Science a GoGo's Home Page Forums General Discussion General Science Discussion Forum Natural Selection Bankrupt

And by the way, I'm an IDer. I believe in evolution but can't accept its a blind undriven process. The phenomenal accomplishments of evolution can best be explained by a guiding intelligence. I once didn't need the intelligence to explain it but do now for many reasons. Random mutation is on the backfoot for one.

The whole point is that everything is part of a blind undriven process. We come from choas as does the whole universe. And before you rip into me for being unscientific in my point of view let me say once again on this site(!) I am not a scientist in any way at all ever. I just enjoy reading this stuff.

Why do you not think that evolution could not be continuing? I think one reason why many people do not feel that it could be is because they feel god's purpose is done. Or they feel evolution is not an adequate theory. Or they couldn't care less. Why are you so adamant?

Socrates2007 wrote:

"When will people stop swallowing all of the rubbish that anti-theists propagate about religion and actually look at what the four billion religious people do (and not focus on the extremes of fundamentalism)?"

Socrates. It's very hard not to focus on what religious people have done historically. The proof of the pudding etc. Some good, yes, but many good people have been sacrificed in an effort to maintain religious orthodoxy too.

I note you claim to be an IDer. Do you accept that modern humans can easily trace their origin back to Australopithecus?

"When will people stop swallowing all of the rubbish that anti-theists propagate about religion and actually look at what the four billion religious people do (and not focus on the extremes of fundamentalism)?"

1) IDers very often repeat the same arguments used by the other extremists. J. Wells' "Icons of Evolution" is a case in point.

2) Phillip Johnson, the founder of the modern, ID movement has stated explicitly that the purpose for ID is to serve as a wedge for getting religious instruction back in the classroom.

3) IDers are attempting to redefine what science is. Almost all misrepresent how it works. Some of them have admitted this in court. Afterwards, their blogulites write articles saying, "Those damned evolutionists are lying when they say we're trying to redefine science."

4) Their fundamental argument is the same as that of the creationists - claim that they have "proven evolution can't POSSIBLY account for X and that therefore a designer must exist.
a) How well their claims are received tends to be related to how well-educated the receiver is in the area they are making the claim. If the person is knowledgeable, they are usually met with a chuckle or a condemnation. If the person is not very knowledgeable - and particularly if the person has a religious bent to start with - he is usually wowwed.

b) Typically, their claims are very extreme, and they do a lot of handwaving about mathematics and so forth, but when you try to follow the equations, you find that they're much better at talking about the math than in producing it. An example of this is Dembski's book "No Free Lunch." Dembski has no credentials in the field of information theory, but he has taken the theorems developed by Macready and Wolpert and used them to justify his notions. What do the actually discoverers of the NFL theorems think of Dembski's expansion of their work? Wolpert wrote an article titled "William Dembski's Treatment of the No Free Lunch Theorems is Written in Jello." Check it out at http://www.talkreason.org/articles/jello.cfm

Ironically, some IDers are claiming this guy is the Galileo of Information Theory, as if they had any background themselves to judge the issues.

c) They're very coy, of course, about this 'designer'. In public they say it's not based on religion, but Wells for example has given a very different story to his fellow Moonies. What's more disturbing is the fact that some of the greatest luminaries of the ID movement have far more publications in religious journals than they do in scientific journals.

This is not anti-theist propaganda. Evolution doesn't say anything about the existence or non-existence of God.

I think that the ID 'thing' (ie the designer) has to be supernatural doesn't it? Or are we talking Dr Who or Q in Star Trek? So why not have the courage to say it is god and have done with it?

There's nothing wrong with god, lots of people get great comfort from belief in him/her, and if you believe in a designer of everything then it seems to me to be nit-picking in the extreme to say that this entity is not god. It's certainly an explanation that is very adaptable---all those annoyingly difficult bits can be lumped together under the heading of 'god's/the designer's business' and, we are told, one day we will understand its purpose.

Why are IDers anti-god?

Natural selection is and will always be a fairytale. The problem for ToE is that variation arises from within each creature as a response to ecological and social changes. Natural selection never created anything because individuals creatures are in themselves creative. Can't be both ways. This is why natural selection has never been validated in the field by way of controlled exeriments -- because it doesn't happen, and science knows it. The only game they have left is to keep the general public in the dark. Times are changing though.

Sergio wrote:

"variation arises from within each creature as a response to ecological and social changes."

The variation arises through mutations in the DNA which can then be selected for or against.

There is a huge problem with ID that its supporters constantly refuse to face up to. Just take the example of ducks, geese and swans. IDers usually accept that evolution has given rise to the various species of dabbling ducks for example. Some even accept all ducks may derive from a single original species (on Noah's Ark perhaps?). What about geese? many species are intermediate between ducks and geese, shelducks for example. So much for the supposed lack of intermediates. Did ducks and geese both evolve from this single species? You can see where this is heading but no supporter of ID has ever attempted to explain where it ends. A species classified in the same family as ducks, geese and swans doesn't even have webbed feet at which point we begin to see connections between this group and Galliformes, common chickens.

Sergio, want to have a go at explaining where evolution stops and ID begins? And we still haven't resolved the problem of whether or not humans evolved from Australopithecus.

Sergio,
I can't find a single correct sentence in your response. Do you get any information about evolution from non-creationist sites?

ok then please give me one of these examples of mutations that has added a new, selectable, morphological feature to the observable phenotype. I don't think you can even name me one.

Sergio wrote:

"give me one of these examples of mutations that has added a new, selectable, morphological feature to the observable phenotype."

