lucaspa

I don't think so. I'm using Merriam-Webster's definition: "b (1): firm belief in something for which there is no proof (2)" According to Hume, that is exactly what you have. In fact, according to Hume, it is an irrational faith! You are relying on induction for your "faith", and you can't. We can discuss the problems with induction in more depth later. The Problem of Induction is quite amusing. Circular reasoning. How do you know that deity is "imaginary"? THat is the issue we are trying to decide! And you have already made up your mind. What was your proof? Please point to the peer-reviewed scientific paper that shows deity is "imaginary". Dawkins doesn't have one. He uses the same circular reasoning (and thus bad science) as you are using. The way you are using "theory" is also common practice, not science. In science, theories and hypotheses are the same thing: statements about the physical universe. Being a "theory" does not impart any more certainty than being a hypothesis. Trying to justify atheism by using bad science is not going to work. You need to find a better way. 1. That first sentence won't stand critical examination. It's semantic shell game. It either turns into agnosticism or strong atheism. Atheism, to be atheism, must have at least one positive statement of faith: natural = without deity. However, do a simple experiment for me to see if "lack of belief" is not "belief in the opposite". Walk into any sports bar in Boston and announce "I lack belief that the Red Sox will have a winning season." You are quickly going to find that this means "I believe the Red Sox willl not have a winning season." I hope the lesson isn't too violent. 2. Note that "falsifiability". Remember it when you see it thrown in your face below as you try to shift the burden of proof. Not everything in science is falsifiable. Sorry, but that criteria advanced by Popper to separate science from non-science doesn't work. There are too many scientific theories that are not falsifiable -- some even in principle. A famous example is Hawking's No Boundary. It's not falsifiable even in principle, but it is included as one of the theories about the origin of the universe at cosmological meetings. Ah, the old Shifting the Burden of Proof Fallacy. Back to science: it is the onus of everyone -- including the person who proposes the theory, to falsify it. Remember "falsification"? So, it is the onus of atheism to falsify the existence of deity. When you find that scientific paper, please post it. Sorry, but anecdote is evidence. Back to Hume again. ALL evidence is what we see, hear, taste, touch, smell, or feel emotionally. Personal experience. Science uses a subset of personal experience called "intersubjective". That means that the personal experience is the same for everyone under approximately the same conditions. So, theists have evidence; it's not scientific evidence. But I never claimed it was scientific, did I? If you claim that only scientific evidence is valid, then you are into the faith of scientism. And it is an indefensible faith. Repeating fallacies doesn't make them true. Notice you didn't say "scientific evidence". You just said "no evidence". There you are wrong. You are also wrong on the burden of proof: http://www.sjsu.edu/depts/itl/graphics/claims/truth.html#burden "Burden of Proof refers to the sense you have, in any dispute, of how much each side needs to prove in order to win your agreement. Sometimes, this burden of proof is an established rule: in the United States, for example, the criminal court system operates on the rule that a person is innocent until proven guilty, which means that the prosecution carries all of the burden of proof; if the defendant is not proven guilty, then he or she should not be convicted of a crime, even if the defense cannot or does not prove him or her innocent of that crime. " "In most arguments, however, it is usually the side that supports altering or rejecting the status quo--the current beliefs, practices, and information--which has most of the burden of proof. The more controversial the matter, generally speaking, the more evenly is the burden of proof shared by all sides; and the more extreme or unusual one side of an argument is, the greater its burden of proof. " "Intentionally shifting the burden of proof, in order to avoid offering support for one's premises, is a logical fallacy. " Notice that the "current beliefs, practices" is theism. Therefore, by the rules of logic atheism has the burden of proof. However, since this is controversial, the "burden is shared by all sides" As I pointed out, they are not inserted because purple unicorns can be, and are, falsified. Now, you can change "purple unicorn" so that it cannot be falsified. However, you can do that with any and every scientific theory also. We don't in science, because we realize that is no way to get to truth. If you take the route of making "purple unicorns" unfalsifiable, you forfeit any claim to be using science to back atheism. Originally, yes. However, definitions do change and now atheism means believing that deity in any form does not exist. Now, what you should have thought about is that it has been theists who have decided that all those theories of deity are false (falsification). How did they do that? If theists were so willing to decide that nearly all theories of deity are wrong, why aren't they willing to decide that deity itself is wrong? I'll help you find an answer by looking at evolution. Before and after Darwin there have been lots of theories about evolution. Scientists have been willing to falsify 99.9% of them but have not been willing to say evolution is falsified. Why not? (Hint: back to the evidence again) I'm fine with your choosing to belief that deity does not exist. But I too "am inclined to show the weaknesses in the position of those who do. This inclination has nothing to do with what I have chosen to believe and everything to do with the harm I see being done" to science and reason by those like you. No, not really. God doesn't exist, so there's nothing really there with which I can have a problem at all. It's the people who use this fairy tale as social manipulation and acceptance of atrocity that I have a "beef" with. Additionally, to suggest that I am an immoral person because I don't believe the same things they believe is rather insulting, and has no basis in reality. There is a connection. Some theological statements can be tested by science. Many times this results because theists try to tie untestable statements about deity to testable statements. Creationism is a prime example. It ties the untestable statement "God created" to a set of very testable statements about how God created. Science can test the "how" statements. Has tested them, and shown them to be false. The connection also comes because many atheists -- like creationists -- refuse to admit that their faith is a faith. They want science to "prove" their faith. Therefore they misrepresent science and reasoning as having "shown" that deity does not exist. The "connection" is that we have a war between two faiths -- atheism and theism -- and the battleground is science.

