INTELLIGENT DESIGN: An Engineer’s Approach

Sorry, but this is part of the scientific process: developing a test that clearly shows that your concept is better at explaining the data, not just one that shows the other theory has problems -- but that doesn't prove anything. And that has been done. In Message 120 I said: Because speciation has been observed so many times already. This has nothing to do with the specieation events done with the fruit fly. They created species that can breed within their population but that cannot breed outside their population. This is the biological definition of species.Sometimes with insects what happens is a morphological change that prevents the mating elements from functioning - too small for the unaided human eye to see but still a definite change. Done. What does "the likes of which we have never seen" have to do with it? We've also already accomplished that.It seems to me that you don't understand the biological definition of species and are arguing from some personal straw man version of it that is not what the science uses.Please read Definitions, Daffynitions, Delusions, Logic and Critical Thinking. for why this is not cricket.Finally, I remind you of and Denial of evidence that contradicts your concept is not faith or reason:

quote:

---

delusion” -noun
1. an act or instance of deluding.
2. the state of being deluded.
3. a false belief or opinion: delusions of grandeur.
4. Psychiatry. a fixed false belief that is resistant to reason or confrontation with actual fact: a paranoid delusion.

---

I would hope we are not at that point yet.So the question remains, do you have a test FOR your concept?Or does the FACT that speciation has occurred invalidate it?Enjoy.

---

Join the effort to unravel {AIDS/HIV} {Protenes} and {Cancer} with Team EvC! (click)

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

​

RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

Nobody said anything about "sterile." We're talking about populations of fruit fly that breed amongst themselves freely but can't breed with their original founder population.That's speciation. I'm not talking about it, either. This is just plain ol' mutation and selection at work. Oh, no. You're not done with my example, yet. The fruit flies aren't made sterile, and no genetic engineering was used, so your objections don't hold up. The result of this work, again, was several new species of fruit fly. So what you've asked for has already been provided. (My guess, Mr. "Level-headed", is that you'll give voice to any objection whatsoever, including objecting to made-up issues, in order to duck out of your boast. In other words the pattern you've set with this post is sure to continue.)

[deja vu from Message 96]
I think you actually mean "kind", not species. We've already created new species through artificial selection in laboratories, and also through genetic manipulation.The significant problem in creating new "kinds" is not a scientific one but a semantic one. "Kind" is not a scientific term and so does not have a scientific definition. Without a proper definition it isn't possible for scientists to tell when they've created a new "kind."Creationists usually talk in terms of the dog "kind", which includes dogs and wolves and so forth, and of the horse "kind", which includes horses and donkeys and zebras and so forth. This makes "kind" a rather broad category, and given the slow reproductive rates of mammals I think most scientists would concede that creating new "kinds" as part of any reasonable laboratory experiment simply isn't possible because of the long time periods (centuries at least) that would be required. Laboratory experiments require organisms with short generation periods, and so a definition of "kind" that applies to bacteria would likely be required.
[/deja vu]--Percy

