How STILL Not to Debate Intelligent Design (Liars for Evolution)

Access Research Network ^ | 01/09/02 | William A. Dembski

[VadeRetro]

I know there's a lungfish, but that's lungs with no legs.

Lungfish are believed to be the closest living relatives of the tetrapods, and share a number of important characteristics with them. Among these characters are tooth enamel, separation of pulmonary blood flow from body blood flow, arrangement of the skull bones, and the presence of four similarly sized limbs with the same position and structure as the four tetrapod legs. However, there is still debate about the relationships among the Sarcopterygii.

Intro to the Dipnoi (the lungfish)

The fins do seem to be going the right way.

[Virginia-American]

I read recently that humans, chimps, and gorillas all have a gene for vitamin C, but that the same mutation occurs in all three species, rendering it useless. Evolution has an obvious explanation for this. Does any other theory? In fact, Darwinism predicts that other genes will also show mutations common to us and the great apes, but not found in other creatures. If the prediction is validated, it seems to me that this is an example of a true prediction made by Darwinian reasoning. Do any Id-ers or creationists have a comment?

[lasereye]

Re: observed speciation

When you said speciation had occurred in a laboratory, I thought you meant speciation from natural selection. However, this was artifically induced, which is more like intelligent design.

The site itself notes that before you can discuss speciation, you have to determine what defines a species. For the observed speciations in nature and also the lab observation, it appears they are using the Biological Species Concept of species as their definition:

2.2 The Biological Species Concept Over the last few decades the theoretically preeminent species definition has been the biological species concept (BSC). This concept defines a species as a reproductive community.

In other words, they have to both mate and be able to bear offspring to be in the same species. Is this definition relevant for a discussion of Darwinian transmutation of species? For starters, you have to determine why the two different strains in the examples no longer reproduce. Is it because one added some capability that it previously lacked? Is it due to added complexity?

This is what the Darwinian debate is about. That's why a new strain of bacteria that's immune to antibiotics is irrelevant. I have no idea why the two populations can't reproduce with each other, but this by itself isn't especially meaningful from an evolutionary standpoint.

[Junior]

When you said speciation had occurred in a laboratory, I thought you meant speciation from natural selection. However, this was artifically induced, which is more like intelligent design.

In the case of the lab rat worm it was simply isolation, not genetic manipulation, which resulted in the new species. This is akin to what occurs naturally when new mountains, rivers, oceans, isthmuses (isthmusi?), whatnot separate two populations of the same species -- no "intelligent intevention" is even required (unless you believe someone is making those mountains, etc...). As these two populations no longer exchange genetic information the mutations building up in the genome of one are not reflected in the other, and vice versa. Eventually the two genomes are completely incompatible. This is all speciation is about, really.

[lasereye]

I'm well aware that Behe's been deluged with criticisms of his irreducible complexity theories. He has also responded effectively to many of them, including a ludicrous attempt to show that his mousetrap isn't really irreducibly complex. Subsequently there were responses to his responses, etc.

Here's a web site with a defense of Behe:
http://www.origins.org/science/disilvestro-dbb.html

[Nebullis]

Great work.

New developments which tie into topics you've brought up before:

1) Recent (or current) mutations in humans:
Lactose tolerance is a recent mutation and confers advantage to humans over the default lactose intolerance.

2) "Junk" DNA:
Biological dark matter.

3) Epigenetics...I'm too lazy to look these up, but two recent articles, either in Science or Nature, one discussing maternal finch influence in chick gender sex selection and another discussing maternal influence in gene expression in murine cloning experiments. Both interesting articles. If I remember correctly, you have access to Nature. I'll assume you have access to Science as well.

[VadeRetro]

Lactose tolerance is a recent mutation . . .

I'd often wondered about the very high incidence of lactose intolerance among orientals and the lack of diary products in Chinese food. Clearly, that's no coincidence but what, I wondered, is the cause and what is the result? Now, it seems we know. The intolerance dictated the diet and not vice-versa.

[Nebullis]

The intolerance dictated the diet and not vice-versa.

Yes, although my friends who drink soy claim it's for advanced cultural, enlightened, transcendent, open-minded reasons...

[VadeRetro]

I've been experimenting with Boca (soy) Italian Sausage. Tastes OK but the texture is wrong, wrong, wrong.

[Nebullis]

To say nothing of soy cheeses. They just don't melt properly.

[jennyp]

I made a new thread out of your interesting lactose tolerance link.

[Junior]

Thanks. I've added the link to the Michael Behe section of The Ultimate Creation vs. Evolution Resource.