I noticed that a Humanist in another thread made a statement that led me to believe that he did not equate "intelligent design" with religion. This is a subject that probably should get more serious & widespread discussion than it does. What do you think?

templelane

Hi, michealb the difference between species is that they cannot interbreed to produce viable offspring.

When two populations diverge their genomes can also diverge because of genetic drift or the founding animals not containing all the population genetic diversity possible add into that environmental pressures (to have long tails or something) and the two populations gradually change. This is the basics of speciation, eventually if you tried to mate two individuals from these populations you won't be able too, or you can but produce a sterile hybrid- this means they have become different species.

Apparently there is some contention about the definition of a species (real scientific controversy) but the breeding thing is the most generally accepted I have found.

I hope this helps michealb

And Inthebox stop using things that cannot reproduce to prove the fallacy if evolution- it makes you look like you don't know what you are talking about.

I have to thank you for that very interesting blog summarizing a recent scientific breakthrough- very exciting! I have no idea how it abets your argument but it is an absolute gem. Such elegant research.

michealb

Templelane,

Thanks, I guess I should be more clear. The point I was trying to make was where is the clear dividing line between species that makes it impossible to for one of them to vary to the point that they would be considered two difference species because for creationism or ID to be correct there would have to be a barrier that prevent small gradual changes from making a new species. The other point was that humans and animals are closer than most people realize and while a human and a mouse might seem to be far apart they share 97% of the same gene coding.

inthebox

Templelane:


This is from the link I provided:


"Well, it had to overcome something in human cells. There was something about human cells that were different from chimpanzee cells that HIV-1 needed to EVOLVE around. Whats that something? Um... something. BUT THATS WHAT HAPPENED! Thats why Vpu forms a viroporin!


Notice the WORDING.


It betrays evolutionary ASSUMPTIONS. This is not scientific.


Now say, like the Reverend Wright, I assumed the US government created HIV, the wording would be:


"Well, the US government had to overcome something in human cells. There was something about human cells that were different from chimpanzee cells that HIV-1 needed to adapt to. Whats that something? Um... something. But thats what happened! Thats why the US government developed Vpu which forms a viroporin!



Now if this were a scientific experiment with results where is the methods sections?
Where are the lab results? Where is the statistical analysis and discussion of potential weaknesses, and confounding factors of this scientific experiment.


Have they isolated an HIV virus from people, say in the 1800s, in which this HIV does not have VPU? And now they have a 1990s version of HIV that has VPU?


All the article did was compare SIV VPU to HIV VPU. They even say the are genetically and biochemically distinct. Yet they pass it off as "evolution."

inthebox

Michaelb:


What's The Difference Between A Human And A Fruit Fly?


"Professor Stumpf adds: "Understanding the human genome definitely does not go far enough to explain what makes us different from more simple creatures. Our study indicates that protein interactions could hold one of the keys to unraveling how one organism is differentiated from another."


Amazing isn't it. Where DNA and genetic information comes from, scientists don't know. Now they are discovering ERVs in the once called "junk Dna." Add to the complexity, the protein interactions.

Galveston1

Belief in the theory of evolution is a religion. And just to show how much hypocrisy is involved in dedicated evolutionists (no personal reference to you) when they have posted in these threads that they have no problem if creation is taught in some class other than science, consider this. In Texas, some schools will offer Bible studies as literature and history, as an ELECTIVE, and already some are screaming about it. The last time I looked, study of evolution was NOT an elective.

ordinaryguy

No, it is not, and scientists don't "believe in" it any more than they "believe in" the theory of general relativity or quantum mechanics. Scientific theories are always being used and tested and extended and revised and applied in new ways. When experimental results or measurements and observations of phenomena are repeatedly found to be inconsistent with some aspect of existing theory, it is revised and new experiments and measurements are devised to test whether the new formulation provides a more consistent and comprehensive explanation than the old one did. This process of testing and revision is ongoing and never-ending. It is an entirely different sort of endeavor than religious belief. Your insistence that they are the same demonstrates how little you understand about how science is actually done, and what the role and function of theory is in scientific practice. Such arguments may be convincing to your fellow religionists, but to working scientists, they are simply absurd.

michealb

Complexity doesn't prove design though. Snowflakes are extremely complex looking but snowflakes forming doesn't clash with a particular religious faith. If evolution didn't clash with faith there would be no issue with it. Which is why ID is religion not science.

