Teachers take a stand against anti-evolution teaching order

[SpencerH]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov

But you haven't given a definition of speciation you find to be acceptable. Please provide.

I'm not sure that I can. Its kinda like porn- 'its hard to define but I know it when I see it'.

The inability to produce offspring is a good sign that two organisms are seperate species but (aside from the trivial problems with testing for offspring) IMO that definition is limited by the fact that a single mutation may cause the infertility. In a bacteria, for example, a single mutation does not define a new species (and in fact the whole definition of species vs mutants is vague even for bacteria) so how can we presume to use inability to produce offspring as a basis for speciation without knowing the genetic basis for the difference.

If I'm backed into a corner I'd like to see evidence of:

non-mating
very closely related based on substantial analysis of DNA sequence
morphological similarity
clear evidence of isolation (non-anecdotal)

As for the examples, I don't see why you'd say they are "anecdotal." Do you think people are making them up?

"Anecdotal" is science-speak for "we have no way to prove or disprove what has been said" i.e. no evidence to support the statement is given.

Creationists are also notoriously slippery when trying to pin down their definition of "species." Why isnt' the scientifically accepted consensus for things being different species acceptable? What drives your opinion of the their definition of species being problematic?

What consensus?

From UR's link

"There are a variety of different species concept currently in use by biologists. These include folk, biological, morphological, genetic, paleontological, evolutionary, phylogenetic and biosystematic definitions. "

And to go back a bit, why is the observed evolution of micro-organisms not adequate as proof that evolution occurs? As scientists are quick to point out, the only difference between "microevolution" and "macroevolution" is one of degree, not in its nature. Small evolutionary changes compoud to big ones, over time.

Explained above. Mutation is not evolution.

Yet again, we have to also qualify what science means by "observed." We observe a fossil record which clearly shows evolution of species over time and the change into different species (such as "transitional" forms). Why is this observational evidence invalid?

IMO fossil records are the least credible evidence for evolution. The notion that someone can point to two or three bits of fossilized bone often seperated by millions of years and claim them to be linked is ludicrous.

We can also "observe" evolution as told by our DNA. It is a veritable recorded history of evolution.

Nonsense.

The notion that macroevolution isn't proven because we might not have seen a universally agreed upon case of speciation at a level high enough to suit some nitpickers is silly, considering the abundant amount of evidence there is.

There is evidence that evolution occurs, but there is a vast difference between what the public accepts as proof and what a scientist should accept. IMO the evidence supporting evolution has not yet risen to the level of 'fact'. Given the advances in genetics we've seen in the last 30 years I'd say that point will be reached soon, but until that time evolution is a theory.

[Heresson]

Children should be taught the scientific version of creation of the world, but also how it can be merged with the creationistic one.
Big Bang theory could be nicely Christianised.

[Dinner]

Explained above. Mutation is not evolution.

Evolution is the changing in gene frequency over time and the primary method of this change occurs is through mutation. Natural selection is the process which acts upon species to determ which individuals are the most fit for the current enviroment.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by SpencerH
I'm not sure that I can. Its kinda like porn- 'its hard to define but I know it when I see it'.

This does little for science, as you must imagine.

If I'm backed into a corner I'd like to see evidence of:

non-mating
very closely related based on substantial analysis of DNA sequence
morphological similarity
clear evidence of isolation (non-anecdotal)

Please see the example of the Salamander and other "ring" species. These fit this discription quite well. There's also several more cases here:

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB910.html

All I seem to get from you for these examples are handwaving dismissals.

"Anecdotal" is science-speak for "we have no way to prove or disprove what has been said" i.e. no evidence to support the statement is given.

So which statements were not given evidence? I"m asking for clarification here. You seem to be keen on expressing misgivings generally but not specifically.

What consensus?

See my revision, I clarified the point I was making, which wasn't really in reference to you.

Explained above. Mutation is not evolution.

A single one, perhaps not. But that is not the standard used in science anyway, although a single mutation can lead to large phenotype changes. But even Creationists agree "microevolution" occurs--are you saying it doesn't?

Evolution is a change in alleles in a population over time. The examples provided relate to that, not just a single mutation.

IMO fossil records are the least credible evidence for evolution. The notion that someone can point to two or three bits of fossilized bone often seperated by millions of years and claim them to be linked is ludicrous.

