Kenneth Miller on Intelligent Design

Mulitiple species come from a common ancester when one group within the population adapts one way and another adapts another way. When the two populations can no longer interbreed, this is usually when they are considered separate species.

I don't see all modern species coming from a single life form as a tenant of evolution, though. It is however, a plausable conclusion based on the mechnism of speciation. It is, however possible that life originated multiple times and several separate lines of life exist. (or existed for some time) In fact I think that this is highly probable. However, the evidence is strong that most macroscopic life forms do share a common ancester.

What do you mean by "no new animal is being formed to replace another"? How different does a creature need to be before it is considered a different animal than its ancesters? With speciation it is easy to tell because you can compare the 2 populations. Is it a new animal when a major change is introduced? or when that new trait becomes dominant?

Is adding an appendege grounds for a "new animal"? Take for example 6-toed cats (since I've lived with one). A genetic mutation caused this to happen. However, 5-toed cats and 6-toed cats can interbreed just fine. However, if something should happen that favors the survivial of 6-toed cats over 5-toed cats then suddenly all cats could be 6-toed cats. At this point would this be a "new animal"? If not, why not?

Kevn - I'm sorry. I normally try to be polite. But honestly, the only thing I can say to this response is BOLLOCKS!

So Kevn, I'm guessing this means you won't be pre-ordering Will Wright's new game, SPORE?

Are you suggesting people who are Christian don't have a right to representation?

If I'm against teaching evolution as fact, does that mean I'm part of this "Christian Church" seeking to run the government? And if so, would it mean you are part of an atheist movement seeking to control the government to insist I'D. isn't allowed in schools?

I mean, if you agree with the atheists on a topic, and you are atheist, wouldn't that make you part of their plan to control the morals of this country, right?

A cat is a cat, no matter how many toes it has. The change I'm talking about would be from a fish to a frog, for example.

There are 3 choices, atheist (one who BELIEVES there is no God), Theist (one who believes there is a God), and agnostic (one who doesn't have a belief either way).

Atheists fall in the category of believers in no God. They BELIEVE there is no God without secure knowledge, that would be a belief.

I wouldn't say you are being impolite by saying bollocks. If you strongly believe I am wrong I expect a response, and that wasn't rude in my book.

Actually, I think SPORE will be the final nail in the religious right's coffin. It will become wildly popular. Then parents can either refuse to let their kids play it, setting up a dynamic which will eventually result in filial rebellion; or allow them to, which will give the children personal experience of evolution. Well, fictional evolution, but this is really an emotional issue at heart, isn't it? All of the logic and justification is secondary (which is why this thread will never come to closure).

In fact, it puts the hammer and nails right in the hands of the Christians, because it will only work if they continue to insist that evolution contradicts God!

SPORE. Brilliant stroke.

I don't think anyone suggested evolution contradicts God.

in a somewhat related story

And this story too

Its the same process, Kevn, micro evolution is macro evolution.

If a fish needed to get out of the water to better survive, fish would die off after becoming frogs. Just as you said the 5 toed cat would disappear should 5 toes become a problem that doesn't affect 6 toed cats.

Just like Europe emptied out when people began to colonise America? Nobody lives over there now.

I gave you examples very early in this thread of cases where reptiles became birds (Archaeopteryx) and fish became mammals. I also mentioned the transition from apelike ancestor to human. Yet you didn't even respond to those examples, which pretty much destroy this notion you have that species are static and never become other species. Macro evolution not only happens, but we have records of it.


This may sound like I'm picking nits but I'm not. I am an atheist who has NO beliefs in any higher deities. I see no logical reason to hold any such beliefs, nor do I see any evidence that such a thing is required either for the universe to exist OR for me to live a moral life. Therefore, I have no beliefs in deities which is a bit different than believing God doesn't exist. The difference? If I were to find evidence to the contrary, I'm very weilling to change my mind.

As another poster said, my beliefs are a NULL value in programming terminology - not a zero, more like a vacuum.

