PhDP

Like Lucid said, "they aren't". Intelligent Design isn't endorse by serious institutions like the National Academy of Science, and it's not by most biologists. It's certainly not gaining ground and is mosly supported by non-biologists. If creationists are always losing against evolutionists in court, it's certainly not because of a lack of supports from the population, it's because creationism, and intelligent design, isn't science, it's religion. Then read what both sides have to say. Don't choose creationism before reading what evolutionist have to say. I've heard "Science on Trial: The Case for Evolution" (by Douglas J. Futuyma), is a pretty good defence of evolutionary biology. And if you have a specific question about evolution, there's an army of evolutionists here to answer

I do know the answer, and Mokele too. And Dawkins isn't our god, certainly not mine. Personally, I won't say you are dishonest, but you certainly quote people who are often dishonest in their argument. They are creationists before even knowing what evolutionary biology is.

Which president have started the strage tradition of finishing every appearance with "God bless America" ? Carter ? Reagan ?

Yes and no. First I don't know if we can call his views "his hypothesis", Dawkins didn't make much contributions to evolutionary theory, he just embrace more than everyone the approach of Williams, Hamilton and Wilson. His interpretation of evolution is probably the most orthodox. I have some difficulties with that... When you read Dawkins (or even Dennett or Pinker, which is more of the same), you're left with the impression that there's only one mechanism of evolution; natural selection, and that it's action can be seen as some sort of ultimate optimizer. What of linkage ? Random genetic drift ? Endosymbiosis ? What of evo-devo and the nearly neutral theory of evolution ? It seem that in Dawkins' world, there's only place for natural selection. This summer I've made a little research on the theoretical foundations of life history evolution and I've seen that evolutionary ecologist have the bad tendency of ignoring large parts of evolutionary biology, so it's not only the problem with Dawkins. Answer; "Polyploidy"

I don't want to try to convince a nazi sympathizer that evolution is science, it's no the kind of people I want on my side. Nazis were the master of pseudoscience, may it always be that way...

I ask you to prove "luck" wasn't an important factor, I don't ask you to disprove something I said, I didn't say "luck" was more or less important than "ability". I'm just sceptical of the claim that poor people are lazy and rich people are hard working. However, I see how practical it is to justify a lack of empathy or generosity. How many people are dying because they don't have a computer ? Comparing computers with basic need is complete nonsense. I'm not saying we should all have the same salary, but it's just incredible how much money some people have (and it's far from always being proportionate with their contribution to society) while some cannot pay for a good education for their kids. Nobody need millions to survive, to live a descent live, some people really need that money for their basic need. Redistribution is essential to a certain social justice. About "rights", I don't care about rights that are harming human life and I don't give a damn that some people think the government has no right to raise taxes, a society should do everything so everyone could get food, education, health care, a place to live, et cetera...

Can you prove that most rich peoples are rich because of their skill and not because they were at the good place at the good time ? And I'm not asking for a list of people, I don't care about Howard Hughes or other fallacious anecdotal evidence. You say people claim luck is important to justify their laziness ? I believe people claim "ability" is important to justify unacceptable nequalities. The fact is, if you have 200 000$ a year, what's the importance of your last 50 000$ ? You will have a bigger car, a bigger house with that money, while some people are barely able to survive with their salary, and you justify that injustice by claiming it's their fault ?

If you and your little sister can beat the statistics, you could make a lot of money with your skill of telepathy. http://www.randi.org/research/index.html

You seem to think that "Natural selection = evolution". But you can have natural selection without evolution and evolution without natural selection. And that's the point, even if we would have completely eradicated natural selection in our species (and I don't think it's possible), evolution would still act on us through other mechanism.

Very simple. In science class, you teach science, not religion. Isn't it obvious ? Why not going into religion class saying the concept of a virgin birth is, from a scientific point of view, nonsense ? And while it is obviously untrue to biologists, and other scientists, it isn't to people who are creationist even before knowing what an allele is (and that is the case of a lot of creationists). It's really incredible how many people, even here in this forum, are attacking evolution while they don't have a clue what evolutionary biology is.

inexpensive ? No... biology is too vast to be resumed to a short, inexpensive book. Are you are interested in a particular subject (physiology, ecology, evolution, genetics) ? The only real general textbook I know which cover most of the subjects of biology is Life: The Science of Biology, but it's quite expensive, and the quantitative aspect of biology aren't explained.

Bursaw, how can you beat an evolutionist if; - You cannot prove that your incredulity about evolution is true - ID theory cannot predict anything, it just say "evolution isn't enough" Why theists always reject complexity in favor of a simplified, personal incarnation of nature ?

There's no more facts disproving intelligent design than there's facts disproving the idea that a giant yellow troll from Alpha Centuri gave DaVinci a pyramid of Germanium. But there's no fact to prove ID is true, they just claim evolution "isn't enough to explain the complexity of life". IDist are only attacking evolution when it fails (and it's not perfect), shouting "It's god !!!".

Agreed. As long as it's not considered science....

