An unnamed mainstream biology supposed-expert here at SciForums was asked this:

Q. "Are there legitimate biologists in the I.D camp?"

A. "Yes, they are, though I do not find support in their paradigms."

Aside from answering the question with bad English for the way the question was posed, do you see the problem of this Darwinist? He says that I.D. biologists are legitimate, but that their ideas should not be taught. What is wrong with this picture?

First one to guess which forum member I'm referring to gets a free weekend with Genji on a remote tropical island.

An unnamed mainstream biology supposed-expert here at SciForums was asked this:

Q. "Are there legitimate biologists in the I.D camp?"

A. "Yes, they are, though I do not find support in their paradigms."

Aside from answering the question with bad English for the way the question was posed, do you see the problem of this Darwinist? He says that I.D. biologists are legitimate, but that their ideas should not be taught. What is wrong with this picture?

First one to guess which forum member I'm referring to gets a free weekend with Genji on a remote tropical island.


Would the first letter of this eminent scholar's user name be "G" and would the last letter of this most noble, contemplative polymath's user name be "P"?

"Q. 'Are there legitimate biologists in the I.D camp?'

A. 'Yes, they are, though I the bigoted bigot do not find any bigoted support in their quite accurate and carefully articulated paradigms.'"

Even legitimate biologists can have theories that aren't well supported. I don't see the contradiction.

The contradiction is those legitimate biologists who dissent from Darwinism are called all sorts of derogatory names, and prevented from presenting their views in the classroom and often in the media, so much for intellectual honesty, but it will get better.

Perhaps they are being intellectually dishonest in learning science for the sole purpose of promoting creationism in a pseudo-scientific guise (I.D.).

No, many science people were reared with Darwinian dogma, and then snapped out of it, after becoming more educated.

It's not dogma, yo.

What is it if not dogma?

A scientific theory. A set of well-founded deductions based on evidence that no one has shown to be incorrect.

Then why do biologists doubt its veracity?

What the fuck is ID?

Then why do biologists doubt its veracity?

Very few of them do. Mostly they work on figuring out details.

Most workings of evolution (and of inanimate matter to animate) agree fully with prior scientific achievements and correlations. Most of the theories themselves have been tested continually, the only problem is time and environment (scientists have to work on the latter).

while there are few biologists that support the idea of a type of god, and while it is true that they are generally put down for their ideas that evolution is false, there is also something to be said about how they go about proving their ideas.

The biologists I've seen that have disowned evolution, usually don't even know what evolution exactly is. While this may seem quite the audacious clam, it's markedly true. for if you ever care to looking at the writings of these particular scientists, the degree in which they get things wrong about evolution is astounding for their level of academic achievement.

I believe this is the result of dogmatic beliefs clouding their judgment so much that they leave the methods of science behind. Assuming they ever used them to begin with. this is, in part, why the majority of the scientific body is very quick to prevent them from teaching in schools, and everything else.

"legitimate biologist" does not translate to "one that abandons the scientific method in favor of dogmatic beliefs that completely ignore evidence".

Therefore, if you would be so kind as to point to me in that direction of a biologists that is disagreeing with evolution on a scientific standpoint, I will give you a better analysis of the situation.

There are some legitimate biologists who maintain belief, or faith, in various forms and extensions of ID.

To my personal knowledge, there was and may still be at least one biologist at Cornell - a very respectable institution - who held the belief that human beings were Intelligently Designed (by the Christian God), but that all other beings evolved in Darwinian fashion.

This is not because he was raised in Darwinian dogma and "saw the light" - it is because he was raised in fundamentallist Christian dogma and is unwilling to give it up completely, regardless of evidence. It was a conscious decision on his part.

btw: whether or not ID should be taught is a separate matter from biologists' "belief" in some form of it. Until there is an ID theory there is nothing to teach. So far, even ID adherents lack a theory - their arguments are confined to various (widely various) rejections of evolutionary theory.

There are respectable physicists who believe that quantum theory is fundamentally flawed as well. This does not mean that the "other theories" should be taught, because there are none as yet.

What the fuck is ID?

ID is "Intelligent Design". A remarketing - rebranding if you will - of Creationism.

ID biologists are simply folks that are biased towards supporting their theisms and have decided to employ their profession to set out to find facts that support their forgone conclusion.

I imagine IAC will jump up and say "evolution is also a foregone conclusion". It is merely the theory that best encompasses the evidence that scientists have found over the centuries. Note the fine difference there...evolution was only postulated by Darwin after examination of evidence that was observable. ID is still the "cart before the horse" claim of creationism.

Darwin saw variable beak sizes in finches, big deal.

Darwin saw variable beak sizes in finches, big deal.
And a small taste of the remarkable diversity of life on earth.

A very small taste, for a misguided wishful conclusion.

Theories abound.
Some theories find correspondence in reality, in a shared experience that can be replicated, studied, analyzed and used to predict and to alter it.
Other theories find more correspondence in the needy human heart, fed by imagination and rooted in fear.

In the first case the senses feed the imagination, sparking in it curiosity, seeking understanding.
In the second case the process is reversed. The senses simply provide problems to be overlooked or explained away in the pursuit of a pre-existing, already present understanding which just requires justification.

One can easily, and actually more accurately, say that the second case is the predicament of the Darwinian dogmatists.

An unnamed mainstream biology supposed-expert here at SciForums was asked this:

Q. "Are there legitimate biologists in the I.D camp?"

A. "Yes, they are, though I do not find support in their paradigms."

Aside from answering the question with bad English for the way the question was posed, do you see the problem of this Darwinist? He says that I.D. biologists are legitimate, but that their ideas should not be taught. What is wrong with this picture?

First one to guess which forum member I'm referring to gets a free weekend with Genji on a remote tropical island.

The most prominent "ID" scientists was PROVEN wrong with FACTS in a court case in Dover.

He was suggesting that certain elements of biology could not be made out of raw materials (ie, the only explanation is that they poofed into existence fully formed), and they were proven wrong on this. They cited the immune system as evidence of intelligent design, (ie. that it could not simply evolve) and as it turns out he had not read any of the peer reviewed papers on the immune system and didn't understand the very thing he was refuting.

A very small taste, for a misguided wishful conclusion. Darwin did not base his theory on observations of finches. Galapagos finch work was done later, and is still going on - the large competitive advantage of very small heritable differences in beak size has been observed, answering the first half of the objection "small differences get lost in the noise, large differences are unlikely" . (The second half has also been answered, elsewhere, with the discovery of imprinting and core regulatory genes such as the homeobox complex).

Darwin based and defended his theory on twenty or thirty years of patient, detailed, orchid and barnacle taxonomy: thousands and thousands of dissections, notations, classifications, etc. Darwin was a workhorse.

Science determined in court cases? Well now, isn't that special.

The imbecile usage of reverse reasoning is exemplified by its belief in beginnings and thusly ends.

Experience gives no evidence of a start or a finish, but only of flow, as energy simply alters and never stops – change – and yet the religious fanatic relies on this little piece of delusion to hypothesize an ultimate beginning, a supreme cause, for which it does not require a beginning for and so no cause for.
It arbitrarily decides where to reverse its own ‘logic’ so as to attain the desired goal.

Mostly the decision is made for it since it is a blind follower of whatever cultural and social ‘beliefs’ it was brought up on.

For it sensual reality is an illusion, hiding a deeper, better, ‘truth’.
The phenomenal world is only a façade, hinting at an otherness, which enables it to escape or to hope for an escape from whatever life ailments and insecurities burden its awareness.

The truly honest mind uses sensual awareness with no prejudices, debating as a method of eliminating whatever human prejudices might seep through from its emotions into its reasoning.
Where no beginnings are evident, no beginnings are supposed.

What the fuck is ID?Not sure, but perhaps "Inverted Design" or "Idiot Designed"- You know the idiotic construction of the huma eye's retina, with the light sensitve cells behind two layers of nerves and all the blood vessels.

At least the octpus has a good design with the photo sensitive cells in front - where the light strikes first. If there is a god, he was more careful and concerned with the octopus than humans.

And yet humans have dominion over all the creatures, pretty good for defective humans.

Science determined in court cases? Well now, isn't that special.


That just goes to show you the tenuous, malleable of "science" falsely so-called.

Yes, when you have to defend your "science" before a judge, you got problems.

And yet humans have dominion over all the creatures, pretty good for defective humans.

Even body mites?

Even body mites.

Even body mites.

