How can evolution explain body symmetry?

Not really "exactly analogous" unless you are a Lamarckian, but I can see how it is loosely analogous.TTFN,WK

*double post*This message has been edited by Wounded King, 07-11-2005 06:20 AM

A Lamarckian? Please, I am not even a Memetist!Your "loosely analogous" I find much too strong. Would you agree with "pretty analogous"?

>Perhaps it's curious to you that he didn't use an example
>from nature, you know, since they're obviously everywhere.They are everywhere, and they are pointed out repeatedly. But what is the use if people won't listen? For instance, the latest post of the month on TalkOrigins shows the, to quote the author, incredibly stupid design of a *very* complex (IDists would say "irreversibly complex") structure of mammalian kidneys. It is one of many thousands natural arguments against ID:The Talk.Origins Archive Post of the Month: May 2005>You can't convince me intelligent design is "junk science" if
>you rely upon it for your analogies to work.The trouble is, many people who believe in ID have a very deep emotional commitment to it (such as tying their God to ID). Many arguments have been tried, in order to find a chink in the armor and get a person to, just for a few minutes, really look at the data. Some are better then others.If you want the simplest argument against ID, here you go: it's wrong. And in order to understand what I mean when I say "wrong", I'll use an analogy.Imagine you have met a person who tells you "President Bush is the worst president America has ever had, because he eats babies for breakfast." Now, this person is lying. President Bush could be the worst president America ever had, he could be the best, he could be anywhere in between - the simple fact is, he doesn't eat babies for breakfast.It is exactly same with evolution and ID. Evolution could be right, it could be completely wrong, the arguments ID-proponents use are wrong in either case. Flagellum is not irreducibly complex. Blood clotting mechanism is anything but irreducibly complex. Human immune system is not irreducibly complex. Regardless of whether life evolved or was created, we have found nothing so far that would indicate intelligent input (we have found a lot to the contrary, however).The ID is based on bogus math and bogus biochemistry, both of them wrong *even if evolution is totally wrong*. It is as simple as that.The popular success of ID is entirely based on the fact that their arguments are wrong in a very complicated ways. ID proponents say something, people believe them (because they think, incorrectly, that ID supports their theology, or their vanity). If scientists just say the truth, people simply won't believe them, since their personal beliefs are being contradicted. Thus, scientists are left with the tall order of first teaching everyone biochemistry and genetics, and *then* pointing out the errors. Since this requires an audience willing and capable of learning such complex ideas, this is rarely successful, and ID "wins".A good measure of the real-world relevance of ID is the position of the Discovery Institute (the main ID think-thank) towards teaching ID. They openly admit they don't know how to teach ID, that they wouldn't know what to say. What they want, instead, is for kids to be taught about "deficiencies in evolution" (as if the problems with one thing are evidence for another; kind of like proving existence of flying unicorns by poking hole in the theory of aerodynamics). Then they offer false arguments against evolution.So there you have it, the simplest argument against ID, with explanation and commentary. In a perfect world, it would be enough. In the world we live in, people simply won't believe it. They will ask me to prove to them that, for instance, flagellum isn't irreducibly complex. To do that, I will have to teach them biochemistry, genetics, even a lot of biophysics - a task that required many years of very difficult classes and years of hands-on work for myself. Since I'm supposed to do it in a few paragraphs on an internet forum, I will fail. And so the propaganda goes on...BTW, this is also the answer to the often-heard question "why scientists won't debate ID proponents". They know they can't teach people enough science within the scope of a debate, and they know that, without understanding enough science, people won't understand their arguments.M.

another key point of invalid logic is that evolution cannot produce systems that are irreducibly complex. it's just an assumption that they make, and it's actually just, well, wrong. it's actually something of a predicted result of evolution, along with vestigal organs and the like, and is caused by scaffolding and redundant systems. so even stuff that they find that actually is ic (by their definition) is not really a problem.(catch that ID'ers? ic is proof of evolution)

---

אָרַח

quote:

---

Human design is a process of trial and error, and passing on successful approaches to students. In this respect it is exactly analogous not to divine creation, but to natural selection.