What you are noting are theories, not "sciences". Yes, UFO has come to = the theory of alien visitation in spaceships. As you noted, there are lots of unidentified flying objects. They exist. They were "flying" and are not identified. However, that doesn't make them alien spaceships. What you want to do is discuss phenomenon without automatically putting them into suspect or even falsified theories. Good luck. You also appear to want a way to differentiate between a substantiated belief and one that is not. I suggest you start by reading an essay entitled "Demise of the Demarcation Criteria" by Larry Laudan: "Through certain vagaries of history, some of which I have alluded to here, we have managed to conflate two quite distinct questions: What makes a belief well founded (or heuristically fertile)? And what makes a belief scientific? The first set of questions is philosophically interesting and possibly even tractable, the second question is both uninteresting and, judging by its checkered past, intractable. If we would stand up and be counted on the side of reason, we ought to drop terms like `pseudoscience' and `unscientific' from our vocabulary; they are just hollow phrases which do only emotive work for us. As such, they are more suited to the rhetoric of politicians and Scottish sociologists of knowledge than to that of empirical researchers. Insofar as our concern is to protect ourselves and our fellows from the cardinal sin of believing what we wish were so rather than what there is substantial evidence for (and surely that is what most forms of `quackery' come down to), then our focus should be squarely on the empirical and conceptual credentials for claims about the world. The `scientific' status of those claims is altogether irrelevant." (Laudan L., "The Demise of the Demarcation Problem," (1983), in Ruse M., ed., "But is it Science?: The Philosophical Question in the Creation/Evolution Controversy," Prometheus Books: Amherst NY, 1996, p.349). Basically, my suggestion is to look at ideas and try to falsify them. You have already started this with your example of a UFO: by noting the implausibility that an interstellar spaceship would be doing aerobatics for the amusement of some farmers in Saskatchewan. That's an attempt at falsification. You also made a start by postulating alternative hypotheses. You want to test them. You may not have the means to do so, but you at least have them. So now you have a set of hypotheses to explain what you observed but insufficient data to pick just one by eliminating the others.

Remarkable for its blindness in his own beliefs. "This use is in stark contrast to the way that the word is used by religious people. They not only believe things for which there is little or no evidence or reason, but even in spite of evidence to the contrary, and defying reason. Some religious apologists try to exploit the fact that the same word belief is used in both situations to suggest that atheism is as much an irrational act of faith as belief in god. This is sophistry and is simply false. An Atheist's Creed I believe in a purely material universe that conforms to naturalistic laws and principles." There is no scientific evidence or reason for the "purely" or that "naturalistic laws" exclude deity. So he is using "belief" just like he says religious people do, but denies doing it. Sorry, but atheism is a belief as much as belief in the existence of deity. Neither need by an "irrational" act. However, considering the nature of science and, particularly Methodological Materialism, saying that atheism is not in the same category as belief in deity is irrational. But that "fact" isn't fact. He cannot say "purely". Because we don't know if deity is necessary for those natural laws to work. Doesn't anyone read Darwin? "The only distinct meaning of the word 'natural' is stated, fixed, or settled; since what is natural as much requires and presupposes an intelligent agent to render it so, i.e., to effect it continually or at stated times, as what is supernatural or miraculous does to effect it for once." Butler: Analogy of Revealed Religion. There is no scientific experiment that will show this hypothesis to be wrong. Until there is, Singham has stated the basic statement of faith of atheism -- without evidence or reason. It's OK to have that faith. But to try to con us that it is not a faith is unacceptable.

It's ironic that New Zealand provided Darwin and others one of their most potent arguments against Special Creation. All over the world we have mice occupying the ecological niche they do. However, in NZ it is an insect that occupies that ecological niche. Why? Because mice never made the sea journey to the islands, but insects did. If Special Creation were true, there is no reason deity would not put mice in NZ as it did in every other location on earth.