Why can't we stop them from eating us without help from plants or chemicals?

Yes, when you have to defend your "science" before a judge, you got problems.
Actually the court case in question, the ID/ creationists were on the defensive.

Satyr has described your problems well.

And yet humans have dominion over all the creatures, pretty good for defective humans. The earth: a lovely planet, 2/3 water, it was created to be the dominion of man, who has no gills.

Would the first letter of this eminent scholar's user name be "G" and would the last letter of this most noble, contemplative polymath's user name be "P"?

Why, yes.

Yes, it would.

Hello, Nutter. Time to pay the piper.

"Q. 'Are there legitimate biologists in the I.D camp?'

A. 'Yes, they are, though I the bigoted bigot do not find any bigoted support in their quite accurate and carefully articulated paradigms.'"


Now aren't I being complemented? :) Tell you what, Nutter - you illustrate to me how your theory - if you have one - works and I'd be happy to discuss it with you. What's your hate on for the moderates, anyway?

As for IAC, I've seen no evidence that he should be lecturing anyone on English.

Then why do biologists doubt its veracity?

Which ones? Who? Surely you must have found a name by now? What do they say? Are all your arguments guided by demographics? That's false argumentation.

Yes, when you have to defend your "science" before a judge, you got problems.

Agreed! The ID scientist did, indeed, have problems.

And he lost. Doubly bad. Who now will defend YEC? Will IAC discern what he's talking about and, better yet, present it?

Mod note:

Satyr:
Please do not preach in this subforum. Thanks

Mod note:

Satyr:
Please do not preach in this subforum. ThanksAre you looking for a reason to give me another infraction?

Have I given you one? :)

If Ice age civs is allowed to spam forums with pointless threads, then restrict themselves to posing only one line answers that are not answers at all, then I think Satry should be allowed to preach at them.

The earth: a lovely planet, 2/3 water, it was created to be the dominion of man, who has no gills. At earlier stage of our evolution we had gills and still do in early stage of embronic growth. In fact we have tails and many other traces of our evolutionary history in the first few months in the womb. This fact is (in English) summarized for all medical students in three sophisticated / complex words:

"Ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny."

For me, this is the epitomy of intelectual concentration in one three-word sentence.

I bet yours is: "God is love."

I assume you are ignorant of the well established fact that initially the Earth had no free oxygen. - Oxygen was all made much later by green plants. If you were not so ignorant and were consistent, you would conclude God's creation, Earth, has been polluted by a gas (O2), poisonous to the anaerobic creatures* He placed here.

I also assume you deign all these facts, but I am curious about one thing in your creation story: God made woman from one of Adam's ribs, but men have the same number on both the right and left side. Is God with an odd number of ribs? Adam must have been and he was made in God's image.
----------------------
*BTW, a few of them have managed to survive the poison gas attack. - They can be found sheltered inside the guts of many animals and are still fighting the "good fight" to reclaim Earth by releasing methane, trying to raise the temperature, and thereby cause the poisonous gas to combine with other elements so it will be safe for them to emerge and reclaim the Earth God gave to them.

So that's how we got thrown out of Eden. Our gills were repossessed, and we had to put clothes on and walk around on dirt.

Intelligent Design is not science: why this matters (http://media.www.smudailycampus.com/media/storage/paper949/news/2007/05/04/Opinion/Intelligent.Design.Is.Not.Science.Why.This.Matters-2894591-page4.shtml)

At earlier stage of our evolution we had gills and still do in early stage of embronic growth. In fact we have tails and many other traces of our evolutionary history in the first few months in the womb. This fact is (in English) summarized for all medical students in three sophisticated / complex words:

"Ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny."

For me, this is the epitomy of intelectual concentration in one three-word sentence.

Unfortunately, the medical students are getting out of date information. "Ontogeny recapitulates Phylogeny" is actually false.

See here for more info:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/wells/haeckel.html


And a quote here:
The ideas of Ernst Haeckel greatly influenced the early history of embryology in the 19th century. Haeckel hypothesized that "Ontogeny Recapitulates Phylogeny", meaning that during its development an organism passes through stages resembling its adult ancestors. However, Haeckel's ideas long have been superseded by those of Karl Ernst von Baer, his predecessor. Von Baer suggested that the embryonic stages of an individual should resemble the embryonic stages of other closely related organisms, rather than resembling its adult ancestors. Haeckel's Biogenetic Law has been discredited since the late 1800's, and it is not a part of modern (or even not-so-modern) evolutionary theory. Haeckel thought only the final stages of development could be altered appreciably by evolution, but we have known that to be false for nearly a century. All developmental stages can be modified during evolution, though the phylotypic stage may be more constrained than others. For more about Haeckel's Biogenetic Law, developmental phylotypes, and the evidence embryology provides in modern evolutionary theory, see "Wells and Haeckel's Embryos" by PZ Meyers, or refer to a modern developmental biology college-level textbook such as Gilbert 1997, pp. 912-914.


http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section2.html

Unfortunately, the medical students are getting out of date information. "Ontogeny recapitulates Phylogeny" is actually false.No, it does not mean "resembling its adult ancestors." I was not aware that it ever did.* It means, to quote your text again, "resemble the embryonic stages of other closely related organisms" and that is true. For example, it is very difficult to tell a month old pig embrio from a human one by simple visual inspection alone.
-------------------------------
*When the microscope was first invented and applied to biological research, there were several false ideas suggested. One report, published in a science journal (perhaps even in the Proceeding of the Royal Acd. of Sciences, as I think it was the first?), tells of observing a well formed human shape in the sperm of a man. For a long time in much of mankind, the woman's role in making baby was just to be the "nest" in which the "all from the man" baby would grow.

Consequently I am very willing to believe that originally "Ontogeny recapitulates Phylogeny" did mean "resembling its adult ancestors" but that has not been the meaning of those words for at least 150 years.

For better understanding of this exchange, see post 41.

The mean of words evolves too. For example, now days, a cop may bring an intoxicated lady into the station instead of let her remain passed out in the street. "Lady" was only used to refer to a Lord's wife 250 years ago.

Keep trying Billy T, you still haven't got your pants pulled up.

Billy T is a case in point of a Darwinist spewing b.s. and not knowing any better himself, like the Darwinists espousing "Piltdown Man" and "Nebraska Man" as supposed ancestors of humankind.

Keep trying Billy T, you still haven't got your pants pulled up.Is only name calling, personal attack your only reply?

Why did God make the pig embryo at one-month look essentially identical to the human one? Why are all mammals so similar in their early structure?

What about my last question in post 41. - Does God have an odd number of ribs? Or was Adam not really made in God's image? (Recall he had odd number before giving up one rib to get a wife.)

Two questions here for you to answer if you can break the name calling habit.;)

It wasn't namecalling, I was painting a picture representing reality.

"Ontology Recapitulates Phylogeny," good one.

Maybe they look similar because they are young fetuses?

Can't answer the rib deal, but I don't think it's a Bible breaker.

..I was painting a picture representing reality....Go to art school. - Your image of reality is extremely distorted; only based on early childhood indoctrination, not yet escaped from.

God made woman from one of Adam's ribs, but men have the same number on both the right and left side. Is God with an odd number of ribs? Adam must have been and he was made in God's image.




God is a spirit. He doesn't have ribs.

The "image" refers to man's tri-unity (body, soul, and spirit) as compared to God's (the Trinity).

God is a spirit. He doesn't have ribs... No long white beard either?:( How can man be in his image?

Is "spirit" completely non material? If yes, how can it interact with matter?

Thanks Nutter.

Would it not be more logical to assume that the rib thing is just one of many metaphorical references in the bible and not a literal description of actual happenings?

Welcome back supe:thankyou:

Hi sam!

Remember I said I was going to read "The Selfish Gene" by Dawkins? Read it. It's changed my mind on some things I thought were solid fact. Oh well.

Remember I said I was going to read "The Selfish Gene" by Dawkins? Read it. It's changed my mind on some things I thought were solid fact. Oh well.

Like what?

Like what?
Individual and group selection for one thing. I was certain that group selection was a solid fact. Not so. Selection appears to operate on "genes" and that's it. Dawkins presents a very convincing story in my opinion.

Individual and group selection for one thing. I was certain that group selection was a solid fact. Not so. Selection appears to operate on "genes" and that's it. Dawkins presents a very convincing story in my opinion.

