Evolution a hoax?

[Bram Kaandorp]

I know what I am about to say has been brought up again and again, but I really would love to see a good answer other than "it's a red herring" or "it isn't really happening".

Ring species.

 

[DC]

As far as ID or creationism, they are a framework like evo theory and they work. Deal with it.

On sedimentation, for example, the creationist model for lower layers not always and perhaps rarely being laid down gradually has astonishingly been shown to be correct, defying what one would expect. I doubt you will take the time to study it and so just demand I waste a lot of time showing it to you in more depth and you hand-waive it away. I already gave you the specific examples, and you then acted as if I had not and asked again how creationism applies as if flood geology and catastrophic geological frameworks had not been applied but they have.

You just don't like the answer.

i wonder when the first medicines based on the ID "theory" rather than on the Evolution Theory hit the market.
bloodletting in pill form?

 

[excaza]

If I am wrong, then tell me: What would Intelligent Design contribute to such efforts?

I would think it would do the opposite. God wants everything to work this way so we shouldn't interfere (ok, interfere....more) and just let things die out. I mean, God is great and all and he'll save everything, right?

 

[excaza]

I know what I am about to say has been brought up again and again, but I really would love to see a good answer other than "it's a red herring" or "it isn't really happening".

Ring species.

An answer by whom?

 

[DC]

An answer by whom?

as it has been answered by evos over and over again, i guess an answer from creationists is expected.

 

[Almo]

I have asked countless times for examples of productive results coming from creationists and IDers. The best example I've seen was the computer game Spore. (Yes, it is possible to create a fun computer game based on the principles of Intelligent Design. I will concede that much. )

I don't agree. SPORE was dull because you didn't have to make choices. Each generation, you could compeltely redesign your dude.

 

[Dancing David]

The question remains: What form of blindness are some of these creationists suffering from?

1. Are they folks who just don't care about innovative or productive science work? Perhaps it is simply not part of their own responsibility to get any science work done, so they can afford to linger in the comfort of creationist materials.

OR

2. They do care about such things. But, they were misinformed about what constitutes productivity in science. It is too easy to neglect the empirical nature of its discipline, when one is convinced easy answers are sufficient.

Either way, the science will be there for them. That is its gift, and its curse.

It is hard to say, I personally believe that they are looking to support their conclusions.

They certainly want to cram science, otherwise we would not have such desperate arguments about radioactive decay.

I think that those who really care about what science is just don't talk about it with the others of their ilk.

There used to be a time when you could be a devout christian and believe in evolution, but the politics of teh fundamentalists now create a 'christian in name only' syndrome. It is part and parcel of US culture, we have waves of revivalism and waves of secularism.

 

[randman]

I know what I am about to say has been brought up again and again, but I really would love to see a good answer other than "it's a red herring" or "it isn't really happening".

Ring species.

And your point is? Ring species are no big deal. There may be some debate over their validity in all situations but it's basically just variation. You see the same thing in some whales, a little different, but different whale species can mate and produce hybrid, fertile offspring.

Try to keep in mind that "species" is something we created. It's an imprecise term. Most think in terms of whether populations can reproduce but it's also defined as whether they regularly reproduce. If no one outside of pygmies reproduced with their tribe, and we treated modern human classification like we do other species/groupings, we could say they were a different species, but that's just because we have created a somewhat artificial term that doesn't always have clear definition.

The basic idea of a breeding population and calling that a species is a decent concept, but it's become muddled unfortunately. I prefer to think of species as groups that can reproduce not whether they do or not.

 

[Dancing David]

Wowbagger, none of the examples you gave were based on macroevolutionary theory.

There is no such thing except as a dodge.

The theory of evolutions says this:
Members of a species who reproduce at greater rates will have more progeny in the subsequent population therefore traits that lead to reproductive success will tend to dominate and spread through breeding populations.

There is no microevolution, there is no macroevolution, there is only evolution.

Nylonase producing bacteria are an example of macroevolution even by the warped defintion of those who use teh stupid term, it is trait that was never present in the past that is now present due to reproductive success.

Yet another product of God the Trickster who designed life to be error prone, have cancer, birth deformities and all the ills of biological existence. Like flu virus, great idea god, just like small pox.

