ID and the like VS. Evolution.

[libertarian_knight]

As I recall, Darwin came to that conclusion by observing variations among species on different isolated islands in the Pacific, and it certainly seems reasonable. It seems less likely in a population living more or less together on the same continent. The definition that I learned in high school was that different species are defined by the fact that they are mutually sterile, or (as with a horse and donkey) their offspring are sterile. The idea that a herd of buffalo in North America or a population of monkeys in Africa could simultaneously mutate in two different directions is possible I suppose, but it would seem to have a vanishingly small probability even over thousands of generations.

On thing you may not take into account, is actually, education. Even very small animals actually learn, especially social animals. I have seen video of monkey learning and teaching other monkies how to open nuts (or clams.) (Pretty sure they were monkies and not apes). Now some were VERY successful at this, so much so they would be efficient enough to open the shell for others. Others still would watch and then mimic the action. If they learned from a sucessful shell opener, they would be sucessful, otherwise, if they tried on their own, or learned from one that had a hard time or failed, they too would often have a hard time or fail.

Now creature that survive are those that can eat and get the nutrition they need. Say one groups of monkies, in the same troop, learns to eat hard shelled nuts, and the other learns to extract bugs from the ground, or a tree. One group get's the proteien from nuts rather easily, the others, from the bugs. SAME SPECIES here in this hypothetical.

Now, monkies that have, say finger shapes better suited for breaking nuts, and who also learn to break nuts, will survive, and within that group, may diverge. Because while others are hunting for bugs, some are bashing nuts. now, let me ask you, do you tend to be attracted to people you know, and who know things you know, or people in far off lands, with different cultures? (Culture means they way of doing things, and yes, animals DO HAVE CULTURES. Culture of nut breaking, and another of bug hunting). I would venture a guess, that 90 times out of 100, people tend to stay within there own culture. I would certainly say 51 times out of 100, people CERTAINLY stay within their cultures. otherwise all human cultures would be one culture by now])

So, the nut breakers tend, though not exclusively, to breed with other nut breakers, and bug hunters with other bug hunters. now, assuming both these groups of monkies, even in the same tribe, now both sucessful in the TECHNIQUE ALONE, prosper, they may move along the ground, or upwards in the trees, for better food, safety, shelter, whatever.

I really have no idea why i tried so hard, maybe I just felt like writing it all down, for my own clarily. But in essence, not only random biological mutations result evolution, but intellect, education, culture and familiarity may also be non-directly-biological impetus for evolutionary change, even within the same species, or even the same community of animal.

Very often, there are MULTIPLE, CONCURRENT and/or consecutive reasons for a thing occuring.

Understanding evolution requires more than knowing that a thing eats, shits, breeds and dies. It's also requires understanding how, how often, when, where, and with who. If you see gaps in evolutionary explaination, try studying humans, for all our grandure, pomp and circumstance, a little insight into the behavior of man will illuminate the behavior of a whole lot of other things, becuase we still do some stupid aminal junk.

 

[Diogenes]

So, the nut breakers tend, though not exclusively, to breed with other nut breakers, and bug hunters with other bug hunters. now, assuming both these groups of monkies, even in the same tribe, now both sucessful in the TECHNIQUE ALONE, prosper, they may move along the ground, or upwards in the trees, for better food, safety, shelter, whatever.

Your post makes very reasonable points, and I appreciate your not falling into the pattern of name calling and insult that characterizes so many posts on this subject. It certainly seems like it could happen as you describe, but are there any instances where we know that it has happened?

 

[steen]

All of what you say is true, as far as I can tell.

The problem is that people who believe in ID or something like it DO NOT believe some of the facts. Or rather, come up with other ways that you could arrive at said facts.

Yes, people can speculate all theywant. They can also decide that gravity is NOT a function of mass and proximity, but rather a result of invisible angles showing things around. yes, people can speculatecrackpot ideas all they want, but in science it is not belief that matters but rather the data, the evidence. So people can "believe" in ID all they want, that doesn't make it science.

For example, let us say some scientist says something along the lines of "This fossil used to be such-and-such a creature that died 1 billion years ago, give or take 50 thousand or so."

The Scientist COULD say something like that, but it would be a sloppy claim without substantiation and provided evidence when you are talking scientific evidence.

