T1B

Diogenes wrote:

It is a particular branch of evolutionary theory that has been made into canon by secularist academics in spite of it's absolute lack of evidence, namely the spontaneous genesis of species by the process of viable mutation. Other aspects of evolutionary theory such as natural selection pre-date Darwin and are not called into question.

Do you find this case objectionable? And would you feel the same about a teacher who raised legitimate questions about your particular brand of evolutionary theory for the sake of discussion?

A good test of one's hypocricy here.

mvscal wrote:Darwin never said anything about the spontaneous generation of new species by viable mutation and neither has any other credible academic.

During the first part of this century the incorporation of genetics and population biology into studies of evolution led to a Neo-Darwinian theory of evolution that recognized the importance of mutation and variation within a population. Natural selection then became a process that altered the frequency of genes in a population and this defined evolution. This point of view held sway for many decades but more recently the classic Neo-Darwinian view has been replaced by a new concept which includes several other mechanisms in addition to natural selection. Current ideas on evolution are usually referred to as the Modern Synthesis which is described by Futuyma;


"The major tenets of the evolutionary synthesis, then, were that populations contain genetic variation that arises by random (ie. not adaptively directed) mutation and recombination; that populations evolve by changes in gene frequency brought about by random genetic drift, gene flow, and especially natural selection; that most adaptive genetic variants have individually slight phenotypic effects so that phenotypic changes are gradual (although some alleles with discrete effects may be advantageous, as in certain color polymorphisms); that diversification comes about by speciation, which normally entails the gradual evolution of reproductive isolation among populations; and that these processes, continued for sufficiently long, give rise to changes of such great magnitude as to warrant the designation of higher taxonomic levels (genera, families, and so forth)."
- Futuyma, D.J. in Evolutionary Biology, Sinauer Associates, 1986; p.12

Felix wrote:I have no objections whatsoever to someone questioning any theory. That's what science is. But what is it about evolution that evokes so much passion.

Diogenes wrote:
Well amybe you as a true believer can tell us how speciation was to occur if not by mutation. And I'm glad you agree these nutjobs lack credibility at least...

Diogenes wrote:
Well the ID advocates thank you for you support. Probably what evokes so much passion about Darwinism is that it isn't science, it is force-fed in public schools as if it was, and any questioning of it is verbotten.

Felix wrote: I'm not sure exactly what "spontaneous genesis of a species" is supposed to mean....

Felix wrote: Then by all means, how would you describe Darwin's theory of evolution....

Felix wrote: Intelligent design is not science....

Diogenes wrote: Which words don't you understand? Or did I misspell something?

Not falsifiable. Therefore, not science. At this point in time, it is pretty much a de facto state religion.

1. There are many conceivable lines of evidence that could falsify evolution. For example:
* a static fossil record;
* true chimeras, that is, organisms that combined parts from several different and diverse lineages (such as mermaids and centaurs) and which are not explained by lateral gene transfer, which transfers relatively small amounts of DNA between lineages, or symbiosis, where two whole organisms come together;
* a mechanism that would prevent mutations from accumulating;
* observations of organisms being created.

It is a critique of the dogma of Darwinism. And no less or more scientific than Darwinmism is.

Felix wrote:

Diogenes wrote: Which words don't you understand? Or did I misspell something?

I've never heard the term "spontaneous genesis" as it relates to evolution...I've seen it used in discussions of abiogenesis, but never in the discussion of evolutionary theory...do you mean the spontaneous creation of a new species? If so, that's not how evolution works.

Felix wrote:

Not falsifiable. Therefore, not science. At this point in time, it is pretty much a de facto state religion.

from talk origins

Felix wrote:

It is a critique of the dogma of Darwinism. And no less or more scientific than Darwinism is.

no it's not...it's creationism dressed up as "science"....if you'd watched the video, you'd have seen Dr. Miller kick the whole "intelligent design" argument to the curb...

mvscal wrote:

Diogenes wrote:

Felix wrote: I'm not sure exactly what "spontaneous genesis of a species" is supposed to mean....