In Dawkins' language, the "gene itself" would consider it being "deleterious". Because the individual would not live long enough to breed and keep the allele going. Hardy-Weinberg says, basically, that in any large population without outside effects, the frequency of an allele will remain constant. No, in this case "deleterious" would be an allele that is eliminated from the population. Since you are looking at the gene's (allele's) view, an allele that decreased in frequency to the point that it was eliminated entirely would be "deleterious" or "detrimental". After all, the allele ceases to exist, right? Wouldn't that be "detrimental" from the allele's point of view? If non-existence is not detrimental, what could possibly qualify? 1. We were talking about an entity outside the organism introducing a few mutations into the population. 2. There are at least 3 genes that, if changed, cause homosexuality. Homosexuality is a polygenic trait. Sorry, but the search isn't "desperate", it has been sucessful. These alleles are kept in the population because in one's, two's, or three's, they confer survival value. It's just when all the alleles are together that you get full homosexuality and it's detrimental. I have an article at the end of the post about this. I'm not sure where you are going with this. On the part of the researchers or the part of the stem cells? The stem cells are responding to molecular cues. No "intelligence" involved. The researchers are using intelligence to isolate them, grow them, determine an appropriate scaffold, and then attach the correct blood vessels at the correct positions. Sam, let's go back to PCR. PCR is duplication of particular DNA sequences. Having a PCR machine represents intelligence because the reverse transcriptase enzymes are not used in nature the way we do in PCR. Also, the correct timing of introducing the enzymes and isolating the products requires intelligence. However duplicating DNA, itself, is not evolution. What IDers are imputing "intelligence" to is the designs in plants and animals. That is the result of the instructions in the DNA when the DNA is translated to proteins and then, by means of development, forms an organism. What IDers overlook is that Darwinian (natural) selection is an unintelligent process that gives design. In mathematical terms, it is an algorithm to get design. Darwinian selection is very good at producing designs. So good that humans use Darwinian selection when the design problem is too tough for them. IOW, when the going gets tough in design, humans turn to Darwinian selection. Now, that paper on homosexuality and why the alleles are still in the population: Arch Sex Behav 2000 Feb;29(1):1-34 Homosexuality, birth order, and evolution: toward an equilibrium reproductive economics of homosexuality.Miller EM.Department of Economics and Finance, University of New Orleans, Louisiana 70148,USA. emmef@uno.edu "The survival of a human predisposition for homosexuality can be explained by sexual orientation being a polygenetic trait that is influenced by a number of genes. During development these shift male brain development in the female direction. Inheritance of several such alleles produces homosexuality. Single alleles make for greater sensitivity, empathy, tender mindedness, and kindness. These traits make heterosexual carriers of the genes better fathers and more attractive mates. There is a balanced polymorphism in which the feminizing effect of these alleles in heterosexuals offsets the adverse effects (on reproductive success) of these alleles' contribution to homosexuality. A similar effect probably occurs for genes that can produce lesbianism in females. The whole system survives because it serves to provide a high degree of variability among the personalities of offspring, providing the genotype with diversification and reducing competition among offspring for the same niches. An allele with a large effect can survive in these circumstances in males, but it is less likely to survive in females. The birth order effect on homosexuality is probably a by-product of a biological mechanism that shifts personalities more in the feminine direction in the later born sons, reducing the probability of these sons engaging in unproductive competition with each other."

The claim was that species membership was irrelevant to make moral and ethical decisions. It was not directed at "modern day genetic understandings" Yes, in evolution there is the criteria of the "chronospecies". These are 2 species separated by time. H. erectus and H. sapiens is one such example. H. sapiens evolved from H. erectus (or H. ergastor if you are in the Natural History Museum ). However, if there were an isolated population of H. erectus around somewhere, we would be separate species. So yes, we treat members of other species differently (ethics/morals) differently than we treat members of our own. Biologically, we must. Was it unethical for H. sapiens to outcompete both H. neandertals and H. erectus in Asia and drive both species to extinction? Even if there was direct confrontation where a tribe of H. sapiens killed a tribe of either other species? Is it unethical for me to put poison in a fire ant colony in my yard? Yourdad would seem to be arguing that "yes", it is unethical because species membership doesn't matter. I would argue that species membership does matter. As I said, we are soon going to have to face a different issue with, at least, AI programs. Not our species, but are they "people"? Not completely "subjective", but certainly outside of science. Ecoli notes that biology influences what we consider moral or ethical, but it is not the sole reason for what we consider "ethics". Anyone who has taken a course in ethics knows that ethics starts out with some principles that are taken somewhat a priori and not related to biology. This is one way to start approaching the problem. Now we are getting into the realm of "sapience". What is "sapience"? It's where I was going when I talked about sapient aliens and AI programs. Star Trek and other sci-fi books and series have tried to deal with when and how we extend the human concept of rights to these groups. However, if you are giving the right to "life", then why not freedom? Why do you say it's OK to keep them in captivity? I'm not saying we can't do anything because of the slippery slope, I'm just trying to get a feel for where you put the ledges in that slope. In the essentials, yes, we do have to wave "bye bye" to science. Science is not a system of ethics. No way. What you are doing is saying that some of our ethical premises are rooted in our biology. That may be true and explain why we set them as premises, but it doesn't help our reasoning from those premises to particular ethical problems: and that is what ethics is about. Notice the Skeptic pointed to "right to life" as an ethical priority. I pointed to "freedom". Neither of those is based in science. No organism has a biological or scientific "right to life" or to "freedom". As just one example, in a predator-prey situation, which has the "right to life", the predator or the prey? Science can't even begin to address that question. Just recognize, Ecoli, that you might try to bring good science to a discussion, but that doesn't make the discussion "scientific".

