i got to thinking about evolution and intelligent design a couple of days ago when a co-worker mentioned that he owned a Labradoodle. A Labradoodle is a cross between a Labrador and a Poodle that was first bred in 1989. So it's pretty recent. Which got me to thinking, how does a Labradoodle fit into the intelligent design theory Intelligent design states that some species for reasons unknown are popped into existence fully formed by an intelligent agency (i.e. god). So the intelligent design tree for a Labradoodle could look like this:

All three dogs were created by a supernatural event fully formed (as indicated here by a star). But we know that's untrue because we bred the Labradoodle. We did. Humans. Humans made the Labradoodle by forcing the mating of two related species of dogs which, as the well proven scientific fact of DNA and genetics proves, crosses the genome and creates a new unique variant.
So this:

Is obviously closer to the truth. But we also know that Labradors and Poodles are actually just bred variants of much older dogs, I'll say Rottweiler as a placeholder because they are a very old breed of domesticated dogs (Roman soldiers used Rotties.)

But this too is untrue because we know that all canines are descended from wolves. The wolves were domesticated in a parasitic relationship with the first agricultural communities.
So the problem here is that evolution is winning this debate. Every time one of the stars is replaced with knowledge, some of which you know for yourself, evolution win and intelligent design loses. And this little example is just a tiny portion of a much larger tree. Where scientific knowledge has replaced every star, including the star at the base of homo sapiens (which is us, and the only star that intelligent design scientists care about) with a very strong link to our apes.
I for one, am happy to be descended from apes, who can have their lineage tracked back to the first unicellular organisms that flourished in the organic soup that started life on this planet. I'm proud that we have evolved so far and yet are still completely connected to the rest of life on this planet. It means that we are symbiotic with this particular planet. That the Earth isn't just a bunch of dirt we happen to be on. We are one in the same, and the unique environment of the Earth, over time, shaped both itself and humans. It's amazing.
But I digress. Intelligent design theory is a joke. You can't prove it. It's not based on any facts. It's just a critique of a real theory (evolution) which has stood the test of time and test and only been proven strong. ID doesn't even hold up to explaining the origin of household dogs. I can disprove intelligent design in twenty minutes with OmniGraffle. What a joke.
Intelligent design theory: FAIL.
Posted by jherr at December 8, 2007 09:27 AMI asssume you saw Nova's "Intelligent Design on Trial". They left out the best part (though it may have happened at a different trial than the one they covered). Apparently every witness was asked whether they accepted common descent, the single common ancestor you are discussing. The evolution witnesses all said yes, of course. The ID witnesses waffled. Behe, the ID star witness, said probably yes. But the textbook he was there to defend, "Of Pandas and People", does not acknowledge common descent. This is where the IDers are stuck. Politically they are incapable of generating a textbook which acknowledges common descent. So dismissing them appears easy at the school-board level. Just tell them to come back with a textbook that supports common descent, to match their star witness (Behe). They won't be back.
Yeah, the Nova was beautiful. Lori and I were laughing so hard at the courtroom stuff. Awesome!
ID has an identity crisis, it's basically 'any logical path that will conclude that man is special'. So any logic path where man doesn't fall out as being the exception case is a problem. So when you start with a fact, like common descent, and take it out to it's logical extreme... Uh oh. This ID theory no likey this factey.
Posted by: jherr at December 8, 2007 02:04 PMThanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (sign out)
(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)