I think fitness is a matter of gene-environment interaction that works; it depends on both of them remaining in a steady state. Change in environment would nullify any benefits that a gene confers. The answer is genetic variation of course, so that there are always some genes which confer benefits under any environmental conditions. Its neither the genes nor the environment, but what works together best.

I think fitness is a matter of gene-environment interaction that works; it depends on both of them remaining in a steady state. Change in environment would nullify any benefits that a gene confers. The answer is genetic variation of course, so that there are always some genes which confer benefits under any environmental conditions. Its neither the genes nor the environment, but what works together best.
If you haven't read the book, you should. It would confirm your statements almost 100%. It's called an Evolutionary Stable Strategy. And genes that do well in the presence of other "complementary" genes and environmental influences are the ones that will be most "fit". :)

If you haven't read the book, you should. It would confirm your statements almost 100%. It's called an Evolutionary Stable Strategy. And genes that do well in the presence of other "complementary" genes and environmental influences are the ones that will be most "fit". :)

I read the book the year it came out. I don't disagree with much of it, but any emphasis on genes ignores the fact that its all chance, evolution has no direction.:)

And recessive phenotypes can manifest (like webbed paws of polar bears) from mutations, thus increasing the potential adaptability of the gene pools of the respective syngameons.

And recessive phenotypes can manifest (like webbed paws of polar bears) from mutations, thus increasing the potential adaptability of the gene pools of the respective syngameons.

And gobbledygook to you too.:bugeye:

I read the book the year it came out. I don't disagree with much of it, but any emphasis on genes ignores the fact that its all chance, evolution has no direction.:)
Oops. I hope you're kidding? The mutations available for evolution to work on are random, yes (mostly horribly un-beneficial) but the selection process based on the environment (the physical and the other genetic presences) is very non-random. It is driven by unforgiving ability to survive (replicate) in a given environment and the best are selected for. Very much not random.

"chance" is at the heart of ill-informed arguments against evolution by natural selection. Yes?

Ah shucks mam.

Oops. I hope you're kidding? The mutations available for evolution to work on are random, yes (mostly horribly un-beneficial) but the selection process based on the environment (the physical and the other genetic presences) is very non-random. It is driven by unforgiving ability to survive (replicate) in a given environment and the best are selected for. Very much not random.

"chance" is at the heart of ill-informed arguments against evolution by natural selection. Yes?

When you say complementary genes, how is that driven?:)

Like syngameon?

When you say complementary genes, how is that driven?:)
I'll refer you to the elegant analogy of the rowing team Dawkins uses in his book. Do you still have it?

Sam says "evolution has no direction," so I don't think she'll go with the rowing team deal.

I'll refer you to the elegant analogy of the rowing team Dawkins uses in his book. Do you still have it?

Not with me, my books have a tendency to be borrowed, never to be returned.

Anyway I know the example you mean, have you heard of linkage disequilibrium?

And you forget, its a purely theoretical argument with NO evidence.:)

Sam says "evolution has no direction," so I don't think she'll go with the rowing team deal.
I think I understand what she meant. Evolution has no goal other than the survival of replicators into the next round. It has no higher "direction".

Right sam?

How can a process (evolution) have or not have a goal? A process is not a thinking being.

I think I understand what she meant. Evolution has no goal other than the survival of replicators into the next round. It has no higher "direction".

Right sam?

Survival is also not a goal of evolution. Its a side effect of gene-environment interaction that works.

How can a process (evolution) have or not have a goal? A process is not a thinking being.

Wow you made sense, I must be more ill than I thought.:eek:

No, you are that ill (just kidding).

Anyway I know the example you mean, have you heard of linkage disequilibrium?

As in the somewhat nonrandom frequency of certain alleles in a population? Yep. But I'm not a geneticist so I don't really know what the far reaching implications or causes of this might be.


And you forget, its a purely theoretical argument with NO evidence.:)
None? It's a testable hypothesis. Someone must have done some supporting research in the decades since he published the book?

Survival is also not a goal of evolution. Its a side effect of gene-environment interaction that works.
Hence the italics, meaning DO NOT TAKE LITERALLY.

As in the somewhat nonrandom frequency of certain alleles in a population? Yep. But I'm not a geneticist so I don't really know what the far reaching implications or causes of this might be.


None? It's a testable hypothesis. Someone must have done some supporting research in the decades since he published the book?

On behaviour as a consequence of gene complexes? I honestly don't know. I haven't delved deeply into the subject, most of my knowledge is from bits and pieces of popular science.

How can a process (evolution) have or not have a goal? A process is not a thinking being.
It can't. Can we assume that we will sometimes use anthropomorphization to make a point or clarify something and dispense with the nit-picking?

Hence the italics, meaning DO NOT TAKE LITERALLY.

I like to be precise in my terminology.:bugeye:

No, you are that ill (just kidding).

No kidding :spank:

No, them's the rules superlum.

No, them's the rules superlum.
Fine.

I like to be precise in my terminology.:bugeye:
Just fine.

Just fine.

Huh?:confused:

He's pissed 'cause he can't say that a process tells itself what to do.

Huh?:confused:
Not very precise there young lady. Do you have a question or concern about my last post?

Not very precise there young lady. Do you have a question or concern about my last post?

Perhaps because I have no idea what you actually mean?:grumble:

He's pissed 'cause he can't say that a process tells itself what to do.
How can a process "tell" itself anything? Are you anthropomorphizing? Shame on you. Be more precise.

Perhaps because I have no idea what you actually mean?:grumble:
Let me be clear. If we cannot occasionally use terms, that we all agree help clarify a situation or concept, by anthropomorphization or other means, knowing full well for example, that a process is not a thinking entity, then we will have disposed of a valuable means of moving a discussion forward.

Let me be clear. If we cannot occasionally use terms, that we all agree help clarify a situation or concept, by anthropomorphization or other means, knowing full well for example, that a process is not a thinking entity, then we will have disposed of a valuable means of moving a discussion forward.

Sure, but if you don't mean a goal, why say a goal? Doesn't that obscure the point you are making?

Be nice.:thankyou:

Yes, a goal is hardly random.

Sure, but if you don't mean a goal, why say a goal? Doesn't that obscure the point you are making?

Be nice.:thankyou:
Maybe. But why does a "goal" have to imply purposeful thought? A goal is simply a way of establishing an endpoint of a process. The goal of breathing is to keep you alive. It's automatic. And no one is confused by the terminology. If I say the goal of the gene is to replicate into the indefinite future, I mean no directed or thought out purpose. I'm just establishing a point on a process curve. See?

How would you phrase the concept of the "behavior" of genetic replication?

Yes, a goal is hardly random.
Exactly. Just as evolution by natural selection is hardly random.

Maybe. But why does a "goal" have to imply purposeful thought? A goal is simply a way of establishing an endpoint of a process. The goal of breathing is to keep you alive. It's automatic. And no one is confused by the terminology. If I say the goal of the gene is to replicate into the indefinite future, I mean no directed or thought out purpose. I'm just establishing a point on a process curve. See?

How would you phrase the concept of the "behavior" of genetic replication?

Why would a gene have "behaviour" ? Why would it "want" to survive?

Exactly. Just as evolution by natural selection is hardly random.

What is natural selection, supe?

Why would a gene have "behaviour" ?
Atoms have behavior. Photons have behavior. Behavior is just a set of movements/actions that a thing makes, conscious or not. DNA has a distinct replicating behavior. Is there some dispute as to the definition of the word "behavior"?

Atoms have behavior. Photons have behavior. Behavior is just a set of movements/actions that a thing makes, conscious or not. DNA has a distinct replicating behavior. Is there some dispute as to the definition of the word "behavior"?

And you believe this behaviour is because...?

What is natural selection, supe?
It is the differential survival of genes that happen to code for protiens that contribute to the successful creation of organisms that successfully deliver those genes into the indefinite future in a given complex environment including temperature, radiation, and other, competing genes. Genes that diminish that success will be selected against by the simple expedient of degrading the performance of the host organism.

How's that?

Remember, the buffet of mutations offered up for selection is random, the process of selection ofr which mutations survive is not. It is driven directly by the environment in which replicators exist. That's the reason that so many similar "solutions" to survival have evolved so many times over billions of years.

And you believe this behaviour is because...?
Philosophy. Why is a baby? Why is an atom? Why is the universe? Don't know. Don't really care except in a vaguely abstract way.

It is the differential survival of genes that happen to code for protiens that contribute to the successful creation of organisms that successfully deliver those genes into the indefinite future in a given complex environment including temperature, radiation, and other, competing genes. Genes that diminish that success will be selected against by the simple expedient of degrading the performance of the host organism.