As I read the literature, it is agreed that quantum events are regular, but that the individual event is "uncaused". In the case of radioactive decay, if we have 1,000 atoms of C14, 500 of them will decay within a half-life (= 5730 ± 40 years). However, that doesn't tell us which atom will decay next and why. That event is "uncaused" in the classical sense. It gets weirder. So we start with 1,000 atoms and 500 decay in the first half-life. Now we have 500 atoms. Do 500 decay within the next half-life? NO Now only 250 decay within the next half life. How do the atoms keep track and "know" that there are now only 500 of them instead of 1,000 and thus, only 250 of them will decay? This, and other puzzles, is why, as far as I can tell, physicists say there are no "causes". Any cause that will work for the 1st half-life breaks down when we consider the second half-life. Let's face it, any cause we consider that will result in 500 atoms decaying in the first period (half-life) should also mean 500 atoms decay in the next period (half-life). As unsatisfactory as many of you consider "no cause" to be, I'm content to let that be a description of the universe if the universe is really like that. The universe is what it is, not what we want it to be. If that includes there being no cause for individual quantum events, then that's it. Now, that won't stop some people from looking for a cause, and that's fine. But until there is new data to overthrow the hypothesis that there is no cause, I'm content to accept that hypothesis. As I read the literature, it is agreed that quantum events are regular, but that the individual event is "uncaused". In the case of radioactive decay, if we have 1,000 atoms of C14, 500 of them will decay within a half-life (= 5730 ± 40 years). However, that doesn't tell us which atom will decay next and why. That event is "uncaused" in the classical sense. It gets weirder. So we start with 1,000 atoms and 500 decay in the first half-life. Now we have 500 atoms. Do 500 decay within the next half-life? NO Now only 250 decay within the next half life. How do the atoms keep track and "know" that there are now only 500 of them instead of 1,000 and thus, only 250 of them will decay? This, and other puzzles, is why, as far as I can tell, physicists say there are no "causes". Any cause that will work for the 1st period (half-life) -- such as the suggestion of "electroweak force" breaks down when we consider the second half-life. Let's face it, any cause we consider that will result in 500 atoms decaying in the first period (half-life) should also mean 500 atoms decay in the next period (half-life). Another example is shining a laser beam at a mirror. 95% of the photons are reflected and 5% go thru. Fine and dandy. But now take those 5% that go thru and have them hit a second mirror. 95% of them are reflected and 5% go thru! Or even take them around to the same mirrror. Same thing. Or take the 95% reflected and have them hit a second mirror. Again, 95% of these are reflected and 5% go thru. Why? What's the cause of any particular photon being reflected or going thru? They are all identical. There doesn't seem to be any cause in the classical sense. However, as long as the numbers are regular when there are large numbers, then we can act as tho there is a cause. Another example is the formation of virtual particles. Again, we can say that this is variations in quantum energy for the numbers, but there is no "cause" for any particular virtual particle. So, in the creationism vs rest of science debate, one possiblemeans (among many) of getting the universe is for the universe itself to be an uncaused quantum event. It's called "Quantum Fluctuation". Another counter to the "everything must have a cause" argument put forward by creationists is that the cause does not have to be deity. If we trace the chain of cause and effect back and back, the logic is undeniable that somewhere we need an Uncaused Cause to get the whole chain started. This is often referred to as First Cause. Deity (God) is often put forward as the First Cause and, therefore, as "proof" that deity exists. The "proof" is wrong. From what I read, there are at least 5 candidates for First Cause. Deity is one. But that there are 4 others (Quantum Fluctuation is one) means that First Cause does not have to be deity. It could be one of the others. But since none of the others has enough data to be unequivocally accepted, conversely deity could be First Cause. It's a classic case of multiple competing hypotheses and insufficient data to choose between them. Skeptic Lance, you actually have that backwards. Most of the time, data is only gathered after you have proposed a hypothesis/theory -- what you call "understanding causes and mechanisms". Yes, having good data is of paramount importance, but that importance is because you use the data to evaluate the hypothesis. Some philosophers of science even declare that it is impossible to gather data without first having a hypothesis. They say that the hypothesis is unconscious but it is there. I disagree but I do think, based on data, that there are very few cases where you go, or scientists have gone, out looking for data without a hypothesis first. An example would be the first microarray studies. They were fishing expeditions. Now, however, all microarray studies start out with a hypothesis first. Correct. The mathematical descriptions come because, in large numbers, quantum events are regular. As you noted with alpha decay, in a half-life, half the atoms in a large number will decay. That allows mathematical description. But when we get down to the level of an individual atom, there is no cause why that particular atom decayed when it did.

Sigh. Another attempt to get "will" or consciousness into evolution. Mihail, there is no magical "will" to survive and no "will" coming from organisms to "exploit" the environment. Instead, as I have said elsewhere, individuals are either lucky or unlucky in the alleles (forms of genes) that they get. IF and individual is lucky enough to get a set of alleles that allows it to access a new food source or environment, then it will do better in the competition for scarce resources ("struggle for existence" in natural selection) because it will have resources the other individuals do not. So that individual will produce more offspring, which will inherit the new ability. After hundreds/thousands of generations, the entire population will be able to exploit the new resources/ecological niche. No "consciousness" on the part of the individual involved. In terms of what humans think of as the "instinct to survive", think about that also in terms of natural selection. Those individuals unlucky enough to be born with alleles that caused them to "give up" in the face of adversity have a greater likelihood of dying than those who are lucky to have alleles that cause them to keep living. Those with the "survival instinct" will, on average, survive longer and have more kids that those who were unlucky and had the set of alleles to "give up". Thus, our "instinct of self preservation" or "will to survive" also came from natural selection. That's a stance that's often taken, but it really isn't true. Science is interested in the "why". Science does answer lots of "why" questions. In fact, so many that some scientists, like Dawkins, Atkins, and Sagan, think science can answer all the "why" questions. It's not that science doesn't deal with "why" questions, it's that science cannot deal with all the "why" questions.

