Intelligent design

[TRoutMac]

I'm not saying they're not used, and in fact they are used by a wide variety of sources in a *colloquial* usage, for general education.

 

Those quotes came from biology textbooks, Buffy. Please don't try to move the goalposts.

 

This does nothing to counter the issue that for more rigorous examination of the issue of speciation, that *every* scientist will tell you that there *is no absolute and conclusive definition of the distinction.

 

Every scientist, huh? And you have personally polled every scientist? Oh, lemme guess… guys like Steven Meyer, Michael Behe, etc. don't meet your own personal definition of "scientist", so you're not including them, right? Any "would-be" scientist who disagrees with you on this point is automatically excluded from the category "scientist"? How convenient for you.

 

And anyway, you miss my point. It doesn't matter whether there are labels for the two categories… The categories exist and to deny they exist is to say that either every change in genetic information results in a new species, or that living organisms all belong to only one species.

 

Actually, there is strong evidence that some breeds of dogs *cannot* mate, which is one of the only outstanding definitions of speciation that is measurable. Your assumption that they are "all dogs" is completely false.

 

Ahhh. Moving the goalposts again, are you? When it seems most convenient for you, there is now suddenly an objective standard by which to distinguish "species" while just a few posts earlier it was all subjective. That there may be a few breeds of dogs that cannot mate only underscores the subjective nature of the species/breed distinction, which I agreed with at the outset.

 

Note that I have said that natural selection acts to confine evolutionary change to within a given species. Also note that you have said that by virtue of the fact that some breeds of dogs cannot reproduce, those breeds are technically no longer dogs. Also note that these breeds, again, cannot reproduce by natural means. Guess what? You've just proven my point. The moment the evolutionary change transcends the boundary (a boundary which you now say is objective) of the species, it cannot reproduce itself and therefore would die out if it weren't for our continued intervention. Although these breeds arose through artificial selection, natural selection has "selected" them out because they cannot reproduce.

 

Thus, we can still look at the broad variation within the dog family, which results from the intelligently guided counterpart to natural selection, as an indicator of what the limits of natural selection are.

 

The fact is though that all that "junk DNA" we've all got lying around *already has the code in it*.

 

As I've said before, to label "Junk DNA" as such is its own "argument from ignorance." We don't understand why a particular stretch of DNA is there, therefore it must be "junk". That's a great way to squelch scientific discovery… label it is "junk" and that way nobody will be motivated to find what its purpose actually is. We already know… it's "junk". Again, I'll remind you there was a moment in time when scientists looked for the first time at a DNA strand and didn't know what any of it meant, or even that it "meant" anything. We could have just labelled it all "junk" and then moved on, right? If we had, would we know what we know now? Obviously not.

 

I love the irony.

[Boerseun]

Again, I'll remind you there was a moment in time when scientists looked for the first time at a DNA strand and didn't know what any of it meant, or even that it "meant" anything.

 

I love the irony.

I'll remind you there was (and, it seems, in Kansas at least, still is) a time where so-called scientists looked into nature as far as they could and said "Well, this is were it stops. Beyond this point, things get so complicated that it must have been built by God." Think orbits, gravity, well, basically all of modern science...

 

The irony leaves me rolling around, laughing my skinny *** off!:confused: :naughty: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :hyper: :hyper: :hyper: :hyper: :hyper: :hyper: :hyper: :hyper: :hyper: :hyper:

[infamous]

I'll remind you there was (and, it seems, in Kansas at least, still is) a time where so-called scientists looked into nature as far as they could and said "Well, this is were it stops. Beyond this point, things get so complicated that it must have been built by God." Think orbits, gravity, well, basically all of modern science...

 

The irony leaves me rolling around, laughing my skinny *** off!:confused: :naughty: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :hyper: :hyper: :hyper: :hyper: :hyper: :hyper: :hyper: :hyper: :hyper: :hyper:

I would remind everyone here that it is just as inconsiderate for someone to flame in this forum as it is for the bible thumper to come into the science forums preaching their message. Let's just remember that to discuss issues in the Theological forum, evidence is not required as long as claims of fact are not insisted upon. Anyone claiming to have factual material which they can prove their position with should post it in the science forums under the appropriate thread or forum. If the shoe fits, wear it..........