Look, I’m not here to insult anyone’s intelligence. It’s clear that you’re all bright people. I figured from the beginning of this post, that I might get sucked into a debate over evolution. That was not my intention, because it’s really not what this post is about. I mean, yes, science is great, and it’s where smart people go. Fine. There is a lot to be said for common sense, as well.What I am suggesting with this post is naturally difficult for anyone to swallow. I got to this point because I refused to be bound by dogma. What I’m suggesting may be considered a hybrid, if you will, of science AND common sense. I’m not asking anyone to abandon either one. But, when it comes to science, it could be said that taking into account the driving forces BEHIND certain “scientific” literature IS a science, in and of itself. It could also be said, for now, that anyone who doesn’t agree is simply a puppet. Common sense would tell you that scientists are usually driven towards specific results for a number of reasons, each one of which represents a conflict of interest, as it is. That alone, is a scientific fact. Unfortunately, that is also Science.So, let’s talk about science for a bit, before I continue with my central idea.The following is taken from the link that Kuresu provided in an earlier post. Included within that linked page is a laundry list of claims to speciation events. I’ve taken a couple examples and copied it here for discussion:Observed Instances of Speciation
5.3 The Fruit Fly Literature
5.3.4 Sexual Isolation as a Byproduct of Adaptation to Environmental Conditions in D. melanogaster“Kilias, et al. (1980) exposed D. melanogaster populations to different temperature and humidity regimes for several years. They performed mating tests to check for reproductive isolation. They found some sterility in crosses among populations raised under different conditions. They also showed some positive assortative mating. These things were not observed in populations which were separated but raised under the same conditions. They concluded that sexual isolation was produced as a byproduct of selection.”Now, before evaluating the claim from a scientific standpoint, we should determine whether or not enough information has been provided with this piece of literature to make it useful for any particular purpose. Does it contain enough information? One would think so, because it made its way to THIS webpage. Let’s see . “Kilias, et al. (1980) exposed D. melanogaster populations to different temperature and humidity regimes for several years.”Great!“They performed mating tests to check for reproductive isolation.”Wonderful!“They found some sterility in crosses among populations raised under different conditions.”Oh!? Are we to assume that sterility wasn’t present within the separate populations? How would/did they determine that? Hmm, it doesn’t say. It would certainly be experimentally relevant, though.“They also showed some positive assortative mating.”Positively assortative for what? fly sweat? fried sperm?“These things were not observed in populations which were separated but raised under the same conditions.”Why would they expect to see assortative mating in separated populations if there’s nothing to distinguish? Or, why would it start happening now, if it didn’t happen before. The first thing I would suspect is a genetic defect, not a new species. Speaking of species, is it indicated that a new species was granted? Mnnope.This situation points more along the lines of something that might suggest the possible implications leading to a proposed observance of some of the “hallmarks” in mating behavior which may ultimately lean toward the likelihood of a chain of events described as the process that has been viewed as a potentially relevant causation and a direct correlation to the as yet undefined concept commonly referred to as speciation.“They concluded that sexual isolation was produced as a byproduct of selection.”Really? There are so many errors in logic, and experimental flaws, in this one little abstract, that I conclude this to be USELESS INFORMATION!!!In fact, that seems to be true for each and every one of the experiments that I looked at. And, nowhere did I see an instance where a species was actually granted for a sexually reproducing creature. Let’s look at another one:5.3.1 Drosophila paulistorum“Dobzhansky and Pavlovsky (1971) reported a speciation event that occurred in a laboratory culture of Drosophila paulistorum sometime between 1958 and 1963. The culture was descended from a single inseminated female that was captured in the Llanos of Colombia. In 1958 this strain produced fertile hybrids when crossed with conspecifics of different strains from Orinocan. From 1963 onward crosses with Orinocan strains produced only sterile males. Initially no assortative mating or behavioral isolation was seen between the Llanos strain and the Orinocan strains. Later on Dobzhansky produced assortative mating (Dobzhansky 1972).”Hmm. Major questions. When I see “the culture was descended from a single . female,” I immediately recognize the probability of genetic birth defects. Let’s see if that is relevant here. We would need more information as to the genders of parents when hybrids were produced. Is that anywhere in the abstract? Mnnope!“From 1963 onward crosses with Orinocan strains produced only sterile males.”Hah, this reads more like a passage from a science fiction novel. What is it saying though? Let’s see, it seems to suggest that a continually hybridized culture was being taken closer and closer to one of the original strains to which the original female did not belong, and then BAM! The whole population dies off. Yup, that’s the hallmark of a new species just waiting to unfold.It’s a new species alright . a new species of stupid. And, what it amounts to is more USELESS INFORMATION!!!C’mon people, let’s keep in mind that even what you see in a report doesn’t convey the uncertainties associated with any experimental setup in the first place. Yet, many of you are willing to just take these conclusions at face value, and run with them. This webpage isn’t very promising from a truly scientific perspective, to begin with. What it would suggest is remarkably meaningless. You guys are too smart to fall for this stuff.Besides, it doesn’t even apply my main topic, anyway. That’s because it already seems to be agreed upon by some that our classification system, itself, could stand to be looked at a little differently. Now THAT would be a topic that I could entertain here, because it may very well have everything to do with my primary argument. I don’t know yet. But, I don’t have the time, the patience, nor the interest at all in fixing everything that is broken with the theory of evolution. For those of you who treat it like a religion, that would be YOUR job. So, if any of you want to discuss any value in the “accepted” theory of evolution (as an autonomous process), please do me a favor and begin a thread somewhere else.Believe me, there is a lot to be had, in a number of areas, by taking a top-down approach.Thanks, people.

Limbosis, please explain what your argument is, and what evidence you have to support that argument. I for one am certainly not clear on what your argument is anymore. And make sure to point out how your theory is different from the commonly accepted theory of evolution.

