Monday, November 8, 2010

Natural Selection/Evolutionary Ceiling of Sugar Beets

I didn't Really Want to Spend too much Time Working on this Post and I Hope you guys will not be too Tired of the Subject of Evolution and Intelligent Design, but I did Want to Tell you about the Sugar Beets.  To Save Time, I just Copied a Comment I Left beneath an Earlier Post.  When ever I Edited it Slightly, I put the Edited Part In Parenthesis.  I Mentioned BB-Idaho because the Comment was Written to him. 

Natural Selection is nothing more than the changes that can occur within species, but the actual premise of Evolution is a bit more than that.  The cold hard truth is that there has never been a clearly documented case of Natural Selection occurring from one species to the next.

There are documented cases of birds adapting to their environments in the changes in the size of their beaks and even in the size of their brains when the survival situation is challenging enough, yet this is a within species example.

When it comes to breeding, we can come up with a whole variety of different dog breeds or cat breeds or the like, yet no matter how we try, we can not breed a dog to be a cat, or vise versa.  No matter how much breeding we do, a cat will always be a cat and a dog will always be a dog.

I think one of the most interesting examples of failures in trying to create new species was an example not about animals, but plants.  They did experiments cross pollinating sugar beets to try and get the maximum sugar possible in the beets.  They were able to alter the beets in order to get positive results, yet once they reached a certain number, they hit an "Evolutionary Ceiling".

They simply could not get the sugar percentage number above a certain number, no matter how they tried.  The change in the beets occurred only because of the intelligent interference of man.  When man left the beets alone, the natural, uninterrupted "Natural Selection Process" returned the beets back to the average or norm.  Nature did not bring improvement to the beets, but instead a return to the average.

It just so happens that the "Harder Science" of Biology is the one that has found amazing complexities in the body that are impossible to explain by the Natural Selection Process.  There are tiny mechanisms in the blood stream that are no less complicated than some of the machines that are created by the "Intelligent Design" of Man.  There is one such mechanisms that is just like a motor.  Things this complicated do not simply happen by chance.

Ok, so a Neanderthal is a separate species than man.  So?  Why should we be surprised if we discover an extinct species.  This does not in any way prove a connection between that species and either apes or man.  Phrases such as "We will learn more on that, as the evolutionary progress....is further explored", "IF they possessed..." and "is thought to work with..." show evidence of the uncertainty of
(the Evidence that is Presented by the Evolutionists).

(Even though it is True what BB-Idaho said in One of his Comments that) "Evolutionary Theory is not officially called Evolutionary Fact.", (Even so), it is often taught as fact in the schools, or at best the fact that it is Theory is not at all stressed.

I doubt if we are going to be able to get all teaching of Evolution out of grade school.  At the very least, they are going to introduce it and this is the complaint of those who support "Intelligent Design", for if it is even the slightest bit mentioned, than the other Theory should be as well.

This is not about whether or not
(BB-Idaho, or anyone else who decides to Comment is going) to "force Evolution on anyone", but about whether of not the schools are going to teach this biased opinion to our kids.

(All that "Intelligent Design Theory" does is) suggest that there is significant evidence in the complexities of our world to suggest that an Intelligent Designer, meaning our creator, was involved in the process.

I Just have one more Thought to Add at This Time besides what was in the Comment that I have Quoted and Slightly Edited Above and that is that the Similarities from one Species to another do not in any Way Prove "Natural Selection" from One Species to Another.  This can just as Easily be Explained by the Theory that All Things were Made by One Creator, just as Automobiles "Evolved" Over Time, as Man added More and more to his already Workable Design.

Why Start From Scratch each Time?  It Makes more Sense to Keep Using the Same Workable Motor, with Slight Alterations with Each New Creation.  Did Automobiles Come about, though, through "Natural Selection"?  Of Course not.  There was Intelligent Design involved and in this case, the Designer was Man.

51 comments:

BB-Idaho said...

Regarding "Ok, so a Neanderthal is a separate species than man. So? Why should we be surprised if we discover an extinct species. This does not in any way prove a connection between that species and either apes or man. Phrases such as "We will learn more on that, as the evolutionary progress....is further explored", "IF they possessed..." and "is thought to work with..." show evidence of the uncertainty of (the Evidence that is Presented by the Evolutionists)."
Neanderthals, evidence, further exploration. Yep, thats science, and quite
interesting as we
learn more.

BB-Idaho said...

"Why Start From Scratch each Time?" That is a tenet of evolutionary theory..why humans share
DNA with other mammals and to a lesser extent with even primitive species...
a building process. ID, by its own definition, also
could explain it, although
ID could just as well explain 'starting from
scratch each time'. ID
can 'explain' everything about life....it was designed. End of story, why bother attempting to
discover anything at all?
(A very old story..ancient , in fact.
A primative answer then and a primative answer now.)

Lista said...

You and your Links, BB. I'm Developing Quite a Reading List, but I'll get to it.

The Evidence Leads to the Idea of a Building Process, rather than to the Starting from Scratch Each Time.

"Why bother attempting to discover anything at all?"

You know What, BB? Why do we Study Anthropology? That is about Culture and Man Made Things, yet that doesn't Stop us from Our Desire to Discover and Learn.

WomanHonorThyself said...

good points girl but the non believers won't ever see the miracles..ahhhhhhhhh.:)

Lista said...

Not Unless God Draws on their Hearts. Did you Read my Other Evolution/Intelligent Design Post, Two Posts Down? Thanks for Dropping by.

BB-Idaho said...

"You know What, BB? Why do we Study Anthropology?"
We study anthropology for the same reasons we study
anything: human beings are inately curious. Were we not, our clans would still be living in caves. It is how we (so sorry) evolved.
..fascinating, I use 'inately' and the word verification is 'inate'. :)

BB-Idaho said...

Sorry about the bothersome
links. I use them rather than typing my thoughts in entirety, which would take
a zillion bites. Just letting you know that I
get my info from serious sources rather than FoxNews and that there is
a voluminous body of information 'out there'.
(You do not need to study them..for I have condensed them in my posts)

Lista said...

Ok, then in Answer to Your Question, Since "ID can 'explain' everything about life....it was designed; End of story, why bother attempting to discover anything at all?"

The Answer is because "human beings are innately curious." Besides, even if we could Prove that the Earth was Created and did not just Evolve, we would Still be Curious about How this Creation Came about, as well as How Things Work.

You have a Glitch in your Spell Checker, for "Innate" has two ns. Perhaps since you can't Spell today, this Means that YOU Evolved form Apes. lol. Just Kidding. :)

BB-Idaho said...

I never use spell checker.
Guess I should, as I confuse US English and
British spelling ...color (colour) me gray (grey).
Lucky you checked the
dialog (dialogue), for I doubt my spell checker (chequer) could survive the maneuver (manoeuvre).
..of course I'm not desended from an ape, they and we are desended from
australopithicus africanus
which dates to about 3.5 million years ago ..according to evolutionary theory/paleontology/anthropology. I guess ID would say all those old bones were carefully designed?

Lista said...

You Mentioned some Kind of "Word Verification" Above. Yep, Carefully Designed and then Preserved so that you and I can have Something to Argue about. lol.

Lista said...

I have to Admit, BB, that it is Interesting that the DNA of Neanderthals is more Similar to One Race of Humans, than to another, and they were able to Explain the Parallel through Archeology, yet the Percentage of "Proposed Gene Flow", I guess that means the Similarity between the Two, was Low.

Here's an Interesting quote...

"The complex results are expected to continue to inform what promises to be a protracted controversial evolutionary discussion."

Here they are Admitting that the Research is Controversial.

BB-Idaho said...

'Admitting research is controversial'? All research is controversial at first. Somebody discovers something and makes a hypothesis. Others in the field jump in and
either reinforce the hypothises by further research, or identify
problems with the hypothesis. Like fire:
the orginal hypothesis
was that an 'ether' of
'phlogistin' caused flame,
back a few centuries. Now
flame is thought to be
radiation in the visible
spectrum resulting from the
high temperature of an
oxidation reaction, the
intensity of which is affected by the difference in thermodynamic properties
between the starting reactants and the resulting
oxidized products. The numbers work, so the current hypothesis is accepted. That is how science works..always new stuff to explore, it is
fun. Fields like archeology and paleontology seem more conjectural as they keep finding fossils (or even bits of DNA like from the Neaderthals and wooly mammoths) so we shouldn't be too surprised to find
that type hypothesis shifting more than say
the theory of gravity.
As far as 'arguing'...
now,now..we are simply
enlightening one another
from oblique viewpoints. :)

Lista said...

Here's my Complaint about Evolution and Speciation. Every Hypothesis and New Evidence that has ever been Presented, Ever Since the Original Scopes Monkey Trial in 1925 has Continued to be Controversial. The Origin of Species Book that Darwin is Known for was Published in 1859.

You'll be Proud of me. I Actually did some Web Searching Research for this Comment.

You would Think that in 150 Years, they would have had the Time to Get Past the Controversial Stage in Relation to Speciation, but it just hasn't Happened and that is the Complaint in a Nut Shell.

How much Time is it Going to Take before Scientists will Admit the Possibility that Perhaps the Conclusive Evidence that they are Looking for just isn't Out there.

Don't you see, the Phrase "At First" just doesn't apply anymore. 150 Years is a Long Time.

"Now, Now, BB. You are Spoiling my Fun by not Calling it Arguing.", she says as she Jumps Around Playfully with her Fits in the Air.

Lista said...

Here is the Definition of Darwinism. As you can see, it has to do with Questioning "the then current belief in special creation of each species" and the Supporting of
"the descent of all life from a common ancestral origin", so it has Everything to do with Speciation and just giving Evidence for "Natural Selection" within Individual Species does not in any way Prove it.

BB-Idaho said...

Among the many arguments for speciation is the peculiar cichlid fish of
central Africa (I probably mentioned this in a previous *ahem* argument, but it is instructive to
read through a recent speciation study which contains the evolutionary
conclusions vs the Intelligent Design response. I will only note that the ID folk argue from a negative, rather than presenting their alternative, which must be something like 'all those fish species were designed', rather than 'they couldn't have 'evolved' into the
numerous species of cichlid
in the study.

Lista said...

Oh Goodie, more to Read. See you Later on, BB. I've got to get off the Computer now.

BB-Idaho said...

"Oh Goodie, more to Read."
Reading is optional! This
ain't a class assignment,
ya know. :)

Lista said...

Well yeh, I Know, and yet the Links you Leave do Look Very Interesting and I do Want to Read them. I just Wish there were not so Many Different Subjects and Conversations Pulling on me all the Time.

The Griper said...

lista,
i have to take BB's side in this debate.

simply out, ID is not a theory within the definition of it scientifically. it can only be defined as an hypothesis.
and until it can be called a theory then it can not be compared justifiably with its counterpart, the theory of evolution.

Lista said...

Ok, then it all Comes Down to the Definition of Words again. I just don't like it when Evolution, or more Specifically Darwinism, is Taught in the Schools as if it is Proven Fact. At the Very Least, Teachers Need to Be Required to Explain Honestly that it is Just a Theory.

I don't even Like the Phrase "Over Whelming Evidence" because I Feel that that Statement is Debatable and that there is just as much Evidence of the Alternative Hypothesis.

Remember when I say this, that it is Speciation that is in Question and not so Much Natural Selection within a Single Species.

BB-Idaho said...

"..that there is just as much Evidence of the Alternative Hypothesis."
There is conjecture, there is no evidence. Evidence for ID would be where did the design take place, when, how and who? We can presume that those few scientists who adhere to ID
would be working in that direction....but so far, all I have seen is negative. This eye structure is too complex
(irreducible complexity):
there is no billion year old misssing link for this or that, or 'the designer'
eased his or her (or its)
job by using the same basic biochemistry. The ID scientists are as near as I have researched, all fundamentalist Christians who were prior creationists. The one absolute no-no for a scientist is to construct a theory around their preconceived idea. As Griper noted, ID is at best a hypothesis, IMO
not even that, just a
'construct' to avoid
evolutionary biology.
I knew a girl in college, told the professor that she simply could not believe in atoms; too small to see or touch and only 'theory' inferred their existance. When asked about the atom bomb, she said it was a fake.
(left after freshman year and married a rich guy).
So if one has a problem with evolution, simply stay away from that field of study..why bother to
build a flimsy 'construct'?
Worse, why demand it be
taught as biology?

Lista said...

I'm going to have to Get Back to you on this one, BB. It Looks Like I'm going to Need to Go now. Thanks for your Comment.

Lista said...

All of these Words Need to be Defined. Let's Start with the Word "Conjecture", which means, "An Opinion not Founded on Sufficient Evidence, A Guess or Surmise."

The Words "Theory" and "Hypothesis" are going to Need Scientific Definitions in order to Keep this Discussion Scientific. I may Put Off Looking into that until Later, yet for now, I'll just Say that all Three of these Words have something to do with "Opinions" and "Guesses", and none of them with Proof. The Differences Between these Words is nothing more than a Matter of Degree and is therefore Subjective. The Word "Sufficient" in relation to Evidence is Subjective as well.

To Suggest that Evidence has to Include "When, How and Who?" is to say that Evidence has to be Complete in Order to be Evidence. I Disagree. The Evidence for Darwinism is also Incomplete, so again we are Back to a Matter of Degree.

If I am Looking for someone in the Woods and the Snow has Covered any Tracks that might have Been there, Perhaps the Only Evidence I have of the Person's Possible Where Abouts are a few Broken Twigs. This Piece of Evidence by itself says Nothing about "When, How or Who?", yet if I am Looking for someone, I am going to Use those Broken Twigs as Evidence to the Possibility, Hypothesis or Theory that the Person I am Looking for has Passed by this way.

This is Reason Enough to Investigate Further to see if the Person really did or didn't Pass by this Way.

Lista said...

It is Interesting that you Used the Word "Missing Link", BB, for that is just Exactly what Darwinists are Missing as well. Don't you see that the Flaws in both are the Same?

And again, the Phrase "Preconceived Idea" and the Words "Hypothesis" and "Theory" are Similar as well. Neither Term Refers to Certainty and to Call it One Thing Rather than Another is a Subjective Judgment and this too is Influenced by Bias, as well as the Guessing and Judging of People's Motives.

Just so we are Clear on this, Darwin Evolutionists are just as Biased as Intelligent Design Scientists and are Just as Subject to "Preconceived" Biases and "Ideas". To Judge and Guess Motives is not really all that Scientific Either.

It is Interesting too that you Used an Example of a Girl that was having Trouble Believing in Atoms. The Reason why I Think that this Example is Interesting is because it Illustrates how even Science Requires Faith, especially when it is Still a Hypothesis or Theory.

Whether you Like it or not, BB, Darwinism is Basically Based in Atheism and Atheism is a Protected Religion. It is, In Fact, the Only Religion that we are Allowed to Teach in School, for if the Possibility of Creation is Never Mentioned, then Atheism is Essentially what is being Taught and that is the Explanation of the Why?

Lista said...

She Chuckles.

You Know, I Got Thinking as I was Reading Through what I just Wrote. Darwin Evolutionists can not Prove that the "What, How and Who" is Chance, so I guess we are once again, all in the Same Unprovable Boat.

BB-Idaho said...

Evolutionary Theory based on atheism? Atheism is a religion?
Religion: n
--a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.--
..note 'creation of a superhuman agency'. That is precisely why ID is not
taught in Dover, PA, why
the Discovery Institute
pushed it there, why the
schoolboard elected some
fundamentalist creationsists..why 72 living Nobel Prize scientists sent an affidavit to the court and why the judge ruled ID
'not science', but religion....and why they
elected a new schoolboard
more interested in educating kids than pushing
odd ideas.
..lets play with your words: 'Darwinism is based on atheism'. IMO, Darwinism is based on science. So science is atheism? Your problem is with science. Because it
ignores the issue of a creator. Not because it is atheistic, but because the logic of science has not needed one. It does not address the issue 'is there a God/is there no
God? That is the field
of Religion/philosophy.
No where in any scientific work do we see 'there is no God..God did it..DNA is atheistic, etc. Science is neutral, based
on data. Your argument for
teaching ID as biology is
based entirely on religion!
Either you have no scientific basis for ID,
or you have fallen into the trap of religion-based science that the Discovery Institute has tried so hard
to deny. Yikes!!

Lista said...

I Guess I'll Respond to this in Two Parts...

Even though Atheism is a Belief that there is no God, it is a Belief about God and is Therefore, a Religious Belief.

Or if you would Like me to Use your Definition of Religion, then Atheism is a Belief that the Cause is Chance, the Nature is Random and that there is no Purpose.

Intelligent Design does not "Create a Superhuman Agency". It Simply Observes Evidence of One and Forms a Hypothesis on what is Observed. You can Twist Words in a Way that Discredits it if you Like to, but this Only Reflects your Bias and your Conjuncture, or Perhaps I should Call it a Biased Assumption, or Only seeing what you Want to see while Observing and Evaluating your Opponent.

The Very Phrase "Creation of a Superhuman Agency" is an Atheistic Evaluation of what Religion is. The Statement itself, Contains the Assumption that the Being or "Agency" that is Created does not Actually Exist.

This Opinion about God is a Religious Opinion and it is a Protected Religious Opinion and the Only Religious Opinion that is Allowed in School.

The Court Ruled Against it because the Judges Probably had a Liberal Bias.

Lista said...

Actually Science does Take on a Rather Atheistic Bias, in that Hypotheses are not Allowed to Include God. The Actual Ideology is Called Naturalism.

"Created by Chance" Means that it was not Created by God, or in other Words, there is no Creator.

For Science to be Truly "Neutral", it would have to Follow the Evidence, Where ever it Leads. If an Option is Excluded, then it is not Possible to "Follow the Evidence Where ever it Leads" and to Exclude one of the Options is NOT SCIENTIFIC.

Since Atheism is a Belief about the Nature of God (That is, He doesn't Exist) and Naturalism is a View of the World that Excludes God, these are both Religious Beliefs and since this is so, Science which is Based on Naturalism is already Based on a Religious Premise. This is not Neutral. It is Based on a Religious World View, in that it is Based on an Idea about Nature and God.

Science is Caught Up in a Godless Box, which Limits the Conclusions to Only what Exists within the Box. If the Truth is something Other than what is in the Box, then that Particular Hypothesis is Rejected, yet if that Particular Hypothesis is the Truth, then the Truth will be Rejected as "Non-Scientific".

The True Discovery of Truth can not Be Hindered by the Exclusion of One of the Options. If a Scientist can not Go "Where ever the Evidence Takes him" and that Means both Inside and Outside of the Godless Box, then the Truth can not be Found, because there is Always the Possibility that the Forbidden Option is what is True and this is Why Excluding One of the Options, or if you Prefer, one of the Hypotheses, is NOT SCIENTIFIC.

BB-Idaho said...

"Even though Atheism is a Belief that there is no God, it is a Belief about God and is Therefore, a Religious Belief."
..calling atheism a religion is like calling bald a hair color. :)

Satyavati devi dasi said...

You can't prove the existence of the supernatural.

Science is about empiricism. You cannot empirically prove the existence of a Creator.

The two aren't compatible.

Lista said...

BB,
I may not Call Bald a Hair Color, but I may Call it a Hair Style.

Satyavati,
How many Times do I have to Say it? You can't Prove Speciation either, what's even more True, though, is that you can not Prove Random Chance.

The most Important Point that I am Making, though, is that if there are Two Possible Hypothesis and One of them is Rejected, this is Not Scientific.

Oh and BTW, Satyavati, I Finally Read and Left a Comment on your Dessert as an Analogical Argument for Intelligent Design Post Yesterday and it Appears to be Still Stuck in Moderation.

I said Quite a Bit in that Comment, but what I'd Like to Repeat here is that I don't Understand why you do not Think that what you said in the Last of your Comments is Scientific.

Lista said...

It was a Very Good Post, BTW.

Satyavati devi dasi said...

How many times do I have to say it? We can easily prove that chance genetic mutations DO occur. This isn't about speciation anymore. This is about the fact that if you have a hypothesis, you should be able to make predictions based on that hypothesis that can be empirically tested, ie made the object of experiments.

Now, there is no experiment you can ever design that will empirically test the presence of a creator.

You can expose organisms to environments and watch whether mutations increase as a result.. you can work with thousands of generations of e.coli bacteria to watch antibiotic resistance develop or with fruit flies to learn what parts of the genetic code do what. You can take a community, split it and isolate it and watch what happens.

You like to split Darwinism into pieces, because you personally don't care about natural selection. However, the two are intertwined in Darwinian theory and are inseperable; the theory states that natural selection WITHIN a species can eventually give rise to individuals that are so different from their ancestors that they qualify as a different species. If you accept that natural selection can occur within a species, then how can you draw a line and say, oh, it can happen to point A, but not to point B?

Remember we're talking about deep time here, in billions of years.

The empiric evidence DOES support the hypothesis that natural selection does occur and there is no real evidence against it occurring and eventually producing other species.

You should also be aware that sometimes technology has to catch up to theories in order to prove them. Before the advent of GPS, only circumstantial evidence pointed in the direction that continental drift was fact. It was only when sattelites were in the sky and GPS units could be mounted at fixed positions (like on Kilauea and at various points in the Himalayas) that the actual drift could be proved with hard science. The Hawaiian Islands are moving northwestward at approximately two inches per year. According to your approach, despite the circumstantial evidence, you would have called it 'unscientific' until we were able to design sattelites, launch them successfully, invent GPS and put them in these places.

If you can come up with a hypothesis, a prediction and an experiment to prove the existence of a Creator I urge you to share it with the scientific community as I am sure they would love to give it a shot.

And I don't have any comments sitting in moderation that I know of.

BB-Idaho said...

Evolutionary theory is a large and ever changing attempt to explain the logic of lifeforms on all levels. One area of study is hemoglogin- its primative forms, its relation to the chlrophylls and its changing functions in the range of life from primitive to complex.
The ongoing study of the
evolution of hemoglobin has
practical spin-offs, such
as understanding and treating cancers.

Lista said...

BB,
I Can not Keep Up with your Links, because I am not a very Fast Reader. I may have to Ask you to Slow Down because I do Want to Read what you have Submitted. So Far, I have not Seen any Evidence for Speciation that has Convinced me.

Satyavati,
I Wrote a Rather Long Response to you that I Want to Work on a Little more, so I'll get back to you. For Now, I just want to say Please do Read the Comments that I Have Submitted to your Blog for Moderation before Publishing. You will see that I Liked your Post and that we Agree on a lot of Things. I have Submitted Two Comments to your Dessert Analogy Post. If they are not in Moderation, then Try Spam.

Lista said...

Yes Salyavanti,
And how many Times do I have to say it that that "Proof", or better Stated, Strong Evidence, is in Relation to Within Species Studies. I am not Questioning the WITHIN SPECIES Evidence, Satyavati. I am Only Questioning Speciation, which can not be Proved.

Even in the Comment Section of your Dessert Analogy Post, as I have Linked to Above, you have Stated that "'Random mutation and environmental pressures' can just as easily be explained with the presence of intelligent direction (without having to rely on ridiculously slim probabilities). And it also accounts for the 'genetic heritage' of beings, rather than using that as an excuse that 'proves' it had to be a completely self-sufficient process." (Your Words).

This is an Alternate Hypothesis, Saty, which you have also Admitted Exists.

Here is another Quote from you..."Evolution and natural selection can be evidenced WITHIN SPECIES.. there is nothing there to prove speciation. And equally nothing to disprove that an intelligence (like the chick in the kitchen making cake) was tinkering around and running the whole thing.", which is Exactly what I am Also Trying to say.

Also, "To ask me to believe that a series of RANDOM, CHANCE mutations somehow made a bird capable of living by pollinating ONE TYPE OF FLOWER ONLY verges on the ridiculous. Or that random, chance mutations made certain tree seeds only have the ability to germinate after they'd been digested by certain animals. It doesn't make sense."

And, "On a species level, natural selection is an observable and obvious phenomenon. But it in no way explains speciation."

You Agree with me, Satyavati, so why are we Arguing?

I'm Hoping that as you Read the Comments that I Had Submitted to your Dessert Analogy Post, which I see you have Finally Found and Posted, that you saw that I Liked your Post and that we Agree on a lot of Things.

This Post is About Speciation. The Hypothesis is not just Mine. It it the one Posed by Intelligent Design and it is also the One that your Very Own Post is in Support of.

Lista said...

The Example of the Sugar Beets is an Example of a Failed Experiment that Does not Show Evidence of the Hypothesis of Speciation, but Instead of the Hypothesis that Speciation does not Occur, at Least not in Sugar Beets, so the Hypothesis that Speciation does not Occur in Sugar Beets has been Successfully Shown.

There is also no Experiment that will Ever Empirically Test the Absence of such a Creator, nor that Life has Occurred Independently, just by Chance.

And Once Again, I am not Impressed with the Evidence of Mutations within Species. That is not the Part of this Issue that is Controversial.

This is my Blog and I am Telling you that Natural Selection within Species is not the Subject of this Post.

"the theory states that natural selection WITHIN a species can eventually give rise to individuals that are so different from their ancestors that they qualify as a different species."

This is the Theory that can not be Proved, Satyavanti.

"If you accept that natural selection can occur within a species, then how can you draw a line and say, oh, it can happen to point A, but not to point B?"

Because of the Evolutionary Ceiling that is Illustrated in the Sugar Beets and also because no Credible Example of Speciation has ever been Shown.

I am not Debating the Empiric Evidence for Natural Selection, Saty. I'm Only Stating that Speciation has not Been Proved.

I am Also Opposed to Darwinism being Taught, Along with Speciation, as a Fact, rather than a Theory, because this is Dishonest.

You have Called Intelligent Design Unscientific because it can not be Proved. I am Simply Using the Same Standard that you have Used back in Return.

Intelligent Design is not Trying to Prove the Existence of a Creator, Saty. Only to Show Evidence of Intelligent Design.

Satyavati devi dasi said...

We're arguing because you cannot admit that ID is NOT SCIENCE regardless of what you personally think of it.
IT'S NOT SCIENCE.

I choose to support it DESPITE THE OVERWHELMING EVIDENCE for Darwinian processes.

IN NO WAY is there a scientific case to be made for Intelligent Design. At best it can be put forward as a quasi-religious attempt to discredit Darwinism.

You continue to insist, against all rationality and logic that it's science, which it isn't, hence the prolonged and torturous beating of this horse which has long been dead.

I'm not sure whether you feel that if you continue to beat it people will eventually change their minds, or whether they'll feign capitulation to your ideas to shut you up and get you off their backs or what, but the point is that never, ever, in any real and respected community of science, will Intelligent Design be taken as anything more than a pseudo-science BECAUSE IT CANNOT POSIT A HYPOTHESIS AND MAKE A PREDICTION THAT CAN BE REASONABLY AND RATIONALLY TESTED IN EMPIRICAL EXPERIMENTS.

Now, is that clear enough?

Lista said...

Before I Respond to your Most Recent Comment, Satyavati, I'd Like to Respond to something Earlier that you said and I've been Thinking about.

"the theory states that natural selection WITHIN a species can eventually give rise to individuals that are so different from their ancestors that they qualify as a different species."

You Keep Accusing me, Satyavati, of "Splitting Darwinism into Pieces" and yet no Matter how you Spin it, Proving the First Half of Theory, does not Prove the Second Half. Just because you Like to Focus on the First Half (Where the Evidence is) and I Like to Focus on the Second (Where the Evidence is not) does not Mean that Either one of us is more Guilty than the other of "Splitting Darwinism into Pieces".

You have a Habit of Accusing People of Things that you are no Less Guilty of yourself.

Just for Fun, I'm going to Revisit your November 16 Comment again before Moving on to your more Recent One.

"We can easily prove that chance genetic mutations DO occur."

You Can Prove Genetic Mutations, but not that they Happen by Chance.

"if you have a hypothesis, you should be able to make predictions based on that hypothesis that can be empirically tested."

Like Predicting that there will be an Evolutionary Ceiling and than Testing the Sugar Beets to see if such a Ceiling can be Broken through and then Realizing that it Can not, or Like Predicting that when Left Alone, the Beets will Return to the Average, rather than Evolving and when Testing this, Realizing that it is So.

This IS an Experiment, Satyavati. You have just Chosen to Ignore it because of your Preconceived Notions about Intelligent Design.

The Hypothesis is that Speciation does not Occur. The Existence of a Creator may be the Reason, but that is not the Hypothesis that is being Tested, because as you said, it can not be Empirically Tested, but that does not Mean that Intelligent Design Scientists do not Test Hypotheses.

Lista said...

Every Failed Experiment that does not Support Speciation, Provides Evidence for the Opposite Hypothesis and that is that Speciation doesn't Occur.

Difference and Variety, Satyavati, is not what Defines a Species, just as can be Observed in Dogs and Cats. What Defines a Species is that they can no Longer Breed with Each Other, for one Species can not Breed with Another.

We can Only Speculate about what New Technology will Prove. We can not Claim Proof before it is there. And yes, to do so is not Scientific.

Ok, now for the Most Recent of your Comments.

I do not Feel that there is Overwhelming Evidence of Speciation. Such a Statement Reflects your Bias and the Evidence for Mutations within Species does not Prove Speciation, no Matter how "Overwhelming".

You are so Convinced of Something that you do not Really Know because you Know more about Evolution than about the Work of Intelligent Design Scientists.

I'm not On your Back, Satyavati. You are Free to not Read my Blog if that is your Choice. All you have to do is Ignore me and I will Ignore you in Return.

There is a Tinge of Anger in your Responses that I don't Understand because I am not at all Angry.

Here is the Evidence, though, of Intelligent Design as a Science, if you do want to Know.

Does Intelligent Design Theory Implement the Scientific Method?
Intelligent Design based upon the Scientific Method, Not Blind Faith

Both of these are Short, but the First is Only one Paragraph.

BB-Idaho said...

Sugar beets:
Family-Chenopodiaceae
Species: vulgaris
This family also includes Chard, Spinach Beet, garden beet and the fodder crop mangelwurzel.
Like most crop species,
sugar beets have been
domesticated and improved, thus within the species we find 'varieties'. We would doubt natural selection
would result in higher and higher sucrose levels..
the only purpose of the stored sugar is for the production of flowering and seeds in the reproductive process.
Agricultural scientists
have worked to maximize the sugar content so that it is much higher than the original 'sea beet' which was first cultivated about 4000 years ago.
The 'evolutionary ceiling'
is of the bred sugar beet is the asymtotic result of the plant biochemistry simply unable to sustain
any greater sugar production (keeping in mind that from the plant
standpoint, it only needs
enough sucrose for the above mentioned reproductive purposes).
The breeding of plants and animals has taken place over millenia, and while
'intelligently designed' by humans no selective breeding results in speciation.
In considering species,
we know of 1,203,375 animal species and 1,589,361 plant species,
and there are probably more remaining undiscovered. It is thought that about 99% of
all species that have existed on the planet are now extinct. If one believes each speciation
is 'intelligently designed', that is
2,792,736 'creations' for
the still viable species,
and about 280 million different species altogether. So ID science would (I rather think) seek evidence as to why
and how 280 million species were designed, and since 99% of those died out, why the 'design' was so poor? Simple biological taxonomy allows us to group these species into genus, family, phyla
based formerly on observation, later on biochemistry and currently
reinforced by genome characteristics. Taxonomy
cries out for an evolutionary process. So much so that "Linnaeus, Maupertuis, Buffon, and even Aristotle, had suggested that some species might give rise to new species, but this was contrary to church teaching and was a dangerous view to hold in Christian Europe." Small
wonder that Alfred Russel Wallace and
Darwin are attacked to this day. No wonder
Voltaire screamed out
Ecrasez L\'Infame :)

Lista said...

You Know, Satyavati, I Actually Chuckled as I Read your Comment again because not Only are you so Convinced of Something because you Know more about Evolution than about Intelligent Design Theorists, but also because you seem to Think that these Ideas are Mine and Mine alone and that I have somehow Come Up with them on my Own, just out to the Blue.

You Think that this is Just What I "Personally Think" and all you are doing is Revealing your Ignorance on the Subject of Intelligent Design Research.

Darwinists are Trying to Discredit Intelligent Design even more so than the other way around and if anything, Darwinism is the "Horse which has Long been Dead".

Just Like Usual, I could Take all of your Comment and Say the Exact Same Thing Back to you.

"Now, is that clear enough?"

What is Christal Clear, Satyavati, is that you are the One who is Very Very Dogmatic.

Lista said...

Hi BB,
I'm Sorry that I Missed your Comment Earlier.

Let's see. First of all, Variety is not what Distinguishes Species. Just Like Dogs and Cats are Extremely Varied with a Large Number of Breeds in Each and yet Still Each of these is Only One Species. How Many Times do I have to Say that?

Intelligent Design Theorists have been Able to Intelligently Criticize the Research of Darwinists, just as you have been Able to Criticize their Research. Nothing can be Conclusively Proved and Nothing is Established by Either Party.

"no selective breeding results in speciation."

That's Right and that Represents another Whole Set of Failed Experiments.

Yes, the Creation of 2,792,736 Species is so Amazing that it is Hard to Believe, yet Random Chance Resulting in Incredible Complexities is Equally as Amazing and Hard to Believe.

99% Died Out? Come on BB. They don't Know that!

The Persecution goes Both Ways, BB. Atheists are just as Biased as Deists. Don't Think for a Minute that they are not.

Toad734 said...

Sure they did, Pinto's exploded, resulting in the extinction of Pinto's....Natural selection in it's rawest form.

Lista said...

Hi Toad,
Thanks so much for Dropping by, yet Unfortunately, I do not Know what it is that you are Talking about.

Toad734 said...

If something doesn't work, it eventually gets faded out and replaced by something that works better...In this case, Toyota in the case of Evolution, Homosapien worked better than Neanderthal and thus Neanderthals (an evolutionary dead end, not an ancestor of humans) got replaced by homosapiens as we were smarter.

You do agree that there was a species called Neanderthals right? And their existence overlapped our existence and thet they were shorter, more robust, wider noses, etc but possessed a different number of chromozones than we do right?? I guess that's the first step.

Lista said...

It's Interesting that you Mentioned Toyota, because Toyotas are Created by Man (an Intelligent Designer) and Yes, if One Vehicle doesn't Work, then we Replace it with a New Invention.

Sure, Neanderthals Existed, but there is no Missing Link so far that has not been Disputed.

Satyavati devi dasi said...

Actually current genetic research is showing some evidence of interbreeding of Neandertals and homo sapiens, which would indicate, if not simply variation, then close affinity of species.

I wouldn't go so far as to say that homo sapiens advanced because they were 'smarter'... I don't think that's a fair assessment necessarily. There are plenty of perfectly good animal (and human) populations that were perfectly successful in their given environments until exterminated by hunting, warfare, etc. How many animal species were hunted to extinction? This has no bearing on their evolutionary fitness. It is entirely possible (and the theory has been advanced) that Neandartals were eliminated through warfare. This wouldn't necessarily mean that homo sapiens were 'smarter', just more aggressive. Invasive species eradicate native populations all the time. It happens so quickly that no adaptations can be made.

Lista said...

Interbreeding is Generally an Indication that it is a Variation of the Same Species. They do not Become Separate Species Until the Interbreeding Stops, that is if there ever was Interbreeding.

In the Rest of your Comment, you Make Interesting Points.

Satyavati devi dasi said...

Closely related species that aren't variations can at times breed. This happens with birds on occasions and as you know, donkeys, which aren't horses, do interbreed with horses although mules are sterile. Some types of big cats also interbreed as far as I know.

I'm sure that maybe it's not their first choice... but if you really wanna.. you will.

Lista said...

Actually, I Think you Might be at Least Partially Wrong about that, but I have to go Look that Up again.