[Edge]

One question: how much evidence is out there for macroevolution and what does people mean with macroevolution exactly? I guess this is where the big problem between ID and Evolution lies... also, are there other explanations to modern life besides evolution?

 

LOL, I made more than 1 question sorry...

[TRoutMac]

One question: how much evidence is out there for macroevolution and what does people mean with macroevolution exactly? I guess this is where the big problem between ID and Evolution lies... also, are there other explanations to modern life besides evolution??

 

Of course, you know my bias, Edge. So take it for whatever it's worth to you…

 

Macro-evolution refers to one species becoming another species. An example might be the sundew plant becomes a venus fly trap. Both plants capture insects, but they use entirely different tools to accomplish this. Neither plant has the same structures and features as the other. The overall "plan" for each plant are very, very different. Both are plants, but they are different species. Apparently some evolutionists believe that the fly trap evolved from the sundew. That's macro-evolution.

 

Micro-evolution might be something like venus fly traps in this area might, over time, develop different coloring or something than the fly traps in that area. They are still fly traps, still have the same structure and function, but might have a different appearance in some relatively superficial way.

 

Just so I'm not misunderstood, I want to point out that there's a difference between "evidence" and "proof" at least in the way I use the words. In a criminal trial, both sides present "evidence". If evidence is synonymous with proof, then it would be impossible to decide guilt or innocence. So, with that in mind:

 

Evidence for macro-evolution:

 

Homology in the limbs of mammals (just one example). Mammals have very similar organization or arrangement in their limbs (and in other areas as well). The fin of a whale has certain similarities in the way the bones are configured to our arm. There's something that relates to our radius and ulna, our humerous, elbow, etc. You can see this in dogs, horses, monkeys, etc. Macro-evolutionists believe this is evidence of common ancestry, and I agree that it could be interpreted as evidence for macro-evolution. However, it does not prove macro-evolution because there is another quite reasonable explanation for it, which is common design.

 

Think of a unicycle, bicycle and tricycle. No one believes, by virtue of the fact that these three machines share common design themes, they must have a common ancestor which they "evolved" from. Rather, we all conclude that they have a common designer in the sense that each was designed by humans.

 

Again, I'm not using this to prove Intelligent Design, but only to show you one example of evidence that they claim for macro-evolution, and to demonstrate that while you might call it "evidence", it's not proof because it can be interpreted two different ways.

 

Another example of evidence they claim for macro-evolution is simply that evolution existson the "micro" level. Yes, micro-evolution exists. As far as I know, everyone agrees to that, even I.D.ers. But it is not a foregone conclusion that because evolution happens on the micro scale, it must happen on the macro scale as well. Again, you might call micro-evolution "evidence" (however weak) for macro-evolution, but it does not constitute proof of macro-evolution. And if I can present evidence that suggests that macro-evolution gets stopped in its tracks by natural selection, then this "evidence" for macro-evolution is weakened even further.

[Edge]

Yeah, you understood my post, that's why I said evidence. Something that may suggest macro evolution. Which in some way supports it... micro-evolution has always been presented as a support for macro-evolution, yet, I agree that it is not exactly a proof, for the reasons you gave, an animal species may adapt to the rise on temperature that took place in their area. But that doesn't mean that they will change their structure or that there is going to become another specie. Just that their organism will be more adapted to it. I'm not denying the possibility of macro-evolution, just stating that it is not true or fake yet...

 

Thanks for the reply, by the way. It gives more insight on the "core" of the ID vs. Evolution debate. I do not deny that maybe god designed evolution, though, it's a possibility.

[TRoutMac]

Thanks for the reply, by the way. It gives more insight on the "core" of the ID vs. Evolution debate. I do not deny that maybe god designed evolution, though, it's a possibility.

 

Thanks. If there's a hard example of macro-evolution, it's yet to be presented (or discovered, for that matter). All they really have is extrapolations based on assumptions based on other extrapolations. Pretty thin, although I recognize that it can all be interpreted as evidence of macro-evolution. The things that have been presented here (or in the other topic regarding I.D.) amounted to nothing more than more evidence of micro-evolution.

