Upcoming and Response

I'm working on a post about CXCL-4, integrins, and cancer, but until I finish that, here's something I wanted to write to Mr. Ray Comfort, but I figured it would be overly long

Examples of species-to-species transitions are:
ring species of Ensatina salamanders
ring species of Larus gulls (kind of; it's really, really complicated)
[More after the fold]

These two examples are BETWEEN speciation by pretty much any biological definition of species. Neighboring populations can hybridize while distant populations cannot. You will rebut this by saying "but they're the same type." Yes, they are still salamanders or birds respectively, but, for example, are crocodiles reptiles? Myself, and many other biologists, say that while they are reptiles, they are a very unique kind of reptile with four-chambered hearts. This is very unlike any other reptile. It has also been established that genetically, crocodiles and turtles are slightly closer related to birds than other reptiles making the class Sauropsida paraphyletic unless you include Aves. Again, you'll say "common designer" but why, oh why, would a common designer include hundreds of sequences of transposons, retrotransposons, and silenced DNA sequences not present in the genetic sequences of animals which are less similar? Your reply will be "we cannot know, because my God works in mysterious ways."

I'll even say to you that evolution DOES have problems, but the ones you are talking about are NOT the problems. By drawing attention to your nonsensical representation of evolutionary biology, the real questions are not addressed. These include:
1) classification of bacteria due to horizontal gene transfer
2) establishing phylogenies of asexual organisms
3) exploring genetic change based upon things such as codon bias and induced mutation.
4) Many others.
Note, these do not conflict with the current model, rather they are additions which need to be made. Most organisms DO evolve by natural selection and genetic drift. Viruses also evolve in this way, but they, and bacteria, are also much more capable of the aforementioned horizontal gene transfer. Viruses also are capable of introducing their own DNA, which is usually done via RNA converted into DNA then inserted into the genome, and thus giving us insight into said virus evolution, as well as the evolution of progeny of the previously infected organism.

Cue "cosmological evolution" argument which neither you nor I are qualified to argue. Unlike you, however, I have a collegiate education in evolutionary biology and have read more publications on genetics and molecular biology than you can pronounce the titles of (granted that may be zero); this makes me, while not inherently smarter, certainly better educated. You can start with Berkeley's kiddy version of an evolutionary biology course. Ernst Mayr's "This is Biology," Mark Ridley's "Evolution," and D.Q. McInerny's "Being Logical" also would be good reads for you.
*note, I could have included pictures and more links, but then you wouldn't have to do any work.

I figured I'd post this

This is a comment I left on a blog earlier, but since it's likely never going to show up, I figured I'd post it here.

The argument for "human life beginning at conception" is indefensible and ignorant of our knowledge of human biology and physiology. The reasons for this are quite simple: why draw the line at conception? Why not say that human life began several billion years ago and has continued since via a chain of organisms? The reason for saying a "human starts" at conception is based upon the silly notion that humans have souls that enter the child at conception. I suppose it communicates via the pineal gland like Descartes said?

But let's digress to another point completely; you think that a fertilized egg is special in some way, and that your god cares what happens to it. Explain to me, then, why less than 25% of the time, (on any given cycle) when a woman is TRYING to conceive, she succeeds, not because an egg isn't released, fertilized, and viable, but because it did not implant into the uterine lining. Then, of those, 25% miscarry by the sixth week. Of those remaining (down to 20% of the original ones trying to get pregnant) an additional 10% of them end in clinical miscarriages. So we're down to 18% chance of pregnancy with NO form of contraception and the woman is fertile, healthy, and on a good diet. To top it off, an additional 1% of births are stillborn.

So now let's review, if a fertilized egg is a newborn child, the ramifications for this are MUCH farther than you expected.
1) we must try and convict your god of murder
2) we must try and convict every woman to have ever had a child, because, statistically speaking, she's killed at least 3 for every child she's had.
3) we must engage in actively thwarting your gods plan to kill more embryos by removing the ovaries of all women and producing children for society by means of an artificial womb.
4) we must put your god in prison for a life sentence for each murder he/she/it committed.

