Intelligent Design by Flying Spaghetti Monster

[Sethomas]

Punctuated equilibrium is a flux in environment, not phenotypes, most of which have been confirmed geologically. A huge crater in the desert, for instance. It just happens that when PE happens, a change in phenotype comes in handy for an extreme minority. Ergo, you're full of shit.

[Big Papa Goat]

They
the only things the fossil record can record is like, phenotypic characteristics, since fossils are pretty much just bones and bones are pretty much just phenotypic. But ya, uh, gigantic catastrophic environmental fluxes on a geological scale aren't the only thing that trigger evolutionary changes. A given ecosystem can be effected in a lot of ways, especially by the distribution of organisms within it. For instance, a bunch of foxes move somewhere and start preying on rabbits that previously didn't have to worry about foxes. SUDDEN SELECTION PRESSURE FOR FAST RABBITS=RABBITS ARE FAST. FAST.

Try to keep in mind that the extinction of the dinosaurs wasn't the only time life ever evolved by punctuated equillibrium.
Also, punctuated equillibrium is an evolutionary term, and it deals with the flux of diversity in living organisms. Environmental factors are indeed a significant factor though, and when big geological events happen, like meteor impacts, big selection pressures happen, and big evolution happens.

Also, what do you mean by changes in phenotypes being 'convinient'? I'm kind of wondering if you understand what I mean by phenotype at this point, but I know you're smarter then me, so I'm sure you'll have a good explanation.

btw, what I understand by the term phenotype is the observable characteristics of an organism, as opposed to the unobservable genotype which contains the genetic information encoded in the DNA, which is transcribed into proteins that result in phenotypic characteristics, and is passed down into subsequent generations.


Also, its worth noting I'm a bit drunk and you're post was a bit confusing I'm not sure now what you meant, but I'm sure it will all get cleared up! :D

[Sethomas]

I would define phenotype as the physical manifestation of an organism's genetic code, id est, its genotype. Two people can have different genotypes and the same phenotype, namely with dominant alleles whether something is heterogeneous or homogeneous.

In the case of the asteroid hitting Earth, a phenotype for small body structure and plenty of insulation (hair, feathers) would be very "convenient", as would the ability to run fast or otherwise avoid predators in rabbits in the case you mentioned. That's the way that punctuated equilibrium works to further evolution.

[Big Papa Goat]

yes, quite!

[Preechr]

As the random poster with the most religious screenname, I object to this entire discussion on the grounds that no intelligent group of persons can expect to be taken seriously having scribbled up two pages of ideas without yet talking about the difference between Darwinian evolution and evolution within a species.

If anyone wishes to provide evidence in any form other than that which is logical though not physical that any species has ever evolved from another, I'd just love to see it.

[ziggytrix]

sure thing

[Preechr]

"Whether the two closely related fruit fly populations the scientists studied - Drosophila mojavensis and Drosophila arizonae - represent one species or two is still debated by biologists."

Well, it's no flying monkey, but I suppose that's a start... Surely, though, there must be SOMETHING more compelling than two breeds of slightly different bugs. I'm no geneticist, so I'll assume the drama is eluding me on this one... but your story seems to be proving something more like the evolution of different dog breeds than something as groundbreaking as all species of flora and fauna evolving from single celled creatures.

Maybe I shouldn't toss such specific terminology as "species" around till I know what those words mean to scientists. Maybe I meant "genus?" I suppose what I wanted to ask for was proof that people evolved from monkeys or that birds evolved from reptiles... something like scientists digging up the remains of a wooly mammoth with thumbs. I guess it's a little layman of me to ask for something so obvious, right?

Maybe it's me, but it seems the idea of Darwinian evolution has about as much basis in fact as ID. That's probably just me being all churchy and whatnot, though...

[ziggytrix]

Originally Posted by Preechr

what I wanted to ask for was proof that people evolved from monkeys or that birds evolved from reptiles... something like scientists digging up the remains of a wooly mammoth with thumbs. I guess it's a little layman of me to ask for something so obvious, right?

Not really. How about an aquatic egg-laying mammal? Would that work for ya? Or do you literally expect to find a wooly mammoth with thumbs? Cuz that would be fucking strange.

Specifically in the fossil record though read this: http://www.geocities.com/osarsif/ce06.htm

I don't know what this guy's credentials are, and I don't have time to look them up, but he's listing all his references, and shouldn't be too hard to fact-check if you're genuinely interested, and not just wasting a bit of time at work or whatever.



OK I kinda lied, I really didn't have the time (and will likely pay for it later), and I seriously gotta get back to work now, but the author I'm linking is acutally a Jehova's Witness!

[AChimp]

It amazes me how people still think that evolution has to manifest in profound changes when asking people to "prove" it. That's not how evolution works, or has ever been proposed to work. Fish never spontaneously gave birth to dogs. There were no mammoths that suddenly developed thumbs. You're only advertising your own ignorance by doing that.

Think of the 1000 monkeys at 1000 typewriters for 1000 years analogy. It's possible that they might mash out the entire works of Shakespeare in that time, but highly improbable. So improbable that you can say that it most likely will never happen.