How's that?

Remember, the buffet of mutations offered up for selection is random, the process of selection ofr which mutations survive is not. It is driven directly by the environment in which replicators exist. That's the reason that so many similar "solutions" to survival have evolved so many times over billions of years.


How is it driven by the environment?

Philosophy. Why is a baby? Why is an atom? Why is the universe? Don't know. Don't really care except in a vaguely abstract way.

hmm

How is it driven by the environment?
Gene A codes for short necks. Gene B codes for long necks. The environment happens to contain tall trees. Organisms with gene A will tend to starve and gene A not make it into the future. Organisms with gene B will grow fat and reproduce well and gene B will propagate into the next generation thus making more long-necked organisms.

Are you messing with me?

Gene A codes for short necks. Gene B codes for long necks. The environment happens to contain tall trees. Organisms with gene A will tend to starve and gene A not make it into the future. Organisms with gene B will grow fat and reproduce well and gene B will propagate into the next generation thus making more long-necked organisms.

Are you messing with me?

Nah don't know enough about the stuff, so I'm trying to figure out why you think what you do.

Why are there short necked organisms if the trees are tall?

Going to bed now. See ya.

Going to bed now. See ya.

Gnite supe.:sleep:

No long white beard either?:( How can man be in his image?



Please understand that the "image" refers to man's tri-unity (body, soul, and spirit) as compared to God's (the Trinity).

Nah don't know enough about the stuff, so I'm trying to figure out why you think what you do.

Why are there short necked organisms if the trees are tall?

Migration?

I received following PM, and answer it publicly as others may be interested. (I prefer not to reply to only one person at a time.)

“I gotta ask a smart scientist who might know this: are you convinced, or can you be convinced, that in all likelyhood there is a God or supreme being?“

My answer:
I try to understand the world in terms that do not have any interventions (miracles) by some non-material being. This is not to say that God, or Gods, do not exist, just that the things I can not understand are not better understood by postulating a God (or Gods).

In more direct answer to your question:
I am not convinced there is any non-material agent acting in the world and it would be difficult to convince me in the absence of any evidence for it. - I.e. convince me by “faith.” I do however, "cover my bets" in sense the I try to follow the "golden rule" just in case there is a God, existence after my death, etc. If there is, I will be very surprised, I hope in a pleasant way.

This is silly. What scientific field are you in? scientists are not educated in all fields. Asking an anthropologist a philosophical/physics/wtfever question can turn out as stupid an answer as asking mr. nobody.

If you want a really good answer, ask a scientist whose job concerns what you're asking.

No, it does not mean "resembling its adult ancestors." I was not aware that it ever did.* It means, to quote your text again, "resemble the embryonic stages of other closely related organisms" and that is true. For example, it is very difficult to tell a month old pig embrio from a human one by simple visual inspection alone.
-------------------------------


Consequently I am very willing to believe that originally "Ontogeny recapitulates Phylogeny" did mean "resembling its adult ancestors" but that has not been the meaning of those words for at least 150 years.


No, your confusing what non-scientists think about something with what the actual scientists involved in it think of it. Hence, your wrong.

Nah don't know enough about the stuff, so I'm trying to figure out why you think what you do.

Why are there short necked organisms if the trees are tall?

Simple- because they can find enough food to survive and reproduce.

Here's a good wee post on Pandas thumb about the evolution of giraffe necks, which is a related topic:


http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2007/05/now_thats_a_str.html#more

Simple- because they can find enough food to survive and reproduce.

Here's a good wee post on Pandas thumb about the evolution of giraffe necks, which is a related topic:


http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2007/05/now_thats_a_str.html#more

Does that mean that tall trees = long necks?

That's right, necks grow as the trees grow, like Haeckel says, right Billy T?

Does that mean that tall trees = long necks?

No, it means that progressively taller trees favour progessively taller necks. The shorter-necked ones die off.

I guess you could still take that as evidence of the existence of your God; His cruelty, anyway. He's kind of famous for that.

Are the trees that much taller in Africa?

No, it means that progressively taller trees favour progessively taller necks. The shorter-necked ones die off.

I guess you could still take that as evidence of the existence of your God; His cruelty, anyway. He's kind of famous for that.

So the places with the tallest trees have the animals with the longest necks?

Thats right, and where there are no trees, there are no necks.

No, your confusing what non-scientists think about something with what the actual scientists involved in it think of it. Hence, your wrong.I am not sure what you are saying. Let me tell in a little more detail what I think is happening in early embyronic development and that is also what I think those three words do CORRECTLY refer to.

I am far from an expert in this area, but I believe that almost all mammals had one early ancestor, (The egg laying mammals, like the duck billed platypus, may have too, if you go back farther.) but let me speak only about mammals such as humans, pigs, horses, cats, etc. I think we all agree that a sperm and egg join to make a single cell, which then divides. When there are less than 512 cells, no one can tell them apart by vision alone. I.e. they are following the same common development path, as presumably their common ancestor did. Then (or approximately then, I am not well versed in all this) the roughly spherical mass (seen from outside - I think it is hollow) begins to IN ALL CASES develop an indented grove, which will become the "neural tube." It keeps folding inward and closes. (Spina Bifida happens if this tube fails to completely close.)

One end of the organism, now with a more elongated shape, is becoming different from the other IN ALL CASES!! Experts can tell, just by looking, which will become the head and which the tail, but not if it is a cat, pig, horse, etc. That is: the organism, what ever it is, is proceeding along the same structural* path. - I.e. Recapitulating what the ancient origin of all mammals did. Etc., Etc. until at around a month or so some members of that "grandfather's progeny" can be distinguished from others visually by experts (surely I could not). Perhaps the large marsupial branch is already well separated off in structural development by this time - I do not know. Even experts cannot, however tell, by visual inspection alone, a pig embryo from a human one at one month, so I have read. (I never tired.) Thus, at this stage, the embryos of quite a few creature's are recapitulating a major branch of the evolution tree, which they all share from one common ancestor in. Etc. Etc. Don’t know, but bet that even at 2 months even experts can not tell ape embryo from a human one, but now we are getting far out on a small limb of the great mammalian family tree. - Only a few different “twigs” remain still with a common visually indistinguishable recapitulating development from this small branch. By 3 months I bet there are no indistinguishable (visually) “twigs” to fool experts, but I bet I would need at least 4 month old embryo to be sure I was looking at human, instead of a great ape developing.

You should now understand what I believe to be true and it is what I believe the three words CORRECTLY refer to.

Now am I in the group you call “scientists” or the “non-scientist” group? If the latter, what part of what I stated above would I need to correct to be a “minor member” of the “scientist” group? - I am asking you for details about my “confusion” as your post is not clear on what they are.
-----------------------
*Again, I do not know, but bet that at the molecular level many differences already exist at one month. Different enzimes etc. development control chemicals, etc.

That there are accredited scientists of any discipline among the IDsters matters none: Can any Intelligent Design advocate provide a testable scientific hypothesis in support of intelligent design?

No?

Didn't think so.

Doesn't matter how many "legit" scientists there are among the ID camp.

If Darwinism is the only legitimate model, then why do many legitimate biologists say that it doesn's pass the smell test, hmmm?

Almost any model is as believable as your goo-morphed-into-you model, tiassa, instead of inorganic muck changing into life, for some unknown reason, as Darwinists say, I.D.ers may propose the creation of syngameons of animals, with natural selection within those syngameons thereafter, such much better matches the evidence.

Darwinism is like a bad magic routine, academic voodoo.

It really does boil down to spontaneous generation, by God, or from goo, both faith based, so people should be given the opportunity to weigh the evidence, both pro and con, for both.

Avoiding for the moment, your misuse of the term syngameon, the model you propose does not fit the evidence, since there are entire classes of animals that used to exist but now don't, and that exist now, but didn't a long time ago.

Your main objection is with abiogenesis, not Darwinian evolution. The only evidence your give is that it happens to be beyond your belief that ORGANIC molecules formed self-organizing systems. Well, if you thought about it, all kinds of scientific discoveries are just as amazing, like how plants can make food from light and air.

The difference between your idea and abiogenesis is the introduction of a complex agent (God) to do the original organizing. Since we can see other instances of self-organization in chemistry that don't require a complex agent like the formation of crystals, I can only conclude that you are being intellectually dishonest. Your bias, which is commonly known as fundamentalist Christianity, is basically at odds with the scientific method.

