Intelligent design

[Boerseun]

I agree that the 'can't interbreed' definition is probably the most useful, and closest to the truth.

 

For instance, a mule, being a cross between a donkey and a horse, can't breed at all, which might indicate a step in the process of horses and donkeys becoming two completely seperate species. In other words, thousands of years ago, horses and donkeys were genetically closer than they are now, and their offspring was able to procreate. Nowadays, the difference is such that they can only produce sterile offspring. Another couple of thousand years, and donkeys and horses can't breed at all. Which means that mules are on the way out!

 

Sidebar - does this mean that a mule is a classifiable animal at all? Or just a freak? Can ligers procreate? Or is that another 'in-between' sterile step?

[pgrmdave]

Well, 'can't interbreed' is not the whole truth, otherwise tigers and lions would be the same species. How do we know when to define grey areas? Only when the offspring are sterile?

[TRoutMac]

Well, 'can't interbreed' is not the whole truth, otherwise tigers and lions would be the same species. How do we know when to define grey areas? Only when the offspring are sterile?

 

You know another oddity from the fish realm which throws a wrench of an entirely different sort into this whole discussion? Steelhead trout and rainbow trout. Are they two species?

 

Both are classified as Oncorhynchus mykiss, and yet the offspring of steelhead always migrate to the ocean, returning like salmon to their native streams to spawn, and then migrate to the ocean once again. Steelhead don't die after spawning as salmon do, so some steelhead present in rivers to spawn have been to the ocean more than once.

 

The offspring of "resident" rainbow trout, however, do not migrate to sea. They reside their whole lives as "resident" rainbow trout. This is drastically different behavior in two species that are, as I understand it, genetically indistinguishable.

 

It would make more sense, actually, if a portion of steelhead spawn and a portion of rainbow trout spawn split off and migrated to the ocean, leaving a portion behind as resident fish. But that's not the case. There's something in a steelhead that drives it to the ocean, and nobody knows what it is.

[pgrmdave]

Do steelhead trout and Rainbow trout live in the same rivers, or are they seperated physically?

[TRoutMac]

Do steelhead trout and Rainbow trout live in the same rivers, or are they seperated physically?

 

Well, lessee… I know there are rivers which host resident rainbow populations but that do NOT host steelhead populations. Most frequently, and not surprisingly, those rivers have no access to a salt water body. However, there are rivers such as the Cedar River in Washington state that host both resident rainbow and steelhead, but in this case the steelhead only migrate to Lake Washington, which they treat as their "ocean". (it's freshwater, though). I believe there are still other rivers that have a steelhead population but no resident rainbow population. Oregon's flagship steelhead fishery, the Deschutes River, has a robust population of resident rainbow as well as a fantastic steelhead run. (and chinook salmon, too)

 

Quite an answer, eh?

[pgrmdave]

Well, I think that a simple experiment could help this - put a rainbow population into an area that is dominated by steelhead, and a steelhead population into an area dominated by rainbow. If it is due to genetics, then the individual populations should continue their trend, i.e. the steelhead should still migrate and the rainbow shouldn't. If it is due to any other factor, then they will adopt the practices of the other population over time (it may take a few generations if it is a learned trait).

 

EDIT: I just found this information:

 

Anadromous steelhead and resident rainbow trout did not arise from two distinct evolutionary lines. There is a close genetic and taxonomic relationship between these two forms. Anadromous forms of the trout can convert to resident populations when drought events or damming of rivers blocks their access to the ocean. Conversely, resident trout populations can become anadromous if ocean access becomes available. It is typical to have both life history patterns occurring in the same stream. In fact, resident and anadromous parents can produce offspring of both varieties. It has been speculated that there is a food availability related trigger which determines whether a particular fish emigrates to the ocean or remains in the stream. It may be that if there is abundant food in the stream and a fish is growing at a rapid rate, it will remain in the stream. If food is limited and growth is slow, the fish will have a tendency to emigrate.

 

 

from http://www.naparcd.org/steelheadtrout.htm#rainbowtrout

[pgrmdave]

So, it would seem that within a species, different behavior can be found, and it often ends up being beneficial to the species (more adaptability overall, possible social evolution).

[TRoutMac]

Well, I think that a simple experiment could help this

 

Well, I was gonna say it's not like there hasn't been research or experimentation on the topic.

 

There is a close genetic and taxonomic relationship between these two forms.

 

Yeah, so close in fact that the two fish share the same classification.

 

Anadromous forms of the trout can convert to resident populations when drought events or damming of rivers blocks their access to the ocean.

 

This seems reasonable… It's my understanding that The Deschutes River used to boast a sockey salmon run, for example. Then, Round Butte Dam went in and created Lake Billy Chinook. Now, what used to be a sockeye salmon run that used to extend into a tributary of the Deschutes, the Metolius River, is now a kokanee salmon run (kokanee is the landlocked version of sockeye) that spawns in the Metolius and migrates not to the Pacific, but only to Lake Billy Chinook. Although sockeye are not huge fish by salmon standards, the kokanee are quite small by comparison.

