BILL #4: "Why Evolution Is True" by Jerry Coyne

Using the same set of standards you would for your criticism of those expounding on the evidence for ID, don't you find it troubling that Coyne's remarks were recorded at religious convention to an audience of like minded believers?

fittest meme said: Using the same set of standards you would for your criticism of those expounding on the evidence for ID, don't you find it troubling that Coyne's remarks were recorded at religious convention to an audience of like minded believers?

fittest meme said: Using the same set of standards you would for your criticism of those expounding on the evidence for ID, don't you find it troubling that Coyne's remarks were recorded at religious convention to an audience of like minded believers?

phantomreader, your obnoxious response to fittest meme had nothing to do with what she/he wrote and was peppered with gratuitous ad hominem. I moved it to the Bathroom Wall, and will delete anything similar on this thread.

Steve Matheson said: Point taken: the fact that ID advocates frequently present their case to religious audiences is poor evidence for or against the strength of their case.

phantomreader42 said: If you don't want me to point out that creationists lie constantly, show me one who doesn't lie constantly.

Steve Matheson said:

fittest meme said: Using the same set of standards you would for your criticism of those expounding on the evidence for ID, don't you find it troubling that Coyne's remarks were recorded at religious convention to an audience of like minded believers?

Point taken: the fact that ID advocates frequently present their case to religious audiences is poor evidence for or against the strength of their case. And if that were a major argument against ID, then your observation would be more notable.

phantomreader, you seem to think that if you type your assertions in italics or bold type, that you'll be able to change them into facts or make them relevant to the points that others are making. (You seem not to read those.) Please post your subsequent comments on this thread straight to the Bathroom Wall.

Science Avenger said:

Steve Matheson said: Point taken: the fact that ID advocates frequently present their case to religious audiences is poor evidence for or against the strength of their case.

Sure, if one wants to play the game of pretending ID is actually trying to present a scientific case. If one isn't so willing (and why should we? It's like pretending a magician is a psychic even after seeing how he does his tricks), it is excellent evidence that ID is the religion-pretending-to-be-science scam that it is.

phantomreader42 said:

Steve Matheson said:

fittest meme said: Using the same set of standards you would for your criticism of those expounding on the evidence for ID, don't you find it troubling that Coyne's remarks were recorded at religious convention to an audience of like minded believers?

Point taken: the fact that ID advocates frequently present their case to religious audiences is poor evidence for or against the strength of their case. And if that were a major argument against ID, then your observation would be more notable.

"the fact that ID advocates frequently present their case to religious audiences" is not being treated as evidence against their case. The fact that ID advocates change what case they're presenting depending on the religiousity of their audience is what serves as evidence against their case. Because the fact that they tell one story to religious audiences, and a different, incompatible story to non-religious audiences, is proof that they're lying to at least one of these audiences.

Steve Matheson said: . . . And if that were a major argument against ID, then your observation would be more notable.

fittest meme said: The video you posted, (and the fact that it was at an Atheist convention)as well as the posters responding to me, seem to provide adequate circumstantial evidence however that evolution defenders are very motivated by their belief that there is no God.

phantomreader42 said: You're lying, and you know it. Isn't that imaginary god of yours supposed to have some sort of problem with bearing false witness?

dalehusband said:

fittest meme said: The video you posted, (and the fact that it was at an Atheist convention)as well as the posters responding to me, seem to provide adequate circumstantial evidence however that evolution defenders are very motivated by their belief that there is no God.

You got it backwards. Most ppl who become atheist do so for two reasons: lack of empirical evidence to support whatever God-centered religion they were raised in, or studying that religion and finding it unworthy of their allegiance for some reason, and being unable or unwilling to find an alterative religion that would be better for them. Evolution and other scientific theories may allow for atheism, but don't demand it. They merely ignore religious beliefs. I doubt anyone because atheist just because they were taught at the Church of Atheism that man came from monkeys.

Steve Matheson said: And the way we judge whether ID is trying to present a scientific case is... what? It's by reading what they write and evaluating their arguments. (I guess I can only speak for myself here.) Since that necessarily comes first, and only later do we then note that their case (scientific or not) is being presented as apologetics to believers, then I conclude that the latter is way less important than the former. That's all I'm saying.

dalehusband said: You got it backwards. Most ppl who become atheist do so for two reasons: lack of empirical evidence to support whatever God-centered religion they were raised in, or studying that religion and finding it unworthy of their allegiance for some reason, and being unable or unwilling to find an alterative religion that would be better for them. Evolution and other scientific theories may allow for atheism, but don't demand it. They merely ignore religious beliefs. I doubt anyone because atheist just because they were taught at the Church of Atheism that man came from monkeys.

fittest meme said:

Well I guess I'm the exception to most people you hang out with. I was actually raised and taught the secular/atheistic dogma as a child and young adult through my public school education and a 4-year Biology degree. It wasn't until sitting at a conference with speakers including Niles Eldredge, Peter and Rosemary Grant, and others that I realized that the evidence for evolution wasn't as strong as I'd been led to believe. Galapogos finches hadn't actually been observed to have "speciated;" instead one species just changed as a result of changing conditions . . . and the supposed "Tree of Life" as actually recorded in the fossil record wasn't anything like what my text books had shown. I began to question the explanatory power of the theory. I simply could not reconcile the claims of evolutionary theory with the evidence that was being presented at this conference of scientists supposedly doing work that supported it. Further research has only hightenend my skepticism in the institutionally supported scientific position. Whatever nefarious strategies you think ID proponents execute I find their public and private conversations to consistent in point and they actually represent a variety of religious faiths. Granted, when in the company of like minded people their beliefs may be more easily presented with confidence. That's part of the reason I questioned why the BILL video from a conference of such a nature would be used as support of evolution a public forum like this. Makes me think this site isn't really trying to enlighten the debate . . . its just preaching sermons to the choir.

You are sadly mistaken. Your biology education appears to be deficient. Speciation in Galapagos Finches has been extensively studied. Phylogenies reconstructed using morphology, allozymes, mitochondrial DNA and microsatellites all give the same basic topology. The nested hierarchy found in the tree of life is likewise consistent with many different molecular data sets. There is extensive evidence in support of evolution from genetics, paleontology, developmental biology and may other fields. Besides, even if evolution is not true, that doesn't mean that god exists. Perhaps you just needed to justify your decision for yourself. That's fine, but don't misrepresent the science to people who know better. The video presents evidence consistent with the theory of evolution. You have not even attempted to explain this evidence. Unless of course you want to explain why some whales are born with hind limbs if they did not have terrestrial ancestors.

Fittest Meme -

I'd like to examine the evidence for intelligent design.

I find the evidence supporting the theory of evolution to be very strong, but I'd like make sure that I'm not overlooking some strong evidence for ID. If I am, we'll still have to figure out how to explain what seems like evidence for evolution, but one thing at a time. Let's start with the evidence for ID.

1. Who is the designer?

2. What did that designer do?

3. When did the designer do it?

4. How did the designer do it?

5. What is an example of something that isn't designed?

6. To be sure that we both understand each others' viewpoint fully, can you provide a terse but accurate summary of the theory of evolution?

7. How old is the earth? The universe?

If you can't or won't answer these questions, please admit so and explain why.

Steve Matheson said: And the way we judge whether ID is trying to present a scientific case is... what? It's by reading what they write and evaluating their arguments. (I guess I can only speak for myself here.) Since that necessarily comes first, and only later do we then note that their case (scientific or not) is being presented as apologetics to believers, then I conclude that the latter is way less important than the former. That's all I'm saying.

Flint said:

Steve Matheson said: And the way we judge whether ID is trying to present a scientific case is... what? It's by reading what they write and evaluating their arguments. (I guess I can only speak for myself here.) Since that necessarily comes first, and only later do we then note that their case (scientific or not) is being presented as apologetics to believers, then I conclude that the latter is way less important than the former. That's all I'm saying.

I must be missing something here.

I am simply astounded that anyone could seriously say that creationists would consider tricking converts into the fold "way less important" than the dismissal within the scientific community - a community with orders of magnitude fewer votes, that nobody much pays attention to anyway. Their whole mission is to trade minds for souls.

harold said: Fittest Meme - I’d like to examine the evidence for intelligent design. I find the evidence supporting the theory of evolution to be very strong, but I’d like make sure that I’m not overlooking some strong evidence for ID. If I am, we’ll still have to figure out how to explain what seems like evidence for evolution, but one thing at a time. Let’s start with the evidence for ID.

1. Who is the designer?

2. What did that designer do?

3. When did the designer do it?

4. How did the designer do it?

5. What is an example of something that isn’t designed?

6. To be sure that we both understand each others’ viewpoint fully, can you provide a terse but accurate summary of the theory of evolution?

7. How old is the earth? The universe?

If you can’t or won’t answer these questions, please admit so and explain why.

fittest meme said: Now how about a question for you. Can you distinguish life from non-life without using the non-empirically measurable concepts of ego (I am), purpose (I want to be), and information (genetic code)? Furthermore can you explain the mechanism of evolution without using these concepts?

fittest meme said:

harold said: 5. What is an example of something that isn’t designed?

Sand, rocks dirt, etc. Design is apparent when it displays purposeful information.

fittest meme said:

harold said: Fittest Meme - I’d like to examine the evidence for intelligent design. I find the evidence supporting the theory of evolution to be very strong, but I’d like make sure that I’m not overlooking some strong evidence for ID. If I am, we’ll still have to figure out how to explain what seems like evidence for evolution, but one thing at a time. Let’s start with the evidence for ID.

Great. Your questions to follow don't ask for evidence however, they ask for conclusions. None the less, I will attempt answers which undoubtedly will be different from the answers you would provide since each of our answers will be based upon different inferences from the same observable evidence. Neither of us has observed the events you want described so all we have are theories. One piece of evidence that we both must explain is the coded information in DNA. ID theory says that we have never empirically witnessed coded information being created by anything but an intelligent agent. How do you explain this evidence in a manner consistent with scientific methodology? Remember based upon the rules you place on yourself only empirical explanations of cause and effect are deemed scientific.

1. Who is the designer?

Within the constraints of scientific methodology I can only infer that it is an intelligent agent. However when adding the philosophical tool of studying historical written records I believe it is the God of Judeo/Christian heritage.

2. What did that designer do?

Created the Universe including all energy, matter, and order.

3. When did the designer do it?

In the Beginning.

4. How did the designer do it?

We don't know for sure, however scientific inquiry driven by an interest in discovering the nature of the designed order has and continues to improve our understanding.