 

In my opinion, an Intelligent Designer is the only reasonable, rational explanation for the origin of life. Now, who you think that designer is is up to you. I cannot prove to anyone that it is God of the Bible… I can only suggest that it would appear that this Intelligent Designer has at least some of the characteristics which the Bible attributes to God, and I think that is worth considering. But again, it proves[//b] nothing. Trying to stay objective, here.

[Southtown]

There's no *need* for science to say that distinctions is species is black and white.

Even when they claim to find a new one? Your statement is absurd.

[GAHD]

A species is a group of animals that can inter breed. Giraffs and Elephants are different species because you can't get a Giraphant by sticking a male and female of each species alone in a room together. That's the black and white. A Liger would be a grey area.

[TRoutMac]

There's no *need* for science to say that distinctions is species is black and white.

 

Even when they claim to find a new one? Your statement is absurd.

 

Southtown's right. If there's no universally agreed upon "objective" definition for the term "species", and no objective way to distinguish a "species" from a "breed" then science can never claim to have found a new species, nor can science claim that any new species have ever "evolved", because without a concrete, objective definition, the word is meaningless. So, in order make meaningful claims which refer to a "species", science does need a black-and-white, objective definition.

 

However, that science "needs" such a definition doesn't mean science "has" it. I have heard it said that if you ask 5 biologists what the word "species" means, you'll get 8 different answers. If this is true, then this further emphasizes the fraud that has been committed by the scientific community regarding macro-evolution. After all, macro-evolution is said to be responsible for "speciation", (the formation of new and distinct "species"). Obviously, if no one can agree on what constitutes a "species", then nobody really has any clue what, if anything, macro-evolution is responsible for. And this means macro-evolution is nothing but hot air and baloney.

 

A species is a group of animals that can inter breed. Giraffs and Elephants are different species because you can't get a Giraphant by sticking a male and female of each species alone in a room together. That's the black and white. A Liger would be a grey area.

 

What about Buffy's example of dog breeds which apparently cannot mate? Are those animals a new species, or are they just a dog that can't reproduce? And along those lines, I wonder… can you breed a chihuahua with a great dane? (snicker, snicker) Does that make the two breeds different species?

 

Seriously, I can see where the issue would be muddied. So, I'm not saying there is a black-and-white definition. But if science is gonna push garbage like macro-evolution, whose definition rests on the definition of "species", then somebody had better come up with a rock-solid definition soon.

[pgrmdave]

How would you define species, TRoutMac?

[TRoutMac]

How would you define species, TRoutMac?

 

I've given this a lot of thought, Dave, and well, you've stumped me. I cannot think of a definition, given what I know, that is "airtight". Let me explain…

 

Given my "handle" here, it may not surprise you that I am an avid trout fisher and since my professional livelihood in large measure comes from the fly fishing industry, I have learned some things about fish in particular and it is from this knowledge that I drew upon when pondering your very good question.

 

Fish are a little unusual in that the "breeding" can be forced… it's done all the time at hatcheries with salmon. Someone grabs a hen, slices her up, strips her roe, then someone squeezes a buck, squirting milt all over the roe. Pretty ugly and definitely NOT romantic!! Although salmon may appear very similar in body shape, etc., to trout, there are myriad differences in things like number of scales along the lateral line, number of rays in the anal fin, number of gill rakers, etc. So, if you couldn't distinguish a salmon from a trout in any other way you could count the rays in the anal fin, or what have you. Just a little trivia for you…

 