Sorry, you've lost me again. Could you maybe try to pick up the thread of the discussion instead of resetting to square one?--Percy

Your argument from incredulity notwithstanding ... they started with ONE population and divided it into two reproducing populations that became sterile in cross-breeds.Your point is refuted by the evidence in the paper.It seems denial - or confusion - has set in. Your argument from ignorance notwithstanding ... positive assortative mating involves choosing mates. Thus not only is there sexual separation (sterile offspring in hybreds) there is behavior separation (active choosing of mates in each sub-population).Enjoy.Edited by RAZD, : fixed word

---

Join the effort to unravel {AIDS/HIV} {Protenes} and {Cancer} with Team EvC! (click)

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

​

RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

before making some stupid, or rather, ignorant comments, you might want to look up definitions. possitive assortative mating means that organisms tend to mate with other organisms that are similar to them. why am I attracted to white, blond, blue eyed girls? gee, I don't know, maybe because I'm a white, blond haired, blue eyed guy.a rarer form of mating is negative assortative mating. that would be me, a white, wanting to mate with black chicks.here's another misstatement you made. you'll notice the title to the experiment you dissect is "Sexual Isolation as a Byproduct of Adaptation to Environmental Conditions in Drosophila melanogaster"not exactly proclaiming speciation to begin with.let's stick with this current experiment and your so you screwed up what possitive assortative mating means. what else went wrong? actually no. the organisms of population A were not able to cross with members of population B. Plus, its not across the board. They found some reproductive isolation between the two groups. A can mate with A, B with B.The reason I can state this is because of"These things were not observed in populations which were separated but raised under the same conditions". so A was split into two groups. these two groups of A had no difficulty whatsoever with mating with each other.The only place any form of assortative mating was found was when group A and group B met for mating purposes.you're statement of is quite wrong.you misunderstood what was written.next experiment you talk about, how many errors can we find? umm, you do realize there are only two genders in the fruit fly, right? male and female. what more do you need? wrong. you have two strains of the same species, one from Llanos, one from Orinocan. When crossed initially, the hybrids were fertile. Somewhere along the line, something happened, so that by 1963 a cross between the Llanos line and the Orinocan line produced fertile hybrids in one sex--female. that means you have two populations that can no longer viably mix. most of these offspring will die well before the chance to mate. And considering the number of offspring they have, there will be plenty of D. melanogaster's that are genetically viable. You also have to account for the mutation rate, which, when dealing with large numbers of offspring, will override genetic birth defects wiping out the species.now for your commentary of: new species listed on the page:
O. lamarckiana ( a plant, therefore capable of sexual reproduction) has a split= O. gigasPrimula verticillata and P. floribunda crosses eventually led to=P. kewensisT. dubius and T. porrifoliuscrossed =T. miscellus (also has the advantage of occuring in nature)Raphanus sativus and Brassica oleracea led to a new genus, after a while=genus RaphanobrassicaG. pubescens crossed with G. speciosa = G. tetrahitGottlieb (1973) documented the speciation of Stephanomeira malheurensis (5.2.1)5.2.3 is quite confusing, but suggests that very few changes are necessary in genes for reproductive isolation. new species also observed.now for animals:
5.3.1 (one you posted)
5.3.5 this one being sympatric. read this "After 25 generations of this mating tests showed reproductive isolation between the two strains. Habitat specialization was also produced.They next repeated the experiment without the penalty against habitat switching. The result was the same -- reproductive isolation was produced. They argued that a switching penalty is not necessary to produce reproductive isolation"please note that all you need for speciation is reproductive isolation.5.7 take a look at the chart. you now have two species where there was one.5.8 this one is just wierd.these are the most clear examples of speciation amongst sexually reproducing organisms in the list.

---

Want to help give back to the world community? Did you know that your computer can help? Join the newest TeamEvC Climate Modelling to help improve climate predictions for a better tomorrow.

Do you just not understand that "Kilias, et al. (1980)" is a reference to a paper, or what?You want to know how they determined sterility? Then find the paper they're talking about:

quote:

---

Kilias, G., S. N. Alahiotis and M. Delecanos. 1980. A multifactorial investigation of speciation theory using Drosophila melanogaster. Evolution. 34:730-737.