Stevo, very good for finding a reference on the subject. However, you need to read the scientific literature a bit more carefully. In this case, what they are looking at is not "pulsation" of the cell, but pulses in the secretion of insulin. It's subtle, and I'm not surprised you missed it, but the key sentence in the Abstract is here: "Very rapid pulsations are seen in the isolated β-cell and islet, while rapid (10- to 15-min) pulsations are seen both in the intact organism and in the isolated pancreas." Your entire body does not "pulse", does it? Nor does an isolated pancrease "pulse". Instead, what is detected is "pulses" of insulin release. Insulin is not released in a steady stream, but instead in packets as the secretory vacuoles containing the insulin fuse with the cell membrane and then release the contents of the vacuole. So this isn't what you think it is. But good work on researching the literature. Again, I compliment you on your search of the scientific lineage. As a "bone person" I find this very interesting. Again, you need a bit more experience and subtlety in the scientific lineage. First, what is the author Bonewald arguing against? "Bone is often thought of as being a passive, inactive tissue like a skeleton hanging in the anatomy lab. ...However, quite to the contrary, bone undergoes considerable turnover as compared to other organs in the body." This is a bit of a strawman, since no one in the bone field has thought of bone as an "inactive" tissue for at least 50 years. Now we go to this: "Evidence is accumulating that osteocytes are more active than previously known." That also is a bit of a strawman. We've known for 10 years that osteocytes participate in 1) calcium uptake and 2) transduction of mechanical loading. I talked about the first when I said "When stimulated by parathyroid hormone, they respond by taking calcium out of the bone and moving it from one osteocyte to another until it can be dumped in the blood." Now comes the part that you like: " Dallas and colleagues will show at this meeting that osteocyte cell body movement occurs within lacunae and that extension and retraction of dendrites can occur within canaliculi." All fine and good. Notice the part I bolded. BUT, when I look at the article referenced (20) to back this up "Calvaria from these mice were used to image living osteocytes within their lacunae20" we find that it is "in press". When I go to PubMed to try to find the article using the authors as my search term, I find that it doesn't exist! This is common. Only about 1/2 of the presentations at meetings ever find their way into the peer-reviewed literature. That's the purpose of meetings: to do an initial "cut" of good research from bad research. The person who wrote the article you quoted is also one of the authors on the paper "in press" that is necessary for your argument. So of course Bonewald thinks the presentation is good data! But apparently it wasn't because the "in press" article wasn't really in press at all. It had probably been submitted and the authors thought it would be accepted, but it wasn't. Yes, as an admitted "layman, with almost no formal scientific education", it would appear to you that what I said was wrong. However, I never considered it comical. Nor do I now. There are subtleties to the scientific literature that someone without experience will miss. I hope I have clarified how the data is not what it appeared to you. I'm afraid my falsifications of "movement" remain falsifications. Altho, it may be that we will find -- with better data than Bonewald had -- that osteocytes do extend and contract their dendrites. However, I doubt it. Transmitting the signals of mechanical force thru the osteocyte network requires that the dendrites remain in contact so that chemical signals can move from one osteocyte to another. I suspect that the "extension and retraction of dendrites can occur within canaliculi" was an artifact as the osteocytes died during the experiment (which was probably one reason why the paper did not make it thru peer-review). Now you have changed the argument. You started out saying "movement" was fundamental to living organisms. Now you are saying "pulsation", which means staying in one place but moving cell shape. Your next "assignment" is to look at the literature on algae. Free floating single celled plants. See if you can find any data that they "pulsate".

Guys, sorry, but this isn't "stem cells" per se. Badylak has been doing research for 20 years on a substance he calls "small intestine submucosa" (SIS for short) to regenerate tissue. He basically takes the cells out of pig small intestine, leaving the extracellular matrix. Actually, it's basicall sausage casing. Badylak has had some success with this in animals, but it has never gone anywhere. Now he has a new matrix -- urinary bladder matrix (UBM) -- that he is working with. The preparation is given here: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18201760?ordinalpos=1&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum I see one study using UBM for cardiac repair: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12716647?ordinalpos=11&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum The model is weird (a circular surgical defect in the myocardium rather than the more common ischemic injury by tying off the coronary artery). He got 70% of the contractile force back. However, I think that is about what you would get with scar tissue bridging the defect. Be careful of the hype. You can do a more careful search of Bradylak's work by going to PubMed and entering "badylak sf" as your search term.

Using "thinks" is not the "convenient shorthand". The shorthand is "the comb jelly evolved ..." (from your source below). When you add "think" you are out of the convenient shorthand. This still implies choice: the individual is choosing to use the energy to survive. A better phrase would have been "species will diversify by natural selection to exploit available resources" You didn't quote the most interesting part of the article: "Among the study's surprising findings is that the comb jelly split off from other animals and diverged onto its own evolutionary path before the sponge. This finding challenges the traditional view of the base of the tree of life, which honored the lowly sponge as the earliest diverging animal. ... But even after Dunn's team checked and rechecked their results and added more data to their study, their results still suggested that the comb jelly, which has tissues and a nervous system, split off from other animals before the tissue-less, nerve-less sponge. Now, remember that these are preliminary studies, and Dunn does caution "that additional studies should be conducted to corroborate his team's findings" But let's assume, for discussion, that the findings hold up in the future. Since the comb jelly has tissues and a nervous system, does that mean that the basal multicelled animal had these? Dunn goes into the 2 possibilities: 1. "the comb jelly evolved its complexity independently of other animals, after it branched off onto its own evolutionary path" IOW, the ancestor did not have tissues and a nervous system but now the descendents do because of independently evolving them, not getting them from an ancestor. 2. "the sponge evolved its simple form from more complex creatures ... a possibility that underscores the fact that "evolution is not necessarily just a march towards increased complexity," says Dunn. "This scenario would provide a particularly dramatic example of that principle." What is under #2 we should keep in mind more often. We (and by this I mean evolutionary biologists, too) often tend to think that the current primitive species must be descended from equally primitive ancestors. That doesn't have to be true. Perhaps the ancestor of the sponge did have tissues and a nervous system. As the sponge lineage evolved toward a simpler ecological niche (exploiting an empty niche of a sessile animal), the complex structures represented energy to develop that wasn't needed. An evolutionary cost instead of a benefit. Therefore individuals without those tissues did better -- because they didn't have the cost of making the tissues -- and outcompeted them in the new niche.