Now, a person who wanted to believe in creationism would say something along the lines of "GOD could have made it look like it was really old, but it actually is only 4000 years or so." Or something more complicated that has the same effect.

Ah, yes. The "Deceptive God" postulation, that God deliberately seek to mislead us. Sorry, I don't believe in a lying God. Fundies obviously do, though.

Now, I must admit that I was raised believing in a higher power, and until I went to college I was home schooled, which allowed my parents to teach me what they believed.

And what does that have to do with the Scientific Theory of Evolution? The two don't exclude each other outside of the fundie's overheated and lying mind.

 

[steen]

If the errors of religion aren't taught in school, when will they be taught?

Well, religion in general is not taught in School, though certainly a comparative religion class could be a good idea. But certainly, it should NOT be taught in Science Class which already is short-changed in time on the schedule.

 

[steen]

I think you are confusing "plausible" with "intuitively obvious" when you bring in quantum mechanics. I agree there is nothing intuitively obvious about relativity or quantum mechanics, but the predictive accuracy makes it plausible.

As is the Case with Evolution.

Evolution, on the other hand, has been supported on this thread by the intuitively obvious method of connecting the dots of the geological record, but there have been no examples presented of evolution accounting for the differentiation of species.

Ah, so you want us to provide you with pages and pages of data for your amusement because you were to lazy to learn this yourself in school?

When you don't even know what Science is, trying to teach you methodology and data seems utterly pointless, as you just make up your own lies anyway.

 

[steen]

As I recall, Darwin came to that conclusion by observing variations among species on different isolated islands in the Pacific, and it certainly seems reasonable. It seems less likely in a population living more or less together on the same continent. The definition that I learned in high school was that different species are defined by the fact that they are mutually sterile, or (as with a horse and donkey) their offspring are sterile. The idea that a herd of buffalo in North America or a population of monkeys in Africa could simultaneously mutate in two different directions is possible I suppose, but it would seem to have a vanishingly small probability even over thousands of generations.

And then, of course, you are ignoring one of the main necessities for speciation which is some form of geographic, climate, or temporal separation into different environments. Without that separagtion, the entire population will continue to mix the changed genes and all end up more or less the same. Why are you ignoring that major part of the speciation issue, an issue that only is of minor importance in the Scientific Theory of Evolution anyway?

 

[steen]

My question has to do with how any species which is not physically separated can possibly mutate into two or more different species. The implicit assumption here is that if they can breed together they will breed together (are there any pureblood human races left anywhere?), in order to keep the gene pool viable.

Actually, the "nylon bug" is one such example:
http://www.nmsr.org/nylon.htm

 

[steen]

Thanks. That link emphasizes my point:In this case, it would seem that the different "species" are actually closer than, say, Australian aborigines and Eskimos.

Untrue, as they are the same species, whereas the finches are not.

 

[steen]

I didn't read all of this yet, but you said I should look it up, so........

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_Method

Also.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory

Both links are interesting reading and contain alot of information that I am sure you and others will find usefull.

It isn't anything you wouldn't learn in advanced college biology. It also has some flaws and over simplifications in its explanation, but it does make it clear that when people talk about "only a theory" when talking about Scientific Theories, they are either (a) very ignorant, or (2) outright lying.

 

[Scarecrow Akhbar]

Well, religion in general is not taught in School, though certainly a comparative religion class could be a good idea. But certainly, it should NOT be taught in Science Class which already is short-changed in time on the schedule.

Hey, my point there was that kids should be taught what good science and how to detect bad science. The evolution/creationism/ID topic is perfect for that kind of discussion.

 

[libertarian_knight]

Your post makes very reasonable points, and I appreciate your not falling into the pattern of name calling and insult that characterizes so many posts on this subject. It certainly seems like it could happen as you describe, but are there any instances where we know that it has happened?

Unfortnately, monkies and hamsters don't write history books, and recorded human history is still very very very very very very very very very short, in the grand scheme of things. We are still learning, because we don't know everything, doesn't mean we should stop trying.

 

[Diogenes]

Untrue, as they are the same species, whereas the finches are not.

Why are you sure the finches are different species? They seem to be able to bear fertile offspring, which doesn't really sound like different species. What's your definition of species?