5. What is an example of something that isn’t designed?

Sand, rocks dirt, etc. Design is apparent when it displays purposeful information.

6. To be sure that we both understand each others’ viewpoint fully, can you provide a terse but accurate summary of the theory of evolution?

Evolution of course simply means progressive change over time. The theory of evolution as discussed here however provides an explanation for the origin and diversity of life.

It proposes that life came to be through the undirected natural actions of energy and matter.

Darwinian theory explains the diversity of life by projecting the observed phenomena of Natural Selection within a species to life as a whole; suggesting that all living things have a common ancestor. Neo-evolutionary theory expands upon Darwinian theory to attribute the required increasing genetic complexity of more complex organisms to genetic mutations.

7. How old is the earth? The universe?

Really Old.

Rebuttal if I may.
So much wrong but here a bit.

To my surprise he punches home how important geology is to proving the assertion of the biological fact of evolution!!!
Amen.
Evolution is greatly dependent on geological assumptions and without it biological conclusions , as he stressed, could not be made.
Therefore importance evidence for a biological fact is not based on biological research. It is based on casts of life presumed to be in a sequence of biological change based on geological events.
The geology is not accepted and anyways is not to be used as biological evidence.
FAIL.

In fact a prediction could be made that errors in geology could produce a false confidence in biology where fossils are invoked for meaning.
A second prediction could be in the future they will stress that the great flaw in evolutionary ideas was its reliance on geology including denying geology being used to falsify evolution. another cute point.

Theres more.

harold said: Fittest Meme - I'd like to examine the evidence for intelligent design. I find the evidence supporting the theory of evolution to be very strong, but I'd like make sure that I'm not overlooking some strong evidence for ID. If I am, we'll still have to figure out how to explain what seems like evidence for evolution, but one thing at a time. Let's start with the evidence for ID. 1. Who is the designer? 2. What did that designer do? 3. When did the designer do it? 4. How did the designer do it? 5. What is an example of something that isn't designed? 6. To be sure that we both understand each others' viewpoint fully, can you provide a terse but accurate summary of the theory of evolution? 7. How old is the earth? The universe? If you can't or won't answer these questions, please admit so and explain why.

@harold:

I didn't hit "Update" before replying to you, so I didn't see that "meme" had replied to you, taking every opportunity that I expected of someone with something to hide. And I don't think that that "something" is a private acceptance of YEC that almost everyone else assumes when they see cutesy answeres like "really old." "Meme" is welcome to prove me wrong, however, by answering my questions.

harold said: 4. How did the designer do it?

Robert Byers the idiot babbled: Evolution is greatly dependent on geological assumptions and without it biological conclusions , as he stressed, could not be made. Therefore importance evidence for a biological fact is not based on biological research. It is based on casts of life presumed to be in a sequence of biological change based on geological events. The geology is not accepted and anyways is not to be used as biological evidence. FAIL.

In fact a prediction could be made that errors in geology could produce a false confidence in biology where fossils are invoked for meaning.

A second prediction could be in the future they will stress that the great flaw in evolutionary ideas was its reliance on geology including denying geology being used to falsify evolution. another cute point.

Theres more.

Frank J said: @harold: I didn't hit "Update" before replying to you, so I didn't see that "meme" had replied to you, taking every opportunity that I expected of someone with something to hide. And I don't think that that "something" is a private acceptance of YEC that almost everyone else assumes when they see cutesy answeres like "really old." "Meme" is welcome to prove me wrong, however, by answering my questions.

fittest meme said: Nothing to hide Frank. I really don't know how old the earth is. I recognize that there are two very competing schools of thought. Just because I doubt the creative powers of evolutionary theory doesn't automatically mean I'm a young earth creationist. I think that as we examine evidence more completely and sift out the bias from the fact we will have a better understanding of the true age of the earth and universe. The one comforting factor is that there is a right answer. The earth does have a beginning and thus an age. I believe it is discoverable and that someday the truth will be known. In the mean time it is important to seek this truth because decisions and actions are most effective when they are based upon reality. I agree that any explanation that sounds to be magical and not consistent with our normal observations (like for instance that life can spring form non-life, or that purposeful complexity can arise through random undirected forces)is not acceptable. My beleif is that we will find the age to be consistent with what is revealed in the Bible. I am also quite willing to accept that our understanding of "time" and thus our interpretation of what is written in the Bible may be different than what the author meant when it was written. The Bible credits God with 3 "days" of creation for instance before he "put lights in the sky to govern the day and the night." Our perspective of time is based upon units of measure that are governed by the rotation and orbit of our planet, but God was creating for "days" before this . . . obviously his days are different than ours. My point is that proper interpretation of scientific evidence as well as Biblical revelation may point to the same reality. Unlike many here I'm not willing to count out either possibility (ie billions and billions of years vs. very young). "Really old" accurately describes my current understanding.

fittest meme said: Just because I doubt the creative powers of evolutionary theory doesn't automatically mean I'm a young earth creationist. My beleif is that we will find the age to be consistent with what is revealed in the Bible. I am also quite willing to accept that our understanding of "time" and thus our interpretation of what is written in the Bible may be different than what the author meant when it was written. The Bible credits God with 3 "days" of creation for instance before he "put lights in the sky to govern the day and the night." Our perspective of time is based upon units of measure that are governed by the rotation and orbit of our planet, but God was creating for "days" before this . . . obviously his days are different than ours.

1. Who is the designer?

Within the constraints of scientific methodology I can only infer that it is an intelligent agent. However when adding the philosophical tool of studying historical written records I believe it is the God of Judeo/Christian heritage.

2. What did that designer do?

Created the Universe including all energy, matter, and order.

3. When did the designer do it?

In the Beginning.

4. How did the designer do it?

We don’t know for sure, however scientific inquiry driven by an interest in discovering the nature of the designed order has and continues to improve our understanding.

5. What is an example of something that isn’t designed?

Sand, rocks dirt, etc. Design is apparent when it displays purposeful information.

6. To be sure that we both understand each others’ viewpoint fully, can you provide a terse but accurate summary of the theory of evolution?

Evolution of course simply means progressive change over time. The theory of evolution as discussed here however provides an explanation for the origin and diversity of life. It proposes that life came to be through the undirected natural actions of energy and matter.

Darwinian theory explains the diversity of life by projecting the observed phenomena of Natural Selection within a species to life as a whole; suggesting that all living things have a common ancestor. Neo-evolutionary theory expands upon Darwinian theory to attribute the required increasing genetic complexity of more complex organisms to genetic mutations.

7. How old is the earth? The universe?

Really Old.

Now how about a question for you. Can you distinguish life from non-life without using the non-empirically measurable concepts of ego (I am), purpose (I want to be), and information (genetic code)? Furthermore can you explain the mechanism of evolution without using these concepts?

Fittest meme wrote:

"One piece of evidence that we both must explain is the coded information in DNA. ID theory says that we have never empirically witnessed coded information being created by anything but an intelligent agent. How do you explain this evidence in a manner consistent with scientific methodology? Remember based upon the rules you place on yourself only empirical explanations of cause and effect are deemed scientific."

That's easy, they're wrong. Information arises by natural processes all of the time. It doesn't take intelligence to create information, just to interpret it. The information in DNA is the result of random mutations and natural selection, what we see today are the variants that survived, that is all. THis conclusion is consistent with scientific methodology and with all of the available evidence. Those who deny this do not use the scientific method and have no evidence whatsoever for their supernatural explanations. They aren't even wrong.

Fittest meme wrote:

"Evolution of course simply means progressive change over time. The theory of evolution as discussed here however provides an explanation for the origin and diversity of life. It proposes that life came to be through the undirected natural actions of energy and matter."

Very surprising that someone who claims to have a degree in Biology would get this so wrong. You do know that bacteria are still alive, right? They haven't really "progressed" much in 3.5 billion years (yes, that's how long life has been on this planet whether you are familiar with the evidence or not). The point of evolution is survival not "progression". That can happen sometimes, but there is no reason it has to. i

DS said: So you can ignore all of the evidence for the ancient age of the earth just as easily as you can ignore all of the evidence for evolution. That is evidence of your own misconceptions and nothing else. I notice that you had no explanation for the evidence that Galapagos finches underwent speciation. I can provide references, if you are willing to read them. Looking only at the data on beak sizes and concluding that speciation did not occur is intellectually dishonest at best. Thanks for at least being willing to answer questions anyway.

Fittest Meme -

Glad to see your back. See my comment above.

I'd like to keep our discussion organized. DS is a great source of information, so enjoy talking to him. Incidentally, I didn't disagree with the "progressive change over time" phrase because that's a common English definition and arguably fits, but DS makes an excellent point about long time stasis of many traits, and we'll get to that, too, eventually.

The way I see it there are four separate issues that could come up. Let's deal with them in a focused way.

1) Positive evidence for ID - are we through with that? Or do you have more positive evidence for ID (not arguments against evolution, not claims that science is looking for it)? If you do, please present it, if not please say so, so that we can move on.

2) Positive evidence for evolution - I'd love to start on this, but I just want to be sure I've been fully informed with regard to the positive evidence for ID first.

3) Atheism versus broadly defined theism/deism - This isn't really a strong interest area for me; let's discuss the scientific evidence for biological evolution first, and then we can touch on this.

4) Within theism/deism, is one sect superior? This is really far afield from my interests, but you have implied an interest. Let's hold off on this until we've been through the areas of discussion which should logically proceed it.

I really don’t know how old the earth is. I recognize that there are two very competing schools of thought. Just because I doubt the creative powers of evolutionary theory doesn’t automatically mean I’m a young earth creationist.

— fittest meme

harold said: Fittest Meme - Glad to see your back. See my comment above.

I'd like to keep our discussion organized. DS is a great source of information, so enjoy talking to him. Incidentally, I didn't disagree with the "progressive change over time" phrase because that's a common English definition and arguably fits, but DS makes an excellent point about long time stasis of many traits, and we'll get to that, too, eventually. The way I see it there are four separate issues that could come up. Let's deal with them in a focused way. 1) Positive evidence for ID - are we through with that? Or do you have more positive evidence for ID (not arguments against evolution, not claims that science is looking for it)? If you do, please present it, if not please say so, so that we can move on.

Frank J said: So since you have nothing to hide, I trust that you devote on the order of "equal time" to expressing your "skepticism" to those who favor the other schools of thought too, correct?

fittest meme said: Most importantly if we are going to talk about theories that involve life we better define it properly. Please provide your definition of how life is distinguished form non-life. I challenge you to so without assumptively including the non-material elements of ego (I am) purpose (I want to survive) and information. All three are necessary to describe life (you could say that along with energy and matter that this mix of components is irreducibly complex).

