Intelligent Design Theory: Science or Religion?

wandel, I remember an article, I believe it was in the National Geographic, about blind insects in the caves of Tennessee. Once sighted, they have evolved their other senses to survive in darkness. To find their food and to protect themselves from their predators.

Interesting about the insects, C.I. This is similar to what Myers is saying about blind and sighted varieties of Astyanax fish.

The lack of expressions of certain genes in animals possibly caused by the expression of others is the thesis of Sean Carrolls Book "The Making of the Fittest". He discusses many other expressions of genes in animals. His first was the discussion of the "Ice Fish" which , as an adaptation to ultra cold water that had appeared in th SOuthern oceans in the last 15 million years. The ancestral icefish had lost hemoglobin in its blood and the genetic expression is seen in the fish's DNA. The hemoglobin was lost in favor of a blood that had an increase in a natural sugar which acts as an Antifreeze. The adaptation for cold water life includes larger gills, scaless skin that allows direct absorption of oxygen , and some other expressions. All from the turning off of one gene and the turning on of another. The "Fossil" genes that serve as triggers for hemoglobin, are still seen as relict non functioning sections of genes in the DNA while those that express for the "antifreeze" are seen as active sections.

The interesting thing is the adaptation to a gradually changing environment since the Miocene. This change is confirmed by stratigraphic analysis of the sediments in the southern oceans as the continents have moved about, opening the ocean to flow of supercooled water.

CArrols use of fossil gene , as a term for how many of these expressions are followed in an organisms evolution, is just as valid as those fossils seen in sediment. The only thing is that sed fossils cannot be analyzed for how the dead animals physiology had changed as an adaptive measure.


THe Discovery Institutes plea for its own "explanations" about the cave fish cannot be shown to occur , no matter how they try to dress that pig. In typical ID/Creationist fashion, they talk of limited expressions being all that can happen in natural selection, and that evolution cannot explain new organism groups, is just as naive as the CreationisT belief in a "Flood". The dicovery of the genetic links to morphological changes is rather profound and develops a sound mechanism for gradual change as environments undergo rmajor changes through time.

How can there be such a thing as a "lack" of features in an organism. The organism is what it is. "Lack" is anthropomorphic.

And what is "ultra cold" water in nature?

And what does "lost hemoglobin in its blood" mean?

And how could genetic expression not be seen in the fish's DNA.



Would anyone have noticed if that had read-



What's all this about genes turning on and off in nature.



Obviously. If there was no adaptation there would be no organism to screw a fee out of.

"Opening the oceans"!! Jeeze. "Supercooled water"!! Good grief.



Obviously. If they are naive they can be expected to think two naive things can't they? The sentence is incoherent.

What a bunch of simplistic, anthropomorphic stupidities dressed up as pop pseudo-science that post is fm. It's teleology running wild.

I feel sorry for US kids if that is the sort of stuff being brayed at them and their objections not being listened to.



Every other surviving organism might have that sort of thing said about it.

No wonder parents in England are beating at the doors of Church schools and raising property prices in the vicinity of them.

fm wrote-



Translated into English that means that fm is "rather profound" himself. I doubt it has any other meaning.

I wanted to edit my post to provide information about the Icefish location. However, the edit wouldnt go through (Maybe spendi posted something and it jerely preventyed me from using the edit feature).

The icefish's primary (and only) digs are in the seas just around Bouvet Island (at least thats the present limits since noone has gone after its range information). Bouvet Islan is just about 300mi N of the ANtarctic Circle at a point 1600 Mi Southwest of Cape of Good Hope and 3000 mi E of CApe Horn. Although known since the late 1700's, Bouvet Island hasd only been mapped in 1928 by the Norvegia expedition. That expedition had its main mission to establish a supplies cache for crews of shipwrecked whale ships. The expeditions biologist , Ditlef Rustad had captured a few of these little fish and was amazed at how they appeared translucent . He named them "white crocodile fish" and examined their colorless blood (which was mostly depleted in hemoglobin).

The fish, a subspecies of NOTOTHENOIDS (ARCTIC CODS) , had gradually developed this antifreeze system in a manner that coincided neatly with the breakup of Antarctica fromSouth America . The breakup , according to my plate tectonics notebook, began to occur about 30 MYA. The first fossils of the arctic cods show up in sediments of 25 mya and the development of the icefish (as interpreted from counting backwards on gene segments) was about 12 mya. The entire sequence appears nicely fit within the tectonic history of the area. It clearly shows that icefish developed as an adaptation to an environmental challenge.

The following article is a good example of why ID is not just an academic discussion, but a real problem in society. Intentional misunderstandings of evolution and acceptance of ID are not just errors in biology, they are essentially rejections of science itself. They are the symptoms of a pattern of though which is ultimately destructive to civilization and humanity (in my opinion).



article

Maybe we should all stop posting in case we prevent fm being able to edit his hopeless efforts.



Considering all the things that have been "gone after" (read talk yourself into a pork fest) it must be that this creature is pretty damn boring.

A biologist was "amazed" was he? Did he do any ooing and aahing fm with his eyebrows going up? Is he amazed that birds fly or penguins walk funny. What utter unscientific dross.

How on earth can their blood have been "depleted"? Were it "enriched" they would have been extinct one presumes.

And the word "capture" is usually reserved for large fierce beasts and not little fish scooped up in nets.

Why do you abbreviate "million years ago" and then take all that bandwidth to tell us where Bouvet Island is located when any of us interested can Google it up. That's contradictory fm.