Or we could just admit how silly calling a anything with absolutely no means of experiencing the world as we do "human." After all, humans care for humans out of empathy, but we cannot possibly conclude that an embryo suffers pain, feels joy, or has any thoughts at all, because thoughts require neurons, neurons are cells, and the most a birth control pill will stop is a few hundred undifferentiated cells.

Think he's gonna post it? Nah, I don't think so either.

Please listen to the evidence

It would seem someone from "pleaseconvinceme" finally read my letter:
Referrer http://blogsearch.google.com/blogsearch?hl=en&q=pleaseconvinceme&um=1&ie=UTF-8&scoring=d&filter=0&sa=N
Search Engine Phrase pleaseconvinceme
Search Engine Name Google Blog Search
Search Engine Host blogsearch.google.com
Host Name (removed for privacy)
IP Address (also)
Country United States
Region California
City Mission Viejo
Visit Length 6 mins 9 secs
doesn't look like they changed anything, so I'll break down their claims and explain WHY they are wrong.

How can you even begin to question something as well established as evolution?'

Well, you might be surprised to find that the ‘fact’ of evolution is really not a fact at all. Like any other notion of how we got here, it is simply another theory that needs to be fairly examined. I think that enough time has passed since Darwin first proposed the idea for us to now look at it with fresh eyes and the wisdom of years of research. Let’s see if the theory can be supported by the evidence.

Actually, animals do evolve, this has been demonstrated COUNTLESS times, but here's a really good short list of Lenski's experiments which are pretty good ad explaining why you're wrong. Also, Darwin was not the first to propose that things evolve, that was done by MANY scientists long before, Darwin provided a mechanism and the modern evolutionary synthesis is FAR from Darwin's original, now relatively uninformed, proposal.

'Isn’t the evidence overwhelming?'

Yep, it surely is, but let's see what you have to say...

That all depends on what definition of evolution you are trying to prove. If you are trying to argue that the all life here on planet earth evolved from non-living chemical elements (macroevolution), then very little has actually been demonstrated by science.

Except, you know, abiogenesis is NOT evolution, it's fundamentally different. For the second part dealing with "macroevolution," you can also look at phylogenetics research around the world which ALL SUPPORT evolution knowing what we know about genetics.

To believe in this form of evolution, one has to have an fair amount of faith; far more faith than is required to believe that a creator God is responsible for the diversity of life that we presently see.

All you demonstrated is a lack of understanding of what evolution is, you put up a straw man of your idea of what abiogenesis is (a very inaccurate one at that), called it evolution, and then proceeded to strike it down. This is neither evidence, nor valid argument.

'But aren’t you biased as a Christian?'

Let me answer this for you, "yes."

Well, I wasn’t always a Christian, and in the years that I was an atheist, I simply accepted the theory of evolution without truly investigating its claims.

Really, you were? Not a very educated one. I would go so far as to say you still aren't very educated in evolutionary biology, genetics, and natural history, but you may very well be educated in them and are just being intellectually dishonest with both yourself the public.

But for the record, as a human being, I definitely have a point of view. Please remember, however, that EVERYONE has a point of view.

Some are based upon evidence, others are based upon dogma...

No one comes to ANY question without a history and perspective.

Except, you know, you can learn the technique to rid yourself of bias when it is necessary. It is a very useful tool.

The real issue is: does my point of view prevent me from fairly examining the evidence?

My question is, what evidence, you haven't presented any yet. This reads like a work of post-modern literature, both verbose and empty.

Let’s simply do our best to lay out the evidence and you be the judge about what it happens to say about the ‘fact’ of evolution…

Very well, let's do so, but the only evidence you present is your personal incredulity. This does not make for a very good argument.

Better than creationism!

Oh damn, I came across an awesome webpage with people that can't even touch the creationists. If anyone wants to roll around on the floor laughing hysterically.

Read, enjoy, don't hurt yourself...

Here it is.