Which words don't you understand? Or did I misspell something?

The question is which word don't YOU understand and the answer is 'spontaneous.'

Spontaneous genesis of species by viable mutation means that viable mutations instantly result in new species. Needless to say, that is a strawman argument because NOBODY is suggesting that that is the case. Certainly Darwin never suggested that it might be so.

The obvious conclusion is that you are either an idiot or are intellectually dishonest. My guess would be both.

mvscal wrote:I still don't know what the word spontaneous means.

mvscal wrote:Feel free to add the word spontaneous to mutation in your reading of Darwin's work.

Diogenes wrote:
Just as soon as you point out where I stated that Darwin wrote about mutations, spontaneous or otherwise.

mvscal wrote:

Diogenes wrote:Just as soon as you point out where I stated that Darwin wrote about mutations, spontaneous or otherwise.

It [Darwnian Evolution] is a particular branch of evolutionary theory that has been made into canon by secularist academics in spite of it's absolute lack of evidence, namely the spontaneous genesis of species by the process of viable mutation.

Mutations have nothing to do with Darwin's theories. While mutations have been incorporated into subsequent theorizing, NOBODY with ANY credibility has suggested that viable mutation will result in spontaneous speciation. It is only one of many different factors and not even a particularly significant one.

Felix wrote:

Diogenes wrote:
Just as soon as you point out where I stated that Darwin wrote about mutations, spontaneous or otherwise.

you wrote "spontaneous genesis"

Main Entry: gen·e·sis
Pronunciation: \ˈje-nə-səs\
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural gen·e·ses \-ˌsēz\
Etymology: Latin, from Greek, from gignesthai to be born — more at kin
Date: circa 1604
: the origin or coming into being of something

Main Entry: spon·ta·ne·ous
Pronunciation: \spän-ˈtā-nē-əs\
Function: adjective
Etymology: Late Latin spontaneus, from Latin sponte of one's free will, voluntarily
Date: 1653

5 : developing or occurring without apparent external influence, force, cause, or treatment
6 : not apparently contrived or manipulated : natural

During the first part of this century the incorporation of genetics and population biology into studies of evolution led to a Neo-Darwinian theory of evolution that recognized the importance of mutation and variation within a population. Natural selection then became a process that altered the frequency of genes in a population and this defined evolution. This point of view held sway for many decades but more recently the classic Neo-Darwinian view has been replaced by a new concept which includes several other mechanisms in addition to natural selection. Current ideas on evolution are usually referred to as the Modern Synthesis which is described by Futuyma;


"The major tenets of the evolutionary synthesis, then, were that populations contain genetic variation that arises by random (ie. not adaptively directed) mutation and recombination; that populations evolve by changes in gene frequency brought about by random genetic drift, gene flow, and especially natural selection; that most adaptive genetic variants have individually slight phenotypic effects so that phenotypic changes are gradual (although some alleles with discrete effects may be advantageous, as in certain color polymorphisms); that diversification comes about by speciation, which normally entails the gradual evolution of reproductive isolation among populations; and that these processes, continued for sufficiently long, give rise to changes of such great magnitude as to warrant the designation of higher taxonomic levels (genera, families, and so forth)."
- Futuyma, D.J. in Evolutionary Biology, Sinauer Associates, 1986; p.12

mvscal wrote:The theory that mutation can cause speciation was tested extensively in research with fruit flies. They ended up with a shitload of genetic variation and no speciation.

Diogenes wrote:According to Darwinism it works by random mutations and natural selection. If said mutations are random, then they are by definition undirected and hence spontaneous. Of course Darwinists have been trying for decades to create non-destructive mutations in the lab with no luck. All of those poor fruit flies. But the entire history of life on earth is based on said mutations occuring on their own?