Mike Elzinga said: Why do you think that life cannot be an emergent property of increasing complexity in organic systems of atoms and molecules?

fittest meme said:

Mike Elzinga said: Why do you think that life cannot be an emergent property of increasing complexity in organic systems of atoms and molecules?

Because any theory I have seen proposed for such a process has presumptively attributed ego and purpose to the molecules that supposedly emerge into life.

SWT said:

fittest meme said:

Mike Elzinga said: Why do you think that life cannot be an emergent property of increasing complexity in organic systems of atoms and molecules?

Because any theory I have seen proposed for such a process has presumptively attributed ego and purpose to the molecules that supposedly emerge into life.

Then you need to read some actual science.

I mentioned the coded information present in DNA as positive evidence of design. The fact that it is code cannot be denied. Neither can the fact that it is purposeful. Scientific methodology requires that we explain phenomena through causes that have been observed empirically. Unless you circuitously reason that evolution is true (even though we have never observed it as it has been theorized) and thus the coded information is the result of evolution then we must explain the existence of this code through causes we are familiar with and have actually observed. Whenever we see coded information we attribute it to an intelligent agent.

fittest meme said:

SWT said:

fittest meme said:

Mike Elzinga said: Why do you think that life cannot be an emergent property of increasing complexity in organic systems of atoms and molecules?

Because any theory I have seen proposed for such a process has presumptively attributed ego and purpose to the molecules that supposedly emerge into life.

Then you need to read some actual science.

Please direct me to one paper or study that doesn't do what i have claimed. I assume you will read through the paper yourself before directing me to it to assure it actually proves your position.

SWT said:

fittest meme said:

SWT said:

fittest meme said:

Mike Elzinga said: Why do you think that life cannot be an emergent property of increasing complexity in organic systems of atoms and molecules?

Because any theory I have seen proposed for such a process has presumptively attributed ego and purpose to the molecules that supposedly emerge into life.

Then you need to read some actual science.

Please direct me to one paper or study that doesn't do what i have claimed. I assume you will read through the paper yourself before directing me to it to assure it actually proves your position.

No. You direct me to peer-reviewed scientific papers that attribute "ego and purpose to the molecules that supposedly emerge into life." I assume you will read them through yourself before directing me to them to assure that they actually prove your assertion.

fittest meme said:

Mike Elzinga said: Why do you think that life cannot be an emergent property of increasing complexity in organic systems of atoms and molecules?

Because any theory I have seen proposed for such a process has presumptively attributed ego and purpose to the molecules that supposedly emerge into life. Thus they have put the cart before the horse . . or the egg before the chicken if you prefer.

fittest meme said:

Frank J said: So since you have nothing to hide, I trust that you devote on the order of "equal time" to expressing your "skepticism" to those who favor the other schools of thought too, correct?

Fair enough. The age of earth debate is not one I've really studied up on enough to make any arguments. I mainly object to people attributing hard and fast beliefs to me on one aspect of this multifarious topic (evolution that is) because I express skepticism on another.

Mike Elzinga said: Can you show us any chemistry book that says that hydrogen and oxygen, for example, have egos and purpose in producing the properties of water?

Where along the chain of complexity do atoms and molecules acquire “ego and purpose?” What chemistry book teaches this?

Frank J said: Two comments: 1: I specifically asked your opinion on the age of life not the age of the Earth, but like most people who either give an opinion or "plead the fifth" like you, you curiously refer to the latter. 2: Readers can plainly see that I am not "attributing hard and fast beliefs" to you, but trying to find out what they are. One of which I asked in the question you quoted above, but which remains unanswered. The "when" questions and common descent are not the only ones on which evolution-deniers hold many different opinions, and occasionally debate each other. Surely you must have something in which you confidently differ with them.

Matt G said:

harold said: 4. How did the designer do it?

This is probably my favorite. The Universe is composed of mass and energy. If the Intelligent Designer is neither of these, how did/does it interact with them? How does it "push" or "pull" things? The only answer is to appeal to magic.

fittest meme said: Pick a paper any paper. Any of them for instance that claim RNA is the precursor to life. Here's an article that summarizes much of the current research. http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21128251.300-first-life-the-search-for-the-first-replicator.html?full=true Note how "replicators" are just assumed into being. A replicator has to know it exists, must want to reproduce, and must have information that is reproduceable in order to replicate. Right? . . . think about it please before you respond. You are the one suggesting I haven't read actual science. You imply that if I had read the papers you had I wouldn't make such claim. You must have had a paper in mind . . . just suggest that one. Or were you bluffing?

There’s lots of different thinking on much of this.

— fittest meme

fittest meme said: Please provide these references. I've been looking for 20 years for real evidence of speciation as it was presented in my text books. By the way I think we can agree that different species are genetically distinguished to such an extent that they can no longer produce viable offspring. Peter and Rosemary Grant have no such evidence.

The ‘nature can’t produce coded information’ component of ID is incompatible with any form of deism or clockmaker god, or alien visitors of a billion years ago, or anything like that. Because it’s produced in situ in organisms on an ongoing basis.

— eric

fittest meme said: Life differs from non-life because it contains elements that distinguish it. These element are ego, purpose and information. When we witness something that contains these elements we say it is "alive." When it does not have them it is not "alive."

5. What is an example of something that isn’t designed?

Sand, rocks dirt, etc. Design is apparent when it displays purposeful information.

Igneous rocks are made of minerals that have specific chemical properties and form under specific conditions of heat and pressure. Limestones and other precipitates also occur only under specific conditions. Why aren't they designed? All rocks can be metamorphosed into other rocks, why isn't this a designed process? During erosion, some rocks are chemically altered "Plagioclase into clay minerals, for example" Isn't that also design?

DS said:

fittest meme said: Please provide these references. I've been looking for 20 years for real evidence of speciation as it was presented in my text books. By the way I think we can agree that different species are genetically distinguished to such an extent that they can no longer produce viable offspring. Peter and Rosemary Grant have no such evidence.

Well I guess you haven't been looking very hard. Let's start with this one, speciation observed in real time: Grant and Grant (2009) The secondary contact phase of allopatric speciation in Darwin's Finches. PNAS 106(48):2097-2101. Here is a link in case you don't have access: http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2009/11/12/0911761106 And there is lots more where that came from. We can get to the other molecular evidence later. Let's just say that speciation has been observed, directly and indirectly. All of the ecological and genetic data is consistent with a single phylogeny which identifies the ancestral species. So speciation is not a problem for evolutionary theory, those who claim that it is are lying to you. Ignoring evidence won't make it go away and it won't fool those who are familiar with the evidence. I would advise you to increase your knowledge.

Frank J said:

The ‘nature can’t produce coded information’ component of ID is incompatible with any form of deism or clockmaker god, or alien visitors of a billion years ago, or anything like that. Because it’s produced in situ in organisms on an ongoing basis.

— eric

Not to defend the ID strategy in any way, but not only is it compatible with all that, but Behe's speculation that the designer might have inserted all the information in an ancestral cell ~4 billion years ago is the only clear "what, when and how" that has ever been proposed by a major figure in the ID movement.

Dembski once suggested that all the information could have been inserted into matter/energy at the Big Bang.

In which everything that followed would be 100% indistiguishable from what mainstream science concludes.

1) Positive evidence for ID - are we through with that? Or do you have more positive evidence for ID (not arguments against evolution, not claims that science is looking for it)? If you do, please present it, if not please say so, so that we can move on.

Yes I do and I don’t think you have responded what I have already presented adequately. I mentioned the coded information present in DNA as positive evidence of design.

1) Positive evidence for ID - are we through with that? Or do you have more positive evidence for ID (not arguments against evolution, not claims that science is looking for it)? If you do, please present it, if not please say so, so that we can move on. 2) Positive evidence for evolution - I’d love to start on this, but I just want to be sure I’ve been fully informed with regard to the positive evidence for ID first. 3) Atheism versus broadly defined theism/deism - This isn’t really a strong interest area for me; let’s discuss the scientific evidence for biological evolution first, and then we can touch on this. 4) Within theism/deism, is one sect superior? This is really far afield from my interests, but you have implied an interest. Let’s hold off on this until we’ve been through the areas of discussion which should logically proceed it.

The fact that it is code cannot be denied.

Neither can the fact that it is purposeful.

Scientific methodology requires that we explain phenomena through causes that have been observed empirically. Unless you circuitously reason that evolution is true (even though we have never observed it as it has been theorized)

and thus the coded information is the result of evolution then we must explain the existence of this code through causes we are familiar with and have actually observed.

Whenever we see coded information we attribute it to an intelligent agent.

I wouldn’t for instance propose that the digital code in my i-phone came to be in it’s own. I know it to be evidence of a software engineer. Similarily, upon close examination I could see that the code used in my i-phone is very similar to that used in my i-pod. In fact many of the same strings of code would be duplicate. Reasonable logic would rightly conclude that a purposeful software designer interested in efficiency re-used but added to the code to create a device with a different function.

Most importantly if we are going to talk about theories that involve life we better define it properly. Please provide your definition of how life is distinguished form non-life. I challenge you to so without assumptively including the non-material elements of ego (I am) purpose (I want to survive) and information. All three are necessary to describe life (you could say that along with energy and matter that this mix of components is irreducibly complex).

Again we have never witnessed any of the three non-material components being created by anything other than an entity that already has them. Scientifically that appears to be evidence of an intelligent designer. That is unless you magically want to attribute their appearance to some never before witnessed mechanism

I'm curious about the foundation of Meme's rejection of "darwinism." These things often follow a predictable progression:
1. Person has some event in life that results in a religious conversion
2. Person joins a church, probably but not necessarily Protestant
3. Person accepts church position on evolution
4. Person claims to have formerly been a hidebound, intractable atheist.

Meme says that his doubt about religion came about as a result of academic lectures on evolution. What I'm wonder is whether the religion came before or after the lectures and the doubting.

SWT said: Where in the "popular science" paper that you linked to is there any indication that the original replicators had any self-awareness, will, or intention?

(By the way, as much as I enjoy New Scientist, it's not an actual scientific journal.)

fittest meme said:

I've been looking for 20 years for real evidence of speciation as it was presented in my text books. By the way I think we can agree that different species are genetically distinguished to such an extent that they can no longer produce viable offspring. Peter and Rosemary Grant have no such evidence.

People sometimes use anthropomorphic language when describing something, without meaning it literally.

fittest meme said:

SWT said: Where in the "popular science" paper that you linked to is there any indication that the original replicators had any self-awareness, will, or intention?