To the monitors: this is not theological, but philosophy of science arguments. 1. In science, nearly all entities, when first proposed, are "imaginative". That's how science is done. Atoms were imaginary. Strings are imaginary now. If you say that adding "imaginative entities" is verboten, you stop science. 2. Historically, the concept of deity added to attempts to understand the universe. The motivation for scientists prior to the 20th century was to figure out the "secondary causes" by which deity acts. Darwin's seach for natural selection was to find the secondary cause for adaptations (designs) in organisms. He wasn't happy, from a theological standpoint, with the god-of-the-gaps theology used by Paley in his "watch on the heath" analogy. Theology at that time had rejected god-of-the-gaps and said that there should be some material cause for every process and mechanism in the universe. It is ironic that your dedication to material processes came from people who believed deity created the universe! It was only later that science as a whole became programatically dedicated to rejecting gaps. 3. Science studies material (natural) causes. However, there is no criteria to establish whether explanations are complete. Are material causes the only causes? Science doesn't know. If you eliminate the hypothesis of deity sustaining the universe, you prevent us from even looking. In theology, the Documentary Hypothesis of the authorship of the Pentateuch is due to the hypothetico-deductive method. The concept of Trinity was derived by the hypothetico-deductive method. In history, there are innumerable examples. Just one is: at the Battle of Guadalcanal, it was the destroyer O'Bannon that overran the Barton survivors in the water, not the Aaron Ward. The hypothetico-deductive method can be used wherever people agree on what is data. Ideas are independent of the people who state them. An idea is either true or false whether it is ever stated or not. For instance, continents moved long before there were scientists who "said" they moved. Ecoli, people for 2,500 years have been trying to define what science "is" and demarcate science from non-science. It's called the Demarcation Problem. No such criteria, or set of criteria, has ever been successful. Either they leave out things that we consider science, or they let in things that we consider not to be science, or both. Methodology has been tried as a way to "define" science. It has failed. Utterly. I refer you to a short essay entitled "Demise of the Demarcation Problem" By Larry Laudan in But Is It Science? edited by Michael Ruse. It summarizes the problems and failures in coming up with a demarcation criteria. You can view scientists, and I suggest you do, as discovering ideas. This removes the argument from authority you are using: "science is not capable of comment, only people who engage in this method are" Not really. The people who claim they can start out with an underlying hypothesis: deity does not exist. IOW, it's circular reasoning because it assumes the very issue you are trying to decide. They try to find hypotheses to explain the rise of religion based on the underlying hypothesis. This can have some value, because it will look at those partial causes for particular religions. But it can't get to the origin of belief in deity to begin with, because you can make hypotheses within evolution based on the existence of deity that will lead to the same result. You seem to have limited this to a genetic change. There are other possibilities: 1. Agriculture can be traced to 20,000 years ago in SE Asia. You limited your sample to the Middle East. 2. New evidence suggests that the genetic change happened at least 50,000 years ago in Africa -- where there is evidence of the first art. So, the change was not within humans but rather a newly discovered technology: agriculture. You need agriculture to 1) be able to have enough food to stay in one place and 2) have enough food production that you can have people dedicated to other occupations than getting food. Staying in one place leads to permanent dwellings = architecture. That in turn requires learning engineering, which gets you to science. Doing agriculture itself requires you to study nature in a different way, which also gets you to science. Having surplus food means that you can have people who do only art, or building, or making clothes, or making farm implements etc. This allows specialization and improvement in those trades. Also, distribution of food to those non-food growers means trade, which means economics, which also means a way of keeping track of a) who owns what land and b) who owes who what in the way of goods and services. This eventually means writing and everything that comes from that. You aren't drawing a line of evolutionary progress. You are drawing a line of technological process. Those are very, very different. If you make the mistake of equating the two, then that is going to lead to all kinds of fake "problems". Technology advances exponentially, not linearly. So the line you have drawn is representative of a typical technology curve: very flat for a while and then curving into a slope that is nearly vertical. It's a hyperbola. Because hyperbolae describe exponential equations.

That's one application of genetic engineering: preventing genetic diseases. However, you don't "completely support" genetic engineering, because you disapprove of picking one sex over the other. Let's try some other examples that you may not approve of: 1. Genetically engineering the child to be like Michael Jordan and be a great basketball player. Or genetically engineering for any enhanced capability such as strength, endurance, intelligence, etc. 2. Picking the immunological determinants so that the child will be a perfect match for you so it can donate organs to you in case you need it (a primitive example of this was done in England). Not always. Bananas are monoclonal and, yes, we've already had one variety of bananas wiped out in the 1930s, but we went right back to using just one variety.

