Nicely summarized, shade51.  I think that means we’re done now.  Let’s all knock off for some margaritas!

Two distinct forms of Ensatina salamanders, differing dramatically in color, coexist in southern California and interbreed there only rarely.

Only rarely is still interbreeding, which is still not speciation. You accuse me of making some hidden assumptions, this article is chock full. Check this one:

Speciation is essentially the evolution of reproductive isolation between two populations, and song differences can cause reproductive isolation. Hence, the geographical variation in songs of greenish warblers provides a rare illustration of how gradual change in a trait can cause speciation.

What can I say? If we want to redefine species to mean anything we want, we can call anything speciation. Which is exactly what�s happening in biology over the �hotly debated definition of species�. The scientists are reminding the evolutionists that we cannot just go around redefining our words in order to fit our hypothesis.

What is the Archaeopteryx supposed to be a transitional form of? There are no examples of living or fossil scales that even remotely resemble a feather. Archaeopteryx has complete feathers like modern birds.

I�m getting a bit confused between nowiser and Geekmom�s arguments, one seems to be arguing one way and the other another, and yet you appear to say you agree. But it seems that you are jumping the gun a bit and getting into the biological application, so I�m going to go back to the mousetrap. Is it (the mousetrap) irreducibly complex?

Is it (the mousetrap) irreducibly complex?

No, it is not, the spring is not unique to the mouse trap, it devoloped independently.

Not only the spring, but all of the parts of a mousetrap can be (and are) usefully employed for other purposes elsewhere.  They don’t need to be combined in a unique mousetrap configuration to function separately, or to come into existence to begin with.

Geekmom and I do not disagree. Her comment addressed irrecudible complexity, and my own comments on irreducible complexity are based on exactly the same premise as the one that she has put forth.

What is merely �functional� in an early form, becomes �irreducible� through evolution. And variances in Krebs cycle indicate this.

My position is entirely consistent with GM�s.

���

On the separate issue of speciation.

The author asserts that the salamanders and songbirds -are- different species. But the definition of species -does- vary, depending upon who you ask, and I�m not incredibly surprised that you would disagree with him. I think that all the author has managed to present is two examples of geographic and behavioral reproductive isolation that -might- lead (over time) to genetically reproductive isolation. I have to wonder if anyone has pinned down some of these birds and artifically �enseminated� them with sperm from the reproductively isolated males. If they were genetically unable to mate, we would have examples of

geographic and behavioral reproductive isolation, followed by changes in genetic structure that would prevent interbreeding -even if the geographic and behavioral constraints were removed-. As far as I�m concerned, that�s speciation. Repeat the process about a million times, and you have genetic �drift� that can produce pretty substantial phenotypic changes. As far as I�m concerned that -is- speciation.

I think, before we can have -any- productive discussion about this, we would have to know what -your- definition of speciation would be.

You accuse me of making some hidden assumptions, this article is chock full

I did? Funny, I can�t remember that. I think some of your arguments are deeply flawed. It�s not the same thing.

Please provide an example of the author�s �hidden� assumptions. I have a feeling that he doesn�t �hide� his assumptions. He states what they are. He considers reproductive isolation caused by phenotypic expressions of genetic change to be evidence of speciation. Not all scientists would agree. But his �starting point� or �controlling assumption� is not hidden, by any stretch of the imagination.

What is the Archaeopteryx supposed to be a transitional form of? There are no examples of living or fossil scales that even remotely resemble a feather

Archaeopteryx is -supposed- to be a transitional form that demonstrates that birds are an evolutionary offspring of reptiles. And the similar structures between archaeopteryx, its Chinese and Spanish forebears, and contemporary birds, go far beyond the issue of feathers. Archaeopteryx is classified as a �bird� in rather arbitrary fashion, as it also has features that birds -don�t- have.

Sinosauropteryx (Chen et al. 1998) was found with what appear to be feathers preserved along the back. The identification of the structures is equivocal however, (e.g. Unwin 1998), with some doubting that the structures are feathers.

What�s this, a fossil where people are arguing over whether or not it�s a scale or it�s a feather? Hmmmm. Interesting, no?

and then, of course,

Two species of dinosaur have recently been found in northeast China which possess feathers (Qiang et al. 1998). Protoarchaeopteryx robusta and Caudipteryx zoui show regiges, rectrices and plumulaceous feather inpressions. Further, they are not birds, lacking a reverted (backwards facing) big toe (see number 2 below) and a quadrratojugal squamosal contact, having a quadrojugal joined to the quatrate by a ligament and a reduced or absent process of the ishium. These and other characters group Protoarchaeopteryx and Caudipteryx with maniraptoran coelurosaurs rather than birds.

