Evolution: Science or Philosophy

[TomOfSweden]

Sorry Rhabbi, I'll get back to answering your earlier posts. I'm a bit pressed for time. I thought I'd add this real quick since it's relevant. I got an answer from my PhD friend in molecular biology and I'll have to interpret since she's Swedish.

There's a long list of observed speciasation that has occured both in laboratory and in nature. She didn't go into detail but Diane Dodd proved it without a doubt in 1989. There's always critique about every experiment, especially if it gets this much attention. Just because a scientist words some critcism about a method doesn't mean that they don't accept the result. Nobody has been able to invalidate her experiment which is the important detail. Her experiment has been repeated many times and we always get the same result. Dodd did it on fruit flies and it's been done many times after that with other creatures and plants.

And then she went on about how sick she is of religious fanatics and militant vegans, which are a nuisance in her field. She also said that most of their results get miss-quoted in the press to make better head-lines. You really need to read the reports themselves to get a fair picture of what they are doing. Admitedly you also need to have studied the field to understand the terminology.

She didn't write this in the letter but I know from earlier that she moved to Australia, (from Sweden) because it's the most liberal place to do genetic research. That and South Korea.

[Rhabbi]

Sorry Rhabbi, I'll get back to answering your earlier posts. I'm a bit pressed for time. I thought I'd add this real quick since it's relevant. I got an answer from my PhD friend in molecular biology and I'll have to interpret since she's Swedish.

There's a long list of observed speciasation that has occured both in laboratory and in nature. She didn't go into detail but Diane Dodd proved it without a doubt in 1989. There's always critique about every experiment, especially if it gets this much attention. Just because a scientist words some critcism about a method doesn't mean that they don't accept the result. Nobody has been able to invalidate her experiment which is the important detail. Her experiment has been repeated many times and we always get the same result. Dodd did it on fruit flies and it's been done many times after that with other creatures and plants.

And then she went on about how sick she is of religious fanatics and militant vegans, which are a nuisance in her field. She also said that most of their results get miss-quoted in the press to make better head-lines. You really need to read the reports themselves to get a fair picture of what they are doing. Admitedly you also need to have studied the field to understand the terminology.

She didn't write this in the letter but I know from earlier that she moved to Australia, (from Sweden) because it's the most liberal place to do genetic research. That and South Korea.

Citations please.

[TomOfSweden]

Citations please.

It's Swedish so a translation is the best I can do. Beside Diane Dodd she didn't give me any references. She wasn't hard to google either. http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolib...rticle//evo_45

My friend was pretty dismissive though. As if the whole US evolution debate is a non issue, not worthy of her time to explain. A completly synthetic discussion.

It makes sense though, since I haven't heard the same debate in any other country anywhere. It's as if nobody else understands where the ID people get their scientific suport. If we trust my friend, it's because they maybe don't have any.

edit: to be perfectly clear here. I only asked my friend about speciasation. Nothing else. There may be other problems with evolution. Speciasation just isn't one of them.

[Rhabbi]

It's Swedish so a translation is the best I can do. Beside Diane Dodd she didn't give me any references. She wasn't hard to google either. http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolib...rticle//evo_45

My friend was pretty dismissive though. As if the whole US evolution debate is a non issue, not worthy of her time to explain. A completly synthetic discussion.

It makes sense though, since I haven't heard the same debate in any other country anywhere. It's as if nobody else understands where the ID people get their scientific suport. If we trust my friend, it's because they maybe don't have any.

edit: to be perfectly clear here. I only asked my friend about speciasation. Nothing else. There may be other problems with evolution. Speciasation just isn't one of them.

Interestingly enough, I read the article you cited, and it was pure speculation and admitted it. Although adaptation to environment and food occurs, I still do not see a distinct species.

[TomOfSweden]

Interestingly enough, I read the article you cited, and it was pure speculation and admitted it. Although adaptation to environment and food occurs, I still do not see a distinct species.

I think it has more to do with the authors careful use of language rather than any personal convictions. Maybe your only seeing what you're looking for.

[Rhabbi]

I think it has more to do with the authors careful use of language rather than any personal convictions. Maybe your only seeing what you're looking for.

The author speculates on the possiblity od allotropic speciation, and indicates that if it happens, the lab experiments involving fruit flies would be the first step of that process.

Although, we can't be sure, these preference differences probably existed because selection for using different food sources also affected certain genes involved in reproductive behavior. This is the sort of result we'd expect, if allopatric speciation were a typical mode of speciation.

Although this is carefully couched in a scientific way, it is nonetheless speculation. IOf anyone is reading into this, it is you and all the others who are so anxious to believe in evolution that they accept even the flimsiest of evidence as proof.

[TomOfSweden]

Although this is carefully couched in a scientific way, it is nonetheless speculation. IOf anyone is reading into this, it is you and all the others who are so anxious to believe in evolution that they accept even the flimsiest of evidence as proof.

It's not a question of wanting to believe. It's what we have to chose from. I don't know how many times I've said it in this thread. ID isn't a theory. It's evolution or nothing.

And on top of that evolution is suported by massive amounts of evidence. There are no holes. The more I read about this the more asstounded I get that this is at all an issue in USA. ID doesn't exist. It's a big debate about a non-issue. It's desperate fundamentalists who not only ignore common sense, but also facts to find suport of their religious text. What this thread has taught me is that Christians are a lot more dangerous I previously thought. They need to be taken a lot more seriously, and fought every step of the way, or we'll never be rid of them.

But good luck with being a fundamentalist. It seems to make you happy. I'm out of here now.