---

No, natural selection does not generate information, it reduces it...by definition. It does not remember what didn't work, nor does it develop a database of "successful approaches" to mutation. Only a successful RESULT is passed on. The DNA does not learn HOW to produce the mutations it might "want". The author's analogy fails because it is PRECISELY an example of a intelligently and PURPOSEFULLY designed system.

quote:

---

Each time something is thought that might work, it relies either on past experience, that is, trial and error, or some leap, large or small, that is not guaranteed to be successful until it is tried out.

---

Again, natural selection does not make anything new and the random mutations it can select from are not incrementally more successful due to any type of "past experience" or something that is "thought that might work".Or perhaps I have it wrong and DNA is self aware.

I don't believe that the ID discussions are on the body symmetry topic. I'll have to close the thread for awhile if we don't get back to the topic.

I did read that entire article, but it only talks about the kidney's abilities to regulate salt and frames the entire issue of it's usefulness in those terms which seems terribly close minded. I don't think the post it was in response to claimed that the kidney was irreducibly complex. I only found that term in the response.But his claims of marine life evolving back and forth between fresh water and salt water got me wondering. If I could identify distinctly isolated bodies of freshwater would I find any vertebrate species in both that appeared (or were by genotype) nearly identical? I was thinking along the lines of, "If God thought like me and decided that fish X was kind of neat, would he only place it in interconnected bodies of freshwater (or those on the same continent or continental divide)" in creation mode. In evolution mode, I was thinking even if they were transplanted long ago somehow, they would certainly have drifted far enough apart to have lost the capability to breed. Over subsequent millennia (enough to make their habitats clearly isolated) they would certainly have evolved as to be almost unrecognizable by phenotype and comparable by genotype only to a common ancestor. I think what I found might turn the talk back towards things like how certain environments might select certain shapes. shorthened the link. PLEASE, use peek to see how it's donewhich referenceshttp://faculty.evansville.edu/be6/b4805/ps2s05/Rundle.pdfThe second article seems to describe "ecomorphs" as some sort of archetypal uber species that all similar niches will eventually be filled in with.... to such a degree of similarity that they can interbreed....even though their DNA is quite different and does not point to a common ancestor.As a layman I am quite lost at this point. Developing all the right mutations, in (mostly) the right order, with no incompatible or disqualifying intermediate beneficial mutations (which would deselect all the other candidates while simultaneously cursing incremental progress toward the perfect "ecomorph" ---> square one) seems to move the debate back to cosmology and the time window we've had. If regular evolution toward a species that is "good enough" to survive takes hundreds of millions of years, how long does it take to have a "good enough" attempt cross over to become a "great" attempt without diverging. Then again from those "great attempts" that don't diverge, how long does it take to evolve into an "almost perfect" attempt without diverging? What about getting from there to a "completely perfect attempt to the extent that it can reproduce with separately evolved ecomophs and looks almost identical" ... times at least 2 (since the archetype is defined by the niche not simply the existence of the other ecomorph).As for flagellum, are there any specific rebuttals to this rebuttal?
http://www.designinference.com/...003.02.Miller_Response.htmI have read some more recent but general rebuttals of IC but I can't find anything that deals with the specific claims of this piece (specifically sections 4 and 6). I'm sure you have some ready so I thought I'd save myself some time by asking.Seeing as you've had many classes in biochemistry, genetics, and biophysics, I would be inclined to trust evidence you provide, but it's hard for me to settle for "it's wrong, because it's wrong"This message has been edited by AdminJar, 07-18-2005 06:27 PM

