Discussion in 'Science & Society' started by IceAgeCivilizations, May 9, 2007.
Species is a meaningles term, so why do you keep using it?
Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.
- Having no meaning or significance.
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.
Because qualified biologists use it, perhaps?
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):
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 ..."
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.
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.
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.
They don't therein lye the fault of your arguement
Separate names with a comma.