And they accuse Creationists of being religious.

mvscal wrote:Spontaneous genesis of species by viable mutation means that viable mutations instantly result in new species.

Diogenes wrote:
Sigh....

From merriam-webster.com

Main Entry: gen·e·sis
Pronunciation: \ˈje-nə-səs\
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural gen·e·ses \-ˌsēz\
Etymology: Latin, from Greek, from gignesthai to be born — more at kin
Date: circa 1604
: the origin or coming into being of something

Main Entry: spon·ta·ne·ous
Pronunciation: \spän-ˈtā-nē-əs\
Function: adjective
Etymology: Late Latin spontaneus, from Latin sponte of one's free will, voluntarily
Date: 1653

5 : developing or occurring without apparent external influence, force, cause, or treatment
6 : not apparently contrived or manipulated : natural

Is that better?

During the first part of this century the incorporation of genetics and population biology into studies of evolution led to a Neo-Darwinian theory of evolution that recognized the importance of mutation and variation within a population. Natural selection then became a process that altered the frequency of genes in a population and this defined evolution. This point of view held sway for many decades but more recently the classic Neo-Darwinian view has been replaced by a new concept which includes several other mechanisms in addition to natural selection. Current ideas on evolution are usually referred to as the Modern Synthesis which is described by Futuyma;


"The major tenets of the evolutionary synthesis, then, were that populations contain genetic variation that arises by random (ie. not adaptively directed) mutation and recombination; that populations evolve by changes in gene frequency brought about by random genetic drift, gene flow, and especially natural selection; that most adaptive genetic variants have individually slight phenotypic effects so that phenotypic changes are gradual (although some alleles with discrete effects may be advantageous, as in certain color polymorphisms); that diversification comes about by speciation, which normally entails the gradual evolution of reproductive isolation among populations; and that these processes, continued for sufficiently long, give rise to changes of such great magnitude as to warrant the designation of higher taxonomic levels (genera, families, and so forth)."
- Futuyma, D.J. in Evolutionary Biology, Sinauer Associates, 1986; p.12

mvscal wrote:He has no point. He obviously doesn't know what the fuck he's talking about so now he is babbling, spinning and reaching for anything to attempt to distract attention away from his comical fucktardery.

Felix wrote:yeah, I've got to admit that I've never seen a proponent of creationism use one of the most visited evolutionary sites on the internet...

Felix wrote:what's your point in quoting this?

mvscal wrote:It is only one of many different factors and not even a particularly significant one.

mvscal wrote:Of course it is important...

mvscal wrote:...now he is babbling, spinning and reaching...

mvscal wrote:If mutations cause speciation without any other external influence (ie spontaneous) then the result would necessarily be immediate.

Mr T wrote:Can't we all just get along?

mvscal wrote:

Diogenes wrote:

mvscal wrote:The theory that mutation can cause speciation was tested extensively in research with fruit flies. They ended up with a shitload of genetic variation and no speciation.

Really? I didn't know that...

Yeah, about one hundred years ago. I understand you're about 3,000 years behind the times, though.

Mikey wrote:If you call it "Intelligent Design" it suddenly gains scientific validity

Mikey wrote:We can greatly improve the quality of many aspects of our lives just by adding some "intelligents".

Diogenes wrote:

Mikey wrote:If you call it "Intelligent Design" it suddenly gains scientific validity

Refering to ID as Creationism doesn't do anything to invalidate either, it just demonstrates your ignorance and dishonesty.

Felix wrote:it doesn't get much simpler than this

Your lies are making Baby Jeebus sad.

Diogenes wrote: And only a simpleton would think that this 'proves' speciation.

So I guess Hawaiians, Africans and Euros are all different species.