Did you even look at this article? You have grossly mistated virtually every conceivable aspect of it. Lets take it point by point. *Bzzzzt* Sorry our survey said that "hence we refer to the two phenotypes as ecomorphs." So in fact in this paper all an ecomorph is is a particular phenotype for a particular species, in this case, a three spined stickleback, associated with a particular environment either limnetic or benthic. *Bzzzt* Actually all of the populations studied appear able to interbreed, although with varying levels of frequency based on mate choice. *Bzzzzt* Well, um, I don't know how to put this, I believe the common term for something like this would be bullshit. The mitochondrial DNA studies show that none of the similar ecomorphs from different lakes have a common ancestor particular to that ecomorph but the study very clearly states that all of the various ecomorphs have "recently derived from the marine threespine stickleback (Gasterosteus aculeatus) that colonized freshwater after the retreat of the glaciers at the end of the Pleistocene.", which puts the isolation of these populations at around the 10-11,000 years ago ballpark. So in fact there is absolutely no indication that these populations don't share a common ancestor and every indication that they all derive from a genetically diverse ancestral population of marine threespine sticklebacks. The similar benthic ecomorphs simply don't share a more recent common ancestor than the limnetic ones do, and in some cases the differing ecomorphs in a lake clearly share a common ancestor with each other more recently than their ecomorph counterparts in different lakes.It is also important to note that these experiments are based upon pre-mating factors, i.e. mate preference, rather than on genetic incompatibilities. So in terms of genetics these distinct ecomorphs may all be perfectly compatible, they simply choose not to mate with each other.If you didn't understand the paper, as you yourself admit, why did you feel that you were qualified to make such outlandish claims for what it showed?I prefer a somewhat stricter approach to parallelism in evolution in that I don't regard the evolution as truly parallel unless there is a similarity in the loci effective in bringing about the shared trait.TTFN,WKP.S. I realise this is still pretty off-topic, perhaps it would be more productive to divert this discussion to one of the already active threads about convergent evolution, or to start a new one.The only current one I can see which is fairly relevant is Gary's 'How do we know that homologous structures really do support evolution?' thread. The latest post there has some more about the differences between parallel and convergent evolution.This message has been edited by Wounded King, 07-18-2005 06:16 PM

quote:

---

Sorry our survey said that "hence we refer to the two phenotypes as ecomorphs."

---

The first part of the sentence which you did not quote reads, "Thus, neither the Benthics nor the Limnetics from different lakes are monophyletic; hence..." The "Thus" refers to the rest of the paragraph which provides the DNA evidence. They are comparing the DNA across subspecies lines and saying that these sticklebacks diverged from each other independently each time and that they are not related along subspecies lines. This takes the position that similar niches have some sort of archetypal form (which logically speaking they would) and that evolution has had time to reach it in EACH instance INDEPENDANTLY, and at the SAME TIME! In this instance they are speaking of resource partitioning causing a replication of two almost identical subspecies of stickleback across geographically isolated habitats. I find that preposterous.

quote:

---

Actually all of the populations studied appear able to interbreed

---

My surprise was not that the Benthics and Limnetics could breed with each other. Their constant contact and procreation has helped them retain this capability. The surprise (to my evolutionary side) is that given a marine stickleback as our hypothetical ancestor, that ONLY the new traits of the Limnetic and Benthic in niche X can be considered to offer ANY selective advantage to the species to such a degree that natural selection will discard (by some as of yet untold mechanism) ANY OTHER divergent beneficial mutations, in favor of retaining these! Common, that's the point of the whole article. Evolutionists are forced into this position (which the authors describe in the first and second sentences of the second paragraph) no matter what ancestor they choose to claim these fish came from. Not only in this case did they branch into two subspecies to share resources in EACH lake, each subspecies are basically the SAME, AND in the SAME STAGE (it's a separate improbability)! In fact, they are so similar, that they can mate along these subspecies lines, and PREFER TO! Don't you realize what an incredible position that is? Don't you see how that radically compounds the improbabilities? It imbues natural selection with "forecasting" powers by claiming that advantages that would diverge them from the niche archetype are discarded in favor of "holding out" for "the" perfect advantage AND that these "random" mutations seem to be coming according to some timetable! I think you came up with the common term for this.

quote:

---

So in fact there is absolutely no indication that these populations don't share a common ancestor and every indication that they all derive from a genetically diverse ancestral population of marine threespine sticklebacks.