By assuming that these replicators "want to" make copies of "themselves," and indeed have something to copy including the "instructions" for doing so, one is attributing the qualities of ego, purpose, and information to them.

(By the way, as much as I enjoy New Scientist, it's not an actual scientific journal.)

I didn't suggest it was. However I said that it summarized and referred to studies that were addressing this issue.

harold said: Fittest Meme - First of all, let's remember that there's an unresolved issue here. You say the designer created everything, and then say that rocks and dirt aren't designed. Please explain how this can be. It is very important that we clear up this paradox.

1) I do, in fact, assume that I exist. 2) I assume that a universe exists, including other people. 3) I assume that my senses give me accurate information about the universe, except if impacted by known natural pathologies or substances that interfere with perception. 4) I assume that what is know as "logic" is valid. 5) I assume that mathematics, including inferential statistics, is valid. As I said, if you have a problem with these assumptions, let's talk about that now.

fittest meme said: At the point that life appears. No book whether it be Chemistry or Biology that I know of teaches or explains a mechanism that accounts for the addition of these elements. I think you would agree that Biology is a much more complex subject than Chemistry.

Because any theory I have seen proposed for such a process has presumptively attributed ego and purpose to the molecules that supposedly emerge into life. Thus they have put the cart before the horse . . or the egg before the chicken if you prefer.

Can you show us any chemistry book that says that hydrogen and oxygen, for example, have egos and purpose in producing the properties of water?

No I haven’t proposed that water is alive so I don’t attribute characteristics of life to it. That is my point. Life differs from non-life because it contains elements that distinguish it. These element are ego, purpose and information. When we witness something that contains these elements we say it is “alive.” When it does not have them it is not “alive.”

Where along the chain of complexity do atoms and molecules acquire “ego and purpose?” What chemistry book teaches this?

At the point that life appears. No book whether it be Chemistry or Biology that I know of teaches or explains a mechanism that accounts for the addition of these elements. I think you would agree that Biology is a much more complex subject than Chemistry.

I'd also like to know whether the data presented in this recent report would qualify as "real evidence of speciation."

fittest meme said:

SWT said: Where in the "popular science" paper that you linked to is there any indication that the original replicators had any self-awareness, will, or intention?

By assuming that these replicators "want to" make copies of "themselves," and indeed have something to copy including the "instructions" for doing so, one is attributing the qualities of ego, purpose, and information to them.

fittest meme said: Not so fast DS. Your referenced paper does not contradict my claim that actual speciation has never been witnessed to take place. This paper only shows the sub-population of finches to be behaviorally isolated from each other. It would take lots and lots of generations and genetic modifications for them to actually be genetically incapable of creating viable offspring with the original population. The behavioral barriers would have to remain in place without one occurrence of hybridization which would dilute the achieved differences. That's a pretty tall order considering the drive to mate. The Grants have done nothing more than to prove what animal breeders have known for a long time. Great diversity in morphology and behavior can be demonstrated within a species through environmental pressures that select for certain inherent traits. What they have revealed would be like saying that dachshunds and St. Bernards are different species because of the obvious problems and preferences they may have in mating with each other. We know however that they are actually members of the same species. Despite the "purity" of their breed as maintained by breeders, over time and without the efforts of breeders to negatively select offspring displaying inherent traits not deemed desirable, both breeds will naturally trend back to the mean (ie wolf)and be able to successfully mate once again. I hope you read the brief story I referred to in National Geographic about the Grizzlies and Polar Bears mating with each other. These were populations that had supposedly been isolated for over 200,000 years. The Grant's graduate students are going to have to be monitoring those finches for quite some time! By the way, all ecological and genetic data is also consistent with a common designer.

fittest meme said:

I'd also like to know whether the data presented in this recent report would qualify as "real evidence of speciation."

I suppose it could if when released into the wild these lines remained independent for thousands of years.

SWT said: Who, other than possibly you, is assuming that "these replicators 'want to' make copies of 'themselves'" or is "attributing the qualities of ego, purpose, and information to them." If you claim it's in the article you linked to, you'll need to point out where that's stated or implied because I sure don't see it.

You claimed "any theory [you] have seen proposed for such a process has presumptively attributed ego and purpose to the molecules that supposedly emerge into life." I've asked you to back up your claim by showing an example from the actual scientific literature (you know, where the theories are proposed), and I'm still waiting for a response that justifies your claim.

eric said: So, as with my last post, I'm just trying to understand your position at this point. You are saying that you would require thousands more years of data on a recent speciation event before you would believe it, um, "stuck?"

fittest meme said: (anytime someone refers to a molecule as doing something for "itself" they are attributing an ego to this molecule) and purpose (wanting to survive or duplicate is a specific purpose).

fittest meme said: Many papers and articles including the ones cited and linked to in the New Science article base their assumptions on the "RNA world" hypothesis which presumptively attributes ego (anytime someone refers to a molecule as doing something for "itself" they are attributing an ego to this molecule) and purpose (wanting to survive or duplicate is a specific purpose).

fittest meme said:

I'd also like to know whether the data presented in this recent report would qualify as "real evidence of speciation."

I suppose it could if when released into the wild these lines remained independent for thousands of years. My bet is that the new lines either will not be competitively viable in the wild, or after close contact with the original population will be re-assimilated into the original species. I guess time will tell.

It's not as conclusive as you claim it to be.

fittest meme said:

eric said: So, as with my last post, I'm just trying to understand your position at this point. You are saying that you would require thousands more years of data on a recent speciation event before you would believe it, um, "stuck?"

Yeah. If the supposed speciaition event for Grizzlies and Polar Bears didn't stick after a supposed 200,000 years I guess that would be a good amount of time to wait.

fittest meme said:

SWT said: Who, other than possibly you, is assuming that "these replicators 'want to' make copies of 'themselves'" or is "attributing the qualities of ego, purpose, and information to them." If you claim it's in the article you linked to, you'll need to point out where that's stated or implied because I sure don't see it.

"At some point a particularly remarkable molecule was formed by accident. We will call it the Replicator. It may not necessarily have been the biggest or the most complex molecule around, but it had the extraordinary property of being able to create copies of itself." Richard Dawkins - The Selfish Gene (page 15)

You claimed "any theory [you] have seen proposed for such a process has presumptively attributed ego and purpose to the molecules that supposedly emerge into life." I've asked you to back up your claim by showing an example from the actual scientific literature (you know, where the theories are proposed), and I'm still waiting for a response that justifies your claim.

Many papers and articles including the ones cited and linked to in the New Science article base their assumptions on the "RNA world" hypothesis which presumptively attributes ego (anytime someone refers to a molecule as doing something for "itself" they are attributing an ego to this molecule) and purpose (wanting to survive or duplicate is a specific purpose).

DS said: Let's just cut the carp and you tell me. Exactly where do you think that all of the species of finches in the Galapagos came from?

Exactly what evidence do you have for this idea?

Exactly how do you explain the congruent nested genetic hierarchies found in the different molecular data sets?

If you have been looking for twenty years you are already familiar with all of this evidence, right?

So please, enlighten us. Exactly what is your alternative hypothesis? The genetic data is inconsistent with a common designer, unless of course all of the species were actually derived from a single mainland species, just as predicted by common descent.

fittest meme said: My hypothesis is evident from my arguments above. I think it was the result of a designer.

Well meme, I would love for you to explain the same evidence. Explain for example why the Galapagos finches are all more closely related to each other genetically than they are to other more similar species elsewhere. This is inconsistent with a common designer. The nested hierarchy of genetic similarities is not consistent with any ID hypothesis. It was not predicted by ID and it cannot be explained by ID. It is however entirely consistent with descent with modification. Your hypothesis is falsified.

Fittest meme -

I was going to start discussing the theory of evolution and evidence for it, but I think I might be wasting my time.

I suspect that there may be no evidence that could ever convince you.

So let me ask you this before I start -

Could any conceivable evidence convince you that evolution can account for the diversity and relatedness of life on earth?

Steve Matheson said: Why were you looking for "real evidence of speciation" if you knew that it could only be acquired over a time frame approximating the duration of human civilization? I didn't type anything about the extent to which it is "conclusive." In fact, I thought it was pretty clear that I was asking you to tell me what would make the evidence "conclusive."

Mike Elzinga said: Why do you rule out life as an emergent phenomenon? This is not a trick question. Do you understand the question? Does life violate the laws of physics and chemistry?

Which immediately stops the conversation, or should, until he gives a clear definition of “information.”

— eric

fittest meme said:

Steve Matheson said: Why were you looking for "real evidence of speciation" if you knew that it could only be acquired over a time frame approximating the duration of human civilization? I didn't type anything about the extent to which it is "conclusive." In fact, I thought it was pretty clear that I was asking you to tell me what would make the evidence "conclusive."

Fair questions. First, I am looking for evidence of speciation that supports the theory of evolution as it had been presented in my text books. Namely that speciation events result in distinct species which display increasing complexity and new and distinct body forms and functions. While I reject the possibility that such complexity can indeed be created through mutations, if it did, then according to the theory such speciation would require sub-populations to be separated over great periods of time. If the populations that we often think of as separate species don't stay separate (as I have provided evidence for) then the new and novel code of the sub-species will be lost back into the original species gene pool. Second, I understand that my original definition of new species does not account for sub-speciation of dead end populations that may not ever reproduce with each other (because of extinction). Such events "divide" the original genetic material of a species reducing the gene pool and thus the survivability of the species as a whole. These events do not produce a long term competitive advantage for the species. I understand that this revelation presents a higher hurdle to climb than what I first expressed. Hopefully it explains the reason I reject the evidence you have thus far presented. You guys have worn me out. I'm taking a break for a while. I'm sure I'll return at some point. Thanks for the debate!

First, I am looking for evidence of speciation that supports the theory of evolution as it had been presented in my text books. Namely that speciation events result in distinct species which display increasing complexity and new and distinct body forms and functions.

While I reject the possibility that such complexity can indeed be created through mutations,

if it did, then according to the theory such speciation would require sub-populations to be separated over great periods of time. If the populations that we often think of as separate species don’t stay separate (as I have provided evidence for) then the new and novel code of the sub-species will be lost back into the original species gene pool.

Second, I understand that my original definition of new species does not account for sub-speciation of dead end populations that may not ever reproduce with each other (because of extinction). Such events “divide” the original genetic material of a species reducing the gene pool and thus the survivability of the species as a whole. These events do not produce a long term competitive advantage for the species.

I understand that this revelation presents a higher hurdle to climb than what I first expressed. Hopefully it explains the reason I reject the evidence you have thus far presented.