As ID isn't much more than an argument from ignorance/incredulity, it's certainly not in friendly terms with the scientific community, and the active campaign against science by some ID group isn't helping. Is ID testable ? No. Does it make any accurate predictions ? No. It's not very hard to see why ID isn't science, it's even quite obvious. "The theory of intelligent design says life on earth is too complex to have developed through evolution, implying that a higher power must have had a hand in creation." Behold the infinite power of the God of the gaps. I would challenge you to demonstrate the usefulness of ID in science, however I'm a little afraid our discussion might bore to death many forumers with another Creation/Evolution debate.

Two: All life must necessarily, adapt towards a longer life span. Not really. However, it was a paradox for evolutionary biology some time ago. (1) Genotype (or organism, if you want) tend to increase their contribution to the growth of a population ®, it's natural selection (briefly). (2) The main fitness components are; Survival, l(x), and Fecundity, m(x) (3) Increasing l(x) = better survival = increase in fitness ®* (4) Increasing m(x) = more offsprings = increase in fitness ®* (5) Reproducing early is more important than reproducing late, because those offsprings start reproducing faster, so having offspring early contribute more to fitness than late. (6) Solution ? ... antagonist pleiotropy !!! Some genes were shown to be beneficial early in life, but deleterious late in life. (7) As having offsprings early is better for fitness than late, those antagonist genes increase fitness even if they decrease survival. Mathematical tools like those given by Charlesworth show that reducing survival late in life have nearly no effect on fitness. (8) All life must not necessarily adapt towards a longer life span. * All other things being equal... If you are interested, I can give you the references for each of those point.

Because Silicon is in the same group as Carbon. They have 4 electrons in their outer energy level, and they "need" 4 electrons. So they can form easily 4 links with other atoms, which make them very good candidates to be the basis of large, complex molecules. So, what qualifies an element ? It's flexibility, it's capacity to share electrons to form complex structures. Also, light elements are generally more common, so it's probably a plus.

It's called the "Flynn" effect. We don't know exactly why it's happening, it's a fast increase in the average IQ of a population. But it's certainly not natural selection. Generally, people with high IQ have few children and they often have them late, while people with high IQ have many children. It lead some eugenicist to the catastrophic conclusion that IQ would decrease because "high IQ" wasn't as fit as "low IQ". In theory, IQ isn't supposed to be influenced by education. However, nutrition and stimulation can affect the IQ. It's generally accepted that about 50% of the IQ results are explained by genes, the other half is explained by a combination of environment and genetics. Many think the increase is du to a more complex/stimulating environment and better healthcare (technology). A very recent research show that Heterosis is maybe partially responsible for the rise. Heterosis happen when the 2 parents are from different ethnic background, it was shown their offspring have higher IQ than suspected (heterosis = hybrid vigor). So my point is; we don't really care about sight and appendix, but we do care about thing like intelligence, which are increasing, certainly not because of natural selection, but as a consequence of the environment technology and medicines has created. You seem to think genes have an intrinsic value, they don't. If having no appendix isn't an advantage, if it doesn't improve your fitness, then you aren't degenerate to have an appendix. It's a question of context. I really doubt you could enhanced your IQ as much as you could improve an athletic performance. The brain isn't a muscle. However it's true that you can improve your IQ, and IQ result are not accurate at high level (beyond 2 standard deviance, in most test it mean more than 130 or less than 70).

I agree that, because of exagerated therapeutic eagerness, people often die in very poor condition. That doesn't mean technology and medicine is ruining our genes. We don't need to have a good sight, we don't need to loose our appendix, we live in an environement where these things doesn't matter to our survival. Most of the genes have no intrinsec value, they only have a value in a particular context. Sure, life is very easy for people in occident, and sure, natural selection (which is not the only mecanism of evolution, maybe not even the most important) isn't affecting us very much, like many other species in the wild, but we have a strategy oriented toward the use of our intelligence. We might even be able to enhanced our own genome. True, some illness could have been discared in the wild. It's the consequence of society and human empathy, what can we do about it except waiting for genetic engineering ? It's certainly not because of natural selection that the average IQ is rising today.

We live longer, taller, stronger, and, even without natural selection, IQ are rising at a fast pace. We are certainly not decreasing in quality. Natural selection isn't always a good thing, it's the enemy of diversity, if we compare the human species to other mammals, our genetic diversity is already low. About "the world will be suffering from appendicitis". Why ? Nearly all human have an appendix. Nearly all human HAD an appendix. Appendicitis is an random infection due to the mechanic of our digestive system, it's not genetic. Have you proofs appendicitis is more frequent now ? I don't think it is...

I think it's Phillip Johnson who coined the term, and he's not a scientist... The concept is strongly linked to the Discovery Institute, who is trying to make ID look like a serious scientific idea, defended by objective individuals.

[math] e^{i\pi} = -1 [/math] ...and [math] 1 = \int_{\alpha}^{\rho} e^{-rx}m(x)l(x)dx [/math] It's an equation so simple but so usefull in evolutionary ecology.

Luckily for Americans, biology, and science in general, isn't a democracy. Despite all their efforts, creationists haven't convinced many evolutionary biologist, if any...

I consider myself a social democrat, and honestly I'm a little surprised how far to the left the test puts me. Economic Left/Right: -7,38 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -5,38

...and then Bill O'Reilly/John Gibson will say it's because of the evil France, it's always because of France...