Speciation in action?
In the summer of 1995, at least 15 iguanas survived Hurricane Marilyn on a raft of uprooted trees. They rode the high seas for a month before colonizing the Caribbean island, Anguilla. These few individuals were perhaps the first of their species, Iguana iguana, to reach the island. If there were other intrepid Iguana iguana colonizers of Anguilla, they died out before humans could record their presence.

Evolutionary biologists would love to know what happens next: will the colonizing iguanas die out, will they survive and change only slightly, or will they become reproductively isolated from other Iguana iguana and become a new species? We could be watching the first steps of an allopatric speciation event, but in such a short time we can’t be sure.

A plausible model: We have several plausible models of how speciation occurs—but of course, it’s hard for us to get an eye-witness account of a natural speciation event since most of these events happened in the distant past. We can figure out that speciation events happened and often when they happened, but it’s more difficult to figure out how they happened.

Diogenes wrote: So migration causes speciation. this fits in nicely with the social Darwinists who belive that some 'races' are superior to others. Of course there's nothing scientific about it, as they come close to admitting

And yet Darwinists claim to know how speciation occurs.
And Not Science.

you know what I find troubling about people like you....the earth is approximately 6 billion years old and somehow you expect scientists to explain exactly how everything happened over the course of those 6 billion years in the 500 or so years that man has contemplated how everything came about...and if they can't, you're willing to simply credit some unknown being as having created it all via some mechanism that no one can fathom....

Diogenes wrote:
What I am advocating (not expecting, of course) is that they acknowledge that their speculations are no more than that.

And to acknowledge that if their methodology is actually correct, that it is possible if not likely, that said methods had an external impetus.

But instead what we get is dogmatic insistence on orthodoxy, smears and vituperation of heretical scientific inquiry, and forcible indoctrination of the next generation funded by taxpayer money.

And of course, as this thread demonstrates, blatant hypocrisy. Still waiting for one of the True Believers here to say exactly why it is abominable for some worthless tool to be sued over statements that are at the minimum highly unprofessional, and yet it is okay to fire any teacher who even discusses the scientific objections to the current orthodoxy in evolutionary theory.

First, the statute must have a secular legislative purpose; second, its principal or primary effect must be one that neither advances nor inhibits religion; finally, the statute must not foster an excessive government entanglement with religion. Permissable conduct must meet all three criteria

Felix wrote:

Diogenes wrote:
What I am advocating (not expecting, of course) is that they acknowledge that their speculations are no more than that.

...it's observed, it's been tested, and been recreated in experiments...

Felix wrote:

And to acknowledge that if their methodology is actually correct, that it is possible if not likely, that said methods had an external impetus.

what the fuck is this supposed to mean?

Felix wrote:

But instead what we get is dogmatic insistence on orthodoxy, smears and vituperation of heretical scientific inquiry, and forcible indoctrination of the next generation funded by taxpayer money.

again, you seem to be arguing intelligent design, which as I stated earlier is nothing more than dressed up creationism

Felix wrote:

And of course, as this thread demonstrates, blatant hypocrisy. Still waiting for one of the True Believers here to say exactly why it is abominable for some worthless tool to be sued over statements that are at the minimum highly unprofessional, and yet it is okay to fire any teacher who even discusses the scientific objections to the current orthodoxy in evolutionary theory.

he was sued (and rightfully so) because he denigrated creationism, which pretty much singles out christian tenets....the establishment clause of the First Amendment to the constitution works both ways, not only does it outlaw establishment of a state religion, but it also protects those that choose to worship as they wish....the Supreme Court ruling in the case of Lemon v. Kurtzman established a standard to measure whether such a statement uttered by Corbett violates the establishment clause

mvscal wrote:

Diogenes wrote:That if speciation occurred due to mutation, genetic drift et al, that it is more likely than not that there was some outside force at work behind it. Whether it was a deity, space aliens, time travelers...

... environmental pressure...

Caused the simultaneous development of RNA and DNA (do you need me to define simultaneous for you)?

Caused abiogenesis?