Darwinism is dependent on abiogenesis, or the more ridiculous panspermia, so which do you propone Darwinist spidergoat?

If you think the formation of crystals is in the same league as inorganic material turning into organic material, you are basically, at least, at odds with the scientific method.

Yes, there have been extinctions, as you well know, and of course, guess what caused most of the extinctions?

Darwinism is not dependent on abiogenesis. Even if God happened to be necessary to arrange the organic molecules into a self-replicating pattern, evolution describes what has generally happened since then.

All I'm saying is that chemistry provides all the complexity required for a self-replicating chemical reaction to occur, without the need of inventing an ancient person to work it all out ahead of time.

But you can't show that even abiogenesis happened without a Creator, much less that one-celled creatures morphed into humans, so yours may be God dependent all the way through, so what's the big woop?

But you can't show that even abiogenesis happened without a Creator, much less that one-celled creatures morphed into humans, so yours may be God dependent all the way through, so what's the big woop?

Then the question we should asks ourselves is this:
Did life come from matter and energy.....or did life come from nothing?
I'll choose the former.

But you can't show that even abiogenesis happened without a Creator, much less that one-celled creatures morphed into humans, so yours may be God dependent all the way through, so what's the big woop?

But inorganic molecules did. Several amino acids have been formed abiotically in a mixture presumably reminiscent of the chemical soup of prehistory. I am not disputing anyone's faith, but rather that no specific creator is required for abiogenesis.

Several amino acids is hardly a living cell, stretches such as this is what makes Darwinists look so desperate, and desperate for good reason, no real evidence, so faith is their predicate to this point.

Several amino acids is hardly a living cell, stretches such as this is what makes Darwinists look so desperate, and desperate for good reason, no real evidence, so faith is their predicate to this point.No, "faith" is a substitute for trying to understand what can happen (and probably did)!

For example (Not saying this is how life began. - What follows is just one of many abiotic possibility FOR THE ORIGIN OF LIFE that is easier to understand than some others.) In addition to the already demonstrated abiotic formation of amino acids, there is very often, even in today's oxygen containing atmosphere, various molecules formed, which are electrically charged on one end (Thus, hydrophilic as H2O is a polar molecule with the two positive hydrogen protons on one side 105 degrees apart, seen for the oxygen location.) and hydrophobic (avoids water, likes oils) on the other end. Detergent, although most are man-made, is good example of these molecules. It cleans the grease film off your plate because the Hydrophobic end of molecule binds to a "grease molecule" and the hydrophilic end binds to the H2O (which is really xH2O, a short chain of polymerized H2Os - x is a small, constantly changing, integer.) This binding, plus Brownian motion, pulls the "grease molecule" off your plate and into the water solution.

If there are a bunch of these hydrophobic/hydrophobic dual-ended molecules in the sea, without God’s help, they will often form a membrane. (All line up, side by side, to make a 2D “micro-sheet” with one surface hydrophilic and the other hydrophobic.) Occasionally the ocean waves will roll these micro-sheets to form a "micro-tube." That micro tube may have some amino acids inside, get bent by another wave and close off a micro-sphere with amino acids inside. The molecular mono-layer walls of this micro-sphere are not impervious. Other molecules and enter and leave and the walls can have chemical reactions that even cause "selective pores" n the walls which favor the entrance of specific molecules - all by chance still - no "hand of God" required. It will not happen often that the internal mix of molecules can capture energy, not necessarily solar energy, but that is possible, more likely it will be free chemical energy (No oxygen in atmosphere for eons still). It is not unreasonable to consider that this small selectively closed micro-sphere is "eating" when it captures molecules with free chemical energy. It may even grow in size if some of the selective pours are such that other dual ended hydrophobic/hydrophilic molecules are captured while entering to expand the total surface. Again, I admit this is all very unlikely to occur, but the oceans are very big and if it only happens once in a million years, that is fast enough.

Once you have one micro-sphere, that can grow, take free energy from the environment (or sunlight) then it will get big enough that some wave will break it into two smaller micro-spheres. Then in few million years, there will be billions of them in the ocean, some with surface molecular structures that facilitate the permanent joining of two units. Once you have these joined units that can eat, grow etc. then they will spontaneously (still no "hand of God") develop difference between them, which specialized for different tasks.

As Adam Smith, clearly demonstrated in economics (and this all can be viewed from an economics POV) specialization for tasks always is the more successful competitor that each unit doing every task. I.e. slowly the population of the joined units, more efficient that the single micro spheres, grows as a percent of the total competing for the energy and amino acids etc. I.e. you may not need the "hand of God," but the "hand of Darwin" is clearly at work - the better adapted are displacing the less adapt.

Now, as stated at the start, THIS IS JUST ONE OF THE MANY WAYS life could have originated without the "hand of God." Personally, I do not think it happen this way. I favor a different mechanism that does involve the surfaces of some natural crystals that aggregate in streams, even to day. I think that path can, and did, produce life much more rapidly, but it is not as simple to explain.

"Probably did," yeh sure.

Mod note:
The Religion forum is two blocks down, second door; any further evangelism will be met with severe incapacitation by snarling dogs (or an infraction)

"Probably did," yeh sure.For a religious guy, you sure are a "Doubting Thomas." :D

If you doubt it happen only once in all the oceans in a million years that ONE micro-sphere develops by the physical / chenical mechanisms described in detail in my post 132 is "probable," then take 10 million years for it to happen ONCE in all the world's ocean waters.

Once you have a micro-sphere with ability to eat and grow, then only the "hand of Darwin" is required to eventually populate the Earth with the creatures* you find here today.

This common origin from one original naturally formed "micro-sphere" BTW, explains why all life forms have the same (we call it right-handed) isomer chemistry.
---------------------------------
*Including some big-brained creatures with so little understanding of physical/chemical processes and probabilities that they postulate all creatures were made just as they are today by God about 6000 years ago. I do not think you are that dumb, but you appear to be only a few steps higher in intellectual development. - There is hope, however, as "Darwin's hand" gave you the ability to learn.

I am far from an expert in this area, but I believe that almost all mammals had one early ancestor, (The egg laying mammals, like the duck billed platypus, may have too, if you go back farther.) but let me speak only about mammals such as humans, pigs, horses, cats, etc. I think we all agree that a sperm and egg join to make a single cell, which then divides. When there are less than 512 cells, no one can tell them apart by vision alone. I.e. they are following the same common development path, as presumably their common ancestor did. Then (or approximately then, I am not well versed in all this) the roughly spherical mass (seen from outside - I think it is hollow) begins to IN ALL CASES develop an indented grove, which will become the "neural tube." It keeps folding inward and closes. (Spina Bifida happens if this tube fails to completely close.)

One end of the organism, now with a more elongated shape, is becoming different from the other IN ALL CASES!! Experts can tell, just by looking, which will become the head and which the tail, but not if it is a cat, pig, horse, etc. That is: the organism, what ever it is, is proceeding along the same structural* path. - I.e. Recapitulating what the ancient origin of all mammals did. Etc., Etc. until at around a month or so some members of that "grandfather's progeny" can be distinguished from others visually by experts (surely I could not). Perhaps the large marsupial branch is already well separated off in structural development by this time - I do not know. Even experts cannot, however tell, by visual inspection alone, a pig embryo from a human one at one month, so I have read. (I never tired.) Thus, at this stage, the embryos of quite a few creature's are recapitulating a major branch of the evolution tree, which they all share from one common ancestor in. Etc. Etc. Don’t know, but bet that even at 2 months even experts can not tell ape embryo from a human one, but now we are getting far out on a small limb of the great mammalian family tree. - Only a few different “twigs” remain still with a common visually indistinguishable recapitulating development from this small branch. By 3 months I bet there are no indistinguishable (visually) “twigs” to fool experts, but I bet I would need at least 4 month old embryo to be sure I was looking at human, instead of a great ape developing.

You should now understand what I believe to be true and it is what I believe the three words CORRECTLY refer to.

Now am I in the group you call “scientists” or the “non-scientist” group? If the latter, what part of what I stated above would I need to correct to be a “minor member” of the “scientist” group? - I am asking you for details about my “confusion” as your post is not clear on what they are.
-----------------------


Your confusing me now. I thought that as a scientifically responsible person you would not want to go around spouting outdated ideas such as "ontogeny recapitaluates phylogeny". The links I have given already show that it is not part of modern science, and as such should not be mentioned except as a historical artefact. If you really want an argument about that, I suggest you go and ask PZ Myers, who is a professor of developmental biology, and wrote one of the articles I have linked to.