 

[Acleron]

Wowbagger, first you don't understand Dr Axe's shorthand with his comment on "chance." If you understood his paper, you'd understand very well why he is right on the money and the comment on "chance" is appropriate.

Dr. Axe wrote back the following, which the New Scientist declined to quote:

I have in fact confirmed that these papers add to the evidence for ID. I concluded in the 2000 JMB paper that enzymatic catalysis entails "severe sequence constraints". The more severe these constraints are, the less likely it is that they can be met by chance. So, yes, that finding is very relevant to the question of the adequacy of chance, which is very relevant to the case for design. In the 2004 paper I reported experimental data used to put a number on the rarity of sequences expected to form working enzymes. The reported figure is less than one in a trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion. Again, yes, this finding does seem to call into question the adequacy of chance, and that certainly adds to the case for intelligent design.

Wowbagger certainly knows what Axe meant by chance, and as usual, creationists/IDers either deliberately or by lack of study misrepresent natural selection. In fact as creationists/IDers have been repeatedly informed of this error, one can only conclude they deliberately misrepresent it. Here's another term they get wrong:- 'lying'.

But why bother about their behaviour, here is the evolution of a new enzyme. Simple maths show that Axe is out by factor of a trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion. That is some error

 

[randman]

Wowbagger certainly knows what Axe meant by chance, and as usual, creationists/IDers either deliberately or by lack of study misrepresent natural selection. In fact as creationists/IDers have been repeatedly informed of this error, one can only conclude they deliberately misrepresent it. Here's another term they get wrong:- 'lying'.

But why bother about their behaviour, here is the evolution of a new enzyme. Simple maths show that Axe is out by factor of a trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion. That is some error

Obviously you have not grasped Axe's work. Additionally, a wiki article on something does not rebut published science, particularly when it doesn't even claim to.

Axe incorporates natural selection and all the "non-chance" aspects into his analysis. In fact, those things constrain what would need to happen in terms of simultaneous or near simultaneous mutations. The chance concept deals with the idea that mutations are not directed or programmed to occur or pre-adaptive according to evo theory. The chances though are infinitely small for such numerous, relatively simultaneous mutations to occur, as his work shows.

If someone flips a coin and lands on heads a trillion times in a row, I think it's safe to say something other than "chance" is going on; that there is a trick involved, a mechanism.

 

[randman]

There is no such thing except as a dodge.

The theory of evolutions says this:
Members of a species who reproduce at greater rates will have more progeny in the subsequent population therefore traits that lead to reproductive success will tend to dominate and spread through breeding populations.

There is no microevolution, there is no macroevolution, there is only evolution.

Nylonase producing bacteria are an example of macroevolution even by the warped defintion of those who use teh stupid term, it is trait that was never present in the past that is now present due to reproductive success.

Yet another product of God the Trickster who designed life to be error prone, have cancer, birth deformities and all the ills of biological existence. Like flu virus, great idea god, just like small pox.

Except science in peer-reviewed literature DOES recognize there is a difference between microevolution and macroevolution despite your claims otherwise.

 

[RecoveringYuppy]

Except science in peer-reviewed literature DOES recognize there is a difference between microevolution and macroevolution despite your claims otherwise.

Uh, yeah. Macroevolution is microevolution over larger time frames. It's just a matter of how long evolution has proceeded in the case you are examining. And term is still disfavored by many because it has had too many misuses in the past.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macroevolution

 

[randman]

Uh, yeah. Macroevolution is microevolution over larger time frames. It's just a matter of how long evolution has proceeded in the case you are examining. And term is still disfavored by many because it has had too many misuses in the past.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macroevolution

Nope. Has nothing to do with time. It's sometimes describes as evolution above the species level but generally the bar is higher than that and refers to higher taxa evolving, and even evos admit, at least in peer-review literature, that observed Neo-darwinian microevolutionary changes may not be the mechanism for macroevolution. They would say it's part of it but there may be other mechanisms and of course, in recent years, science has begun to consider and explore mechanisms they derided in the past such epigenetics, adaptive mutations, and other things.

 

[RecoveringYuppy]

Nope. Has nothing to do with time.

Yeah, it does. Read the link. Rest of your post is blather.

 

[Dinwar]

And your point is? Ring species are no big deal. There may be some debate over their validity in all situations but it's basically just variation.

