Picky female frogs drive evolution of new species in less than 8,000 years

No, my point was not about the science. It is more an issue of logic and assumptions. There are three frog populations discussed. A northern one, a southern one, and a small pocket of "southern" frogs in the northern region.

The assumption is, apparently, that because the frogs in the small pocket in the north and the larger population in the south appear to be the same (and, I assume, have very similar DNA), that therefore they came from the same original frog population and then developed along separate paths because they were geographically separated for a long time. I hope I am interpreting the article correctly.

The underlying assumption seems to go something like this: all animals originally came from a single source, and we can tell how closely related one group is to another by looking at DNA. In other words, it assumes Darwinism. So the conclusions can't be used to support Darwinism.

"Over several thousand years, this behavior created a reproductively isolated population - essentially a new species - that is unable to mate with either of the original frog populations."

This is a good story, which accommodates the observations and the accepted belief system. But since none of today's scientists were there 8000 years ago to verify that indeed all of the "southern" frogs were at one time part of the same population, had the same mating call, and could produce viable offspring with any combination of male and female, we should recognize that it is, after all, just a story.

The science of the article consists of the observations made in today's world. The speculation starts when the author tries to explain how it came about, assuming Darwinism is true.

The underlying assumption seems to go something like this: all animals originally came from a single source, and we can tell how closely related one group is to another by looking at DNA. In other words, it assumes Darwinism. So the conclusions can't be used to support Darwinism.

Your assumption that the ToE is based on an 'assumption' is incorrect. The evidence the ToE is based on comes from a variety of different fields of study, including genomics. This confluence of evidence leads us to 'conclude' that common descent is correct.

This is contrasted to ID which is defined by the assumption of its conclusion.

Well, there is probably no more point in debating this. I think you get my point, even if you don't think it's valid. The "confluence of evidence" is amassed to point to the conclusion that the investigators want to make. Sort of what a prosecutor does to try to convict someone that he thinks is guilty.

But that is not the same as fact. It is still based on guesswork and assumptions. But of course the prosecutor must convince himself that he is right before he goes into court, or he will probably not be able to convince the jury. Science provides some of the evidence for the prosecutor's case, but there is always the possibility that there is another explanation that no one has thought of.

Projecting backward into the distant past is guesswork.

If events A and B can be demonstrated in the lab to cause C, it does not follow that every time you observe C, A + B must have happened.

"The "confluence of evidence" is amassed to point to the conclusion that the investigators want to make"

Actually the evidence is the evidence and comes first. There is no picking and choosing of evidence to match a preconceived idea. If the evidence leads away from the theory, the theory, or a part of it, is wrong.

" Science provides some of the evidence for the prosecutor's case, but there is always the possibility that there is another explanation that no one has thought of.

That is equally true of all sciences. Science rules out explanations through probability, not through certainty.

"Well, there is probably no more point in debating this"

This may be true but I'd hate to see you go off with a mistaken idea of how the study of evolution is done.

As an aside, the first person to present the idea that evolution is nothing but a philosophy is himself a lawyer, using the methodology you assign to evolutionary sciences to convince others of his falsehoods.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.