In trout, most people have heard of brown trout, rainbow trout, cutthroat trout and brook trout. (note that brook trout are not trout at all, they're a char) I agree that these would qualify as separate species (and they're classified as such) not just because they only spawn with their own kind, but also because they have distinct coloration and other details (like number of scales along the lateral line) that distinguish a rainbow trout from a cutthroat trout, for example. As far as I'm aware, browns and rainbows don't interbreed in the wild. However, some hybrids have been developed, for example; brown trout and brook trout (char) have been artificially bred to create a hybrid called a "tiger trout". It's my understanding that tiger trout cannot reproduce naturally, but I would want to call them a new species because, well, they're not like anything else. If I landed a tiger trout, I would say I caught a tiger trout and not a brown trout. Heck, since tiger trout are neither trout nor char, they really are an entirely new genus. But, the fact that they cannot reproduce naturally means they're a dead end… they cannot compete on the same level as rainbow trout, and so that makes me want to revoke the "species" label. the fact that they cannot reproduce renders them sort of "invalid". So, I'm left with the inability to reconcile these two conflicting conclusions. Tiger trout should be called a "species", and yet they should not be called a "species".

 

Note, however, that I have not said that there is an objective definition for the term "species", I have agreed that it appears to be a murky issue. But if the term "species" is as subjective as it appears, then anyone can use it to mean whatever they want it to mean whenever they want it to mean it. And it follows that any term whose definition rests upon the term "species" is equally subjective, and likewise can be used to mean whatever the speaker wants it to mean.

 

One thing I have noticed about evolutionists in general is that clarity never seems to be their intent. They seem to traffic in obfuscation, and this terminology question underscores this point. Science is about pursuing (if not attaining) clarity about the natural world. But there is no hope of finding clarity when the terminology has no fixed meaning.

[Buffy]

Those quotes came from biology textbooks, Buffy. Please don't try to move the goalposts.

Sure they did! *General science* textbooks, where the *colloquial* term is useful. So what? The point is that the distinction is not really useful except as a general grouping but it does not have a *useful* *scientific* definition. But we'll get back to that in my next post. Point here being you can try to create artificial inconsistency in the use of general categorization versus clinical distinction, but the fact that those are distinct concepts may be unclear to you: if so please let me know and I will explain it further.

Every scientist, huh? And you have personally polled every scientist? Oh, lemme guess… guys like Steven Meyer, Michael Behe, etc.

Awww, don't be so touchy. Okay, "every scientist except for those who have a vested interest in there being a distinction, but who have not been able to show any evidence that there really is one." How's that?

That there may be a few breeds of dogs that cannot mate only underscores the subjective nature of the species/breed distinction, which I agreed with at the outset.

There ya go. If its subjective, there is no distinction between macro and micro. Saying "I know it when I see it" is not scientifically useful as a *definitional distinction*--that is conclusively deciding that one species is different from another--and *classification*--where one is building sets with grey lines between them, which everyone who does this stuff agrees is subjective. The point here is that you're claiming that there is a hard definition of Macroevolution as distinguished from Micro, but you continue not to provide one. On the evolution side we say that its not distinguishable because the two mechanisms are not different. Its not inconsistent to group classes together as having many distinguishing characteristics and then say this distinctions are grey. Its *very* consistent with the notion that macroevolution is *not* a "different" process.

Also note that these breeds, again, cannot reproduce by natural means. Guess what? You've just proven my point. The moment the evolutionary change transcends the boundary (a boundary which you now say is objective) of the species, it cannot reproduce itself and therefore would die out if it weren't for our continued intervention. Although these breeds arose through artificial selection, natural selection has "selected" them out because they cannot reproduce.

You've completely misstated my points so I'll clarify.

• There are dog breeds (and many, many other species, see ring species) show gradual changes due to geographic separation where "near" species can interbreed where as those at opposite ends cannot. Lack of ability to interbreed is an *indicator* but not a *definitive definition* of speciation.
  
• You jumped to the useful conclusion for your argument that I was talking about non-reproducing breeds, but what I was describing interbreeding. I thought this was obvious, but I'll try to be clearer.
  
• Non-reproducing breeds are indeed evidence of Natural Selection at work, but you jump to the conclusion here--mostly by confusing inability to interbreed with the inability to reproduce within a breed--that in *all* cases Natural Selection prevents macroevolution, which is not shown at all from this evidence. You're only showing that *some* configurations of DNA in eggs and sperm cannot recombine, which is a much more limited conclusion.
  

And thus from this last point:

Thus, we can still look at the broad variation within the dog family, which results from the intelligently guided counterpart to natural selection, as an indicator of what the limits of natural selection are.