---

If you took "common ancestor" to mean a common ancestor to all the sticklebacks in the study, then that is beside the point. The authors do actually suggest that as a side note (which they don't footnote - probably because it is beside the point, or maybe because they just dreamed it up... I don't really care). The importance of the DNA study was to show that the split into subspecies occurred AFTER the presumed geographic isolation of these sticklebacks from each other. They're saying that these fish are not ancestors along subspecies lines. It's what makes their existence so amazing to you.But if you want instead to get away from discussing parallel evolution (I would if I were you) and talk about lineage, I'll grant you one thing. If someone else provides enough evidence to convince me that parallel evolution is possible to the extent that it explains the above examples (and quite a few others I'm finding) of parallel speciation (privately or in another thread), then I will grant you that these sticklebacks came from whatever animal you claim. I'm not being cute about that either. My evolution side says that, if this type of parallel evolution is true for a given niche then the existence of that niche's archetype in the SAME STAGE across isolated locations DOES indicate a common ancestor. Of course given the newfound powers of RMNS, if the relatives are in DIFFERENT stages of progression towards nirvana across these habitats, then they could have evolved from entirely different species.Now I can bring this back to body symmetry. If parallel evolution is such a powerful force, what is common among the niches of organisms with the same types of symmetry? This could be an answer for evolutionists as to why this symmetry exists along various lineages.edited for spelling.This message has been edited by teratogenome, 07-19-2005 03:47 AM

I find that preposterous. As I already pointed out the first point is trivial since they can also mate across the subspecies lines. The second is actually just plain stupid, if sexual selection on morphology plays any part in reinforcing the sympatric speciation then of course the similar ecomorphs are more likely to mate with those sharing their morphological phenotype. There is not one scrap of evidence to suggest that there is any common genetic basis for this selection however. OK, so show me anywhere where it shows that the same "random" mutations are responsible for these phenotypes in all cases. That would almost be a worthwhile point, if it wasn't for the fact that the limnetic x benthic crosses from different lakes actually mate as well if not better than those from the same lake. Uh, no. Any scintilla of support for that that you can find anywhere in the paper? I sincerely doubt it. All they looked at was pre-mating compatibility in relation to ecomorphs in the light of the already produced mtDNA and microsatellite data. This a statment with absoloutely no support, either in the paper or pretty much anywhere else I should imagine. There is no radical morphological innovation, but then why should there have been?You can say that there hasn't been sufficient drift or directional selection to lead to speciation between similar ecomorphs in differing lakes, but that is all. Since the reproductive isolation is only pre-mating, as far as we can see, and given the short time period involved there is no reason to assume any large scale or widespread genetic changes have occured. I don't think you could say anything at all about the relative beneficence of whatever genetic variations might exist between the populations from differing lakes.There is some research into "post-mating" isolation in terms of relative fitness of hybrids but absoloutely no evidence of any physiological barriers to reproduction. No, it imbues natural selection only with the ability to fit square pegs in square holes, if larger fish of a particular colour do better in a particular type of environment then they will do better in a similar type of environment in other lakes as well, and since the original populations can be expected to have had a reasonably similar stock of genetic variance to work on to begin with, hence the claim for parallelism rather than convergence, then it is not unexpected that the same pre-existing tendencies in terms of size and colouration would have made a suitable substrate for natural selection rather than radical novel genetic changes. We have absolutely no idea of the timeline for these changes other than that enough have ocurred at some point in the past 10,000 or so years to produce the divergent, and convergent, phenotypes we see today. There have even been studies suggesting such divergence can occur within a period as short as 100 years (Von Hippel, et al., 2004). All we know is that at this point we have a particular pattern of reproductive isolation within and between lakes and ecomorphs, we don't know that these all ocurred at the same time or over the same time period only that they ocurred within a rather broad window, i.e. since the end of the Pleistocene. Why would it be an answer in any way preferable to that of a common bilaterian ancestor?TTFN,WKRefs
*****Sympatric anadromous-resident pairs of threespine stickleback species in young lakes and streams at Bering Glacier, Alaska
Von Hippel FA, Weigner H
BEHAVIOUR
141: 1441-1464 Part 11-2 NOV-DEC 2004

quote:

---

if sexual selection on morphology plays any part in reinforcing the sympatric speciation then of course the similar ecomorphs are more likely to mate with those sharing their morphological phenotype

---

I'm focusing on the fact that they have shared morphological phenotypes that evolved separately. Once given that they look more alike and eat the same food, I'm not surprised they also prefer to mate. I'm trying to get you to ask "how did we get here".

quote:

---

OK, so show me anywhere where it shows that the same "random" mutations are responsible for these phenotypes in all cases.

---

The improbability lies in acquiring all (or enough to be distinctly sexually selected for) the same phenotypes by whatever mutations caused them.

quote:

---

That would almost be a worthwhile point, if it wasn't for the fact that the limnetic x benthic crosses from different lakes actually mate as well if not better than those from the same lake.

---

I was only making the point that they preferred to breed along subspecies lines to illustrate just how distinctly similar their phenotypes are to each other. What I said was intended to delineate what I was not focusing on (Limnetics choosing Benthics and vice versa).

quote:

---

Any scintilla of support for that that you can find anywhere in the paper?

---

They write, "The genetic evidence indicates that the Benthic-Limnetic pairs from three lakes (Priest, Paxton, and Enos Lakes) are derived independently of one another". If evolution must be true, and these fish do exist, and their DNA points away from one common Benthic or Limnetic, then in three separate cases parallel evolution selected phenotypes so similar to each other that we call the Benthics in every lake Benthics, and the Limnetics Limnetics. And the fish appear to agree with our naming scheme. If beneficial divergent mutations had been selected, then the species would have diverged. Either agree with my logic or tell me that no beneficial divergent mutations occurred (or tell me they weren't selected for somehow).

quote:

---

You can say that there hasn't been sufficient drift or directional selection to lead to speciation between similar ecomorphs in differing lakes, but that is all.

---

I'm not debating that. Although by the definition of an ecomorph, there shouldn't be any more directional selection until the selection pressures of the niche change. What I've been trying to say is that it seems highly unlikely that drift and directional selection would lead to 3 cases of nearly identical speciation in the first place as the authors claimed.

quote:

---

Since the reproductive isolation is only pre-mating, as far as we can see, and given the short time period involved there is no reason to assume any large scale or widespread genetic changes have occurred. I don't think you could say anything at all about the relative beneficence of whatever genetic variations might exist between the populations from differing lakes

---

I'm not making that argument either. I'm not talking about beneficial variations that might currently exist between different lakes (a random distribution of which one might expect - which would also point away from parallel evolution). I'm talking about having the same beneficial mutations selected for previously to such a degree that it results in a nearly identical divergence into the same subspecies in all three cases. The changes that have occurred (if parallel evolution caused it) are at least large scale enough to have been naturally selected for and distinct enough for the fish and the researchers to recognize clearly now.

quote:

---

No, it imbues natural selection only with the ability to fit square pegs in square holes...

---

You're kidding me? Assuming, for arguments sake, that it isn't absurd to claim the ability to compare all the relevant environmental variables that affect selection within a given niche, you now want to assume that these PRECISE phenotypes occurred without interference from other selectable divergent phenotypes and at a minimum of 3 times, to the same species in each case (Limnetics kept looking more like their distant Limnetic cousins even assuming the Benthics never changed)?? Even if you can claim that natural selection is selecting for precisely the same traits in each habitat, you also want to claim that random mutation is now ordered to not produce any beneficial mutations that would cause entirely different looking but well suited sticklebacks?

quote:

---

and since the original populations can be expected to have had a reasonably similar stock of genetic variance to work on to begin with

---

So because they must have had the same gene pool at one time, this so limits the number of possible beneficial mutations... that they must all be the same to this degree now?

quote:

---

we don't know that these all occurred at the same time or over the same time period only that they occurred within a rather broad window

---

So 10,000 years is now a "broad window" in evolutionary time? We've gone from millions of years to get from x to "good enough" to less than 10,000 years to get from x to the almighty ecomorph?

quote:

---

Why would it be an answer in any way preferable to that of a common bilateral ancestor?