Holy crap! It�s a dinosaur with feathers! Not a bird, a dinosaur. With feathers.

and there�s more. But this site (from which I snagged all the above quotes, other than David�s) does a much better job of explaining.

href="http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/archaeopteryx/info.html”

In short� I can see why you might have some reservations about the salamanders and birds as examples of speciation, but speciation is a -process-. By its very nature, you can point to any -one- example in the chain and say �That�s not a dinosaur. That�s a bird.� By extension, you can point to genetic divergence and say �that�s still a salamander.�

Archaeopteryx is merely one example. 

I mean, I think the fact that whales have fingerbones and body hair is also sort of a give-away, but that’s just me.

All that being said, I’m not going to keep “dropping the ball” over and over again to try and prove my point.  I really -don’t- believe, David, that you are interested in interrogating your own position, or you probably would have found the information about feathered dinosaurs on your own. 

But it still comes down to the distinction that I made with Hires-- what are you going to attribute phenomena to-- supernatural forces, or laws of physics/nature?  Did the leprechaun knock the can over, or was it the wind?

Personally, I have to look at a -very- long human history that has consistently asserted that -God did it- only to find out that no, lightning [insert any other previously unexplainable phenomena here] isn’t the spears of Zeus or Thor, food isn’t “baked” in the stomach, sperm isn’t a mystical “seed” that grows in a woman’s belly, and psychosis isn’t caused by “evil spirits.”

And so I abandon this discussion, once and for all, before I waste too much time and effort in the exchange.  The search for truth is, indeed, a wonderful thing, but I don’t intend to keep looking for it in the same place that I’ve already looked at over and over and over again.

None of my quotes showed up in little blue boxes, because I made the mistake of copying from the preview page

DOH!

But I have faith that you guys can figure out what’s mine, and what I quoted from the talkorigins site.  (Here’s a hint-- if it seems like the writer knows something about paleontology, that’s -not- my writing).

Bottom line is there is massive amounts of VERY convincing tangible Falsifiable evidence that CLEARLY supports Evolution.

There in not one single shred of Falsifiable evidence at all that supports Creationism.

There is also a mountain of evidence that completely debunks the Bible entirely and shows irrefutably it is nothing but Mythology.

I find it almost impossible to believe that any sane adult could ever believe such fairytales.
The whole thing is mind boggling.

David said:

In fact, from all the evidence I�ve seen, belief in evolution takes an amazing amount of faith.

Then you haven’t actually looked.  There is proof in abundance.  And what’s even better...all the experiments can be replicated and the data can be checked and rechecked.

It seems to me that when I asked for proof of it before, you rambled on about breeding, but never actually could point to proof that any one species evolved from another. And you never will, because there is none.

I suspect all the professional biologists will be surprised to hear that.

Here ya go.  Start here.  Read lots:
http://www.talkorigins.org

(Just to name a small sample of the evidence)
There are documented instances of natural selection:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/wells/iconob.html#moths

There are documented instances of speciation (i.e., offspring that is no longer the same species as the parent):
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.html

There are documented transitional fossils, showing that one species gradually led to different species:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/archaeopteryx.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional/part1a.html#amph1
http://www.talkorigins.org/features/whales/
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/

There are also instances of adaptation/mutation leading to new species with new capabilities (you might use the term “increased information"):
http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/postmonth/apr04.html

Look: all the theories of evolution rely on aberrations in DNA that produce beneficial adaptations for survival prior to mating age. Since whenever DNA is affected by an outside source (the evolutionist favorite is usually gamma radiation) it becomes less, not more, complex than before, continued evolution does not work.

I suggest you do some research.  You may be surprised.  (At the risk of spoiling the ending:  Creationists are lying to you...)

Life forms would not tend to become naturally more complex, but less. This also follows the generally accepted 2nd law of thermodynamics as well. If anything, evolution should produce less and less variation (as less and less genetic material becomes available to work with) and the organisms less and less complex (as the 2nd law would indicate). Your belief requires more faith than I have, Nunyabiz.

Interesting.  Please show where the 2nd law of thermodynamic precludes evolution.  Since evolution has been observed in laboratory settings, as well as in nature, I’d be highly interested as to how a law of physics keeps it from happening.  You can also explain how the 2nd law keeps ice crystals from forming, how it keeps acorns from developing into full-grown trees, etc.