See the problem with that is this. *If* there were a God, I would resent him for creating me to worship him. What an egomaniac.

Briana Dawson

this was already addressed

But remember, "better survive" does not have to mean "or die out".
Speciation can occur because of geographical separation, but it can also occur within a single population when sexual selection is a factor. (someone posted about this a while back, it talked about bird populations sharing nesting ground and still the same species but females preferring mates withing their own sub-pool. anyone have a reference?)

Consider this: within a small region some prey species is more easily caught by six-toed cats. This region is relatively isolated from other cat populations. In this region six-toed cats dominate the gene pool and eventually there are no cats in this region that carry five-toed genes. After a longer time these cats continue to adapt to their enviornment. At the same time cats in other regions also continue to adapt. After some stretch of time, the six toed cat population can no longer interbreed with other cat populations. At this point they are now another species.

Not much different from a deity who slaughters innocent children in earthquakes and hurricanes, really, and then insists that our chances of spending eternity in Paradise are directly related to which manmade religious symbol we revere.

Either way I'm not too worried about it

No, I'm suggesting that their idea of representation is to stifle that of others, which is inherently bigoted and hypocritical. The exercise of bigotry is what needs to be stifled.



In answer to the first part, technically, yes. And in answer to the second, I'm not atheist, so no. I just don't want anything that isn't demonstrable by empirical evidence taught in schools.



Again, I'm not an atheist. I'm Pagan. And considering I think Jesus's martyrdom to make a statement involving love did indeed create a path to ensure a form of eternal happiness and greater good for all, you could even say I'm Christian. I daresay as many Christians think I.D. is bunk as anyone else does these days.

I think games like SPORE are indeed the nails in the coffin of the X-Right movement among the youth. It'll be popular, have tons of expansions, and make gaming history like every other Will Wright game. In our culture, Gaming history is HISTORY to us, and defines our culture as television once did.

For anyone with a brain (i.e. not the OP) this is a 200 year old argument which is very nicely unpacked and completely and readably demolished in Dawkin's The Blind Watchmaker the reading of which would save the OP much masturbation but he won't read it because his bible tells him everything he needs to know.

The OP thinks that his conception of common sense - that is, what seemed reasonable 200 years ago - is common and / or sensical. In fact, he doesn't know a damn thing about the subject except that he thinks he does.

I don't believe in God, therefore I have a belief in the non-existence of God.
I also have a belief in the non-existence of the tooth fairy.
I have a belief in the non-existence of the flying spaghetti monster.
I have a belief in the non-existence of a sentient fart which lives in my left ear.
I have a belief in the non-existence of the Googleblob.

I guess I have a number of beliefs so great it approaches infinity.

Are we doing this all over again?

The problem, of course, is that Kevn will tell us that Dawkins is an atheist - therefore his opinion is slanted. Unlike all those gawd-fearing folks over at the Discovery Institute.

My favorite Dawkins quote pierces right to the heart of this debate: "The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind pitiless indifference."

The randomness, itself, is a bit of the design I'd think. You learn nothing if you can have accurate expectations.

That said, I.D. is still bunk.

I'm surprised Pascal's Wager hasn't yet reared it's ugly head.

If I want to be completely fair (which isn't normally the case) I can say that, just as some people see the appearance (illusion) of design, we may also be seeing the appearance (illusion) of chaos. Chaos, after all, is unpredictability and unpredictability is limited by the range of your data sample. If you have a data sample large enough, in theory you could predict anything.

The problem we have right now, in either argument, is that the human data set is exactly "1". We have one sentient species (us) on which to base our predictions. How much will those predictions change if we have 10 or 100 or 1,000 sentient species with which to compare ourselves to? Will we see that there is a stunning variety of lifeforms strewn across the universe without any pattern, or will we find alternate Earths?


Give it time

Athiesm is the lack of 'god' belief of any form. Technically Buddhists are atheist.