And the True Believers say ID advocates are religious.

Felix wrote:

Diogenes wrote:
What I am advocating (not expecting, of course) is that they acknowledge that their speculations are no more than that.

there is nothing "speculative" about it...it's observed, it's been tested, and been recreated in experiments....you know, science

And of course, as this thread demonstrates, blatant hypocrisy. Still waiting for one of the True Believers here to say exactly why it is abominable for some worthless tool to be sued over statements that are at the minimum highly unprofessional, and yet it is okay to fire any teacher who even discusses the scientific objections to the current orthodoxy in evolutionary theory.

he was sued (and rightfully so) because he denigrated creationism, which pretty much singles out christian tenets....the establishment clause of the First Amendment to the constitution works both ways, not only does it outlaw establishment of a state religion, but it also protects those that choose to worship as they wish....the Supreme Court ruling in the case of Lemon v. Kurtzman established a standard to measure whether such a statement uttered by Corbett violates the establishment clause

First, the statute must have a secular legislative purpose; second, its principal or primary effect must be one that neither advances nor inhibits religion; finally, the statute must not foster an excessive government entanglement with religion. Permissable conduct must meet all three criteria

Farnan contended that Corbett violated the Establishment Clause by
making comments hostile to religion and to Christianity in particular. Obviously by singling out creationism Corbett violated the ruling of inhibiting religion....the U.S. District Court of California was right in their decision.....

Diogenes wrote: Speciation? They've tried and failed.

Terry in Crapchester wrote:I get what you're saying, but, you're wasting your time here. Consider who you're addressing: the same person who routinely refers to evolution as "religion" and creationism as "science."

Terry in Crapchester wrote:Seems to me that the teacher's right to free speech, which he doesn't completely check at the door of his place of employment, should have protected this comment from legal challenge.

mvscal wrote:We were talking about speciation not abiogenesis.

Diogenes wrote:That if speciation occurred due to mutation, genetic drift et al, that it is more likely than not that there was some outside force at work behind it. Whether it was a deity, space aliens, time travelers...

Acknowledge the possibility that something or someone designed life as we know it and used Darwin's methodology to get there. And when it comes to biogenesis, and the development of DNA/RNA, acknowledge that the odds against something so complex arising out of random chance are great enough that some outside force is more likely than not.

Felix wrote:

Diogenes wrote:Speciation? They've tried and failed.

define exactly what you mean by "species"

see this is the sort of bait and switch that die-hard creationists have been using since the introduction of evolutionary theory...

Diogenes wrote:
When have they ever been able to demonstrate speciation in the lab, by your definition of speciation (whatever that is)?

Bullini, L and Nascetti, G, 1991, Speciation by Hybridization in phasmids and other insects, Canadian Journal of Zoology, Volume 68(8), pages 1747-1760.

Ramadevon, S and Deaken, M.A.B., 1991, The Gibbons speciation mechanism, Journal of Theoretical Biology, Volume 145(4) pages 447-456.

Sharman, G.B., Close, R.L, Maynes, G.M., 1991, Chromosome evolution, phylogeny, and speciation of rock wallabies, Australian Journal of Zoology, Volume 37(2-4), pages 351-363.

Werth, C. R., and Windham, M.D., 1991, A model for divergent, allopatric, speciation of polyploid pteridophytes resulting from silencing of duplicate- gene expression, AM-Natural, Volume 137(4):515-526.

Spooner, D.M., Sytsma, K.J., Smith, J., A Molecular reexamination of diploid hybrid speciation of Solanum raphanifolium, Evolution, Volume 45, Number 3, pages 757-764.

Arnold, M.L., Buckner, C.M., Robinson, J.J., 1991, Pollen-mediated introgression and hybrid speciation in Louisiana Irises, P-NAS-US, Volume 88, Number 4, pages 1398-1402.