No, it's two populations that demonstrate how genetic isolation can occur. If any link in the ring is broken, the two end-points become species. THIS IS THE INTERMEDIATE STEP OF SPECIATION, which Creationists/ID advocates say cannot happen. You're dismissing data because you don't like it.

In fact, those things constrain what would need to happen in terms of simultaneous or near simultaneous mutations.

Than he's such a poor biologist I'm surprised anyone takes him seriously. A double-crossover can easily allow for a functionally indifinite time for those mutations.

And if he doesn't MEAN chance he shouldn't SAY chance. He's trying to be a scientist, which requires precise usage of language (particularly in this area).

Also, no comment on the sedimentology paper you linked to? Huh. Didn't really expect one, to be honest--Creationists and ID advocates are always a fwe centuries behind the times, and when that's pointed out to them they all get surprisingly silent.

ETA

and even evos admit, at least in peer-review literature, that observed Neo-darwinian microevolutionary changes may not be the mechanism for macroevolution.

Oh, I'd LOVE to see this. I studied under one of Gould's grad students, and got a VERY healthy dose of how phyla emerge. I've also got a nifty book "On the Origin of Phyla", and read much of Peter Ward's work on the subject. NOT ONE of these authors agrees with you that microevolutionary change may not be the mechanism for macroevolution. Of course, they don't use these terms--they really aren't applicable to this discussion. What I HAVE seen is the argument that competition constrains life more now than in the past, and that adaptations within HOX genes was where phila emerged but subsequent adaptations prevents adaptation within those genes--both of which are what you're calling microevolutionary arguments. So unless you've got a citation, I'm gonna go ahead and call this a lie.

 

[Wowbagger]

There is no microevolution, there is no macroevolution, there is only evolution.

I would like to point out that scientists will, sometimes, make a distinction between microevolution and macroevolution, as a point of reference. Sometimes those words are useful.

But, there is ultimately no empirical difference between the two. The process of natural selection is exactly the same for both.

 

[Bram Kaandorp]

And your point is? Ring species are no big deal. There may be some debate over their validity in all situations but it's basically just variation. You see the same thing in some whales, a little different, but different whale species can mate and produce hybrid, fertile offspring.

Try to keep in mind that "species" is something we created. It's an imprecise term. Most think in terms of whether populations can reproduce but it's also defined as whether they regularly reproduce. If no one outside of pygmies reproduced with their tribe, and we treated modern human classification like we do other species/groupings, we could say they were a different species, but that's just because we have created a somewhat artificial term that doesn't always have clear definition.

The basic idea of a breeding population and calling that a species is a decent concept, but it's become muddled unfortunately. I prefer to think of species as groups that can reproduce not whether they do or not.

You seem to be under the misapprehension that:

Ring species CAN reproduce, but they don't because they don't meet.

In fact that is exactly what ring species aren't.

***

Explanation

It begins with one species of which two populations are separated. They get subjected to a different environment (or not even that in some cases), and they respond to the differently on several levels (behaviour and genetics among them). After some time has passed (and several generations), the populations meet up, and we find out that they can not interbreed.

Since they can't produce fertile offspring, they are different species. (Even the bible says that animals who can produce offspring are of the same species, but it doesn't mention the "fertile bit, as far as I know).

End explanation.

***

According to ID and YEC species can't change into different species.

However, ring species show us that it does happen, proving ID and YEC wrong.

It is nice talking to you, Randman. I hope you will respond to my explanation (which I have marked for your convenience).

 

[Dancing David]

Except science in peer-reviewed literature DOES recognize there is a difference between microevolution and macroevolution despite your claims otherwise.

Who, what, where and in which context.

Citatiopns and evidence? Show me.

 

[Dancing David]

Nope. Has nothing to do with time. It's sometimes describes as evolution above the species level but generally the bar is higher than that and refers to higher taxa evolving, and even evos admit, at least in peer-review literature, that observed Neo-darwinian microevolutionary changes may not be the mechanism for macroevolution. They would say it's part of it but there may be other mechanisms and of course, in recent years, science has begun to consider and explore mechanisms they derided in the past such epigenetics, adaptive mutations, and other things.

Still no citations or evidence, more vague handwaving.