Why do you keep arguing with New Earthers when there are none on this thread?

Why do you keep addressing us as if we are little children?

fm-

How do you avoid reading my posts if someone else quotes them which I could easily get someone to do if I could be arsed messing about with your foolishness.

Scroll through I suppose but you could have done that with the original.

It is well known that shutting your eyes and ears is an admission of having lost the argument.

How on earth did you get a senior post in the educational system?

Jerry Coyne is an American professor of biology, known for his commentary on the intelligent design debate. He is currently a professor at the University of Chicago in the Department of Ecology and Evolution.

Which means he has an axe to grind.

And he does just that in ros's post which has no bearing on the thread title except insofar as he asserts that ID is a "gussied-up"
descendant of Creationism which it isn't.

His assertion is a mere verbal trick to facilitate him attacking ID by attacking Creationism. Any literate person will thus treat his spiel with some suspicion. Associating groups of people with other groups easier to villify is a well tried propaganda technique.

As there are no Creationists on this thread I am at a loss to understand why ros thought fit to post as he has done.



Mr Coyne makes play in belief in atoms. Atom is a word given to the unknown and unknowable item which creates certain effects in instruments. As physics has progressed it has become apparent that the "atom" has disappeared from view. It is now expressed mathematically. The common view of such things, which is all a biologist can be expected to have I suppose, is a long time out of date. Mr Coyne is thus addressing the common people, and not the scientific community, and playing upon their ignorance, understandable as that is. Which is another reason why his polemic ought to have no place on a science thread. Even one where few scientists participate.



That is a slippery way of saying that only scientifically literate people should be running the show. The known absence of scientifically literate people from elected positions shows clearly that they have been selected out in the democratic process so why Coyne should assert that he is shocked is really inexplicable from an evolutionary perspective. A scientifically literate person might wonder why scientifically literate people have been selected out in the democratic process but he wouldn't dispute that they had been selected out and he certainly wouldn't be shocked by any evidence that they had been.

Decoded and deconstructed on the unconscious level Coyne is shocked that a totalitarian scientific consensus, with him at its head, is not running the show.

And I'll bet money he can't even explain lingerie shops despite him having some experience of their advantages and disadvantages.



And no-one has asked a group of Presidential candidates if they believe in the existence of atoms (effects in instruments). It has been merely supposed that they have been asked.

And a modern theoretical physicist would have asked what was meant by the question. And if the questioner expressed surprise at such a reply our physicist could be forgiven for thinking that the suprise denoted a "truly appalling show of scientific illiteracy." (sic).

And why is scientific illiteracy appalling. Some people think that there are less than ten scientifically literate people on earth. One or two of whom, if they can be bothered, might like to out Coyne the Coynes of this world. And can justify it. If he can bray his superiority over us oiks then anybody else is entitled to bray their's over him.

Aren't they? Well ros--aren't they?

Had I been writing the drivel, rowing my boat ashore scientifically, I would have said "truly appalling show of scientific literacy". By Coyne's own argument it would be a brilliant show of scientific illiteracy"-- "would it not"? If not knowing what an atom is is actually scientifically illiterate which Coyne assumes it is.

And if he goes on, as he does, to equate this unbelief in atoms (not their effects in instruments) with unbelief in evolution and that the unbelief in either shows scientific illiteracy then he is in a tough spot as scientifically literate people don't believe in the existence of atoms in the commonsensical way Coyne does and thus his logic calls into question a belief in evolution. His having equated the two beliefs.

That is one very stupid introduction to an essay ros. Especially when it is remembered that it will have been pored over and perfected before being released upon the world of stevedores, gas pumpers, sex workers, mortgage consultants, road builders, car salesmen etc etc etc. all of whose illiteracy is assumed by the author.

KANSAS UPDATE

wande-

Is Ms Gamble qualified to say what people need and to tell them what they should do?

And I feel a bit sorry for the previous education commissioner if it is true that the new one has brought a new sense of progress and productivity to the board.

Do you know the evidence for the new one being "top notch"? You are always on about evidence.

What was said about the previous commissioner when s/he was appointed? I hope it wasn't the s/he was "top notch" and had brought a new sense of progress and productivity to the board.

You're all over the place.

Too late.

SAying that they want the "best education opportunities for the children" and, in the same breath supporting an anti-science approach is what Kansas has been entertaining us with in the last few years. I hope that when the Louisiana case gets to court the state ed committee will be watching. That is of course, unless they wish to have even more comedy routines designed after them.

Dee-diddi-de-dee,
diddie de -dee-dee
Come on you auntie-ideares
Get washed to sea.

Hey fm-

If we are closely related to monkeys and our DNA is nearly like their's how come monkeys never learned how to do the misssionary position?

It isn't as if it would take a lot of thinking up is it?

spendi, Monkeys are quite intelligent animals. Why don't you go show them how to do it; they learn quickly.

It could be two things 1) Maybe they have nothing to talk about.

or 2) If I was a female and had to make the shangalangadingdong with the likes of you, I'd like you to be somewhere where I didn't have to set eyes on you.

Joe(dip da dip dah dip)Nation

You guys fell for Spendi's trap: You assumed he was telling the truth.

Monkeys DO have missionary sex. In fact, they have sex in any way possible.

video here: http://video.aol.com/video-detail/monkeys-teach-us-missionary-monkey-sex/587316138



T
K
O

A bit of light relief. I'm fed up of pompous po-faced know-alls.

Fancy getting Joe fantasising.

Thanks TKO.