[extropy-chat] Re: intelligent design homework

[justin corwin]

On 8/7/05, Robert Lindauer <robgobblin at aol.com> wrote:
> On Aug 7, 2005, at 2:19 PM, ben wrote:
> >  Evolution gives all these facts a framework to hang on,
> So does intelligent design and Hegelian biology, without hard evidence
> it's irrelevant, ne?

I'm afraid not. Evolutionary theory makes specific predictions about
what will happen to a specific population of organisms in certain
conditions. As an example, I think that someone earlier mentioned
microbiologists culturing bacteria to spec using successive
generations of slightly altered environment. A subset of evolutionary
theory, natural selection, shows that given certain environmental
changes, a population of bacteria will change in certain ways. Heat
resistance, for example, might be selected for, allowing eventual
descendants to survive in heat that would have been deadly to all
ancestor strains. You can do this at home, if you feel like it, with
agar, and antibacterials, like amoxil. two identical populations, one
killed immediately by high dosage, the other dosed tiny to high over a
long period of time. Eventually the changed agar population will be
able to withstand antibacterial concentrations that would have killed
every single bacteria that started out in that agar jar. Evolution
explains this. How does Hegelian biology? How does Intelligent Design?

> I remain thoroughly unimpressed with
> the non-existent evolutionary response to the speciation problem.

Speciation is not a "problem". It's just a consequence of evolution. I
assume, like most creationists, you use the folk taxonomic approach,
total discontinuity between species, and 'physical' inability to
reproduce. This has been observed fewer times than more subtle
speciation, such as isolating preferential mating groups descending
from a common mating group leading to speciation. Unfortunately, this
doesn't save you.

Ka Pow! References from scientists observing speciation with inability
to reproduce:

#  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.

#  Dobzhansky, T. 1973. Species of Drosophila: New Excitement in an
Old Field. Science 177:664-669

There are many more where this came from. A cursory Google will also
lead you to talkorigins.org, where a poor man, clearly addled from
constant arguing with creationists on usenet, has searched through the
literature and found hundreds of examples of speciation, in plants,
animals, insects, etc. All that happened in controlled observed
scientific modern experiments.

Earlier in this thread you were complaining about a poor biology
teacher you had, and then proceeded to make some 'arguments' about
chromosomal change leading inescapably to mules. I don't know exactly
where you got this idea, but it's not right. Euploid numbers(the
normal amount of chromosomes in a population) have been observed to
change before, and deviation from Euploidy in an organism isn't
instant death. Google "XYY" syndrome, and other Aneuploid disorders to
see that many humans survive and can reproduce in such situations.

Plants in particular tend to mix chromosome numbers and contents very
aggressively through hybridization, which sometimes leads to
non-backward reproductive species. Google "Polyploidization" for a
common mechanism.

And chromosomes, while important in diploids like ourselves, aren't
the whole story. Many species-emblematic differences can be contained
within similar Euploid numbers, via various mechanisms. Google
Chromosomal translocation, and inversion for higher mammal examples.
Simpler organisms, like prokaryotes have even wierder genetic
situations, with plasmids throughout the cell, and central single
chromosome.
 

> My best friend has a miniature terrier/rhodesian ridgeback mix.  And
> you've missed the point. Deliberately?

I need to point out here that most people use a taxonomic definition
of species which is different than creationists. Genetic inability to
reproduce is not the only criterion most scientists use. Creationists
seem to use it because it's more rare, and conjures specters of frogs
turning into ducks.

That being said, any dog breeder can tell you that there are breeds of
dog that are very difficult to cross. Irish Setters and Beagles come
up in a cursory Google. Besides this point, you have yet to show why
changing characteristics doesn't imply evolution. Unless you have
sneakily decided to accept natural selection, and transitioned to
another creationist sticking point, that species are somehow imbued
with the local power to differentiate, but get stopped when they 'go
to far' so as to remain the same species.

> Indeed, this distinction, the difference between genetically compatible
> and genetically incompatible groups which was formerly known as
> "species" is one that has been apparently deliberately vaguarized by
> evolutionary biologists over time by presenting to some people as
> examples of speciation, the various kinds of dogs.  I didn't make this
> example up, this was the standard example given in Bio 101 at UCLA 10
> years ago (oy vey, more than 10 years ago, jeez I'm getting old.)

Scientists did not 'start out' with the definition of reproductive
incompatibility and confuse it with smaller differentiation. Evolution
was posited independently of genetic theory. Darwin was not aware of
Mendel's work, according to biographers.

Change in allele frequency over time occurs. Dogs show this. They're
used because it's very obvious that Chihuahuas and Great Danes are
different, despite having exactly the same ancestors. This is an
example of directed evolution. The fact that you've decided to draw a
line in the sand which you call reproductive speciation(or whatever)
is not important. It's still evolution.

There are examples of organisms violating your rule ALSO, but that
doesn't mean scientists need to change their examples to address your
specific 'logical argument'.

I don't generally do this, because this kind of argument rarely
results in any changed minds. But no one seemed to be addressing the
arguments you clearly hold most dearly. I don't know where you heard
them exactly, but they don't really distinguish themselves from most
of the arguments I've heard creationists make over the years.

But you seem to be interested in details, so I thought it might be
worth the time to write a little down. I also wouldn't want anyone to
get the idea that you have a valid point. There are a lot of lurkers
on the Extropy list, and carefully tuned verbiage sometimes sounds
pretty convincing.

I would be interested, just in a vague intellectual way, whether you
were religious and sought out these 'arguments' or discovered them and
changed your opinion. I too was religious once, but I shook it off in
my late teens on some investigation.

If you're interested in investigating more, there are probably plenty
of books delving into evolutionary theory that would be better for you
than some moldy college textbook written by some tenured state college
professor. Stephen Jay Gould(recently deceased) wrote very interesting
popular works exploring biology for the laymen. It's not technical,
there's little math, but it is sciency, and decently rigorous.

I suppose since I'm involved, you can bring up any more objections you
have, and I'll do my best to address them. I wouldn't want you to come
away from this conversation with the impression that there aren't
answers to some unvoiced objection. I'm not a biologist, but with a
little googlage and local lookup in the books I do have, I should be
able to deal with most of it.

best,

-- 
Justin Corwin
outlawpoet at hell.com
http://outlawpoet.blogspot.com
http://www.adaptiveai.com