It is quite likely that they'll get a sentence or two, though. Evolution works in sentences over time, not in paragraphs, and certainly not in entire plays.

[Pub Lover]

In the course of writing this post PBS has changed my opinion on Evolution.

Plus I watched the PBS episode of The Simpsons today.

[Emu]

Good ol' PBS :D

[ziggytrix]

So, the evolution theorists say, the anti-evolution argument that life was created by an "intelligent designer" doesn't hold water: If God or some other omnipotent force was responsible for the human eye, it was something of a botched design.

Or maybe God is just a jerk like that, did you ever think of that PBS?

[Ninjavenom]

IDFSM is my favorite because we have the cutest deity! :O

Intelligent Design is just garbage because they want to push their religion into schools again. Every kid knows that evolution is just a theory, and every kid knows that evolution is physically more provable than ID, what with it not requiring any faith at all. Kudos to whoever posted what they think the test would look like.


edit: less significant leaps of faith, i mean.

[Emu]

kudos

I don't think every kid knows that evolution is more physically provable than ID. It depends on your frame of reference, really, and most kids look at the world and see God's handiwork as self-evident. To a kid, that's physical proof.

[Pub Lover]

Sometimes I think that it's some pretty cool science that the ratio of size & distance of the Earth, Sun & Moon mean they can all eclipse the others from time to time. Other times I think it's pretty cool of God to do that, but I'm drunk or sleepy those times.

Well, the Sun can't really eclipse the Moon can it?

[kellychaos]

Originally Posted by Zero Signal

No, it is the scientists who use things like punctuated equilibrium to conjure up the evidence that they need to fill in all of the holes in their theories that don't know what they are talking about.

Biologists consider the existence of biological evolution to be a fact. It can be demonstrated today and the historical evidence for its occurrence in the past is overwhelming. However, biologists readily admit that they are less certain of the exact mechanism of evolution; there are several theories of the mechanism of evolution. Stephen J. Gould has put this as well as anyone else:

I wouldn't call disagreement between scientists on the mechanistic aspects ... i.e. the how it works part ... necessarily a "hole in the theory" when the fact remains that evolution does take place and that it has been documented by scientific observation. In other words; THAT it happens is fact while HOW it happens remains to be determined by opposing theory. Add to that the fact that when the fine detail is finally established as a homogenous and accepted theory among scientists, it will probably be in technical terms which you, as a layman, would probably be unable to understand. I would wager that you probably be hard-pressed to discern the subtle difference in the current conflicting theories. Admittedly, I would, but I do not question their authority as I know stringent processes applied and re-applied in determing acceptable theory.

Besides, evolution and "intelligent design" can co-exist if you think of evolution as a tool used by the "designer" to accomplish an intelligent purpose. Do you actually believe that scientific evidence shows that species do not evolve into other species: that species are separate and distinct, always have been and have all been put here as part of an intelligent design; or do believe that their is an ever changing diversity in nature? Science doesn't necessarily nullify religion. It's a matter of attitude. If a school board were to compel its teachers to tell students that “evolution proves that there is no God; that everything is explained solely in terms of chemicals and natural processes,� that school board would be violating the First Amendment. To dogmatically teach Atheism in the public schools would be just as unconstitutional as teaching Fundamentalism.

Sadie,

What I'm most afraid of is that once the moral majority has its foot in the door and is able to lay down creationism as unquestioned fact, the first thing that they are going to do is take away the "Question Everything" shirts and burn them ... and perhaps a few books along with them. Call it a slippery slope based on fear.

I'm with you in that philosophical, metaphysical and theological issues are something that can be challengingly discussed as long as an endorsement of ideas is not stressed.

The fact remains that this is clearly a backdoor endorsement of religion and the Constitution is quite clear about the state endorsing religion of any sort, Christian or otherwise. If you want to push it to the extreme, politicians are actually breaking their vows to uphold the Constitution in pushing this issue.

[Big Papa Goat]

When people refer to the fact of evolution, its usually referring to something thats actualyl more geological then biological. The fossil record shows evolution in preservable characteristics over geological time.

Facts can be disproven of course, and this fact could be disproven by evidence in the fossil record of say, a human skeleton embeded in the rock strata at say the bottom of the grand canyon.

Theories of evolution are an explanation for why organisms show changing diversity and characteristics through time. As kellychaos said, the fact of evolution is not on the surface inconsistent with an intelligent design theory. Especially when you consider the evidence that supports the punctuated equillibrium theory, ie that organisms tend to evolve quite rapidly in relatively short amounts of time.

Natural selection, however, is a better theory

Probably the most ridiculous thing about teaching intelligent design in schools is that there is no serious scientific acceptance of the idea (keep in mind, we're talking about science classes). Also, to suggest there is anything non-religious about teaching creationism to kids is completely ridiculous. If an intelligent and supernatural entity created life, what do you call that thing except God? And don't tell me that intelligent design doesn't presuppose supernatural intervention, because that would be nothing but utter batshit nonsense.