This is a gross mischaracterization of the fossil record at hand. "Two or three bits?" How about thousands upon thousands of bits? There is an enormous fossil record that clearly details evolution.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional/part1a.html#amph1

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional/part2a.html

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/horses/horse_evol.html

http://www.talkorigins.org/features/whales/

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

Those are a mere smattering of the fossil record available just for perusal on the internet. "Two or three bits?"

Nonsense.

More handwaving.

There is evidence that evolution occurs, but there is a vast difference between what the public accepts as proof and what a scientist should accept. IMO the evidence supporting evolution has not yet risen to the level of 'fact'. Given the advances in genetics we've seen in the last 30 years I'd say that point will be reached soon, but until that time evolution is a theory.

You are again grossly misinformed about the evidence. I suggest a lot of reading:

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

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-research.html

The evidence for common descent is overwhelming, so much so that 95% of the world's scientists accept it as fact (that's including non-biologists), and 99.9% of the world's biologists accept it as fact. I suspect that were your standards applied to other things you accepted as scientific fact, you'd find yourself having to deny the earth orbits the sun.

You seem to also be confused as to the scientific meaning of the word "theory." It's not indicative of something not being fact, you know:

http://www.actionbioscience.org/evolution/lenski.html

[Boris Godunov]

Here's a pretty well-done (though looong) essay on why teaching ID in science courses is a monumentally bad idea:

http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/postmonth/oct04.html

I'm particularly fond of these sections:

Two designers for Old World and Austronesian fauna?
---------------------------------------------------

When Darwin, on the voyage of the Beagle, visited Australia in 1836, he remarked that he might almost suppose that one maker had made the fauna and flora of the rest of the world, and another maker made Australia's - "An unbeliever ... might exclaim 'Surely two distinct creators must have been at work'", he mused in his diary. The morphology, ecology and physiology of Austronesian fauna were so different that Darwin's colleague Wallace described the region as a distinct ecological region. Despite a few similarities of outward form, such as between the marsupial "wolf", the thylacine, and the placental wolf, they were clearly very different in construction and design.

When biologists went to the New World, that is, the Americas, they were able to find analogues for most plants and animals, at least until the tropical regions were properly explored. But when they came to Australia and Papua New Guinea, it became really hard to infer something about the universal nature of the designer. It really did seem like there were two different designers in play. So are we going to have to assume that Australia was the special project of a junior designer? Maybe the Designer had a teenaged child who begged to be allowed to create something that the parent ended up allowing them to.

It gets worse, though...

A designer for every species?
-----------------------------

How many designers are there in the world? Richard Dawkins once asked what God's Utility Function was (and he answered it as "maximising DNA", but we can overlook that for now). Let us ask a similar question: what is it that the designer of any given species seeks to achieve? What is the design goal? It is clearly the survival and reproduction of members of that species. But the survival of members of one species can often mean the death of members of another. Gazelles are designed to evade lions, and lions are designed to catch gazelles. It seems to me that if we were truly wedded to the idea of a designer because of the complexity of a particular form of organism, we must make recourse to as many designers as there are mutually antagonistic designs.

Richard Hoppe has parodied ID (http://www.pandasthumb.org/pt-archives/000509.html) this way by proposing the Multiple Designer Hypothesis (which he claims has as much right to being treated seriously as the Single Designer theory). Under the post hoc view of evolution - that those forms survive and reproduce which become adapted to the challenges they face - there is no need for a single particular goal for each organism. All organisms "struggle for life" as Darwin put it. But under Designer Theory, there is a problem.

Of course this is only a problem for the monists - those who have a prior commitment to there being a single designer. And the only reason for that assumption is some prior belief that only one designer is required (such as religious belief). But we are told by the ID crowd that the designer need not be God; he might be the Raelean alien. But what we must account for is the inconsistency in design goals, one way or the other.

The inference from a "design" to a design goal, and hence to a designer, is rather attenuated. If we have no criteria for identifying design goals other than them being what keeps the organism alive, we end up with many designers, many goals, many design criteria, and ultimately it is simply a restatement of the evolutionary notion of fitness. A "design" is something that makes an organism fit, that is, able to live and reproduce. But we already have an account of fitness, and it doesn't involve designers, or even, really, design: natural selection.