As I mentioned before, I don’t think you can define life and distinguish it from non-life without adding the elements of ego, purpose, and information. These are not material entities. Thus the explanation of life requires by nature an explanation that is not limited to the naturalistic realm of science as most scientists have defined it.

harold said: Fittest meme - I was going to start discussing the theory of evolution and evidence for it, but I think I might be wasting my time. I suspect that there may be no evidence that could ever convince you. So let me ask you this before I start - Could any conceivable evidence convince you that evolution can account for the diversity and relatedness of life on earth?

fittest meme said:

Mike Elzinga said: Why do you rule out life as an emergent phenomenon? This is not a trick question. Do you understand the question? Does life violate the laws of physics and chemistry?

OK one more. Yes, I think I understand the question. No it does not violate the laws of physics and chemistry. It does however add to them. As I mentioned before, I don't think you can define life and distinguish it from non-life without adding the elements of ego, purpose, and information. These are not material entities. Thus the explanation of life requires by nature an explanation that is not limited to the naturalistic realm of science as most scientists have defined it. All I ask is that you think about this.

If i may.
He brings up to be a persuasive point about hairy fetus.
Let there can be a logical mechanical biological reason for this without saying its evidence we are related to apes(or rabbits).
He says room temp rules out the hair as needed. Yet hair is not always produced for warmth but instead for dryness. the fetus , like us at puberty with hair under our armpits etc, simply has reaction to being wet. We have more hair in areas of episodic sweating and the fetus has hair while in a fluid. in each case its probably of no use but is simply a reaction of the body. The body is triggered .

Darwin took out of biology laws of mechanics like we find in physics. Evolution is not about laws but about randomness on happanchance.

Oddly he invokes marine mammals vestigial features to prove evolution is true. Yet when i have argued with knowledgable and tough evolutionists they insist all bits and pieces of all the previous stages of evolution of a creature are eliminated unless needed.
They have to do this as I make the case that if evolution was true everything should be crawling with remnants of the innumerable stages before the present creature.
He suggests to the audience, AHA, hers some remnants showing a previous anatomical stage and so evolution is true.
Yet it actually makes the opposite case. The vast lack of vestigial bits is the proof of no evolution in most of biology by selection/mutation.
Its hard to imagine he doesn't know this and so i feel its wrong of him to touch peoples instinct that creatures have vestigial bits showing previous stages when its very, very, very, few. In fact only in the most obvious true cases of creatures changing in body type. marine mammals are not a sample but extreme cases.
The accurate sample would be creatures do not have vestigial features like whales. Indeed unlikely if evolution was true
In fact it would be a good point of WHY fossil creatures have no vestigial features !. Surely someone should be caught in the act of disappearing vestigial bits.
Think about it.

If i may.
The final point Mr Coyne I believe failed on was his first.
He said a fact is a assertion packed with so much evidence is a fact where otherwise it would be perverse to deny it.

This is not a good definition of a fact.
In his example a ssertion only needs evidence.
Yet actually it is as follows.
A great fact of powerful explanation demands evidence in quality and quantity in direct proportion to the greatness of the fact.His whole program here makes the creationist case that evidence for evolution is very little and not even understood to be very little even if it was true.
Horse hoofs, fetus, whale spurs, are fine evidence for minor claims within evolution. (not true but anyways) however they are not in sum total in any way weightly amounts of evidence to demand the assertion is a fact.
In law it civil cases are about weighing the evidence. Criminal cases are about beyond a shadow of a doubt. A higher standard of evidence for a higher conclusion.
Mr coyne truly tries to teach biological origins and creationist error based on a few points.
Unaware one should not be convinced by such trivial points even if all true.

These points are few and easily dismissed by creationists.
If evolution is true then there should be fantastic quality and quantity of evidence to work with and not the few same points.
Thats it folks!
Surely evolutionism is done like dinner.

fittest meme said:

eric said: So, as with my last post, I'm just trying to understand your position at this point. You are saying that you would require thousands more years of data on a recent speciation event before you would believe it, um, "stuck?"

Yeah. If the supposed speciaition event for Grizzlies and Polar Bears didn't stick after a supposed 200,000 years I guess that would be a good amount of time to wait.

Yes, I think I understand the question. No it does not violate the laws of physics and chemistry. It does however add to them. As I mentioned before, I don’t think you can define life and distinguish it from non-life without adding the elements of ego, purpose, and information.

Robert Byers babbled: Yet when i have argued with knowledgable and tough evolutionists they insist all bits and pieces of all the previous stages of evolution of a creature are eliminated unless needed.

Meme:

Here you go. Here is a paper with evidence from mitochondrial and nuclear DNA:

Sato et. al. (2001) On the origin of Darwin's finches. Molecular Biology and Evolution 18(3):299-311.

The paper documents the mainland species from which all of the island species were derived. It includes a phylogeny that is concordant with the phylogeny found using morphology, allozymes, microsatellites and other data sets. Since the paper is ten years old, I am sure you must be familiar with it already.

Now meme, how do you explain this data? How does ID explain the nested hierarchy of genetic similarities that are observed? How does it explain why these species are all more closely related to one mainland species than to any more similar species elsewhere? Who does it explain why none of these species are found anywhere else?

I can provide dozens more references, but they show exactly the same thing. Every researcher in the field has reached exactly the same conclusion. This is evidence covering 2.3 million years of speciation. Of course we know this isn't good enough for you, what we don't know is why anyone should care.

DS said: Now meme, how do you explain this data? How does ID explain the nested hierarchy of genetic similarities that are observed? How does it explain why these species are all more closely related to one mainland species than to any more similar species elsewhere? Who does it explain why none of these species are found anywhere else?

Matt G mentioned lurkers at P.T. I guess I must be one. It seems your site would benefit if before you begin a debate you would define terms. Ex. speciation. "I think what we have here is a lack of communication" like the man told cool hand Luke.

Speciation has occurred when two (or more?) subsets of a species have accumulated enough separate changes so that either they don't interbreed even when possible, or that any remaining interbreeding has insignificant effect on the overall set of traits for each group.

Or something like that.

John S. said: Matt G mentioned lurkers at P.T. I guess I must be one. It seems your site would benefit if before you begin a debate you would define terms. Ex. speciation. "I think what we have here is a lack of communication" like the man told cool hand Luke.

I'd be interested in knowing what textbooks fittest meme learned evolution from. Were these High School texts, college? Was his high school a public school? Parochial School? Did he go to a secular college? Maybe that may clarify where he is comming from. Just curious.

Richard57 said: I'd be interested in knowing what textbooks fittest meme learned evolution from. Were these High School texts, college? Was his high school a public school? Parochial School? Did he go to a secular college? Maybe that may clarify where he is comming from. Just curious.

I already asked him for which books, and which editions, he got his information from.

Henry J said:

I already asked him for which books, and which editions, he got his information from.

But did you define what you mean by "information" in this context? ;)

Richard57 said: I'd be interested in knowing what textbooks fittest meme learned evolution from. Were these High School texts, college? Was his high school a public school? Parochial School? Did he go to a secular college? Maybe that may clarify where he is comming from. Just curious.

I see that the NCSE newsletter is quoting another survey, this time a Fox Newspoll, that found that oft-repeated stubborn 45% moiety that believes the Biblical account of creation and specifically denies Darwinian evolution. The remainder is split fairly evenly between those who accept evolution and those who want to accept both. (7% say they don't know.)

Dawkins has remarked that the 45% figure has not shifted in a generation or more. What worries me is the finding that only 21% of respondents unequivocably favour evolution.

John S. said: Matt G mentioned lurkers at P.T. I guess I must be one. It seems your site would benefit if before you begin a debate you would define terms. Ex. speciation. "I think what we have here is a lack of communication" like the man told cool hand Luke.

Since this thread is about Coyne, it's worth mentionining that he is the victim of one of the most egregious acts of quote mining ever. And to my knowledge Behe has not owned up to his "mistake" in 15 years! If for no other reason that that, the ID scam artists cannot be trusted to have any say in science education.

Frank J said: Since this thread is about Coyne, it's worth mentionining that he is the victim of one of the most egregious acts of quote mining ever. And to my knowledge Behe has not owned up to his "mistake" in 15 years! If for no other reason that that, the ID scam artists cannot be trusted to have any say in science education.

fittest meme,

Where did you go lad? You asked for papers, I provided one. You are going to read it aren't you? You are going to explain the evidence, aren't you? I've got lots more where that came from.

Why do these creotards always run away without reading the papers? It's almost as if they are afraid of the evidence. Now why would that be?

Thank you for that link, Frank J. It is indeed an egregious act of quote mining.

— cbooth2004

The purpose of rocks: well, duhh... it's to make gravity!

You know, when a bunch of them glom together into a planet, so that people and zebras and things will stick to it, instead of just floating away.

Coming soon: the ego of rocks.

Why do these creotards always run away without reading the papers? It’s almost as if they are afraid of the evidence. Now why would that be?

DS said: fittest meme, Where did you go lad? You asked for papers, I provided one. You are going to read it aren't you? You are going to explain the evidence, aren't you? I've got lots more where that came from. Why do these creotards always run away without reading the papers? It's almost as if they are afraid of the evidence. Now why would that be?

DS said: fittest meme, Where did you go lad? You asked for papers, I provided one. You are going to read it aren't you? You are going to explain the evidence, aren't you? I've got lots more where that came from. Why do these creotards always run away without reading the papers? It's almost as if they are afraid of the evidence. Now why would that be?

fittest meme said:

DS said: fittest meme, Where did you go lad? You asked for papers, I provided one. You are going to read it aren't you? You are going to explain the evidence, aren't you? I've got lots more where that came from. Why do these creotards always run away without reading the papers? It's almost as if they are afraid of the evidence. Now why would that be?

Lad? Creaotard? Nice. I am familiar with the material in the paper. It's from much of the same work they presented at the conference I mentioned I attended. I'll respond more fully tomorrow pm when I have more time. I'm assuming you must not have read the paper yourself otherwise you wouldn't claim it was making a case for what you say it does. Did you see this concluding comment referring to the Galapagos Finches? "Both morphological (Grant 1999) and molecular (Freeland and Boag 1999a, 1999b; Petren, Grant and Grant 1999; Sato et. al 1999) data indicate that species boundaries have not been fixed firmly. Not only do the species hybridize (Grant 1993) but their mtDNA lineages have not yet been sorted out among them (Freeland and Boag 1999a, 1999b; Sato et. al 1999)."