Sergio, heaps of mutations that lead to different production values are continually being used in animal and plant breeding. That's how it works. The scientists are not usually interested in changing the appearance but that is just as easy to select for. Witness the huge variation in the look of breeds of dog for example. And don't change the subject by pointing out they are still dogs, cows etc. That's not what you asked for.

Now, there are a growing number of points various of us have raised you are yet to respond to.

please answer my question/challenge. I don't think you can.

Sergio, I just did but if you choose to deliberately misunderstand my answer there is nothing I can do about that.

um...no you did not. I'm looking for a scientifically-validated example of a mutation that adds a new, selectable feature to the observable phenotype. You have shown no such thing. The dogs of the world vary, but not because of mutations....in fact, they all have the same basic set of genes:

http://www.news24.com/News24/Technology/News/0,6119,2-13-1443_1846880,00.html

Now try again.

"The dogs of the world vary, but not because of mutations"
Note: You've mentioned at least two different things. 1) whether mutations cause morphological changes and 2) whether they can introduce new morphological features.

An important question is "what constitutes a 'new' morphological feature?" Teosinte doesn't look at all like maize. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y4sIU8DgFOM Does the development of a stalk not count as a new morphological feature? I'm guessing that no matter what is pointed out, you're going to assert blindly that it's not a new morphological feature. swim bladder to lungs? that's not a new morphological feature!

Moreover this misses the point - however we define 'new' in this context, there is a LOT of variation (due to mutation) that doesn't result in 'new' morphological features.

"At the DNA level, two randomly chosen dogs differ by only about as much as two randomly chosen people do..."

This is not surprising given that all dogs are of the same species and all humans are of the same species. Nor does this mean that mutations don't occur.

The article you cite is a public release, not a scientific paper. No telling how much the author's intent is accurately reflected.
Clearly not all animals have the 'same' genes. We can get a flavor for this possibility in an article on the same subject published at mit: http://www.broad.mit.edu/cgi-bin/news/display_news.cgi?id=203

This article includes the phrase "...together with a catalog of 2.5 million specific genetic differences across several dog breeds" tells us the dogs' genes are not identical. My guess is this: you find some headline that you think supports what you want to say and then you don't bother looking into it to see if it makes sense. Moreover, this article makes it more clear that the actual authors of the study clearly accept evolution. In fact, as modern dogs didn't exist 200K years ago, their genes didn't exist either. Those genes have come about through mutation.

Scientists refer to this kind of selective use of articles to make it seem as if a study supports a case exactly the opposite of what they're actually saying as 'pub-jacking'.

Teosinte is genetically the same as Maize...there are no mutations involved. Gould made that abundantly clear in one of his books -- will have to look it up.

Are you saying there is no genetic differences between the two, can you please explain to me then why they look different....

Sergio, from your link:

"all dogs emerge from the same basic set of genes".

Now that is totally different to saying they are genetically identical. As Fallible says, of course they have the same BASIC set of genes, otherwise they wouldn't all be dogs. But if different genes are not responsible for the diference between breeds what is? And if there have been no mutations in humans how can the police use genetic difference to identify the criminal they're lookig for?

You wrote:

"I'm looking for a scientifically-validated example of a mutation that adds a new, selectable feature to the observable phenotype."

How about speckled hens? A mutation has been selected for so some breeds are now speckled. Hornless (polled) cattle and sheep? Been bred from individuals carrying a mutation.

If you're looking for an example of a gross mutation you show an unbelievable ignorance of basic genetics. Genetic change in a population has to be gradual. Individuals with any mutation have to be able to breed with other individuals of the species otherwise the mutation will be very short-lived.

I know the Bible says all species have arisen from the expansion of just a pair of survivors on Noah's ark but that's complete nonsense.

Nothing to do with religion. I thought I had explained why evolution is not happening anymore. There is NO selective mechanism to ensure that any changes become prominent in any population. And what changes could give a survival advantage in the modern world? Only something such as an increased resistance to cancer, but this is hardly a move from Human 1.0 to 1.1.

Terry,

I'm simply saying (when answering the charge by scientists that religion is a danger to the human race) that there are 3 billion religious people on the planet and most of those religious people are following their writings that keep them conscious of the fact that the reason they are here is to help their fellow humans. And they quietly get on with it.

Studies have shown that the religious give more to charity than others. Christianity, in particular, gives a moral framework that has helped societies. You only need to look at post-Christian Britain to look at how a deteriorating moral framework harms a culture.
Simply put, if those 3 billion religious people were the bloodthirsty zealots that the scientific community (and the Evolutionary community in particular) portrays them as then the world would be a very different place and the USA would be a very bloody land.

You talk about history - I could talk about the role of the Eugenicists in attrocities, but it wouldn't be fair to paint the whole of science with the same brush (even though the improvers of human stock have not yet had their day).


As for Australopithecus. I have no problem with it (apart from the fact that it may not be true). If its true then its true. But there is obviously doubt.

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1176152801536&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

Socrates: "As for Australopithecus. I have no problem with it (apart from the fact that it may not be true). If its true then its true. But there is obviously doubt."

No part of the article claims that there is doubt that Lucy is 'true'. No part of the article hints that Lucy is not a relative of humans. The article says these particular researchers conclude that Lucy is not DIRECTLY in the human lineage. What they are doing is rearranging the lineage - slightly. This is a bigger deal for paleontologists than it is for the layman. Why? Because in general we should not be assuming that transitional fossils are ever directly linked. (That's not saying they aren't or that scientists don't know otherwise in specific cases.) The idea of a 'missing link' is based on a severely flawed understanding of evolution.