One other approach that might seems to support design in organisms is to consider "body plans" - why insects have a similarity of structure, scorpions another, and of course vertebrates yet another. But developmental genetics is undercutting a lot of the qualitative differences here - similar genes cause the development of all animals at different points. This, too, is explained by common descent, and not by design.

So we are left with only the appearance of design, all of which evaporates as you try to grab hold of it, becoming ordinary evolution on closer inspection.

Too many cooks?

[Az]

But you haven't given a definition of speciation you find to be acceptable. Please provide.


I'm not sure that I can. Its kinda like porn- 'its hard to define but I know it when I see it'.

quote of the day

[Dinner]

It has been my experience with creationists that they first loudly proclaim there is no evidence for evolution, then they claim there is major problems with the evidence when they are shown it, and finally once they are conclusively proved wrong they resort to the three year old's method of sticking their fingers in their ears and shouting "nah, nah, nah, I can't hear you" over and over again.

The attempts to argue about definitions in this thread is a pleasant change.

[St Leo]

Originally posted by The diplomat
Well, that is where god comes in. The term "god" automatically refers to an intelligence that does not require a creator.

Why does your god need to be intelligent?

The fact is that evolution has a similar problem. No matter how far back you go, at some point you have to say that "nothing" led to "something". This completely violates the law of conservation of energy. True nothingness by definition is nothing and therefore cannot produce anything.

The law of conservation of energy only applies within the context the existence of energy and the existence of space-time. Time started fifteen billion years ago and no cause whatsoever is necessary because cause-and-effect presuppose the existence of time.

So pick your poison: either the universe resulted from nothingness which is completely impossible accodring to the laws of nature or the universe was created by an intelligence that did not require a creator.

Laws of nature apply within the universe, not outside it and not before it. In fact, the universe has neither an outside nor a before.

Why do you need an "intelligence" anyways? Why not a non-sapient creator without a creator? The universe is a dreadfully simple thing, with maybe five or six starting values interacting.

[St Leo]

Originally posted by General Ludd
What's scientific about evolution, that puts it "beyond" creationism? Evolution isn't really about microbiology, molecular structure or any sort of "hard" science - it's about the interaction of life forms with each other and their environment.

Evolution is easily modeled mathematically. Creationism is arbitrary and all varieties are equally, ahem, probable.

[Odin]

EVOLUTION IS A FACT!!!

The evidince for it is overwhelming, no intelligent person with a knoledge of the subject can deny the evidence. Just because scientists disagree on the fine points of speciation doesn't mean evolution is any less a fact.

To b@stardize a Fez quote:

You creationists provide NO evidence, you provide NOTHING!

[The diplomat]

Originally posted by St Leo
Laws of nature apply within the universe, not outside it and not before it. In fact, the universe has neither an outside nor a before.

So basically, the universe just is. It had no beginning since there was no time before it. It simply is.

Why do you need an "intelligence" anyways? Why not a non-sapient creator without a creator? The universe is a dreadfully simple thing, with maybe five or six starting values interacting.

Because the life on this planet show a level of complexity, organization, functionality and content of information that clearly points to an intelligence.

Everyone acknowledges intelligent design when it comes to say a tv or a computer. We all understand that any object that is designed by an intelligence will have certain characteristics (complexity, functionality, organization etc.). And yet, when scientists obeserve these same characteristics in life, suddenly it can't be intelligent design, nope, has to be by accident.

[Sava]

Everyone acknowledges intelligent design when it comes to say a tv or a computer. We all understand that any object that is designed by an intelligence will have certain characteristics (complexity, functionality, organization etc.). And yet, when scientists obeserve these same characteristics in life, suddenly it can't be intelligent design, nope, has to be by accident.

You are comparing INANIMATE objects to life... that's your problem... one of them anyways.

[Az]

So basically, the universe just is. It had no beginning since there was no time before it. It simply is.

Well to be honest, It's more of a "we don't know", I guess.

But in any case, why would that be a problem? after all, that's the same answers I would get if I asked you about god.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Whaleboy
Kant would have something to say about that Kuci .

Then he's an idiot. Purpose means the intended effect or use of the creator of some object. If there was no creator, it can't have a purpose. And if there was no creator, there clearly is no answer to the question "who created it".

[Kontiki]

Isn't it amazingly convenient that the discussion for creationism begins and ends with "it's God"? No further discussion necessary, no further inquiry encouraged.