Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 82 (8871 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 11-15-2018 6:03 PM
267 online now:
Coragyps, PaulK, Percy (Admin) (3 members, 264 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: paradigm of types
Post Volume:
Total: 842,007 Year: 16,830/29,783 Month: 818/1,956 Week: 321/331 Day: 49/50 Hour: 0/3


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Analogue to speciation in ID
extremophile
Member (Idle past 3545 days)
Posts: 53
Joined: 08-23-2003


Message 1 of 4 (55838)
09-16-2003 5:59 PM


Hello all, that's my first post.

I've been discussing about ID, creationism and evolution in some forums, and recently I realized something. ID proposers allways ask for evidences of speciation to accept it as a fact, as if speciation was the only thing in evolution. Some of them accept a certain level of modification on heredity, but only within genus or species level. What would be this barrier which keeps modifications from keep occurring, I don't know.

But, my question is: what would be an analogue to speciation that evolutionists would require to accept ID? I guess that it would be something like a brand new species just appearing on Earth, suddenly, without any ascendent, filling at least the same requirements that they want for a example of speciation, such as, do not crossbreding with any other specie with fertile offpring and etc, whatever we can think, I did not think much about the requirements for accept a "placement" of a new species by whoever puts it on Earth. Suggestions are welcome

ID proposer also would need to explain the method used by the Intelligent Designer, or whoever/whatever he designed to this work, the mechanism, you know.....

Well, that is not for the "guided evolution" type of IDCs... it's more specifically for old-earth IDCs who claim that natural selection does not produces new species (you know, "any breed of a dog still a dog", etc).....

See ya...

(please don't pay much attention to my english )


Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by PaulK, posted 09-16-2003 6:28 PM extremophile has not yet responded
 Message 3 by Wounded King, posted 09-17-2003 5:30 AM extremophile has not yet responded
 Message 4 by Rei, posted 09-17-2003 8:30 PM extremophile has not yet responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 14488
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 1.6


Message 2 of 4 (55848)
09-16-2003 6:28 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by extremophile
09-16-2003 5:59 PM


I think that the problem is that ID has very little substance - there is no equivalent to evolutionary theory, just rather vague ideas which are not even generally accepted in the ID community and are in great need of development (at best).

But here's one. If Dembski could produce a genuine rigorous demonstration of at least one example of his CSI in biology then he would have a good case. I am firmly of the opinion that such a demonstration is impractical but Dembski claims to have a useful method that can be applied to biology. So let him do it - properly.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by extremophile, posted 09-16-2003 5:59 PM extremophile has not yet responded

    
Wounded King
Member (Idle past 2045 days)
Posts: 4149
From: Edinburgh, Scotland
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 3 of 4 (55951)
09-17-2003 5:30 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by extremophile
09-16-2003 5:59 PM


Just realised my points were already addressed, don't mind me.

[This message has been edited by Wounded King, 09-17-2003]


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by extremophile, posted 09-16-2003 5:59 PM extremophile has not yet responded

    
Rei
Member (Idle past 4963 days)
Posts: 1546
From: Iowa City, IA
Joined: 09-03-2003


Message 4 of 4 (56128)
09-17-2003 8:30 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by extremophile
09-16-2003 5:59 PM


Sure.
No organism would need to appear.

If an organism is found which has genes from two long divergent animals which do not appear on more recently divergent species, that would be a good evidence against evolution.

For example. You have an ancestor A, decendants B and C, and modern species D, E, F, G, and X, where the evolutionary tree is:

A->B->D
A->B->E
A->C->F
A->C->G

and X is the newly discovered species.

If X shares large numbers of genes with D and F that E and G do not have, that is a problem. Once you start adding many more species into the tree, it makes the odds worse and worse that this is just due to the chance occurance.

Let's put it in another way. Picture that each letter below is a certain type of gene. If your entire set of species known was as follows:

1) AKTNCFH
2) OKTJCWB
3) OKTNCNH
4) OKTJCWH
5) RMTJCYH
6) OKSJCYH
7) RMTJEYH
8) RKTJUYH

You can see from these genes what the phylogenic tree must have been like. Certain genes are very common throughout all of the species - K, T, J, C, and H. The odds of the exact same gene being formed more than once is near zero for any sizable protein. So, if you look at (1), you find that its closest relative appears to be (3), it's next closest appear to be (2) and (4), then (6), then (8) and lastly (5) and (7). (2) and (4) only have one gene different and appear to have diverged recently. (5) and (7) are also very closely related. Etc. By looking at how genes change between species, you can tell how closely related they are, so long as you have enough data points (and there are many datapoints in the real world - millions apon millions of species, with thousands upon thousands of genes).

But what if you found a species that was as follows:
9) RKTNEFB

Whoah! The R branch diverged from the A/O branch back near the beginning of the example. But N developed on the other branch than R! But E developed on the same branch as R! But B developed on the opposite branch as R!

Needless to say, because evolution is real, this doesn't happen. If it did, it would be a huge blow to evolution. There's absolutely no reason it wouldn't happen at least occasionally in a creationist world. Many different genes behave in the exact same manner, so there's no "God did it because it wouldn't work well if you mixed and matched lines!". But it never does. Why would God deliberately create genetics to look like a phylogenic tree? Beats me. Are we back to the "Evil Prankster God" theory?

------------------
"Illuminant light,
illuminate me."


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by extremophile, posted 09-16-2003 5:59 PM extremophile has not yet responded

    
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2018