Also, you can have your own meanings for something. That does not mean that your meanings are the scientifically accurate ones, or are relevant to the scientific discoveries of the past century.

... I thought that as a scientifically responsible person you would not want to go around spouting outdated ideas such as "ontogeny recapitaluates phylogeny"....I told in some detail, in post 120, what I think those words now (and for last 150 years) CORRECTLY mean. I even illustrated with the word "lady" to show how the meaning of words can radically change with time. I agree that the original meaning of those words was wrong, but do not think the current meaning is wrong.

You are ignoring my repeated request to tell me what is "outdated," "confused," or "obsolete," as you first stated about the detailed explanation I gave of the current meaning of those three words.

Please either tell what is "outdated," "obsolete," "in error," etc. in my post 120* statement of the current meaning or stop saying that it is.
------------------------
*also quoted in post 136 by guthrie recently, except he omitted the footnote about "structural" so I add the essence here: It is the ancient structural development which is "recapitulated," not the details of the biological / chemical mechanism and certainly not in the western world at least any of the disproven Lamarckian ideas about inheritance of parent's acquired characteristics.

Billy T, "Darwin's hand" has made you brain-dead.

Billy T, you'll never live down your foolish Haekel rap, get used to it.

Experts can tell, just by looking, which will become the head and which the tail, but not if it is a cat, pig, horse, etc.

I am an expert and yes I can tell.

Haeckel's figures were optimized to show his theory. They embryos do not look like that in reality.

Billy T, you'll never live down your foolish Haekel rap, get used to it.I don't know what you are referring to -Please explain. I have never cited Haekel. I agree his view was wrong. I stated in post 120 what I think is the correct current meaning of the famous three word phrase he invented. You have joined guther in calling it "foolish" (added to his "obsolete," "outdated," "in error" etc.) so I invitre you also to tell some specific fact, statement in all of post 120 to which these adjective apply or shut up with these unsupported claims.

Note in post 120, I admitted to not being an expert in this matter, and suggested that all of the time interals were only approximate, so if I said "one month" and 6 or 3 weeks is more correct, I do not consider that and error.

http://8e.devbio.com/article.php?ch=23&id=219

Several amino acids is hardly a living cell, stretches such as this is what makes Darwinists look so desperate, and desperate for good reason, no real evidence, so faith is their predicate to this point.

Several amino acids in a short stretch of time - a few years - is quite spectacular, considering the immense age of the earth - 5 billion years.

That reminds me - did someone remove my post earlier, or did I not hit the key?

:)

I removed it, don't want to see you make an ass of yourself anymore on this.

My second edition Webster’s unabridged dictionary gives two meanings for “phylogeny.”
(1) The development or evolution of a particular group of organisms.
(2) The evolutionary history of a group of organisms, esp. as depicted in a family tree.

Clearly, we are discussing the development of organisms, particularly the pre-natal development of the human and closely related organisms*, not “history” of any type, and we are only slightly making reference to the “family tree” connections between the various organisms.

Thus, especially as some participants do not even accept the validity of “evolution,” the following condensed version of (1) is what we mean by “phylogeny” in our discussion:

The development of the mammalian group of organisms, especially humans.
-----------------------------------
*In post 120, I specifically said:
“…but let me speak only about mammals such as humans, pigs, horses, cats, etc.”
-----------------------------------

“Ontogeny” I think we all understand and agree is the development (embryonic stages only in our discussion) of an individual, in our case a human.

Thus, an expanded re-statement of Haeckel’s famous three words, using only one of them is:

(The embryonic development of a human) recapitulates (the development of mammalian group of organisms.) I think all discussion participant can agree that this is a fair re-statement. If not offer your own version.

What we are discussing is the meaning, which I clam was one wrong idea but certainly has changed at least 100 years ago to a correct meaning.

That is, as I now understand Haeckel’s POV, he wrongly thought that that the embryonic development of an individual first made the finished stage of some evolutionary earlier life form (in the family tree line of humans) and then built on that. (actually very much like more recent descriptions of how the brain is made - the cortex being the added structure built on top of the “reptilian brain” but with rejection of Haeckel’s ideas, few still speak of the “reptilian brain.”*)

The correct and modern meaning of Haeckel’s famous phrase, I described in some detail in post 120, but briefly it drops the wrong idea of build on finished earlier stages and only asserts that the early stages of earlier evolution stages are repeated by the creatures that evolved later. For example all first form a hollow ball of cells, then all form a grove in it, which develops into the “neural tube, which then differentiates the two end (one to form the head and the other the tail) etc. as more fully described in post 120.

This the current meaning of “Ontogeny recapitulates Phylogeny” AND IT IS CORRECT, as far as we currently know.
--------------------------------------------
*I admit that some aspects of the “reptilian brain” concept are still useful. For example, the first chemical sense evolution developed, present in rudimentary form in amoebas and in very sophisticated form in the waving tongue of a snake, was and still is, processed in the “reptilian brain” part of the human brain, not in the cortex. Many primative emotional reactions (rage and fear especially) strongly relate to and use the “reptilian brain” part of the human brain.

I suggest you read the link I gave you and if that doesn't satisfy you read the references.

You are honestly discussing a topic where someone's opinion who never even has seen an embryo doesn't really matter.

This debate has been settled a long time ago. Wishful thinking isn't going to bring it back to life.

I suggest you read the link I gave you and if that doesn't satisfy you read the references.
You are honestly discussing a topic where someone's opinion who never even has seen an embryo doesn't really matter.
This debate has been settled a long time ago. Wishful thinking isn't going to bring it back to life.Not sure to whom this is directed, but I read your link and agree completely with it - this must be at least the fifth time I have said Haeckel’s POV / ideas were wrong, but his phrase lives on but with a changed and now correct meaning. - Just as "She is a kind lady." phrase has changed its meaning (at least in the US usage) so it now mean a "nice female," not the wife of a lord, as it did back when Haeckel coined the phrase “Ontogeny recapitulates Phylogeny"

If people insist that the meaning of this phrase can not change, then when someone says "She is a kind lady" about some American, they should also correct that speaker with something like: "There are no titled Lords in American, so she is not a lady, kind or otherwise."

Haeckel made a great phrase, and I for one am glad it can still be used, even if we have had to change the meaning, like many phrases and words have changed their meaning in much less time.

Almost any model is as believable as your goo-morphed-into-you model, tiassa, instead of inorganic muck changing into life, for some unknown reason, as Darwinists say, I.D.ers may propose the creation of syngameons of animals, with natural selection within those syngameons thereafter, such much better matches the evidence.

Even as such, you're not demonstrating anything about the creator, and only contributing to the knowledge base upon which the theory of evolution is built.

Intelligent Design advocates are obliged, if their religion is to be considered a science, to scientifically demonstrate the presence of the Designer. Without that, you're only restructuring evolutionary theory. Real scientists have no problem incorporating new data to a theory. It is, after all, part of what makes it science.

Indeed, the restructuring of evolutionary theory is long overdue, since the term species is a meaningless designation, and Darwinian evolution has never been demonstrated to have actually occurred, so a new classification system is in order, and the hybridization capabilities of animals need be more fully investigated to understand the true extents of the syngameons of animals.

Darwinian evolution has never been demonstrated to have actually occurred

Compared to evolution, we haven't been at the investigation long. Additionally, no other theory is nearly as reliable. To the other, though, if we had a complete set in the fossil record by this point, I would be suspicious about it's validity. The Universe is vast, and life itself is nearly, if not wholly, a statistical necessity of its course.

I'll even wager you this one, if you like: Scientists will demonstrate abiogenesis before anyone, scientist or otherwise, proves the existence of the intelligent designer.

In the meantime, calling off a reliable theory of this scale because it has not, in its infinitesimal existence, proven itself beyond the doubts of the most mythically-deluded portion of the population is ... uh, what's the scientific word for it? Stupid.

What is the difference between a scientist and an Intelligent Design advocate? A scientist forms the hypothesis according to observed reality. The ID advocate defines reality to fit the hypothesis. This latter is a very easy way of going about it: no testing required.

The problem isn't so much that IDsters haven't offered a hypothesis to demonstrate the designer, but that they won't.