No, you can't say that. Because some species do go extinct and leave no ancestors. Also, species that are well-adapted to their ecological niche are under purifying selection: keeping them at that fitness and preventing change. Yes, it does. In fact, most alleles at most times are at Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium. There are many studies showing Hardy-Weinberg equilibria: "In most populations, the genotype frequencies at most loci fit the Hardy-Weinberg distribution very well. (We will illustrate this shortly.) ... The most important assumptions of the Hardy-Weinberg principle are: ... 2. The population is infinitely large (or so large that it can be treated as if it were infinite)" Futuyma, Evolutionary Biology, pg 237. 1999. The population does not have to be "infinite" for Hardy-Weinberg to apply. Now to an example: "From our hypothetical example, we have seen thatan array of genotype frequencies ... may or may not be in Hardy-Weinberg proportions of p^2:2pg:q^2. The principle's assumptions, such as infinite population size and no mutation, are manifestly unrealistic, so we might imagine that real populations would never fit its predictions. But as we noted above, the forces actiong on a real locus may be so weak, ormay balance each other in such a way, that reality may conform closely to the Hardy-Weinberg predictions. In fact, genotype frequencies in human and other populations very often fit Hardy-Weinberg proportions. "Let us return to E.B. Ford's collection, made over 32 years, of Panaxia dominula. The sample consists of 17,062 A1A1, 1295 A1A2, and 28 A2A2 moths. We calculated p = 0.963 and q = 0.037. From our estimates of p and q, we can calculate the expected frequency p^2, 2pq, and q^2, thus the expected frequency of A1A1 is 0.963^2 = 0.9274. The expected numbers are calculated by multiplying the number of moths (N) by the expected frequencies, thus the expected numbre of A1A1 is 0.9273 x 18385 = 17,050. Continuing these calculations, we obtain the following results: [table] ... "The difference between the observed numbers of each genotype and the theoretically expected numbers is so slight tht it can readily be attributed to accidents of sampling (SAMPLING ERROR). Thus, averaged over 32 years, this locus appears to be in Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium." Futuyma, Ibid, pg 237-238. Sigh. I don't know how to put this tactfully, so I will apologize in advance for any offense I may cause. I do want to make a point: it seems that not only do creationists not read up on evolution, but that the vast majority of people supporting evolution do not either. I find so many myths about evolution propagated by supporters of evolution. iNow, you just demonstrated 2. Please invest in an evolutionary biology textbook and do some reading. At the least, accept the corrections from evolutionary biologists and cease making the false claims once you have been shown they are false. Documented? Or urban legend? Your example may fit into the urban legend category. The "many times" is not documented.

Add to that the problem that most bacteria and archaens do niot photosynthesize. Are they animals? The OP says "And if so, does this mean animal classes generally begin as herbivorous before they can have carnivores and omnivores branching off them? " So the question wasn't about the first division of animals from plants, but about all subsequent evolutionary branching of the Kingdom Animalia. It appears that you missed that. Dawkins speculations have a very low percentage of success. http://neurophilosophy.wordpress.com/2007/06/09/sea-sponges-have-the-makings-of-a-nervous-system/ "Sea sponges are sedentary organisms that attach themselves to the sea bed and filter nutrients from the water that they force through their porous bodies with flagella. They are the most primitive of all multicellular animals, with just four different types of cells making up partially differentiated tissues in a simply organized body. Because of the lifestyle they lead, sea sponges do not need, and therefore lack, nerve cells, muscle cells and internal organs of any kind. However, researchers from the University of California at Santa Barbara now find that one species of sea sponge, called Amphimedon queenslandica, synthesizes many of the proteins that are essential for the cell-to-cell communication that takes place within nervous systems. These surprising findings, which are published in the open access journal PLoS One, therefore provide clues about how the first neurons may have evolved in the most ancient of animals." That evolution of neurons doesn't appear to have been in sponges but come in a later lineage. I'm glad about that. But that wasn't what I was reacting to. It was your statement "What this is sort of telling me, I think, is that unconscious life doesn't think in terms of animal, mineral or vegetable, it thinks in terms of what available nutrients can I use." It was the use of the word "thinks" that prompted my response. That "think" does mean a conscious choice, doesn't it? If you want to avoid the confusion in the future, do not use the word "think" when talking about evolution; there is no "thinking" involved on the part of organisms.