---

Why be so constrained? It's just fitting square pegs into square holes after all right?I was going to say that balanced appendages and opposable muscular forces might be something selected for by gravity and angular momentum. Then I was wondering what kind of organism alive right now might be better off with a Siamese twin.

I really don't believe you have any way of calculating the probabilities for such an outcome. You don't know what the original range of variation was in the ancestral population, you don't know the current range of variation among the varying populations, you don't know what sort of genetics are involved in the control of the specific morphologies observed. A highly polygenic trait is going to have a much higher probability of being affected similarly by a large number of different mutations, in different genes, than a trait which is regulated by one specific gene.Your estimates of probability seem to be based on your own 'best guess' in the absence of absolutely any knowledge of the actual system. How can you possibly claim to be able to usefully estimate probabilities for a system you have so little information about? I don't agree with your logic beause your logic is faulty. Beneficial mutations need not cause speciation, there is absolutely no reason why one of these seperate ecomorph populations couldn't be absolutely chock full of beneficial polymorphic mutations, or even entirely novel genes, which have been strongly selected but are lacking in the same ecomorph of a different lake and yet still be perfectly genetically compatible and a likely mating choice. In the first place beneficial mutations need not be related to morphology and in the second the morphology only imposes certain limits of constraint on the possible variations and we don't know how narrow these constraints are.It would have been interesting to have seen whether the different ecomorphs showed a preference in a mating situation with choice between their own population and that of a similar ecomorph from a different lake. The fact that they are not divergent enough to be a positive barrier to reproduction does not mean that they are not divergent at all. Well sure thats what you've been claiming, but the claim doesn't really seem to have anything backing it other than your opinion. Except these aren't neccessarily the same beneficial mutations, they are simpply mutations leading to the same beneficial phenotpye. Then why did you say that "ONLY the new traits of the Limnetic and Benthic in niche X can be considered to offer ANY selective advantage to the species to such a degree that natural selection will discard (by some as of yet untold mechanism) ANY OTHER divergent beneficial mutations, in favor of retaining these!"?Maybe it was just badly written and what you meant was any other beneficial mutation that happened to address exacty the same environmental issue, I'm sure you have carefully calculated the probabilities of all of those as well. Now this is just an odd argument. Even very small effects can be selected for by natural selection and the distinct phenotypes the fish and researchers recognise need not be based upon large scale changes genetically. A small genetic change can have a large phenotypic effect. Are you suggesting that I am claiming to be able to do this or that I am claiming that natural selection can? In the first case you are clearly wrong, I have never claimed such a thing, and in the second it is in the very nature of natural selection to reflect all the envrionmental variables. I've lumped thse two together because the second is key to the first. The entire point of parallel evolution is that it is the result of the common ancestral gene pool limiting the possible pathways along which the populations evolve, absent that it is simply convergent evolution.As to me wishing to claim that random mutation couldn't produce equally beneficial traits producing a radically different morphology, I just don't know what the various possible genetic pathways to a species well suited for a benthic or limnetic niche are and neither, I suspect, do you. As I pointed out before some systems are more amenable to change than others, specifically those that may be determined by many different genes. I would certainly think that something like a change in size or colour would be an easier evolutionary pathway than developing a whole novel organ. In terms of these restrictions it is once again the fact that these ecomorphs all derive from a common ancestral marine population the imposes some obvious common constraints on the direction of their evolution, at least in a time scale such as we are talking about. The 'almighty ecomorph' is your own delusionary concept. There is considerable evidence that pre-zygotic reproductive isolation can take only a few hundreds of years to evolve, in that context then yes 10,000 years is too broad a window for you to make sweeping statements about the identical timings of establishment and timetables of evolution which have lead to these 3 sets of limnetic and benthic populations.In terms of the origins of phyla or the diversification of the primates it may not be broad, but in the context of incipient speciation of a population of fish it certainly is. Because there is a wealth of genetic evidence pointing to a common bilaterian ancestor.TTFN,WKThis message has been edited by Wounded King, 07-22-2005 06:30 AM