[KevinTheOmnivore]

I think a lot of this has to do with problems with faith, rather than science. A lot of religious folks have difficulty understanding the very definition of faith, IMO. Understandably, people want to try to quantify the things they believe. It makes what they believe more tangible, but in it's own way, messes up (to me anyway) a lot of what being a person of "faith" is supposed to mean.

Some Chrisitian sects (well, my own), while they still waver on it here and there, have reconciled with evolution and are ok with it. Sort of. But again, i guess I see why some folks want to believe ID, but it just makes no sense for it to be taught in science classrooms, IMO.

[ziggytrix]

Originally Posted by KevinTheOmnivore

Some Chrisitian sects (well, my own), while they still waver on it here and there, have reconciled with evolution and are ok with it. Sort of.

I first learned about evolution at a private Christian school. The teacher said he had no problem with the science evolution and being a Christian. Still the school gave parents the option of bringing their kids an hour early so they could skip this class and go to a Biology class that didn't talk about evolution. I wonder what they learned about.

[KevinTheOmnivore]

I've never understood the impulse to not want to learn things you might disagree with. This is why I won't mock people who dig ID, but i don't think it's terribly viable (there are problems even with the philosophical aspects to it, it's lack of scientific substance aside).

[Zero Signal]

I have no problem with microevolution.

I do have a problem with humans ultimately evolving from a single-celled organism. I don't care for the monkey business either, but probability dictates that evolution the way that scientists portray it, is nigh impossible. It is a string of these improbabilities, one after another.

[AChimp]

That's because you still think of evolution as dictating fish birthing dogs and other gayness.

[Emu]

Originally Posted by Zero Signal

I have no problem with microevolution.

This is the same BS every anti-evolutionist spews. That phrase is maddening.

I do have a problem with humans ultimately evolving from a single-celled organism. I don't care for the monkey business either, but probability dictates that evolution the way that scientists portray it, is nigh impossible. It is a string of these improbabilities, one after another.

Clearly, someone doesn't understand probablities. Evolution isn't random chance, although chance is a factor. Think of the history of music, for example. Music began with people hitting rocks together and stomping to a beat, which is a ridiculously simple concept that even toddlers can comprehend. If you give them pots, they bang them together, right?

Over time, music, quite literally, evolved into what it is today, (with factors of random chance involved) from the simple beats of a tribesperson in Africa or wherever, with new, individually small discoveries being added to the whole concept of music, like different instruments, the concepts of jazz, rock, etc. in much the same way that different organisms contribute their helpful mutations to the gene pool. The evolution of music (and art, literature, and even religion) is a mighty parellell to that of biological evolution, although on a much smaller scale.

If you don't go for that whole mutation thing, consider this: The cells in our bodies, even today, having evolved defenses against harmful mutation, things like corrective enzymes that scan the DNA for errors, experience a scarily high number of mutations per day, something like 100 (I can't remember the exact number, although I intend to find it) which are usually fixed by the enzymes. Just imagine how many must have occurred in single-celled organisms in the time before they evolved those defenses, not only from the bombardment of local mutagens, but cosmic rays and ultraviolet light from the sun. If you look at all the contributing factors, it starts to look less and less unlikely that it happened this way.

[kellychaos]

Originally Posted by Zero Signal

I have no problem with microevolution.

I do have a problem with humans ultimately evolving from a single-celled organism. I don't care for the monkey business either, but probability dictates that evolution the way that scientists portray it, is nigh impossible. It is a string of these improbabilities, one after another.

I think that you have a problem with timetables, distinguishing allegory from actual history and literature from literal fact. Even in the highest of scholarly theogical circles, they do not take the Bible so much as written fact as a tool towards impressing their theology.

In other words, seven days does not literally mean seven days. Who knows why they used these human terms? It could be that those seven days were representative of several million years. Consider the source.

For the record, Immortal Goat, I also lean towards natural selection but, playing the devil's advocate, who's to say that was not a tool that served as a means to an end as well? In other words, I do believe in a force of some kind that has a predetermined purpose but I'm going to have to defer from humanizing said force because I refuse to believe that humans are the "end all" to the ultimate purpose. I believe that we would be vainly remiss in believing that is so.

Note left under a door: If you died tommorow, the universe would persist.

[Perndog]

I think someone said something about the establishment clause earlier.

Now, I'm not too familiar with US legal precedent on this one, but there is a distinct difference between establishment (declaring an official state religion) and government support of religion. The only thing the Constitution spells out is that the US government may not make a law respecting the establishment of religion, i.e. it may not establish a religion or outlaw any religion. Like I said, I don't know how courts have treated the issue thus far, but from a purely letter-of-the-law constitutional standpoint, the United States government or any segment thereof can support whatever religious groups or teachings it wants to just about any extent as long as there is no official statement saying "this is a Christian country." The only reason it's intelligent design now instead of plain old Genesis creationism is to stave off the vocal opposition a little more, not because the fundies really want to do something illegal and need to slip through a loophole.