DS said: fittest meme, Where did you go lad? You asked for papers, I provided one. You are going to read it aren't you? You are going to explain the evidence, aren't you? I've got lots more where that came from. Why do these creotards always run away without reading the papers? It's almost as if they are afraid of the evidence. Now why would that be?

DS said: Meme: Here you go. Here is a paper with evidence from mitochondrial and nuclear DNA: Sato et. al. (2001) On the origin of Darwin's finches. Molecular Biology and Evolution 18(3):299-311. The paper documents the mainland species from which all of the island species were derived.

Now meme, how do you explain this data? How does ID explain the nested hierarchy of genetic similarities that are observed? How does it explain why these species are all more closely related to one mainland species than to any more similar species elsewhere? Who does it explain why none of these species are found anywhere else?

I can provide dozens more references, but they show exactly the same thing. Every researcher in the field has reached exactly the same conclusion. This is evidence covering 2.3 million years of speciation. Of course we know this isn't good enough for you, what we don't know is why anyone should care.

fittest meme said: Calling each other names and establishing a "bullying" type of environment where the minority view is attacked just because it's minority doesn't help your cause. I suspect you won't want to read this, but you may find value in John's account of how a historical figure from Nazereth handled debating with the institutionalized religious leaders of his day (the Bible pub @ 85-90AD). He gives some great examples of how to get your point across.

Meme,

Yes, we actually do agree on quite a bit. But apparently you have no explanation for the fact that all of the Galapagos finches are genetically nested deeply within just one mainland group. This is completely inconsistent with any special creation hypothesis. If you want to say that they are just one kind, fine. But there are studies documenting reproductive isolation within and between species. This means that speciation has happened and is continuing to occur. Period. You were wrong. I am not the one making any conclusions about any creator, you are, and that completely without any evidence whatsoever.

The fact that exactly the same pattern is found with microsatellite data, a marker which does not affect phenotype or fitness, demonstrates conclusively that the relationships are real and cannot be explained by any ID hypothesis. There is no evidence for any ID hypothesis in this paper or any other. You just made that up and concluded, incorrectly, that this doesn't disprove it.

Besides, what's the big deal admitting to speciation? We have literally thousands of examples of speciation in the lab and in nature. We even have evidence of entire new groups being derived from other groups by descent with modification. Frankly, a few new species of finches is only the tip of the iceberg. Creationist generally have no problem with microevolution. Didn't you get the memo?

Steve Matheson said: While you're away, have another look at the textbooks. You'll discover that you have significantly misunderstood what they said. (Or, I guess, you may discover that they were bogus textbooks.) Almost everything you wrote in your last comment was badly wrong. (The worst by far is this sentence: "Namely that speciation events result in distinct species which display increasing complexity and new and distinct body forms and functions.") That can be fixed.

In the past five years two odd-looking bears, with white fur and brown patches, have been killed by hunters in the Canadian Arctic. DNA tests confirmed it: Polar and grizzly bears, after starting to diverge 200,000 years ago, are interbreeding in the wild. Climate change seems to be driving their reunion. But to what end? Evolutionary biologist Brendan Kelly says that as natural barriers like sea ice vanish, 22 Arctic species are at risk of rapid hybridization. That could be bad news for polar bears, which rely on specialized adaptations to survive. Kelly says if “pizzlies” in the wild lack some of those vital Arctic traits—as zoo-born hybrids* (left) seem to—interbreeding could further imperil an already threatened species.

Steve Matheson said: And you might want to read the polar/grizzly bear story again. It doesn't mean what you think it does.

Meme wrote:

"OK give me a better definition of how speciation is incorporated into the Darwinian Theory of Evolution and why it is important. If it just results in the dividing of an existent species into distinct populations without creating complexity and new and distinct body forms and functions why is it important?"

I just told you, it DOES produce new body forms and even entirely new kinds of organisms. That is where all of the diversity of life has come from.

Fittest Meme - what is the title and author of your son's 10th grade textbook?

SWT said: I'm sure you're thinking of when Jesus called those religious leaders a "brood of vipers" ... or maybe when He called them "hypocrites" and "whitewashed tombs, which look beautiful on the outside but on the inside are full of the bones of the dead and everything unclean."

So here we go with the civility ploy. No attempt to discuss the evidence. No explanation for the dat. Just crying about how terrible the names are. How droll.

And by the way, lad is not in any way pejorative and the term creotard was not in direct reference to you, unless of you course you identify yourself with the description of that group for some reason.

I just told you, it DOES produce new body forms and even entirely new kinds of organisms. That is where all of the diversity of life has come from.

DS said: So here we go with the civility ploy. No attempt to discuss the evidence. No explanation for the dat. Just crying about how terrible the names are. How droll.

DS said: And by the way, lad is not in any way pejorative and the term creotard was not in direct reference to you, unless of you course you identify yourself with the description of that group for some reason.

fittest meme said:

DS said: And by the way, lad is not in any way pejorative and the term creotard was not in direct reference to you, unless of you course you identify yourself with the description of that group for some reason.

Oh really not in reference to me? You did make the comment in a blog response to me did you not. And you were using it to describe those who behaved like you thought I did.

fittest meme said:

DS said: So here we go with the civility ploy. No attempt to discuss the evidence. No explanation for the dat. Just crying about how terrible the names are. How droll.

No attempt to discuss the evidence? really?

DS said:

fittest meme said:

DS said: And by the way, lad is not in any way pejorative and the term creotard was not in direct reference to you, unless of you course you identify yourself with the description of that group for some reason.

Oh really not in reference to me? You did make the comment in a blog response to me did you not. And you were using it to describe those who behaved like you thought I did.

That's right. I used it to describe others who demanded references, promised to read them, then ran away when I provided them. That is exactly what you did. I was trying to shame you into coming back to discuss the article. Apparently I was successful.

DS said: Creationist generally have no problem with microevolution. Didn't you get the memo?

Meme wrote:

"Some here have mentioned that hybridization is very rare … In our observation and time frame however it is much more common than seeing one such morphologically creative set of mutations. Basically it ends up being a race between adaptive mutations and hybridization. From the evidence in front of us it appears that hybridization is much more frequent."

Right. So whenever hybridization is prevented, by whatever means, genetic divergence always occurs and reproductive isolating mechanisms eventually evolve and new species are formed. What could possibly prevent this from happening? Why would anyone deny that this happens? Do you really need god to specially poof every single type of organism, even those that were nowhere to be found for the first 4.5 billion years of the history of the planet?

fittest meme said:

DS said: Creationist generally have no problem with microevolution. Didn't you get the memo?

I don't have a problem with microeveolution (change, or even division of populations within a species). What I have been trying to explain (apparently unclearly) is that the microevolutionary speciation that were talking about and seeing within the finches does not demonstrate a mechanism that allows for creation of new, novel and functioning genetic material only the division of existing material. If we want to claim that mutations working together with speciation can result in such new and novel code and structures, then hybridization (which we have observed but which is de-emphasized in most discussion)creates a major hurdle to the maintenece of these new adaptations. I think that many in the field actually recognize this revelation as very damaging to the theory and I think it may be why many in the Darwinian camp are so vague in their definition of speciation. That last statement is of course a hypothesis.

DS said: Do you really need god to specially poof every single type of organism, even those that were nowhere to be found for the first 4.5 billion years of the history of the planet?

fittest meme said: . . . all this in order to support your belief that there isn't a creative being that is beyond our full comprehension?

fittest meme said:

DS said: Do you really need god to specially poof every single type of organism, even those that were nowhere to be found for the first 4.5 billion years of the history of the planet?

Do you really need to depend on a 150 year old theory, which is being proven deficient through many forms of molecular, mathematical, and cosmological discovery, to deny the appearance of design in the life we see every day . . . all this in order to support your belief that there isn't a creative being that is beyond our full comprehension?

Let me understand, fittest meme. You claim that what, gods poofed life into existence?

Why do you think that there are any gods?

I'll bet my bippy you've got no empirical, unequivocal evidence for their existence.

I'll bet your gods really have no detectable effect whatsoever on reality.

Prove me wrong, there, fittest. Give me a nice, testable, clear piece of evidence. After all, the whole universe is chock full of empirical, unambiguous evidence for everything from airplanes to zeppelins. It shouldn't be hard to come up with one little bitty bit for the existence of your gods.

fittest meme said:

Steve Matheson said: While you're away, have another look at the textbooks. You'll discover that you have significantly misunderstood what they said. (Or, I guess, you may discover that they were bogus textbooks.) Almost everything you wrote in your last comment was badly wrong. (The worst by far is this sentence: "Namely that speciation events result in distinct species which display increasing complexity and new and distinct body forms and functions.") That can be fixed.

OK give me a better definition of how speciation is incorporated into the Darwinian Theory of Evolution and why it is important. If it just results in the dividing of an existent species into distinct populations without creating complexity and new and distinct body forms and functions why is it important?

If the theory states that the genetic changes come about as the result of mutations that are documented to occur very slowly, and that in order to result in morphologically unique and more complex body plans many (an understatement) of these mutations must exactly line up with each other and endow a competitive advantage to the organism,

then it seems reasonable to suggest that any hybridization between separating populations would be fighting against the required process.

Some here have mentioned that hybridization is very rare . . . In our observation and time frame however it is much more common than seeing one such morphologically creative set of mutations. Basically it ends up being a race between adaptive mutations and hybridization. From the evidence in front of us it appears that hybridization is much more frequent.

Steve Matheson said: And you might want to read the polar/grizzly bear story again. It doesn't mean what you think it does.

OK . . . tell me what it means.

Regarding the popular topic of my text books; I think you would all agree that the theory of evolution is so ubiquitous in its discussion and popular presentation that one's understanding is going to come from more than just what was read in a text book 30 years ago. Such is the case with my understanding. A, review of my son's 10th grade text book however reveals many of the same misrepresentations of evidence that I was taught, and believed, before I pursued information from many sources on my own.

fittest meme said:

DS said: Do you really need god to specially poof every single type of organism, even those that were nowhere to be found for the first 4.5 billion years of the history of the planet?

Do you really need to depend on a 150 year old theory, which is being proven deficient through many forms of molecular, mathematical, and cosmological discovery, to deny the appearance of design in the life we see every day . . . all this in order to support your belief that there isn't a creative being that is beyond our full comprehension?

fittest meme said:

DS said: Do you really need god to specially poof every single type of organism, even those that were nowhere to be found for the first 4.5 billion years of the history of the planet?

Do you really need to depend on a 150 year old theory,

which is being proven deficient through many forms of molecular, mathematical, and cosmological discovery,

to deny the appearance of design in the life we see every day . . .

all this in order to support your belief that there isn't a creative being that is beyond our full comprehension?