 

Conversely, resident trout populations can become anadromous if ocean access becomes available.

 

Actually, this makes some sense also, because there are "sea run" versions of other trout species like brown trout, brook trout (again, actually char) and cutthroat trout in areas that have access.

 

In fact, resident and anadromous parents can produce offspring of both varieties.

 

This is news to me. Hasn't been my understanding at all. Mind you, I'm not disagreeing with it, I'm not insisting that they're wrong and I'm right. I've just never heard that before, I've always understood the opposite. Very interesting. As I said, it actually makes MORE sense this way.

 

It has been speculated that there is a food availability related trigger which determines whether a particular fish emigrates to the ocean or remains in the stream. It may be that if there is abundant food in the stream and a fish is growing at a rapid rate, it will remain in the stream. If food is limited and growth is slow, the fish will have a tendency to emigrate.

 

Also interesting, except it wouldn't seem to me to be the case, since (anecdotally) the Deschutes River obviously has excellent insect populations to support the resident fish and yet it has steelhead as well. Still, I'm not claiming to know one way or the other. At any rate, thank you for the link. very interesting information.

[Southtown]

So, it would seem that within a species, different behavior can be found, and it often ends up being beneficial to the species (more adaptability overall, possible social evolution).

Adaptation is a funny thing. Within lifespans, organisms retrain themselves to their environment. Muscles grow bigger, fur coats grow thicker, behavior and diets change, the capacity of the human mind far exceeds its usage. I myself find it interesting that the capacity is invariably present before a trait is needed. But are we now saying that the mechanism for evolution is external? Are we grasping for straws? Amazing how a little scientific zeal causes the remaining puzzle pieces to be crammed into any available left-over spaces... kinda reminds me of cladistics and the fossil record.

 

The fact that the DNA is redefining the traditional classifications is actually proof that there is no clear distinction!

Different taxonomies based on appearance, on fossils, and on DNA are in disagreement. It's hard organizing things into a tree when they don't belong that way. If there's supposed to be a "tree" with branches, then they should be logically organized quite easily, and the appearances and fossil record "trees" should bear resemblance.

 

The frustrating deficiency of the elitis intelligencia haphazzardly stirs the mud in an otherwise clear pool of water. In reality, we have seperate groups of "kinds" that adapt and diversify. But the transfiguration of reptiles into birds (without a trace) by mutation is prevented by selection. Evolution <

• adaptation = not passed on
• mutation = naturally selected against (Google: missing links)
• DNA experiments = artificial
• taxonomy = Pictionary
• dating methods = conjecture
• fossil record = global catastrophe

What was an otherwise unconfused running list of life types, growing with knowledge as it were, became a bloody mess of infinite detail out of which just about anyone could draw different conclusions. The orchestrated "tree of life" was based first off of appearance, then off of (misinterpreted) fossil records, now off off DNA. Anyone can arrange the whole lot in specific order and say "look, there's a graduation among them," but what does that show, imagination? I'm impressed.[/sarcasm]

 

1. Strata compress differently, they are folded, some are washed away and reformed, but *it doesn't matter*.
2. We can measure all sorts of data from different strata--such as concentrations of CO2 or rare elements, or changes in minerals that can be directly tied to variations in the 11 year sunspot cycle, and on and on and on--that allow us to *correllate and verify* the conclusions drawn. They also make it virtually impossible for these correllations to have occurred in different locations on opposite sides of the planet by a flood churning the waters for a few months (the hydrodynamical systems for relayering through liquifaction would be great for Dembski to sink his teeth into! Now *that's* improbable!)

[bullets added]

1. Chech again the third link I laid out in post #417. (note second paragraph. Figure 95 is my fav. Details on the theory are here.)
2. Do you got "all sorts" of references?

Here's some more reasons why the global flood is the only realistic geological theory:

 

http://www.creationscience.com/Liquefaction6.html

[Southtown]

Yahoo's definition of macro-evolution doesn't seem to be as stringent as the *cough* biology textbook's. If there's some discord about use of the word I'm sure we can find an acceptably *cough* objective dictionary. Got the flu, I think.

 

http://education.yahoo.com/reference/dictionary/entry/macroevolution

[TRoutMac]

Yahoo's definition of macro-evolution doesn't seem to be as stringent as the *cough* biology textbook's. If there's some discord about use of the word I'm sure we can find an acceptably *cough* objective dictionary. Got the flu, I think.

 

South… these folks want to have it both ways, it appears. They would like to deny the legitimacy of the terms, deny that there is more than one category of evolution, but how many times have they insisted that the "big changes" are just an accumulation of "little changes"? This is a rather embarassing contradiction… if there's only one category of change, then there is no "big changes" and "little changes". You see, they're really admitting that there are two categories of change, "little changes" and "big changes".

