

Dobzhansky, T. 1972. Species of Drosophila: new excitement in an old field. Science. 177:664-669.

Dodd, D. M. B. 1989. Reproductive isolation as a consequence of adaptive divergence in Drosophila melanogaster. Evolution 43:1308-1311.

Dodd, D. M. B. and J. R. Powell. 1985. Founder-flush speciation: an update of experimental results with Drosophila. Evolution 39:1388-1392.

Donoghue, M. J. 1985. A critique of the biological species concept and recommendations for a phylogenetic alternative. Bryologist 88:172-181.

Du Rietz, G. E. 1930. The fundamental units of biological taxonomy. Svensk. Bot. Tidskr. 24:333-428.

Ehrman, E. 1971. Natural selection for the origin of reproductive isolation. The American Naturalist. 105:479-483.

Ehrman, E. 1973. More on natural selection for the origin of reproductive isolation. The American Naturalist. 107:318-319.

Feder, J. L., C. A. Chilcote and G. L. Bush. 1988. Genetic differentiation between sympatric host races of the apple maggot fly, Rhagoletis pomonella. Nature. 336:61-64.

Feder, J. L. and G. L. Bush. 1989. A field test of differential host-plant usage between two sibling species of Rhagoletis pomonella fruit flies (Diptera:Tephritidae) and its consequences for sympatric models of speciation. Evolution 43:1813-1819.

Frandsen, K. J. 1943. The experimental formation of Brassica juncea Czern. et Coss. Dansk. Bot. Arkiv., No. 4, 11:1-17.

Frandsen, K. J. 1947. The experimental formation of Brassica napus L. var. oleifera DC and Brassica carinata Braun. Dansk. Bot. Arkiv., No. 7, 12:1-16.

Galiana, A., A. Moya and F. J. Alaya. 1993. Founder-flush speciation in Drosophila pseudoobscura: a large scale experiment. Evolution. 47432-444.

Gottleib, L. D. 1973. Genetic differentiation, sympatric speciation, and the origin of a diploid species of Stephanomeira. American Journal of Botany. 60: 545-553.

Halliburton, R. and G. A. E. Gall. 1981. Disruptive selection and assortative mating in Tribolium castaneum. Evolution. 35:829-843.

Hurd, L. E., and R. M. Eisenberg. 1975. Divergent selection for geotactic response and evolution of reproductive isolation in sympatric and allopatric populations of houseflies. The American Naturalist. 109:353-358.

Karpchenko, G. D. 1927. Polyploid hybrids of Raphanus sativus L. X Brassica oleraceae L. Bull. Appl. Botany. 17:305-408.

Karpchenko, G. D. 1928. Polyploid hybrids of Raphanus sativus L. X Brassica oleraceae L. Z. Indukt. Abstami-a Verenbungsi. 48:1-85.

Kilias, G., S. N. Alahiotis and M. Delecanos. 1980. A multifactorial investigation of speciation theory using Drosophila melanogaster. Evolution. 34:730-737.

Knight, G. R., A. Robertson and C. H. Waddington. 1956. Selection for sexual isolation within a species. Evolution. 10:14-22.

Koopman, K. F. 1950. Natural selection for reproductive isolation between Drosophila pseudoobscura and Drosophila persimilis. Evolution. 4:135-148.

Lee, R. E. 1989. Phycology (2nd edition) Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK

Levin, D. A. 1979. The nature of plant species. Science 204:381-384.

Lokki, J. and A. Saura. 1980. Polyploidy in insect evolution. In: W. H. Lewis (ed.) Polyploidy: Biological Relevance. Plenum Press, New York.

Macnair, M. R. 1981. Tolerance of higher plants to toxic materials. In: J. A. Bishop and L. M. Cook (eds.). Genetic consequences of man made change. Pp.177-297. Academic Press, New York.

Macnair, M. R. and P. Christie. 1983. Reproductive isolation as a pleiotropic effect of copper tolerance in Mimulus guttatus. Heredity. 50:295-302.

Manhart, J. R. and R. M. McCourt. 1992. Molecular data and species concepts in the algae. Journal of Phycology. 28:730-737.

Mayr, E. 1942. Systematics and the origin of species from the viewpoint of a zoologist. Columbia University Press, New York.

Mayr, E. 1982. The growth of biological thought: diversity, evolution and inheritance. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA. McCourt, R. M. and R. W. Hoshaw. 1990. Noncorrespondence of breeding groups, morphology and monophyletic groups in Spirogyra (Zygnemataceae; Chlorophyta) and the application of species concepts. Systematic Botany. 15:69-78.

McPheron, B. A., D. C. Smith and S. H. Berlocher. 1988. Genetic differentiation between host races of Rhagoletis pomonella. Nature. 336:64-66.

Meffert, L. M. and E. H. Bryant. 1991. Mating propensity and courtship behavior in serially bottlenecked lines of the housefly. Evolution 45:293-306.

Mishler, B. D. 1985. The morphological, developmental and phylogenetic basis of species concepts in the bryophytes. Bryologist. 88:207-214.

Mishler, B. D. and M. J. Donoghue. 1982. Species concepts: a case for pluralism. Systematic Zoology. 31:491-503.

Muntzing, A. 1932. Cytogenetic investigations on the synthetic Galeopsis tetrahit. Hereditas. 16:105-154.

Nelson, G. 1989. Cladistics and evolutionary models. Cladistics. 5:275-289.

