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.