But one <should> take this as a reason to discredit science or scientists.>

Well, that's oftentimes what happens. Perhaps you meant <should not>?

<<<<<YouRang>>>> Yes, but why do you think Darwin's answer will be discredited? Are your reasons scientific, or religious?>

There are also several examples explicitly listed as not being the result of hybridization (cross-breeding).

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq...

For example, see:

<5.1.1.1 Evening Primrose (Oenothera gigas)>

<5.1.1.8 Maidenhair Fern (Adiantum pedatum)>

Observed cases of speciation that are neither the result of hybridization (cross-breeding) nor polyploidy (changes in chromosome number due to errors in cell division) are also listed:

<5.2.1 Stephanomeira malheurensis>

<5.2.2 Maize (Zea mays)>

And this particularly impressive example in animals:

<5.3.5 Sympatric Speciation in Drosophila melanogaster>

Also see this list for some good examples:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/spe...

Speciation has been observed multiple times, in both plants and animals, and not simply through hybridization. Lack of evidence for speciation is not a valid criticism of the theory of evolution.

<Think about it. How could a fish have mated with a land animal to produce an amphibian? What could a monkey have mated with to produce a human?>

... Perhaps you meant <should not>? >

http://www.pnas.org/content/88/20/9...

and another that requires institutional access:

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/conte...

And there's a lay explanation here:

http://www.evolutionpages.com/chrom...

Just check out the examples I posted above. Specifically, I would recommend reading 5.1.1.1, 5.1.1.8, 5.2.1, 5.2.2, and 5.3.5 here:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq...

And also check out http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/spe... which contains several examples, including this one:

<Someone writes:

I have a friend who says since we have never seen a species actually split into two different species during recorded history that he has trouble believing in the theory of evolution. Is this bogus and have humans seen animals bred into different species? (The various highly bred english dogs come to mind but I suppose this would be easier to find in vegetation. Corn, wheat strains? Donkeys and mules? )

This is bogus. We've seen it happen naturally without our tampering with the process. From the FAQ:

Do you have any scientific papers on any of these points?

<the breakdown of hydrogen into helium>

That one is impossible. Perhaps you mean fusion.

< Predictably, the evolutionists insist those processes haven't been operating at that same rate for millions of years, though they also insist on uniformitarianism.>

Consequently, those who support this specific interpretation feel the need to go on the attack against scientists, and accuse them of deliberately distorting science to be contrary to this interpretation. >

Yes it is, and hybridization is one way in which speciation can occur. But it is by no means the only way - see all the other examples I cited. For example:

<5.3.5 Sympatric Speciation in Drosophila melanogaster

In a series of papers (Rice 1985, Rice and Salt 1988 and Rice and Salt 1990) Rice and Salt presented experimental evidence for the possibility of sympatric speciation. They started from the premise that whenever organisms sort themselves into the environment first and then mate locally, individuals with the same habitat preferences will necessarily mate assortatively. They established a stock population of D. melanogaster with flies collected in an orchard near Davis, California. Pupae from the culture were placed into a habitat maze. Newly emerged flies had to negotiate the maze to find food. The maze simulated several environmental gradients simultaneously. The flies had to make three choices of which way to go. The first was between light and dark (phototaxis). The second was between up and down (geotaxis). The last was between the scent of acetaldehyde and the scent of ethanol (chemotaxis). This divided the flies among eight habitats. The flies were further divided by the time of day of emergence. In total the flies were divided among 24 spatio-temporal habitats.

They next cultured two strains of flies that had chosen opposite habitats. One strain emerged early, flew upward and was attracted to dark and acetaldehyde. The other emerged late, flew downward and was attracted to light and ethanol. Pupae from these two strains were placed together in the maze. They were allowed to mate at the food site and were collected. Eye color differences between the strains allowed Rice and Salt to distinguish between the two strains. A selective penalty was imposed on flies that switched habitats. Females that switched habitats were destroyed. None of their gametes passed into the next generation. Males that switched habitats received no penalty. After 25 generations of this mating tests showed reproductive isolation between the two strains. Habitat specialization was also produced.

They next repeated the experiment without the penalty against habitat switching. The result was the same -- reproductive isolation was produced. They argued that a switching penalty is not necessary to produce reproductive isolation. Their results, they stated, show the possibility of sympatric speciation.>

This is a very clear example of reproductive isolation occurring purely as a result of exposure to different environments.