No, sorry, we can't. You're free to jump to that conclusion if you wish, but its missing many steps scientifically.

As I've said before, to label "Junk DNA" as such is its own "argument from ignorance." We don't understand why a particular stretch of DNA is there, therefore it must be "junk". That's a great way to squelch scientific discovery… label it is "junk" and that way nobody will be motivated to find what its purpose actually is.

You are obviously not aware that the investigation of the purpose and mechanismes of Junk DNA is one of the most highly funded in DNA research. This research is showing how recessive traits are stored for long periods of time, and contrary to Behe, they are *not* "selected out immediately." If you want to make this argument that its proof that evolution proponents are sticking their heads in the sand, you can, but its easily shown as false from the number of papers out there on the topic.

 

The irony really is that this research has been showing all sorts of things that continue to show the fallacy of Behe's theories, which when on the stand in the Dover trial, he chose to dismissively ignore rather than try to refute. I won't stand in the way of his desire to research whatever he wants to, that's cool. But thusfar its not convincing, and that's really not *my* fault! :confused:

 

Cheers,

Buffy

[Buffy]

Evidence for macro-evolution:

Homology in the limbs of mammals (just one example). Mammals have very similar organization or arrangement in their limbs (and in other areas as well). The fin of a whale has certain similarities in the way the bones are configured to our arm. There's something that relates to our radius and ulna, our humerous, elbow, etc. You can see this in dogs, horses, monkeys, etc. Macro-evolutionists believe this is evidence of common ancestry, and I agree that it could be interpreted as evidence for macro-evolution. However, it does not prove macro-evolution because there is another quite reasonable explanation for it, which is common design.

There are a couple of key elements of this argument that are fallacious:

• "Common Design" is a scientific theory: You'll notice in this paragraph that the mechanism for finding similar structures under evolution is defined clearly: through changes to species over time. You'll also notice that there's no description of a mechanism for Common Design, it just "magically" happened that way. There's no description of a force that made manual changes to DNA, not even "pre-programming via overloading of DNA" (something that Bio has conjectured about, but I've never heard from any of the ID community). Why is this? How are we supposed to come to useful conclusions or predictions if there is no description of this mechanism. A theory is not scientific at all unless it has some description of how things operate. This may not get at fundamental causes (as Newton was able to skip over with Gravity), but it does provide a useful description for predicting what will happen given a certain state. ID studiously avoids this topic because it requires discussion of the nature of the Designer which brings into play religious issues which are trying to be avoided so that it will be considered a science.
  
• The only reason that it does not "prove" the evolutionary theory is if there is an insistence that it be observed directly, which for past events is clearly impossible. As ID grants micro-evolution, any observable change is always claimed to be "only micro-evolution, not macro-evolution because if its obervable it must be micro-evolution, and since macro-evolution by definition takes long periods of time, it cannot be macro-evolution" This is circular reasoning, and it works simply by continuing to dismiss and ignore both evidence of large changes occurring in existing experiments and research and by models of simpler systems which show exactly the same behavior.
  

Think of a unicycle, bicycle and tricycle....Again, I'm not using this to prove Intelligent Design, but only to show you one example of evidence that they claim for macro-evolution, and to demonstrate that while you might call it "evidence", it's not proof because it can be interpreted two different ways.

This example of course is somewhat silly, since we know of no mechanism whereby these objects which have no observable tendency to mate or reproduce or evolve have common elements. But since we know that 1) Humans do build these things and 2) We have evidence in historical documents of these changes, and 3) we can observe aspects about the material that indicates its provenance and we--as humans--can reproduce these ourselves. *That* is what gives us evidence that it is designed. There is no mechanism for defining "designed" beyond this because we don't know what a "designer" is. The "two-different ways" are not "alternate scientific theories", one is scientific and one is metaphysical. There is no mechanism or theory or method that has been described which is scientific that supports ID, only the claims that evolution is "incomplete" or "wrong": The former is true and does not bother scientists, and the latter is in all cases to date shown as at the very least "not disproved".