 

They would rather not admit to a distinction between micro-evolution and macro-evolution, because they need to employ the evidence for micro (little changes) as support for macro (big changes). After all, since there's no actual "hard" evidence for macro, they've got no choice… micro is the only "evidence" available to them and they need to sell it as evidence for macro. It's an interesting quandary they find themselves in.

[pgrmdave]

They would like to deny the legitimacy of the terms, deny that there is more than one category of evolution, but how many times have they insisted that the "big changes" are just an accumulation of "little changes"? This is a rather embarassing contradiction… if there's only one category of change, then there is no "big changes" and "little changes". You see, they're really admitting that there are two categories of change, "little changes" and "big changes".

 

Okay, then here's an explanation that I feel accurately describes what we mean by "big changes" and "little changes". There are many differences between a reptile and a bird. However, the only reason that they are so different is because of many, many little changes, no big changes. Compare it to numbers - there is a big difference between 1,000 and 1, but if you add .01 to one, over time they will be the same. There are no 'big changes', but thousands of smaller changes over time.

[TRoutMac]

Okay, then here's an explanation that I feel accurately describes what we mean by "big changes" and "little changes". There are many differences between a reptile and a bird. However, the only reason that they are so different is because of many, many little changes, no big changes. Compare it to numbers - there is a big difference between 1,000 and 1, but if you add .01 to one, over time they will be the same. There are no 'big changes', but thousands of smaller changes over time.

 

Not bad, Dave. But there still is such a thing as a "big number" and a "little number", right? Micro-evolution is a "little number" and macro-evolution is a "big number".

 

Now, if we understand each other on that, then let's look at how we can get from, for example, a sundew to a venus fly trap via "thousands of small changes over time". How do you propose that the intermediate stages in this progression from sundew to fly trap were able to catch insects? Each and every step from one plant to the other has to offer a survival advantage over the previous step, correct? How does this metamorphosis happen without driving what had been the sundew to extinction, thereby preventing the eventual emergence of the fly trap? How does this take place?

[Edge]

How does this take place?

Good question, TRoutMac. However, you gotta understand that just because it hasn't been answered does not mean that the theory is wrong or that the other theory is right. OK, now, I'm not saying that Evolution will have an answer to this or that it does not... but, well, you gotta give time or something. Follow me?

 

I give the benefit of doubt to all theories... I guess that's the best anyone can do in order to avoid bias and get a better understanding of all...

[GAHD]

'little' and 'big' are subjective. one could say a little change is reversing a single chromosome...but that little change could cause Big change in the way the anima functions. There is no real diffence between the two, you'll note that the evolution camp does not make this distinction for exactly this reason; we(Homo Sapian) are still experimenting and observing.

[TRoutMac]

However, you gotta understand that just because it hasn't been answered does not mean that the theory is wrong or that the other theory is right. OK, now, I'm not saying that Evolution will have an answer to this or that it does not... but, well, you gotta give time or something. Follow me?

 

Well, this is what I mean when I say natural selection works against macro-evolution. As the sundew "evolves" in successive stages toward the form of the fly trap (where it supposedly gains features of the fly trap incrementally) it also loses the features of the sundew incrementally. So, if you imagine plant that's 'interpolated' half-way between a sundew and a flytrap, it has neither the complete, functional system that the sundew used to capture food, nor the complete, functional system that the fly trap uses to capture food. So, it can't capture food and natural selection "selects" it OUT.

 

Now, perhaps that mid-stage plant did have a fully functional system for capturing food, unlike either the sundew or the fly trap. Fine. Now, you've got the same problem all over again, because now if you "interpolate" a species halfway between the sundew and that mid-stage intermediate, it has neither the complete, functional system that the sundew used to capture food, nor the complete, functional system that the intermediate uses to capture food. The point is, the sundew needs every feature it has in order to capture food. An evolutionary step away from that compromises the sundew's ability to capture food and puts it in jeopardy of extinction. This is what Michael Behe means by "irreducible complexity"

 

Add this to the astounding implications of DNA the fact that there's no hard evidence for macro-evolution to begin with, and you might start to see how silly the theory of evolution is as long as it includes "macro-evolution".

 

Macro-evolution is a farce, plain and simple.

[questor]

what does all this arguing about the minutiae of flora and fauna prove? these things exist, the question is..what caused their existence ? why not just consider the very first live cell ?

did it have ID or not ? was the universe it came from created by ID or not? imo there is a hell of a lot more evidence for ID than against it. those that oppose ID are actually arguing

from a disbelief in God and creationism and disregarding the voluminous evidence of ID

present in the universe. why not forget religion and just consider the facts and evidence as you see it ?