Re: [asa] Re: ID without specifying the intelligence?

What is a species?

For example, are the red and white campion separate species or not?

In Provence they do not cross-fertilise but near the Puy de Dome they do as
they do in Britain, with every type of intermediate colour, leaf shape etc

Michael.

----- Original Message -----
From: "David Campbell" <pleuronaia@gmail.com>
To: <asa@calvin.edu>
Sent: Friday, September 14, 2007 6:41 PM
Subject: Re: [asa] Re: ID without specifying the intelligence?

> >Is antibiotic resistance more akin to breeding dogs or to change of one
> species into another?<
>
> This is very difficult to answer for several reasons. One is that
> "species" as defined in bacteria are quite different from the
> definition used for animals. In terms of biochemical diversity, a
> "species" of bacteria rivals much larger groupings of animals or
> plants. Secondly, the change from one species into another can take
> several forms. Defining species even within animals or plants is
> somewhat contentious, and problematic examples exist for pretty much
> any definition. Even when a definition is agreed upon, in many cases
> the transition from one species to another is sufficiently gradual to
> make it difficult to draw a firm line. Most definitions have some
> relationship to having a degree of reproductive isolation, though it
> may operate on the assumption that organisms with a certain degree of
> difference are isolated enough to recognize as separate species rather
> than directly measuring breeding.
>
> One example comes from a flower where a single mutation makes the
> flowers either red or white. Doesn't seem like a big deal until you
> see the effect on pollinators. White flowers attract moths, red ones
> attract hummingbirds, so the pollen almost never goes from one to the
> other. They are thus strongly reproductively isolated and seem to
> qualify as separate species. Similarly, a single mutation affecting
> other breeding-related characters (such as time of breeding, style of
> courtship, genes regulating compatibility of egg and sperm, etc.)
> could instantaneously produce a barrier to interbreeding.
>
> Another quick way to produce reproductive barriers is polyploidy,
> which often results from hybridization. Especially often in plants,
> but not infrequently in many animals, a hybrid will have functioning
> sets of chromosomes from both parents. It typically can't breed with
> either parent due to the mismatch in chromosomes (except in some cases
> where a further hybridization event makes yet another novel species),
> but if it can reproduce itself either asexually or sexually, it is a
> new species reproductively isolated from either parent.
>
> More gradual development of weaker barriers to interbreeding results
> in a gradual separation between populations. This could originate in
> random variations in breeding-related features that decrease the ease
> of interbreeding, coupled with either geographic separation (including
> microgeographic separation of favoring slightly different habitats) or
> features that allow the organisms to select more compatible mates. In
> turn, natural selection would favor strangthening of the barriers to
> breeding as interbreeding became less profitable.
>
>> > Why is ID not science ? SImple, it is based on an eliminative
>> > argument, and conflates common terminology to lead its followers to
>> > conclusions that do not follow from the premise. The abuse of
>> > terminology like information, complexity has done a lot of disservice
>> > to science and religious faith.
>
> This conflates things a little bit, specifically "Is ID theoretically
> amenable to scientific methods" versus "is the general practice of ID
> in accord with science?" The above is answering the second question,
> and I agree that in practice the ID movement relies heavily on a mix
> of bad science and bad theology. For example, Wells, Ross, Colson,
> etc. deny that one species can form form another. This is wrong, no
> matter what definition of science you use.
>
> It's perfectly true that the standard "keep ID out of science class
> because it's not science" has a strong component of "keep religion in
> the closet". However, in reality ID as popularly marketed is bad
> science and bad theology, no matter how one delineates the categories.
> I don't mind if one wishes to claim that the inference from
> fine-tuning or specified complexity or the like to a designer is
> science, though I would personally be inclined to define such
> inferences as a deduction based on the failure of science to provide
> an answer. However, in practice I do not think any of the proposed
> methods to identify specified complexity, irreducible complexity, etc.
> hold water. Nor do they seem to be legitimately derived from general
> comparison of "designed" versus "non-designed" objects; rather, they
> seem to reflect a quest for similarities between complex biochemical
> systems and some "designed" objects in order to support claims that
> complex biochemical systems are designed. I also think biochemical
> systems are a bad choice of focus because our knowledge of them is
> changing so rapidly. More seriously, I see no Biblical reason to
> expect God to work in the way Dembski, Johnson, Dawkins, Provine,
> Morris, etc. claim He ought to, and I see very serious Biblical
> objections to the false gospel of creationism that is explicit or
> implicit in much creation science and ID. In this false gospel, just
> as in Galatia, something other than faith in Jesus as Lord and Savior
> is claimed to be essential, though here it's holding a particular view
> on means and/or timing of creation, there it was Judaism-like legal
> strictures. Wells has explicitly claimed that Christianity is about
> antievolutionism, which may be how he claims to be a Christian while
> denying that Jesus is the Christ and thus qualifying by I John's
> standards as an antichristian. Claiming that the doctrine of
> creation is essential to evangelism (a standard ICR line) or that
> holding different views on creation is proof of non-Christianity
> (common from YEC and ID, though certainly a danger for any viewpoint)
> or that evolution is the enemy (Ham) or testimonies that tell of being
> saved from evolutionism to creationism by the work of creation
> scientists all imply that Jesus didn't do enough.
>
>> This has been addressed in various places in PSCF. For example,
>> professor
>> of biology Pattle Pun wrote an article dealing with this in Volume 59,
>> No.
>> 2, June 2007.
>> If someone wanted to seriously argue that the content of these articles
>> is
>> "vacuous" then the thing to do is submit a rebutting article (or at least
>> a
>> rebutting letter) to the journal.
>
> Something of the sort should be appearing, addressing specifically the
> issues related to the Cambrian radiation, although many other claims
> made in the article should readily be recognized as contentious by
> anyone who follows the ID debate. The picture of the Cambrian
> radiation presented by ID advocates matches that found in many
> conventional biology texts, but it is quite inaccurate. Perspectives
> on an Evolving Creation has a chapter on it, and Simon Conway Morris
> has plenty of good information, but to summarize here, the Cambrian is
> not a sudden appearace of all major types of animal out of nowhere.
> The latest Precambrian fossil record includes primitive animals such
> as sponges and cnidarians, as well as early versions of more advanced
> phyla. The Cambrian includes significant diversification plus
> improvements in the fossil record. However, the Cambrian forms are
> characteristically primitive, including forms transitional between
> phyla or classes. In other words, the Cambrian doesn't pose a problem
> to evolution generally, though there is plenty of research still to be
> done with regard to the exact roles of different mechanisms.
>
> --
> Dr. David Campbell
> 425 Scientific Collections
> University of Alabama
> "I think of my happy condition, surrounded by acres of clams"
>
> To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
> "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
>

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Fri Sep 14 18:10:48 2007