And if I can present evidence that suggests that macro-evolution gets stopped in its tracks by natural selection, then this "evidence" for macro-evolution is weakened even further.

There is ample proof that there are mechanisms that inhibit changes both by natural selection as well as by cellular mechanisms (see the Wiki on RNAi or this more colloquial discussion by Robert Krulwich on a recent Nova (scroll way down!)), but the fact that there are detrimental changes that are prevented is not convincing evidence that it *never* happens, which is the implication here, only that it happens relatively rarely. To say that there is no evidence at all is not borne out by the research that ID folks like to ignore.

 

Bottom line: micro vs. macro is a case where the subjective cladistic classification process has been misleadingly twisted as "proof" that there is a distinction between the two. Science finds it useful to create general classification using various characteristics that may even disagree. The traditional classification by traits is being shown to have many errors in relationships defined over the last 200 years by DNA comparisons of species: this is not disproof of macroevolution, the main arguments are about how to rename things now that certain species have moved! This is misinterpreted as "clear distinctions being made" between species or families when it is not. Distinctions between two existing examples of animals and trying to decide whether they are "different species" is subjective. The fact that the DNA is redefining the traditional classifications is actually proof that there is no clear distinction!

 

Cheers,

Buffy

[Buffy]

Note, however, that I have not said that there is an objective definition for the term "species", I have agreed that it appears to be a murky issue. But if the term "species" is as subjective as it appears, then anyone can use it to mean whatever they want it to mean whenever they want it to mean it. And it follows that any term whose definition rests upon the term "species" is equally subjective, and likewise can be used to mean whatever the speaker wants it to mean.

Just to be clear, if you can't define exactly what the difference is between macro and micro, then there's no way to show that they are different. Saying that "species means whatever you want it to mean" is pejoritive but in fact it does support the evolutionary argument.

One thing I have noticed about evolutionists in general is that clarity never seems to be their intent. They seem to traffic in obfuscation, and this terminology question underscores this point. Science is about pursuing (if not attaining) clarity about the natural world. But there is no hope of finding clarity when the terminology has no fixed meaning.

Your complaint about the words "species" and "macroevolution" not being clear only comes because you wish to load meanings into them that are not there. They are indeed useful for general classification, but they're not distinguishing, because the scientific evidence says they can't be distinguised! That's ID's problem, not Evolution's! There's absolutely nothing wrong with general, colloquial terms: they are useful in communicating ideas. If they get in the way of a theory, then ignore them or find more exact definitions that can be used, there's no one stopping you, but to cast completely transparent aspersions as to some vast evolution-wing conspiracy against ID is a bit paranoid, and not very convincing.

 

Lack of simplicity is not a sign of obfuscation! One of the primary weaknesses of arguments for ID is that they tend to be absolute and definitive, to which the scientists do respond, "its not that simple." This is dissatisfying from a metaphysical viewpoint, but while the goal is to make things as possible, Occam will add "but no simpler". Which means that if the explanation is complicated, then its complicated. Is quantum mechanics false simply because its hard to understand? Is the explanation of the standard model an example of purposeful obfuscation? Why is it any different than any other scientific endevour?

 

"It got designed" is the ultimate simple answer, but its really a boring one unless you start talking about how that design got implemented and when we'll see the next design happen before our eyes! :confused:

 

Cheers,

Buffy

[pgrmdave]

TRoutMac, if we cannot define species simply, then how can we simply define macroevolution? As I understand it, macroevolution is the evolution of one species to a different species. Perhaps there can be a more definitive definition of macroevolution with respect to DNA?

[Biochemist]

..if we cannot define species simply, then how can we simply define macroevolution? ...

It really is useful to use the "can't interbreed" definition as the species definition. It is certainly true that there are cases where we really can't figure out whether two entities are different species. But those are overwhelmed by the vast majority of cases where we can. It is OK to have grey areas (like the liger, mentioned above) and to carry those grey areas as unknowns.

 

Personally, I think differentiating or classifying phyla is much more difficult than differentiating species. And it is becoming more problematic based on DNA evidence (as the Buffmeister mentioned above). But that is another topic.