Do you really need to depend on a 150 year old theory,

Do you really need to depend on a 150 year old theory,

which is being proven deficient through many forms of molecular, mathematical, and cosmological discovery,

to deny the appearance of design in the life we see every day

… all this in order to support your belief that there isn’t a creative being that is beyond our full comprehension?

Meme,

Here you go. This is another reference documenting reproductive isolation in different SPECIES of Galapagos finches:

Tonnis et. al. (2005) Habitat selection and ecological speciation in Galapagos warbler finches. Proc. R. Soc. B 272:819-826.

So, if you agree that all of the Galapagos Finches were derived from a single common ancestor, then you must admit that speciation has occurred. Don't other trying to deny it, it's right there in the title. The mitochondrial lineages are completely sorted (see Figure 4). Funny you didn't know about this six year old paper.

So now that that is settled, how about telling us all exactly where you think birds, whales and humans came from. Another episode of poof?

Steve Matheson said: Here's what it (speciation) is (and you could have learned this at any number of basic websites, such as the Evolution 101 site at Berkeley): speciation occurs when one interbreeding population becomes more than one reproductively distinct population.

When it has occurred, gene flow between the two populations stops.

One reason this is important is that it means that the two populations can change (evolve) independently.

. . . it's true that gene flow between populations influences evolution. It's not true that gene flow between populations must necessarily “fight against” evolutionary change.

. . . evolutionary changes in animal populations can occur even without complete reproductive isolation.

It means that the two different species (polars and grizzlies) diverged biologically (by developing some subtle but distinct specializations) without becoming completely reproductively isolated. It may also mean – and I would say that this is pretty likely, given their overlapping territories – that the two species were never that separate from a reproductive standpoint.

What it doesn't mean is that 200,000 years is therefore not enough time for reproductive isolation.

It can happen in a tiny fraction of that time, including a virtual instant as documented in the lab recently,

or it can never happen at all under other circumstances.

Frankly, meme, suggesting that a single not-very-dramatic case of hybridization somehow undermines the occurrence of reproductive isolation and speciation is as confused as suggesting that a 90-year-old smoker undermines the argument that “smoking causes cancer.”

I've read about the hybrids. They're quite interesting. It seems they've been known for quite some time, but that conclusive evidence (DNA testing) was not acquired until recently. Apparently the two species come into somewhat frequent contact but tend to avoid one another. What the whole story adds up to is this: the evidence so far suggests that these closely-related animals are not reproductively incompatible.

Meme wrote:

"Wait . . just so we’re all on the same page are the Polar Bears and the Grizzlies really different species or are they different populations of the same species experiencing microevolution (adaptive radiation) in different environments? Why didn’t you just call Grizzlies and Polar Bears different populations of the same species. Why can’t you do the same for the Galapagos Finches? We have evidence that they both hybridize with each other so they are not reproductively isolated and thus have not experienced speciation as you described it above. Right?"

Except that there is a very large degree of reproductive isolation already present in the Galapagos Fincehs. So much so that 15 different species are recognized. There is very little hybridization, even between species within the same group on the same island. And there is virtually no gene flow between species, since almost no viable F2 offspring are ever produced. And of course there are not just geographic barriers to gene flow, but behavioral and ecological barriers as well. So all in all, a lot of speciation has occurred and is occurring.

To be clear, complete reproductive isolation is not required in order for things to be considered two separate species. All that is required is reduced gene flow, then divergence can overwhelm the minor amount of gene flow until complete reproductive isolation occurs. It may occur in a very short time or it may take millions of years. It is different in different species, depending on several factors. What you can't say is that it can never occur. That is demonstrably false.

fittest meme said: Do you really need to depend on a 150 year old theory, which is being proven deficient through many forms of molecular, mathematical, and cosmological discovery, to deny the appearance of design in the life we see every day . . . all this in order to support your belief that there isn't a creative being that is beyond our full comprehension?

fittest meme said: gene flow between populations makes them no longer reproductively isolated . . . right? Thus the mechanism for independent evolution is no longer possible . . and they can't be called separate species . . . right?

Wait . . just so we're all on the same page are the Polar Bears and the Grizzlies really different species or are they different populations of the same species experiencing microevolution (adaptive radiation) in different environments? Why didn't you just call Grizzlies and Polar Bears different populations of the same species. Why can't you do the same for the Galapagos Finches?

Certainly no clear line of demarcation has as yet been drawn between species and sub-species--that is, the forms which in the opinion of some naturalists come very near to, but do not quite arrive at, the rank of species; or, again, between sub-species and well-marked varieties, or between lesser varieties and individual differences. These differences blend into each other by an insensible series; and a series impresses the mind with the idea of an actual passage. Hence I look at individual differences, though of small interest to the systematist, as of the highest importance for us, as being the first step towards such slight varieties as are barely thought worth recording in works on natural history. And I look at varieties which are in any degree more distinct and permanent, as steps toward more strongly marked and permanent varieties; and at the latter, as leading to sub-species, and then to species. The passage from one stage of difference to another may, in many cases, be the simple result of the nature of the organism and of the different physical conditions to which it has long been exposed; but with respect to the more important and adaptive characters, the passage from one stage of difference to another may be safely attributed to the cumulative action of natural selection, hereafter to be explained, and to the effects of the increased use or disuse of parts.

Wow . . . that's a good trick: they're called species in one sentence then the very next sentence described as "not reproductively incomapatible" (I think what you mean here . . . but it's really hard for you to say is that they are reproductively compatible). No wonder I'm so confused . . .

In all these respects the species of large genera present a strong analogy with varieties. And we can clearly understand these analogies, if species once existed as varieties, and thus originated; whereas, these analogies are utterly inexplicable if species are independent creations.

DS said: Do you really think that birds were not descended from reptilian ancestors? Do you really think that cetaceans were not derived from terrestrial ancestors? Do you really think that humans were not descended from primate ancestors? Or do you think they are all the same species?

For an example of traits leading to reproductive isolation and the early stages of speciation, think of Ann Coulter.

Meme, you are indeed confused about several things. Some of your confusion is understandable (species concepts are genuinely confusing); some is the product of deep misconceptions on your part. Instead of going point by point through your comment, I offer these final points of clarification.

1. You continue to conflate speciation and evolutionary change, despite this error being pointed out repeatedly. Hence you express incredulity at the possibility of continued evolutionary change in the presence of gene flow. (Some very, very basic reading in evolutionary genetics would reveal to you that gene flow is in fact a driver of genetic diversity, which is a requirement for evolutionary change.) The interesting example of the polar/grizzly bears illustrates this quite nicely: the two populations have diverged biologically, but remain (apparently) reproductively compatible.

2. There's nothing inaccurate or misleading about calling polar bears and grizzlies "€œtwo species"€ while acknowledging that they appear to be able to interbreed. All that means is this: the term 'species' is flexible and is used somewhat distinctly in different contexts. (This is well known to those who have read the basics in this field, something I continue to urge you to do.) I'll leave it to the taxonomists to decide what to do about bear classification. What matters for our discussion is that this one fascinating example doesn't falsify any evolutionary claim regarding speciation. My reading of your comments is that you are impressed by the fact that polar bears and grizzlies didn't become completely reproductively isolated after 200,000 years, and that you further believe this single observation to somehow damage theories of speciation. That's fantastically wrong, and I'm going to let you think about why because I'm tired of trying to explain it to you.

3. You seem to think that the recent example of observed speciation in the lab was "€œintelligently directed."€ I can only conclude that you didn't read the freely-available abstract of the report. And I conclude that you are under the impression that all examples of observed speciation somehow fail to represent the real thing. And thus I conclude that you haven't read about speciation.

Friend, the existence of speciation is well established, and there are no current scientific data that undermine it. I don't know why you are skeptical or why you are fixated on hybridization. My closing advice to you is to read more. Best regards.

Meme,

I just realized why you might have taken offense to the term "lad". I never considered the possibility that you are female. If that is the case, I do sincerely apologize. I made an unwarranted assumption. However, in my own defense, I must say that making unwarranted assumptions about the religious beliefs of a complete stranger, and then proceeding to denigrate those beliefs, raises the level of rudeness to an entirely different realm. You can't really expect to play the civility card again after that little display, dude. (Note that the term dude is used by surfers to refer to each other. As far as I know, it can be used to refer to males or females).

OK, meme, this non-scientist will put an oar into the water.

Are domestic dogs descendants of wolves? You don’t have to look it up–what do YOU think? If the answer is yes (to you, apparently, that means they’re the same species), then why is it that in the wild they are mutually antagonistic (they kill each other, and feral dogs don’t join wolf packs). About the only way they can be coaxed to interbreed is in highly unnatural circumstances (captivity).

If the answer is no, they are separate species, then why is it that they CAN hybridize and produce viable offspring?

Now consider the entire range of domestic dogs. I will assume that you agree that they’re all the same species (correct me if I’m wrong). Then how is it that they CAN’T all interbreed? Simply because of morphological (size) differences, the largest can’t mate with the smallest. So does that make them separate species? It would by your definition of inability to successfully mate.

My point is that species is a slippery concept, and one that humans invented for our convenience, rather than clearly walled-off parts of nature. Therefore, there’s nothing inconsistent (or damaging to evolution) to say that polar bears and grizzlies are separate species, despite the fact that in rare instances they interbreed; while at the same time recognizing that dogs are all the same species, even though many varieties of them cannot possibly interbreed.

DS said: Meme, I just realized why you might have taken offense to the term "lad". I never considered the possibility that you are female. If that is the case, I do sincerely apologize.

I must say that making unwarranted assumptions about the religious beliefs of a complete stranger, and then proceeding to denigrate those beliefs, raises the level of rudeness to an entirely different realm.

DS said: Do you really need god to specially poof every single type of organism, even those that were nowhere to be found for the first 4.5 billion years of the history of the planet?

You can't really expect to play the civility card again after that little display, dude. (Note that the term dude is used by surfers to refer to each other. As far as I know, it can be used to refer to males or females).

Just Bob, your comment reminds this non-biologist of "ring species," another concept fittest meme should take a look at.

It remains peculiar that this meme character cannot understand basic questions about basic behaviors of matter.

Neither meme nor Atheistoclast appear to know anything about chemistry and physics, or how matter and energy behave. Both just haughtily wave off these entire fields as though they are completely irrelevant. They don’t comprehend any questions in those areas; and they seem to think that medieval concepts of matter and life still apply to biology.