Indeed, the restructuring of evolutionary theory is long overdue, since the term species is a meaningless designation, and Darwinian evolution has never been demonstrated to have actually occurred,

But it has been demonstrated using in-lab experiments, and in wild populations also, in both plants and animals, under the Biological Species Concept. I listed a number of such experiments in my response to Saquist or whatever his moniker was. I can repost the list, if you like.

The mainstream press knows there is much controversy within the academic community regarding the validity of Darwinian evolution, they write articles about it all the time, mostly about the I.D. movement vs. Darwinism, and they by and large support the Darwinists, plainly, so you can bet your bottom dollar that if Darwinism was proven to be valid, they would shout it from the rooftops, to shut-up the upstart creationists.

Well, there's not really that much controversy. In all the places I've worked and people I know in the field, I've never met an IDer. I only even know of one or two by reputation. That's 1-2 out of thousands. But a lot of workers don't generally appreciate the BSC; they want to draw on deeper evolutionary models. BSC theory solely would can a lot of species, the big cute and cuddlies among them.

Many millions of Americans don't buy Darwinism, I'm not sure about other countries.

Many millions of Americans don't buy Darwinism, I'm not sure about other countries.

Many millions of Americans believe in Astrology. Doesn't make it any less BS. So much for Appeal to Popularity.

And millions believe that goo morphed into you, Appeal to Popularity, as you say.

IAC, you don't need Genesis for your faith. Or if you think you do, then how? Why?

It's much more Spiritually and intellectually satisfying to not need to compromise what is plainly written in Genesis, and people need to know that Genesis history is not necessarily mythology at all.

Earth and human history studies are fluid, or at least they should be, since not much about them is etched in stone, no pun intended, and since Genesis has been the primary roadmap for Middle Eastern archaeology, it's only logical that we see Genesis as perhaps also accurate all the way back.

IAC:

But you can't show that even abiogenesis happened without a Creator, much less that one-celled creatures morphed into humans, so yours may be God dependent all the way through, so what's the big woop?

You can't show that abiogenesis happened with a Creator God, much less that God made any creature at all, so yours may be non-God dependent all the way through, so what's the big woop?

Lots of uncertainty in biology, nothing much to be dogmatic about, right James R?

It's not being dogmatic, just being in agreement with most of the evidence.

It's not being dogmatic, just being in agreement with most of the evidence.

dude, havent you ever watched "csi: miami"? the evidence ALWAYS leads to some crazy twist or another, and in the end was just a plot device to keep us guessing.

myuu made me.



(seriously though, i believe in ID, and dont find it in contradiction with any scientific findings, really. the very fact that most of these folks in my camp cant reconcile what stares us in the face with their personal beliefs makes me sad. it makes all of us look bad.)

Wow - that was a revelation, if you'll excuse the pun. Well, I disagree with you man, but as the Yanks say I'll fight...well not to the death, but maybe until I got a paper-cut or a bruise or something...for your right to say it. I don't agree with ID, but I don't think it delegitimizes a biologist to examine it, or even to believe in it.

(seriously though, i believe in ID, and dont find it in contradiction with any scientific findings, really. the very fact that most of these folks in my camp cant reconcile what stares us in the face with their personal beliefs makes me sad. it makes all of us look bad.)

OK, to borrow Lenny Flanks question:

What is the scientific theory of ID?
How do you test it?
What experiments regarding ID have been carried out, and what were the results?
Are you employed by the Discovery Institute?

Ahahahaha, the Devil is a creationist, ahahahaha.

i dont see whats funny.
im jewish.

as to the other comments: this isnt an area of expertise for me, so im not going to fall into some sort of word trap. im not an idiot.

Like most everything else they say, the IDer's assertion that evolution has never been tested is false. (At least the central idea of "selection of the fittest" has been both accidentally tested many times and tested in some controlled experiments.)

As example of the accidental test:
This is rather well known, so briefly: In England a white moth live before coal was extensively used. It became dark gray for about 150 years, but now that the air is not soot filled, it is white again. As there was no "control" group, this could have been just a strange coincidence, due to natural genetic variations.

One controlled experiment was done in Brazil, in the wild, using a stream with waterfall. Below the falls were two types of fish, the bigger ate the smaller, which sexually matured rapidly and as still small, laid few eggs and had few females surviving (on average one) to reproduction age to make the next generation.

Neither of these fish existed in the stream about the waterfall, but some of the small ones were captured and placed there. - Simple, low cost experiment. About 30 years later, the experimenters returned and caught some of the fish from Above the falls, "group A." (and some of the small ones from Below the falls also as "group B" controls.) Both groups of captured fish were then separately raised in tanks with the same stream water flowing thru them for several years. The size at sexual maturity in group B was still just as it was observed 30 years earlier, but group A was much larger at sexual maturity and this sexual maturity was delayed by more than a year in group A, just as Darwinian selection would suggest.

Without any danger of being eaten by the larger fish, the fish above the falls had evolved, selected themselves for delayed sexual maturity when they were much larger and could produced many more eggs.

As I recall sexual maturity age occurred a couple of years later in group A, than in group B, which did not have any changed in the environment to adapt to. In that new environment above falls, Darwin was at work, evolving the fish in group A.

Only difference between the two groups was that the environment of Group A had radically changed and they generically selected for the new environment. THIS IS A CONTROLLED EXPERIMENTAL DEMONSTRATION of Darwinian evolution's "selection of the fittest" (to the environment).

Fish are fish, and moths are moths, that is not Darwinian evolution, that is genetic variation within those two respective syngameons, obviously, no Darwinian mumbo jumbo needed.

Fish are fish, and moths are moths, that is not Darwinian evolution, that is genetic variation within those two respective syngameons, obviously, no Darwinian mumbo jumbo needed.No. The fish experiment had a control group that did not exhibit the "genetic variation"

I do not expect to persuade you but at least try to understand the concept of a "controlled demonstration."

Fish are fish, and moths are moths, that is not Darwinian evolution, that is genetic variation within those two respective syngameons, obviously, no Darwinian mumbo jumbo needed.

It is not any kind of syngameon when the new group is functionally unable to breed with the old. That is speciation.

But they can interbreed, biologically possible, in the lab if necessary, you can't say the same about fish with moths.

It is not any kind of syngameon when the new group is functionally unable to breed with the old. That is speciation.

he got served.

Why has this not been blasted from the rooftops as proof that Darwinian evolution is true?

But they can interbreed, biologically possible, in the lab if necessary

NO. That's exactly the point: they can't breed and don't breed. Reproductive isolation.

The term syngameon is just as ill-defined as species. By your reasoning, we should also give up any classification system based on syngameon. This ambiguity proves the evolutionary origin of diversity. Species are always changing. As a consequence, they are essentially only a somewhat arbitrarily defined point along an evolutionary line.

Ideally, this dispute could be settled by breeding experiments--if two organisms can mate and produce fertile offspring, they are probably members of the same species. However, we must be careful because members of very closely related species can sometimes produce offspring together, and a small fraction of those may be fertile. This is the case with mules, which are the product of mating between female horses and male donkeys. About one out of 10,000 mules is fertile. Does this mean that horses and donkeys are in the same species? Whatever the answer may be, it is clear that species are not absolutely distinct entities, though by naming them, we implicitly convey the idea that they are (http://anthro.palomar.edu/animal/animal_2.htm).

Breeding experiments are rarely undertaken to determine species boundaries because of the practical difficulties. It is time consuming and wild animals do not always cooperate. Using this kind of reproductive data for defining species from the fossil record is impossible since we cannot go back in time to observe breeding patterns and results. Comparisons of DNA sequences are now becoming more commonly used as an aid in distinguishing species. If two animals share a great many DNA sequences, it is likely that they are at least closely related. Unfortunately, this usually does not conclusively tell us that they are members of the same species. Therefore, we are still left with morphological characteristics as the most commonly used criteria for identifying species differences.

"If two organisms can mate and produce offspring, they are probably members of the same species." Wow, how generous, we can sure see where you're coming from.

Bold from post 168, which is rapidly being pushed down as too embarising to the IDers.

the IDer's assertion that evolution has never been tested is false......

(A 30+ year controlled experiment with two groups of fish is describe here inpost 168.)

Only difference between the two groups was that the environment of Group A had radically changed and they generically selected for the new environment. THIS IS A CONTROLLED EXPERIMENTAL DEMONSTRATION of Darwinian evolution's "selection of the fittest" (to the environment).

Sure it is.

I'm sure you can explain, then, why domestic sheep cannot interbreed with wild sheep, their ancestors?