---

and read for yourself. ..wha? Assortitive mating means that flies from population A only mate with other flies from population A, and flies from B only mate with B, even when you put A and B in immediate physical proximity.In other words, exactly what you would expect if you put two different species together. ..."granted"? I'm sorry; I don't understand. No, there's not. There's a bunch of words that you don't understand because you didn't actually read the paper and you don't know anything about biology. (Apparently, you don't even know what the purpose of an abstract is.)Read the paper. How hard is that, seriously? But pretending you've overturned evolution because the abstract doesn't present the evidence is idiotic. The evidence is in the paper. The abstract simply tells you what the paper is about. ..wha? Granted by who? ..why would it be? Do you just not understand the purpose of abstracts?If you want to know more than the basic essentials, you need to read the paper. It's not clear why that's a major difficulty for you, since everything you need to find the paper is down in the bibliography. That's not at all what happened; the problem here is that you're completely unfamiliar with biology, and as a result, you have absolutely no understand of the material put before you.The whole population did not "die off." Is this the best you have to bring to the table? Name-calling? Did it occur to you that some of us have actually read these papers?No? Typical for creationists, I guess. It's amazing but it literally never occurs to many of you that the primary scientific literature exists to be read. I can think of a number of terms to describe an approach that proceeds from total ignorance of the field in question, but "top-down" is not one of them.

I'm not sure what it means. But it seems to be false. It's certainly like nothing I've ever seen in a biology textbook. For every manuscript anyone's bothered to copy, yes. You could in principle generate a manuscript randomly and then have people copy it, and you'd get the same result: that reproduction with variation produces clades. This is true whether or not the original manuscript has an author.

This will be probably my last post about this subject. But, let me join you in asking one important question.First the premise. Many of the posters here have reduced the question of the origin of life to an "either or" question. That is we either EVOLVED out of nothint OR we were DESIGNED BY one possessing enough resources and power. This is a compelling question because we are EXISTING. We are the EVIDENCE.Now what does the evidence mean? Is it Evolution or by Design?
To prove evoulution, the challenge is "create" a simple squirming and REPRODUCING worm or flying and reproducing fly in your lab out of nothing. I believe your formula is: Amonia + water+ other chemical element + electrical charge ( like the Miller Urey Experiment). If your formula turns out a squirming and reproducing worm, or a flying fly, then you absolutely win. We exist because we evolved--even if this is a big jump from fly to Man.If on the other hand you can not produce a worm or a fly, then just shut up and accept that somebody more intelligent than humans made us. Until you make that squirming worm all your words are just plain rhetorics to say the least. Science fiction, in other words.

LOLAnd just why not say "We don't know yet?"Why stick something in like the "Imaginary Designer" that has absolutely NO evidential support instead of continuing the search?

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This is such a blatant strawman arguement.A. Abiogensis =/ evolution
2. The theorized first life forms would be nowhere near as complex as a worm or a fly I issue a counter-challenge; produce the designer (and his/her/it's designer and so on), until you do so your words are just plain rhetoric. Fairy tales in other words. If you cannot produce the designer, then may I suggest that you just shut up and accept that scientists actually have a clue about reality while religious zealots do not.

---

Just a monkey in a long line of kings.
If "elitist" just means "not the dumbest motherfucker in the room", I'll be an elitist!
*not an actual doctor

before you shoot yourself in the foot even more. hmm. what does creating life have to do with evolution? I'll give you a hint . . .no, better give you the answer. NOTHING!!The creation of life is called abiogenesis (life from non-living material, which even God did). This is what a lot of people are working on. We've gotten some interesting results too.If you want to prove evolution, all you need to do is show that natural selection exists, that random mutations are acted upon by natural selection, and that this can cause speciation. guess what, we have.oh, and this doesn't logically follow: why not someone dumber than us? Why not a group? how about now designer or evolution? it's not exactly either or. oh, and even if yuo do disprove evolution, that still ain't gonna help your case. you need what's called positive evidence--evidence that supports your case--in order to prove something.so think a little before shooting yourself in the foot.

---

Want to help give back to the world community? Did you know that your computer can help? Join the newest TeamEvC Climate Modelling to help improve climate predictions for a better tomorrow.

Nope. It has been for some time either evolution as we know it or something else. Something else has never been defined and could still be a natural process. What fills this void is "we don't know" - not any pre-assumed results. No science proves theory. Not one. What they do is validate theory with tests that try to invalidate the theory ... and that have yet to do so. ... replicating molecule. This is abiogenesis and NOT evolution. It is being done in ever increasing ability as the years go by. That the probability for however we came into existence is 1: we exist. ... and listen to what ignorant and ill-informed people tell you about what is wrong with the rest of the universe? RIIIIGHT.Tell you what: produce a miracle here today. Done yet? Only that will "prove" that god-did-it after all, that is where all the "creation" evidence points eh? Still no miracle? Must be evolution wins by default (by your reasoning anyway). Sorry. Enjoy.Edited by RAZD, : subtitle

---

Join the effort to unravel {AIDS/HIV} {Protenes} and {Cancer} with Team EvC! (click)

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

​

RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.