This appears to be a common characteristic of ID/creationists, followers and leaders alike.

fittest meme said:No one cares if your

DS said: Meme, I just realized why you might have taken offense to the term "lad". I never considered the possibility that you are female. If that is the case, I do sincerely apologize.

Nope, I'm male. But the term lad is defined as one who is between earlychildhood and maturity. I do not fit that description. You claim to have not used the word in a pejorative (to disparge or belittle) way but I think we would all agree that you meant to imply less maturity than you. It was used perjoratively. Another lie. For supposedly being scientists and dealing in an objective world you guys sure define words in a subjective way.

I must say that making unwarranted assumptions about the religious beliefs of a complete stranger, and then proceeding to denigrate those beliefs, raises the level of rudeness to an entirely different realm.

DS said: Do you really need god to specially poof every single type of organism, even those that were nowhere to be found for the first 4.5 billion years of the history of the planet?

I was only trying to mirror the comment I received from you. Your response revealed a very stong emotional attachement to the theory . . . almost like I weas threatening your religious beleifs. I'm sorry you were so offended.

You can't really expect to play the civility card again after that little display, dude. (Note that the term dude is used by surfers to refer to each other. As far as I know, it can be used to refer to males or females).

OK you go a head and be as uncivil as you want. I won't call you on it again.

fittest meme said: No wonder I'm so confused . . .

Just Bob said: Now consider the entire range of domestic dogs. I will assume that you agree that they’re all the same species (correct me if I’m wrong). Then how is it that they CAN’T all interbreed? Simply because of morphological (size) differences, the largest can’t mate with the smallest. So does that make them separate species? It would by your definition of inability to successfully mate.

fittest meme said:

Just Bob said: Now consider the entire range of domestic dogs. I will assume that you agree that they’re all the same species (correct me if I’m wrong). Then how is it that they CAN’T all interbreed? Simply because of morphological (size) differences, the largest can’t mate with the smallest. So does that make them separate species? It would by your definition of inability to successfully mate.

Bob, I think maybe you haven' been following this conversation from the start. I agree that all dogs and wolves are part of one species. According to the definition of species I would propose, morphological, behavioral, ecological, or geographical barriers on their own are not evidence of distinct species. All of these barriers are temporary in the generational frame of reference we must deal with as we discuss true molecular changes to DNA that (through mutation) would provide a chemical (or genetic? . . I'm not really sure what the best word is here) reproductive barrier. In my proposed parlance "species" would be those populations which which were chemically isolated while "sub-species" or "population" would be those isolated by only morphological, ecological, behavioral or geographical barriers. If people prefer to use "species" to describe those separated by temporary barriers only then some other designation such as "kind" (which may be to charged a word to use here) would be required to distinguish those animals that could not produce viable offspring even when subjected to in vitro fertilization. I think the designation is important because it would contribute to better communications and allow for less confusion between the theory of macroevolution (the origin of distinct "species") and the known phenomena of microevolution (the origin of distinct "sub-species" or populations within a species).

fittest meme said: \ I think the designation is important because it would contribute to better communications and allow for less confusion between the theory of macroevolution (the origin of distinct "species") and the known phenomena of microevolution (the origin of distinct "sub-species" or populations within a species).

Fittest, you said the theory of evolution "is being proven deficient through many forms of molecular, mathematical, and cosmological discovery."

I asked you what these discoveries are. I know of none, but that's not surprising. More to the point, the biologists, molecular biologists, biochemists and geneticists present also do not know of them. Nobody seems to know of these discoveries but you.

I ask again: what discoveries are these?

apokryltaros said:

fittest meme said:

Just Bob said: Now consider the entire range of domestic dogs. I will assume that you agree that they’re all the same species (correct me if I’m wrong). Then how is it that they CAN’T all interbreed? Simply because of morphological (size) differences, the largest can’t mate with the smallest. So does that make them separate species? It would by your definition of inability to successfully mate.

Bob, I think maybe you haven' been following this conversation from the start. I agree that all dogs and wolves are part of one species. According to the definition of species I would propose, morphological, behavioral, ecological, or geographical barriers on their own are not evidence of distinct species. All of these barriers are temporary in the generational frame of reference we must deal with as we discuss true molecular changes to DNA that (through mutation) would provide a chemical (or genetic? . . I'm not really sure what the best word is here) reproductive barrier. In my proposed parlance "species" would be those populations which which were chemically isolated while "sub-species" or "population" would be those isolated by only morphological, ecological, behavioral or geographical barriers. If people prefer to use "species" to describe those separated by temporary barriers only then some other designation such as "kind" (which may be to charged a word to use here) would be required to distinguish those animals that could not produce viable offspring even when subjected to in vitro fertilization. I think the designation is important because it would contribute to better communications and allow for less confusion between the theory of macroevolution (the origin of distinct "species") and the known phenomena of microevolution (the origin of distinct "sub-species" or populations within a species).

So are you saying that lions, tigers, leopards and jaguars are all a single "species" because humans can induce them to interbreed with each other?

Dave Luckett said: Fittest, you said the theory of evolution "is being proven deficient through many forms of molecular, mathematical, and cosmological discovery." I asked you what these discoveries are. I know of none, but that's not surprising. More to the point, the biologists, molecular biologists, biochemists and geneticists present also do not know of them. Nobody seems to know of these discoveries but you. I ask again: what discoveries are these?

fittest meme said: I just think the terminology should be and could be less ambiguous.

fittest meme said: It would depend if their off-spring were reproductively viable. If they are not I would not call them members of the same species.

Of course it is not up to me . . . I just think the terminology should be and could be less ambiguous.

DS said: As for macroevolution, there is abundant evidence that birds were derived from reptilian ancestors, whales were derived from terrestrial ancestors and humans were derived form primate ancestors. This isn't just speciation, it is the evolution of entire new forms of life.

apokryltaros said: Yet, you also assume you know better than actual scientists.

fittest meme said:

DS said: As for macroevolution, there is abundant evidence that birds were derived from reptilian ancestors, whales were derived from terrestrial ancestors and humans were derived form primate ancestors. This isn't just speciation, it is the evolution of entire new forms of life.

DS. You and I both know that these conclusions are based upon theoretical assumptions that are inferred from evidence. That same evidence can be used to supports the theory of ID. You continue to misrepresent theory as if it were fact. I'm done talking with you.

fittest meme said: I'm done talking with you.

Just Bob said:

apokryltaros said: Yet, you also assume you know better than actual scientists.

Yes, the MORTAL SIN of pride is strong in this one.

Just Bob said: OK, we've established that you have a problem tolerating ambiguity. Then it's a really good thing that you don't work in any of the life sciences, where pretty much all there is are shades of gray and grayer. So I suggest that you leave those areas to the scientists who psychologically comfortable with ambiguity, and quit demonstrating your mental deficits in such fields of study.

fittest meme said: Hmm, then why do you suggest that it can all be explained materialistically through science.

Remember that I'm the one suggesting that biology differs from chemistry and physics because of the addition of non-materialistic elements that have to be considered when describing life. I think you've just helped me make my case.

I'm actually pointing out that many of you purposefully use terms ambiguously depending on the situation and the point you're trying to make.

I'm going to be gone again for a while. I have other things that need to be done.

fittest meme said:

DS said: As for macroevolution, there is abundant evidence that birds were derived from reptilian ancestors, whales were derived from terrestrial ancestors and humans were derived form primate ancestors. This isn't just speciation, it is the evolution of entire new forms of life.

DS. You and I both know that these conclusions are based upon theoretical assumptions that are inferred from evidence. That same evidence can be used to supports the theory of ID. You continue to misrepresent theory as if it were fact. I'm done talking with you.

fittest meme said, listing "discoveries" by which evolution "is being proven deficient": Molecular - Irreducible complexity of molecular machines required for transcription and replication of coded information in genetic material

Mathematical - lack of probabilistic resources in the universe to create even the simplest protein molecule by chance . . . let alone others that would be required to work with that first protiein to perform the most basic functions of replication.

Cosmological - The fine tuned forces of the universe that are required for life and the improbability of them happening without design.

fittest meme said:

Dave Luckett said: Fittest, you said the theory of evolution "is being proven deficient through many forms of molecular, mathematical, and cosmological discovery." I asked you what these discoveries are. I know of none, but that's not surprising. More to the point, the biologists, molecular biologists, biochemists and geneticists present also do not know of them. Nobody seems to know of these discoveries but you. I ask again: what discoveries are these?

Molecular - Irreducible complexity of molecular machines required for transcription and replication of coded information in genetic material Mathematical - lack of probabilistic resources in the universe to create even the simplest protein molecule by chance . . . let alone others that would be required to work with that first protiein to perform the most basic functions of replication. Cosmological - The fine tuned forces of the universe that are required for life and the improbability of them happening without design.

Dave Luckett said: But the point is, there are no "discoveries" by which "evolution is proven deficient".

Give it up guys. This fool is just spouting creationist nonsense that has been debunked long ago. He will never have the courage to actually look at the evidence. He will never accept the conclusions of science. He is blinded by his religious presuppositions. He will yammer on and on about how he uses the same evidence to support ID without ever even looking at the evidence. And worst of all he will always project his myopic shortcomings onto others, since he cannot conceive that they could be right and there must be something wrong with them. Of course it is also completely hypocritical that a person who is so rude and obnoxious and dismissive of others would demand civility in return. But that's the double standard that these delusional twits impose.

Oh dear, I've called him bad names again! I'm really in trouble now. He'll never speak to me again! How terrible.

fittest meme said: Molecular - Irreducible complexity of molecular machines required for transcription and replication of coded information in genetic material

Mathematical - lack of probabilistic resources in the universe to create even the simplest protein molecule by chance . . .

Cosmological - The fine tuned forces of the universe that are required for life and the improbability of them happening without design.

fittest meme said: Hmm, then why do you suggest that it can all be explained materialistically through science.

Remember that I'm the one suggesting that biology differs from chemistry and physics because of the addition of non-materialistic elements that have to be considered when describing life.

I'm actually pointing out that many of you purposefully use terms ambiguously depending on the situation and the point you're trying to make.

fittest meme said: DS. You and I both know that these conclusions are based upon theoretical assumptions that are inferred from evidence.

If the universe were not "fine tuned" for life, in the sense that if life existed despite natural laws, then wouldn't that be evidence that there was some nonnatural cause for life?

For example, if life violated the 2nd law of thermodynamics, then how could life be a thermodynamic possibility?

If the universe were not “fine tuned” for life, in the sense that if life existed despite natural laws, then wouldn’t that be evidence that there was some nonnatural cause for life?