Don't know that one.

How about animals that reproduce asexually?

I'm sure you can explain, then, why domestic sheep cannot interbreed with wild sheep, their ancestors?The wild sheep have disgusting personal habits, so the domestic sheep won't mate with them. ;)

And elephants won't date giraffes because they don't like the same restaraunts.

Hehe - Sammie took down my post. Naughty.

Scientific definition of syngameon.

'Bout time.

The wild sheep have disgusting personal habits, so the domestic sheep won't mate with them. ;)

Darn. I said that prior, but I think Sam took down my post again. I think it must be her way of telling me I should work more on my manuscripts. ;)

Anyway, this is basically true IAC: pre-zygotic reproductive isolation. Domestic sheep don't recognize the wild sheep as being "sheep". They fall into the category of "not-like-me", and so are instantly excluded. Presumably the threshold for acceptance in canids is a bit lower.

Darn. I said that prior, but I think Sam took down my post again. I think it must be her way of telling me I should work more on my manuscripts. ;)

Anyway, this is basically true IAC: pre-zygotic reproductive isolation. Domestic sheep don't recognize the wild sheep as being "sheep". They fall into the category of "not-like-me", and so are instantly excluded. Presumably the threshold for acceptance in canids is a bit lower.

http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=66561

I totally sympathise on the manuscripts; I'm working on the discussion page on mine :bawl:

And that "not like me" attitude does not change the fact that they can be hybridized, and so, are of the same syngameon.

http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=66561

I totally sympathise on the manuscripts; I'm working on the discussion page on mine :bawl:

But the insult doesn't work if it's not in context. :( Shouldn't people who just want to see a debate about sheep be bombarded with off-topic humour about the sexual preferences of invert_nexus?

I generally work all over mine, several at a time. This explains why I suck at submitting things. Supposed to have sent two more; nada still, because I can't concentrate on any one of them. Dunno why. FFS. And I got some student's article back again because the journal doesn't get the evolutionary implications. Ridiculous. Duhr.

But the insult doesn't work if it's not in context. :( Shouldn't people who just want to see a debate about sheep be bombarded with off-topic humour about the sexual preferences of invert_nexus?

I dunno; seem to get more interesting my way.

I generally work all over mine, several at a time. This explains why I suck at submitting things. Supposed to have sent two more; nada still, because I can't concentrate on any one of them. Dunno why. FFS. And I got some student's article back again because the journal doesn't get the evolutionary implications. Ridiculous. Duhr.

How do you ever get stuff done like that?

I start with figures, results, methods, introduction and then weave everything into a discussion.

That's the thing; I don't. I have a load of MSs waiting to be completed. It's ridiculous. I think I bite off more than I can chew, really.

Incorrect. Domestic sheep cannot hybridize with wild sheep, from which they descended. That's my whole point.

Presumably the threshold for acceptance in canids is a bit lower.That's true. I've slept with some dogs in my time.


Author's note: If you can't be politically incorrect when you are pushing 59 how can you get any fun out of life?:o

Sleeping with canines is a bit beyond being politically incorrect Ophi.

Incorrect. Domestic sheep cannot hybridize with wild sheep, from which they descended. That's my whole point.

So, my devastating example is being ignored. Noah :rolleyes: must have had to gather both domestic and wild sheep, since they are separate "syngameons", since they cannot have viable offspring. How many other examples does this apply to? Care to update your theory, IAC?

Maybe there were about 20,001 syngameons on the Ark, but maybe not, they could have lost their interfertility by mutation or some other mechanism.

That's true. I've slept with some dogs in my time.


Thou shall not lie with canines, neither shall thou bend over before them, for it is confusion.

Best wishes. :splat:

Maybe there were about 20,001 syngameons on the Ark, but maybe not, they could have lost their interfertility by mutation or some other mechanism.

Yeah, that's called speciation. Happens all the time.

Species is a meaningles term, so why do you keep using it?

http://www.answers.com/main/ntquery?s=meaningless&gwp=13

- Having no meaning or significance.

http://www.answers.com/main/ntquery?s=species&gwp=13
Species - A fundamental category of taxonomic classification, ranking below a genus or subgenus and consisting of related organisms capable of interbreeding.

Sorry, but it has both meaning and significance. You lose.

Species is a meaningles term, so why do you keep using it?

Because qualified biologists use it, perhaps?

Why has this not been blasted from the rooftops as proof that Darwinian evolution is true?
It has. But like anything that goes beyond monday night football and reruns of "sienfeld" the details of why it's true eludes most of humanity. The rest of us who actually know how to read can see that darwinian evolution by natural selection is one of the most powerfully explanatory discoveries of all time. It makes sense of and unifies the biological, fossil, genetic, and all other fields of organism development. Without it, nothing makes sense. And there is no doubt that microevolution occurrs. You've admitted that yourself. And I believe macroevolution (speciation) has been observed in bacteria. Need to find the links...

Read section 5.6 (and then the whole article):

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section5.html#speciations

...I believe macroevolution (speciation) has been observed in bacteria. Need to find the links...Let me help:

With human intelligence, very active evolution is now taking place:

"Diversa rearranges the genes inside these enzymes to make them even better at what they do. One exotic breed Diversa has begun selling produces ethanol 30% more efficiently than conventional methods.
Biotech fueled a drug revolution but now has a new role: industrial superhero. The $1.5 trillion chemicals industry has raised prices 60% in three years as costs soar for their mainstay ingredients--oil and natural gas. In search of a replacement, the industry is turning to a new breed of superbugs and enzymes ..."

From: www.forbes.com/free_forbes/2006/0724/079.html

I own 100 share of Diversa. Nor much money tied up to get their reports etc. Why I knew about this.

Last time I visited their site: www.diversa.com they told of how they accelerate evolution's chance changes and then select what they consider the "fitest."

Man has done a lot of this selection in the last 10,000 years - the different breeds of dogs, which all came from the wolf, are a result of this selection, some are not very "fit" by Darwin's use of the term (very weak hips etc.)

Bacteria have been known to pick up and swap out 20% of their genomes in a few generations, adapting to antibiotics and other lab challenges.

If that happened to a large organism it would be called "macroevolution" easily, by any definition - that's a lot bigger than the difference between humans and chimps, say.

But small beings, like plants and fungi in general, are not on the ID "theorist's" radar.

Except when they need antibiotics produced by "Materialist" science.

...small beings, like plants and fungi in general, are not on the ID "theorist's" radar.Are you saying that the IDer only made 'big things"? BTW if the IDer did make man (and monkeys etc.) as we find them today, how long ago was it and in what quantity? (Second part of question as if only a few, then man would probably go extinct as has happened in almost all case when the breeding population was small.)

There are almost as many theories of ID as there are people who think that ID is correct. Many of them are happy with the idea that God created humans, but let everything else evolve.

There are almost as many theories of ID as there are people who think that ID is correct. Many of them are happy with the idea that God created humans, but let everything else evolve.Thanks. That does not argue well for ID being "science" as in science the number of explanations for one observation tends to be one. For example science has one theory of forces producing acceleration, not hundreds. It was due originally to Newton and subsequent modified slightly. One theory of evolution by Darwin (and Wallace) with subsequent minor modifications as more was learned, etc.

If ID is not science, is it myth, religion, unsupported opinion, or what? (They come by the hundreds.)

Thats right Billy. Many people (I've been hanging around online with people who spend their free time fighting ID/ creationism) refer to it as the "big tent" strategy. The Discovery INstitute, the belief tank set up to peddle ID, prefers to keep quiet on the implications of ID. For example, the Big tent means that ID can encompass both Old earth creationists, young earth creationists, people who think that everything was specifically created, those who think that we were, and so on.

ID can best be understood as an outgrowth of Creationism. When Creationism lost ots last court case 20 years ago or something, creationists sat down and came up with this new idea, "INtelligent DEsign". The actual arguments are exactly the same as those used by people before Darwin, such as Paley.
So, roughly speaking, ID is, like Creationism, a religiously inspired misreading of the facts. Anyone who speaks seriously of ID as if it is correct is offering an opinion that is unsupported by any facts.

If you are interested, you could start with this post on Pandas thumb, a pro evolution website. It gives links to various things to do with the Dover trial, where Intelligent Design was shown to be an offshoot of creationism, and the people who wanted to get it into schools as religiously motivated.

http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2005/09/waterloo_in_dov.html

Then why do biologists doubt its veracity?

They don't therein lye the fault of your arguement