Newton, W. C. F. and C. Pellew. 1929. Primula kewensis and its derivatives. J. Genetics. 20:405-467.

Otte, E. and J. A. Endler (eds.). 1989. Speciation and its consequences. Sinauer Associates. Sunderland, MA.

Owenby, M. 1950. Natural hybridization and amphiploidy in the genus Tragopogon. Am. J. Bot. 37:487-499.

Pasterniani, E. 1969. Selection for reproductive isolation between two populations of maize, Zea mays L. Evolution. 23:534-547.

Powell, J. R. 1978. The founder-flush speciation theory: an experimental approach. Evolution. 32:465-474.

Prokopy, R. J., S. R. Diehl, and S. H. Cooley. 1988. Oecologia. 76:138.

Rabe, E. W. and C. H. Haufler. 1992. Incipient polyploid speciation in the maidenhair fern (Adiantum pedatum, adiantaceae)? American Journal of Botany. 79:701-707.

Rice, W. R. 1985. Disruptive selection on habitat preference and the evolution of reproductive isolation: an exploratory experiment. Evolution. 39:645-646.

Rice, W. R. and E. E. Hostert. 1993. Laboratory experiments on speciation: What have we learned in forty years? Evolution. 47:1637-1653.

Rice, W. R. and G. W. Salt. 1988. Speciation via disruptive selection on habitat preference: experimental evidence. The American Naturalist. 131:911-917.

Rice, W. R. and G. W. Salt. 1990. The evolution of reproductive isolation as a correlated character under sympatric conditions: experimental evidence. Evolution. 44:1140-1152.

Ringo, J., D. Wood, R. Rockwell, and H. Dowse. 1989. An experiment testing two hypotheses of speciation. The American Naturalist. 126:642-661.

Schluter, D. and L. M. Nagel. 1995. Parallel speciation by natural selection. American Naturalist. 146:292-301.

Shikano, S., L. S. Luckinbill and Y. Kurihara. 1990. Changes of traits in a bacterial population associated with protozoal predation. Microbial Ecology. 20:75-84.

Smith, D. C. 1988. Heritable divergence of Rhagoletis pomonella host races by seasonal asynchrony. Nature. 336:66-67.

Soans, A. B., D. Pimentel and J. S. Soans. 1974. Evolution of reproductive isolation in allopatric and sympatric populations. The American Naturalist. 108:117-124.

Sokal, R. R. and T. J. Crovello. 1970. The biological species concept: a critical evaluation. The American Naturalist. 104:127-153.

Soltis, D. E. and P. S. Soltis. 1989. Allopolyploid speciation in Tragopogon: Insights from chloroplast DNA. American Journal of Botany. 76:1119-1124.

Stuessy, T. F. 1990. Plant taxonomy. Columbia University Press, New York.

Thoday, J. M. and J. B. Gibson. 1962. Isolation by disruptive selection. Nature. 193:1164-1166.

Thoday, J. M. and J. B. Gibson. 1970. The probability of isolation by disruptive selection. The American Naturalist. 104:219-230.

Thompson, J. N. 1987. Symbiont-induced speciation. Biological Journal of the Linnean Society. 32:385-393.

Vrijenhoek, R. C. 1994. Unisexual fish: Model systems for studying ecology and evolution. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics. 25:71-96.

Waring, G. L., W. G. Abrahamson and D. J. Howard. 1990. Genetic differentiation in the gall former Eurosta solidaginis (Diptera:Tephritidae) along host plant lines. Evolution. 44:1648-1655.

Weinberg, J. R., V. R. Starczak and P. Jora. 1992. Evidence for rapid speciation following a founder event in the laboratory. Evolution. 46:1214-1220.

Wood, A. M. and T. Leatham. 1992. The species concept in phytoplankton ecology. Journal of Phycology. 28:723-729.

Yen, J. H. and A. R. Barr. 1971. New hypotheses of the cause of cytoplasmic incompatability in Culex pipiens L.

 

"There has never been evidential evidence (must be redundant with you) of an evolving species ..."

I gave you a very long list of citations of observed instances of speciation. Those are by definition evidence for evolving species.

There is also this thread just below us

http://www.baptistboard.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi/topic/66/21.html?

where several examples are spelled out of observations of new genes and functions evolving.

Finally there are many, many examples of fossil transitional series showing the evolution of new species, new genera, new families, new orders and new classes. These count as evidence for evolution.

" The necessary process(es) for "evolutionary" change of species is FATAL to LIFE ..."

Again, your assertion, your burden of proof. Simply reasserting the unsubstantiated claim does not demonstrate it to be true. Let's think about it.

Mutation. That's a process of evolution. If you floow the link given to you about you will see about a dozen examples of beneficial mutations that need to new genes, new functions, new metabolic pathways. So that process is obviously not "FATAL to LIFE."

Natural selection. We, by defintion there will be some traits which are selected for negatively. Fatal the them I suppose. But others are selected favorably. Again, see the link above for a list of new genes which have been selected positively and without being "FATAL to LIFE."

Sexual selection. I think we all area product of this. Not "FATAL to LIFE."

Migration. Anoth process of evolution. I think you would have a hard time showing migration as "FATAL to LIFE."

Genetic drift. This is another process of evolution. Again, not "FATAL to LIFE."

Gene flow. This is another process of evolution. Again, not "FATAL to LIFE."

Recombination. This is another process of evolution. Again, not "FATAL to LIFE."

You have a hard row to hoe if you plan on showing that all of these processes are "FATAL to LIFE."