What you claim is true of ID-ers is also true of many people who believe in IC/Hinduism/Christianity etc., to whit: "they have a deep emotional committment to it" Such an 'emotional committment' however cannot be employed as evidence against their belief without causing your own belief system to wobble (given that deep emotional commitment, in the form of frustration, that is apparent in your post).I'm a layman but not totally lay. I'm familiar enough with data to know that getting people to look at the data is not the key issue. It's getting people to interpret the data in the truest way possible and having them face the often unwelcome consequences of that interpretation. Scientists are people first and foremost and it's very difficult to get folk to intepret data 'honestly' when they likely have prior 'deep emotional commitment' to interpret it in within a limited boundary. Who can hold up their hand here and prove they aren't even a teeny weeny bit predisposed to view data with a particular slant?To say that the popular and scientific interest in ID is due to it being irreducibly complexly wrong is a bit of an over-simplification. It may be....but think about it for a sec. Here we have an orthodoxy (Evolution), one which is reasonably long in the tooth and supposedly "as accepted a fact as that the world is round" getting the potential equivilent of a Davidian stone planted right in the centre of it's Goliathian forehead. It's not that it's wrong - it's that it's NEWS !!News on many fronts: news for the man in the street for whom evolution has little more to say to him other than when he dies his destination is worm food and which provides entertaining natural history programmes. News too, for the scientifically inclined God believer who finally gets something other than a Bible to bash the 'opposition' with. And last but not least, a new frontier for scientists (who have historically trived on new frontiers) to get their testtubes into. Like, if Evolution is what happened, then 'all' the modern scientist can do is uncover more of her secrets. Not that the secrets couldn't have potential for vitality or usefulness - but not as brand new or as consequential as ID. Not in the same league at all, at all. ID not only offers the opportunity for the modern scientist to become a Newton, a Keppler and Einstein, the shoulders on which future scientists can stand, but more significantly, the potential to approach scientifically, the greatest issue of them all - Does (an as yet undefined) God exist? Compared to that, science aimed at evolution, which can only attempt to reveal the workings of a (as I understand it) finite natural universe is a bit of a damp squib.Anyway, is there not a touch of the kettle calling the pot black about your stance? Is not ID in the similar David vs Goliath position that Darwin/Huxley et al found themselves in when they stood up with a mind-blowing idea against the mammoth-like orthodoxy of their time. Did they have compelling, irrevocable science to back them up. Not at all. They had a theory and the self-conviction to fight for it against the tide. Did the lack of an iron-clad case in the face of orthodoxy then, mean that a subsequently much-spannered-on theory was wrong? Proponants of Blind Evolution then and now don't seem to think so...If you feel that an internet forum won't allow you to flex you biochemical muscles and if you feel that strongly about it ...why not do what Micheal Behe did. Publish or perish I believe it's called in your trade. I for one would buy the book ;o)

Nope.There are several significant differences.The FACT of evolution was apparent long before Darwin. Just looking around anyone could see the variety of critters and things and that they varied from place to place, period to period.The question was, "How did all that variety come about?"The TOE has done a marvelous job of answering that question. It's been supported by every scientific development over the last 150 years. It's been show to be flexible enough to account for anything seen so far.ID on the otherhand is a theory looking for a question. It adds no new understanding, answers no questions that cannot be answered under conventional TOE models and is in fact, fruitless and pointless.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion