Hey Chips_,

[ QUOTE ]

I noticed you addressed both me and NotReady in your post. I think there are a lot of different topics being discussed here. I think he and I are covering different ground on a lot of points.


[/ QUOTE ]
Agreed. I though my answer did address some topics that both, or either, of you raised.

[ QUOTE ]

You make a scientific argument in your first paragraph. On that paragraph --- In considering the evolution of something from A1 to A100 Going from A1 to A2 might require lets say 3 changes in the genetic code. From A2 to A3 another 3 changes ..and so on. Now 6 changes to the genetic code is more than twice as hard as 3. 30 changes are far more than 10 times harder than just 3.


[/ QUOTE ]
I was trying to simplify to allow the real issue to come to the fore. You could consider each of a1, a2, a3, etc.. to be intermediate steps. Secondly, even if it was 100 or a thousand, or more times harder, it would not change the argument. In fact, IMO, it would strengthen it.

[ QUOTE ]

You mentioned experiments.....
People have done breeding experiments for centuries. Now with Breeding experiments you are usually selecting variations within the existing gene pool of a species. But still people have always known that you hit barriers. Starting with one genetic code - a few changes is OK - too many changes and you may get a type of animal that cannot reproduce - too many more changes and the animal is far more likely to be dead than alive. A wise man once said that there are far more ways to be dead than alive genetically. Now with evolution - we must realize that on the plus side that we go one step at a time. And that non random selection is in operation. Definitely different than making the large number of changes all at once. And also on the plus side (making things easier)there is more than one possible combination of the genetic code that can make an A2. But it turns out from experiments that the fact that we are making more changes to a highly complex and ordered system outweighs the other factors. I'd argue that the math bears this out also. Experiments with micro-organisms follow similar patterns to the breeding experiments. Easy to change a few things, very hard to change a medium amount of genes - completely undemonstratable to change a large number of genes.


[/ QUOTE ]
Interesting to relate DNA to evolution theory. I think we are just scratching the surface there. We are still very far from understanding the DNA processes and mechanics. I mean, we just managed to map a complete genome recently. We still don't know much about the relationship between genes and features. I hope that your interest may earn you a Nobel prize in the future. Keep it up. I am certain that it will become a very productive branch.

[ QUOTE ]

So back to the point you make. If we can clearly see A1 going to A2 going to A3 but then there are gaps...well since the A1 to A2 to A3 progression happened its reasonable to think the gaps would be filled. I would say this is not necessarily true. I think the gap is telling us that the gap area of genetic space if you will is a tough one to live in. Perhaps an impossible one to live in. In may not be simply a case of missing data. In any case saying that if we see part of the A1-A100 sequence it suggests that the whole sequence is likely to have happened - no I can't go along with that as a certainty.
I cant go along with it because of experimental evidence and what I think are mathematical estimates of how evolutionary processes would make major changes to the genetic code.


[/ QUOTE ]
You are misunderstanding the argument against ID and somewhat falling in the trap that ID'ers would love you to fall in. The test of evolution theory has been going on since it was first formulated, and has uncovered an unbelievable number of confirmations (the discovery of fossil evidence for gaps). Sure there have been adjustments and extensions made to the original theory, but no evidence has been uncovered that sap it in any significant (precisely the ways in which it is objectionable to ID'ers) ways.

[ QUOTE ]

I have a specific thread that I am thinking of starting on just this topic alone. It will start with a specific example of this concept.


[/ QUOTE ]

Go for it dude [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[ QUOTE ]

The second part of your post is a continuation of what to me is a philosophical debate. Let me clarify again that by "intelligent design" I'm not referring to a movement. I understand the objection to a movement used as a way of getting religion into the science class. What I refer to when I say design is a possible conclusion based on data. To say that design isn't science in this context says to me that we cross off the list a possible conclusion from the data we collect. And I must also add that the point I make above is not necessarily on its own a case for design. I like the theory of evolution as a general idea.


[/ QUOTE ]

I am not referring to the movement either, I am referring to the body of work that purports to be science yet fails the fundamental test of science. It cannot be tested. There are a myriad possible ways of explaining gaps, from astrology, to ID and unimagined others. The moment they lend themselves to testing, and confirmation they will be part of science, until then they are NOT and should not be presented as such in an educational context. Where do we draw the line? What bizarre theory do we present as an alternative? Until they are testable and tested they are mere speculation or a parlour game for people that have nothing better to do.

You like the theory of evolution!? I like gravity!? Means very little, what I like, or not, the question debated is: is ID science? The answer to that question is a resounding NO.

I personally don't object to people believing in ID, or astrology, or tarot cards. I don't mind a plethora of books being published about such speculation, and enjoyed and take as fact by some. Just don't confuse it with science, or all you chances at a Nobel prize for science will evaporate.

Enjoy all.

[img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]