Nevo, E., 1991, Evolutionary Theory and process of active speciation and adaptive radiation in subterranean mole rats, spalax-ehrenbergi superspecies, in Israel, Evolutionary Biology, Volume 25, pages 1-125.

Weiberg, James R.. Starczak, Victoria R.. Jorg, Daniele. Evidence for rapid speciation following a founder event in the laboratory. Evolution. V46. P1214(7) August, 1992.

Kluger, Jeffrey. Go fish. (rapid fish speciation in African lakes). Discover. V13. P18(1) March, 1992.

Hauffe, Heidi C.. Searle, Jeremy B.. A disappearing speciation event? (response to J.A. Coyne, Nature, vol. 355, p. 511, 1992). Nature. V357. P26(1) May 7, 1992.

Barrowclough, George F.. Speciation and Geographic Variation in Black-tailed Gnatcatchers. (book reviews) The Condor. V94. P555(2) May, 1992.

Rabe, Eric W.. Haufler, Christopher H.. Incipient polyploid speciation in the maidenhair fern (Adiantum pedatum; Adiantaceae)? The American Journal of Botany. V79. P701(7) June, 1992.

Nores, Manuel. Bird speciation in subtropical South America in relation to forest expansion and retraction. The Auk. V109. P346(12) April, 1992.

Kondrashov, Alexey S.. Jablonka, Eva. Lamb, Marion J.. Species and speciation. (response to J.A. Coyne, Nature, vol. 355, p. 511, 1992). Nature. V356. P752(1) April 30, 1992.

Orr, H. Allen. Is single-gene speciation possible?. Evolution. V45. P764(6) May, 1991.

Miller, Julie Ann. Pathogens and speciation. (Research Update). BioScience. V40. P714(1) Nov, 1990.

Barton, N.H. Hewitt, G.M. Adaptation, speciation and hybrid zones; many species are divided into a mosaic of genetically distinct populations, separated by narrow zones of hybridization. Studies of hybrid zones allow us to quantify the genetic differences responsible for speciation, to measure the diffusion of genes between diverging taxa, and to understand the spread of alternative adaptations. (includes related information) Nature. V341. P497(7) Oct 12, 1989.

Wright, Karen. A breed apart; finicky flies lend credence to a theory of speciation. Scientific American. V260. P22(2) Feb, 1989.

Feder, Jeffrey L. Bush, Guy L. A field test of differential host-plant usage between two sibling species of Rhagoletis pomonella fruit flies (Diptera: Tephritidae) and its consequences for sympatric models of speciation. Evolution. V43. P1813(7) Dec, 1989.

Soltis, Douglas E. Soltis, Pamela S. Allopolyploid speciation in Tragopogon: insights from chloroplast DNA. The American Journal of Botany. V76. P1119(6) August, 1989.

Diogenes wrote:

Terry in Crapchester wrote:Seems to me that the teacher's right to free speech, which he doesn't completely check at the door of his place of employment, should have protected this comment from legal challenge.

So if a teacher espoused ID you'd be down with that too? Free speech and all.

Terry in Crapchester wrote:
Wrong analysis here.

The Lemon test deals specifically with legislative enactments, i.e., laws passed by the federal, state or local governments. In the case at bar, we're dealing with no such thing. Rather, we're dealing with the offhand comments of a single public school teacher. Nothing here even to suggest that the school board endorsed these comments. Seems to me that the teacher's right to free speech, which he doesn't completely check at the door of his place of employment, should have protected this comment from legal challenge.

Terry in Crapchester wrote:

Diogenes wrote:

Terry in Crapchester wrote:Seems to me that the teacher's right to free speech, which he doesn't completely check at the door of his place of employment, should have protected this comment from legal challenge.

So if a teacher espoused ID you'd be down with that too? Free speech and all.

Asked and answered already. The issue there would be competency, not compliance with the Constitution.

Felix wrote:http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.html

Diogenes wrote:Then the same standard should apply to the tool in question.