<Again, how do fish mate with frogs etc.>

What I asked for were examples where a species has become a totally different species without breeding with a different species. As far as I know there are no such examples.>

That's exactly what sympatric speciation is.

<How do such examples explain how we went from a fish to a human?>

Well, that's good. :-)

First, I would say one should be as absolutely certain as possible that the other party is really dishonest and biased. I would think that this is especially true of a Christian, who sees himself as a humble truth-seeker and a lover of justice who would never want to be guilty of making false accusations.

Also, when dealing with a 'group', you need to be sure that you are not attributing the wrong-doings of a few to the whole lot.

Finally, you need to recognize that the other party might be perfectly honest, even if you strongly believe they've reached the wrong conclusions. They might have perfectly legitimate reasons for their belief.

I gave you the example of visible stars that are millions of miles away. I think you might agree (somewhat) that this alone could legitimately lead one to believe the universe must be at least millions of years old *even if* the universe were young, as you believe. You believe yourself that the young universe was created with the appearance of age, so is someone else dishonest if they reject the young universe idea based on appearances?

< Likewise, might I in fact be completely unbiased and not agenda driven here?>

Well, bias is a tricky thing. We must step back from the issues we battle over and first try to decide how bias can be detected.

Frankly, I think that everyone has some bias, but the most unbiased people are those who admit that they have bias and go to great effort to eliminate that bias.

Science students are taught early that bias (both intentional and unintentional) is a bad thing that will hold them back from the truth they are seeking. They are given many examples of such bias and they learn how best to recognize it and minimize it.

Religion, on the other hand, in inherently biased (which does not imply that all religions are false).

This is demonstrated by the fact that adherents to all the various religions are adamant that their particular religion is (or would be if not for 'dishonest' scientists) supported by science.

Muslims, for example, are quite happy with the old universe theory of science. They will say science thus supports Islam -- and they don't mind using it to show that the young universe idea exemplifies Christian bias.

On the other hand, Muslim apologists will try to contrive "scientific evidence" to support claims of their holy book, the Quran. For example, I seen them go to great lengths to show that mountains are like pegs that stabilize the earth, because the Quran says so. Unfortunately, this idea disagrees with the science of plate tectonics (which says that mountains are in fact the most unstable places). The Christian can look at this and see bias on the Muslim side.

You can find Hindu sites that claim the agreement between ancient Hindu scriptures and the distance to the Sun and Moon.

Question: Are these adherents of various religions all seeking the unbiased truth -- which just *happens* to agree with their holy scriptures? I think not. I think it quite obviously suggests bias.

And yet, it rare when religious bias is recognized from within that religion. Why? Because to admit bias is to admit the potential for error, and a potential for error is incompatible with their belief that their scripture (or their interpretation thereof) is infallible. Thus, in religion there is tremendous pressure to remain biased AND refuse to admit bias.

Bias is also evidenced by the examples of perfectly legitimate science opposed by religion for centuries -- especially in the wake of the greatest discoveries. To various degrees, Copernicus, Dominis, Galileo, Descartes, Newton, Kepler, Halley, Darwin, and others have faced unjust religious opposition because they dared to bring forth ideas that disagreed with the Biblical interpretation of the day.

An even more difficult issue for me--not even considering human culture or differences in religious thinking--is why would an entity we would call God want to play such a trick on clever sentient beings? Make the most ingenious problem solvers of the species furthest advanced intelligence--make them into fools? When clearly an all-powerful being could create a legitimately old universe as well as a "young" universe.

The job description of God--and the point of creation--makes no sense at all if the goal is to fool beings using their intellectual skills, and technological creativity.

Put the whole issue onto another planet. Imagine a clever species there correctly interpreting the laws of space, time the universe and everything, only for it to be a vast cosmic joke played by their creator.

What would be the point of the exercise? To separate the cleverest out for condemnation?

If the God in question could care less about the sapient species brought into existence, then the young Universe theory makes a lot more sense.

I suppose that if God did create this vast complex universe, then He is WAY beyond my comprehension, and I would be be no position to question His motives.

And if He gave me a summary of the whole creation process in just a few sentences, I would not assume that my feeble interpretation of them suddenly puts creation within my comprehension.