Well, heck, it happens talk-origins has answered this one, so here ya go:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-misconceptions.html#thermo

Additionally, Humans are irreducibly complex. Which also means there is no way we cold have evolved one way and then another, there would have had to have been one major mutation that produced multiple interdependent systems. That�s more than a little unlikely to happen randomly.

Interesting.  What is your evidence for this statement?

I believe Behe’s, Dembski’s, AND Johnson’s arguments have been answered (and refuted entirely) quite adequately.  Here’s a small sample of them:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/behe.html
http://bostonreview.net/BR21.6/orr.html
http://www.world-of-dawkins.com/Catalano/box/behe.shtml
http://www.americanscientist.org/template/AssetDetail/assetid/22794
http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/DI/clot/Clotting.html

I find Orr’s and Miller’s arguments to be pretty powerful refutations of “irreducible complexity”, don’t you?

Spacemonkey said:

hi
I would suggest that it is a mistake to place empirical science on the same pedestal that religion once occupied.
Like religion it is flawed.
Like religion it breaks down under close scrutiny.It becomes a thing of probabilities not certainties.
Use logic and rational by all means but remember that 50% of the tool you are using to look for answers IE your brain does not work at a rational level it is intuitive.
Our reliance on the scientific rationale
has tended to suppress the intuitive,this is reflected in the world we have created.
It’s my belief that a balanced use of the rational and intuitive helps to create a less distorted and truer picture.
It is entertaining and informative seeing you guys trying to persuade each other that one point of view is truer than another even if sometimes it seems a little like trench warfare.
n

Has it occurred to you that our human intuition is based upon our past experiences we’ve had using our normal five senses and reasoning?

Try checking out how well a baby can intuit things.  About all it knows is:  “Suck on breast, make noise when unhappy.”

Additional problems with your “intuition” theory:
How do you compare one person’s “intuition” with another? 
Person 1:  “I think there’s a big, male man in the sky with a big white beard watching over us.  My intuition says it is so.”
Person 2:  “I think there is not.  My intuition says it is so.”

Which person is correct?  Why?

Looks like you are plowing through all kinds of old threads. Just a reminder, David claimed that his wife is a Very Important Scientist (biochemistry?).

Chris, David hasn’t posted here in quite some time now. He probably still lurks about, but ever since I lost my temper and wrote an entry that pretty much told him what a major asshole I thought he was it wasn’t too long before he stopped commenting altogether. While that has made things a little more quiet around here, he’s not exactly missed by most of us. Or at least not by me.

Anyway, giving him a bunch of links to read wouldn’t have done any good. He’d brush them off as not being your own arguments and whine about how mean everyone is to him all the time. Believe me, we’ve provided him with links to those sites on more than one occasion.

I couldn’t help noticing that more than a few of David’s “arguments” are on the creationist’s do-not-use list that Chris posted in another thread.

Indeed. Ironic, isn’t it?

It’s hard enough to keep up with science, so why should pseudo-science fare better…

By the way, this thread gives even EE pause.

hey Les,

you know what i realized the other day? poetry is a very beautiful thing. i think that i enjoy the beauty of it, beauty which is so free of reason, more than the most sophisticated reasoning i have ever heard. anyway, that is just my thought of the day, write me sometime, ok

Religion, the evil root of mans inhumanity to man!!!

why is it that freedom of speech doesn’t extend to christians. when they voice their beliefs it’s somehow too offensive. so who gets to draw the line?

our constitution gives everyone freedom of speech, not just atheists.

I fail to understand how the meaning of the first amendment can be so misinterpreted. Clearly the meaning is to protect all religious freedoms including displays of symbols and celebrations in public.

The people who are saying that government has no right to censor sexuality and violence are the same people who want all religious symbols and mention of God removed from the public eye. Where is the logic in this?

I believe that censorship of any kind is self defeating. Truth requires the total absence of censorship.

why is it that freedom of speech doesn’t extend to christians. when they voice their beliefs it’s somehow too offensive. so who gets to draw the line?

our constitution gives everyone freedom of speech, not just atheists.

Christians have plenty of freedom of speech—in fact they have more than anyone else.  I don’t see Wiccans being able to post the Rede outside a courthouse, nor do I see the official Pledge of Allegiance containing the words “under no God.”

Christians are just whining now because people are finally standing up and calling “Bullshit” on the special treatment Christians have enjoyed in this country for far too long.

Codifying YOUR belief system by making laws everyone must live under, according to what’s in your particular set of myths goes beyond free speech and crosses the line into Establishment, and cannot be tolerated by a free society based upon individual liberty.

The people who are saying that government has no right to censor sexuality and violence are the same people who want all religious symbols and mention of God removed from the public eye. Where is the logic in this?