We could make the same argument that your making about evolution about our theories of gravity. I mean we don't know where the first cell comes from and we don't know where gravity comes from. We don't have all of the middle fossils and planes fly despite gravity. So using this logic evolution and gravity must be faulty theories.

Galveston1

[
Plus, ID/Creationism can't ever be proven, unless the designer decides to make a personal appearance on the 5:00 news and say, "Hey! Check me out, and check out what I can do!". The scientific theories and laws taught in school are provable - god/designer isn't provable.

We are pretty far from my original point, BUT:
What you just said, He did in the person of Jesus of Nazareth. Eyewitnesses left a record for succeeding generations. You just refuse to accept the record.

You cannot prove that man is the product of evolution. It is a, shall we say, quantum leap from showing mutation of microscopic cells to production of man or any other animal.
You keep talking about laborotories. Take some raw materials and make us a man! Too hard? Okay, make us an earthworm.

Talk about circular reasoning. When pressed to answer difficult questions about how something came to be, the answer comes back, "we don't have to explain it, it's evolution".

If evolution is not a religion, then the BELIEF in it as an answer to ourselves and everything around us IS a religion. See how zealously it is defended, and what great faith is expressed that evolution will one day provide the answers that we seek? And like any other religion it refuses to admit that any other religion has any merit.

inthebox

Complexity orders of magnitude more than Darwin could ever think possible makes evolution less likely. Francis Crick of DNA double helix fame, an atheist, can't explain DNA - He, like Dawkins, try to explain it in the even more unprovable theory of panspermia. How did ETI get their "intelligence" then becomes the question.




Planes fly because of acceleration and lift. It is reproducible - lift that is. All you have to do is while driving down the road at say more than 40 mph stick your arm out, bend your elbow out 90 degrees, wrist straight and point your fingers in the direction of travel.
To get lift bend your wrist back/ fingers pointing higher.

Every invention, technological advance, in humanity is by intelligence and design.

The internet was not formed by the chance happening of crossed cable wires. An automobile is not a random collection of metal, plastics, rubber, and composites. Today's cellphone with camera, video, email, mp3, address book etc. is designed on purpose. It was not the spontaneous melding of rotary phone, tv, radio etc...

I'm showing my age:


Remeber when you had to open cartons of OJ or milk. Spread the end of one side then press inward and hope that a spout opens up? Someone got tired of prying the spout open raggedly and decided to put a hole with a screw cap on the top instead. Intelligence and by design.

Remember taping pieces of paper notes up on a wall or on the fridge, someone got the bright idea to put glue on one side of that paper and that became "post it notes" / 3M - again intelligence and design.

It is even more complex in nature. Dolphin sonar, bat echolation. Evolution cannot reproduce the development of a single eye let alone 2 to provide depth perception. Then when you cosider a "primitive" fly's compound eye compared to ours......

These are the obvious visible examples we can see and relate to, but try taking graduate level neurophysiology, or biochemistry and you will be even more amazed.

ordinaryguy

On the contrary, it's the creationist who refuses to provide an explanation. "God made it that way" is not an explanation, it's a statement of religious faith.

A biologist would never say "we don't have to explain it". Biological science is all about finding better explanations of how life works. Evolutionary theory has proved to be a very powerful tool for developing and refining those explanations. Still, it is only a tool, not an article of faith, and it has been and continues to be refined, revised, and improved.