I don’t want all religious symbols or the mention of God removed from the public eye.  Hell, I like religious symbols.  What I don’t want is government endorsement of only YOUR God, which is how things are at the moment.  As I said, I don’t see any of the deities or symbols of any other religions getting a place in government courthouses, public schools or on the legal tender of this country.  How would you feel if all of your money carried the motto, “In Vishnu We Trust?” Would it be all right with you if Congress opened with a prayer to Baal?  If not, why not?

Your God and the insistence of Christians that He and their particular beliefs be given a special place above all others is the single most divisive issue in a country that’s meant to stand for “liberty and justice for ALL.” That includes everyone who doesn’t believe as you do, and giving crosses and Big-G God an official okey-doke will never serve as anything but a wedge to divide those who believe in Him from those who do not.

why is it that freedom of speech doesn’t extend to christians. when they voice their beliefs it’s somehow too offensive. so who gets to draw the line?

our constitution gives everyone freedom of speech, not just atheists.

You obviously didn’t read the entry your commenting on otherwise you’d realize that it was about a bunch of Christians who were actively working to deny Freedom of Speech to someone they disagree with. It makes you look like a hypocrite to cry that Christians are being denied their right to free speech on an thread talking about Christians trying to deny others that same right.

I fail to understand how the meaning of the first amendment can be so misinterpreted.

I was having the same thoughts in regards to your comments here. You clearly have a distorted view of just what the first amendment is supposed to accomplish.

Clearly the meaning is to protect all religious freedoms including displays of symbols and celebrations in public.

If by “public” you mean displays and celebrations by individuals in a public forum when not acting as a representative of the government then I agree, but if by “public” you mean that the government should be able to endorse specific religious celebrations and symbols in government buildings or as part of their job as a representative of the government then I vehemently disagree. The latter is exactly what the first amendment is designed to prevent.

The people who are saying that government has no right to censor sexuality and violence are the same people who want all religious symbols and mention of God removed from the public eye. Where is the logic in this?

Show me one person who comments regularly on this blog who has suggested anything remotely similar to what you’re claiming here. It’s a popular, but largely bullshit, argument from the religious right that too many folks like yourself like to throw out as though it has any basis in reality.

I believe that censorship of any kind is self defeating. Truth requires the total absence of censorship.

Again, the irony of you saying this on a thread about Christians shutting down Normal Bob Smith’s website is simply stunning. Try reading the entry you’re about to comment on before opening your mouth and revealing what an idiot you are.

Clearly the meaning is to protect all religious freedoms including displays of symbols and celebrations in public.

Hmmm… then shouldn’t it bother you that the reason Laptop Lobbyists had NBS shut down - denying Normal Bob his right to free speech - is because his Jesus Dress-up fridge magnets were being sold, displayed in public even, at an Urban Outfitters in a mall?

Somehow I doubt anyone would have gotten their drawers in a wad if the fridge magnets were mocking some OTHER religion’s deity.  For reasons unfathomable, all Americans are simply supposed to respect Jesus and his followers MORE than any other mythical character.  Had Bob created an Odin Dress-up (yet another god hung on a tree—and older by far than your Jesus), Laptop Lobbyists would never even have noticed.  In fact, I’ll bet they’d be buying them by the dozen.

Freedom of speech includes the right to mock those people and beliefs we find laughable, even Jesus himself isn’t automatically immune simply because he’s the central figure of the mass delusion called Christianity.

“Christians have plenty of freedom of speech—in fact they have more than anyone else.  I don’t see Wiccans being able to post the Rede outside a courthouse, nor do I see the official Pledge of Allegiance containing the words “under no God.�?”

Probably becasue the country was founded by people wuo believed in god. Take a look at the declaration of independence if you doubt it.

Probably becasue the country was founded by people wuo believed in god. Take a look at the declaration of independence if you doubt it.

Don’t be a dumbass. Wiccans also believe in God, often times more than one. As for the Declaration of Independence, it’s not a legally binding document so it has no real bearing on the discussion, but above and beyond that the people who wrote it didn’t necessarily believe in the same God you do.

Try actually addressing the points I made in my reply to you instead of engaging in demonstrations of your ignorance of other religious beliefs.

“Christians are just whining now because people are finally standing up and calling “Bullshit�? on the special treatment Christians have enjoyed in this country for far too long. “

In fact it’s the atheists who do most of the whining.
Christians, who happen to be the majority in the US, don’t think it’s right for rogue judges to start making laws that restrict their right to freedom of expression.