but the protocells don't even "pulsate" during the action potential! Yet they are responding to stimuli. The protocell does not "pulsate" in that the cell membrane would move (and neither do neurons). The cell membrane remains in the same place. Back to pancreatic cells. They don't "pulsate" either, but they do respond to low glucose by secreting insulin. As to non-living things, oil droplets pulsate in response to the movement of the water molecules in which they are suspended. Once again let me say this: "movement" isn't a good criteria for living things because 1) too many non-living things move and 2) some living things don't. It doesn't have to. It's still a response of the cell: depolarize the cell membrane. In the peripheral nervous system, the action potential causes muscle cells to contract. But that is simply a use of the response, not the response itself. Well, we are getting closer to "respond to stimuli". But be careful about that adverb "accordingly". That is making a judgement call based on a human idea of what is "accordingly". You don't want to do that. Now, is "response to stimuli" sufficient to define a living thing? We can say that for something to be "alive" that it is necessary to respond to stimuli. But can non-living things respond to stimuli? Of course. Fire does, for instance. So do storms. In both cases movement of air causes the fire or storm to move in the direction of the wind. So both "respond to stimuli". But neither are alive. So you need additional criteria that the thing must also have in order to be alive. Nope. It just sits there surrounded (and held in place by) it's extracellular matrix. Let's take an even more radical example: an osteocyte. Osteocytes are the cells within bone. Completely surrounded by the bone (rock) and can't move. When stimulated by parathyroid hormone, they respond by taking calcium out of the bone and moving it from one osteocyte to another until it can be dumped in the blood. Sorry, but there are too many examples where "purposeful manner of movement" doesn't happen. Responses don't always involve movement. Also, remember that fire responds in "a functional, co-ordinated, and purposeful manner of movement" in a wind. Back to sufficient. "movement" in terms of actually moving the cell/organism is neither necessary nor sufficient to define life. You needed to continue the quote and read this one more carefully. Notice it said "single cells like the amoeba". He wasn't talking about amoeba themselves. Notice he didn't demonstrate conductivity and excitability in the amoeba. Notice that the source I provided didn't talk about conductivity and excitability. If you continue the quote: "As animals became more complex, it became more efficient to differentiate cells into functional types. Different tissues appeared and, with them, nerve cells." If you go back up to the top of the page you see "Finally, a nervous system is the aggregate of all nerve cells within a single organism. It happened that, in the course of evolution, all but the simplest animals have resorted to the use of a nervous system of some sort to organize and carry out their behaviors." Taking things out of context is not a good way to argue. It may "prove" your point, but what you want to do is look for truth, not prove your point. So, using the source you posted, I'll stand by the claim that nervous systems is an aggregate of all nerve cells. Amoeba do not have a nervous system although they can respond to stimuli. Not all matter does, however. The graphite in your pencil has neither. I would say "no". Conductivity in copper, for instance, means moving electrons from one atom to another. The "conductivity" and "excitability" of a nerve cells involves a disparity of atoms from one side of a membrane to another. Not at all similar. The only "simularity" is a movement of charge and that is too vague matter. Changes in the proteins in the cell membrane that open up channels in the membrane. non-living matter doesn't have either proteins or membranes. Not really. Notice that I put "nervous system" in quotes to denote that it really isn't like one. Single cells that can have an action potential. But that doens't make them a nervous system. I agree with noz. You can't define living things in a thousand ways that fit the evidence. That's the difference between doing philosophy the way you do it and doing science. Even in philosophy, the definition must fit the "evidence". In most cases, the "evidence" is the cases you which the definition to apply to and avoid the cases you don't want the definition to apply to. There are constraints even in philosophy. But, of course, we are talking about biology here. How do we tell biologically "living" things from non-living things? Everyone is making this much more complicated than it is. People have thought about the subject before. In order to be "alive" an entity must have all four of the following criteria: 1. Metabolism 2. Growth 3. Response to stimuli 4. Reproduction

Not really. Because evolution is true, any definition of species is going to have populations that are in the gray area of transforming from one species to another. Just get used to it. It's not clear cut precisely because those more universal theories -- evolution -- are true! Since species transform to new species gradually over hundreds/thousands of generations, at any given time there are going to be populations that are somewhere in that transition. If you have a speciation that takes 500 generations, you can't possibly point to generation 249 and say "we have species A) and then at generation 250 and say "now we have species B." But you can point to generation 1 as species A and generation 500 as species B. But no point in-between. Of course. The biological species concept can only be used on contemporary sexually reproducing organisms. For non-sexually reproducing organisms you use the genetic species concept and for paleontology you use a morphological species concept. Yes, the distinction makes sense. The only biological reality is species. However, part of that "sense" is realizing that evolution makes precise definitions with no in-between examples impossible. The Biological Species Concept is more about populations that do not interbreed: "Species are groups of actually or potentially interbreeding populations that are reproductively isolated from other such groups." (Mayr 1942) That "reproductive isolation" can have several causes, and infertility is just one of them. Most of the barriers to reproduction are behavioral or physical, not genetic. In fact, a genetic barrier is the last in a line of isolating mechanisms. One of the most prevalent of isolating mechanisms is mate selection: one population simply does not perceive the other as being mates. This is the case with horses and zebras. They emphatically do not mate in the wild, even where their territories overlap. Yes, if you artificially insemminate, then you can get a hybrid. But in nature, such would never happen. You have 2 separate gene pools. In terms of chimps and humans, neither species views the other as a potential mate. Now, whether the genetic difference over the speciations separating chimps and humans since the last common ancestor is enough to prevent a hybrid forming if we were to perform artificial insemmination was the question asked. But biologically, what is important is that chimps and humans, left to themselves, do not interbreed. Considering the number of speciations in both the chimp and human lineages, I would be surprised if you could get a viable hybrid.

I simply forgot to include fish. It's not clear what came first in land animals. Plants were on the land before the first amphibians. We don't know whether the first amphibians were carnivores or herbivores. Acanthostega was one of the first tetrapods and a probable ancestor to amphibians. The pictures show teeth consistent with being a carnivore: http://tolweb.org/Acanthostega But that doesn't mean the first amphibians were cannibals. They could have eaten fish. Or insects. AFter all, they are only on land part of the time; so they could have hunted fish. Or eaten the insects that were already on the land. Evolution doesn't think, period. You are trying to apply volition (decision) to evolution. That isn't how evolution works. An individual is either lucky or unlucky in the alleles (forms of genes) it is born with. If those alleles let it exploit a new food source -- such as plants for a carnivore or animals for a herbivore -- then that lucky individual will do better in the struggle for scarce resources. In this case the scarce resource would be food and the lucky individual would have a food source the others did not. So the lucky individual lives better and has more offspring -- many of whom will inherit the alleles to exploit the new food source. After hundreds of generations (with more lucky individuals having alleles that can exploit the new food source better), you will have a population that is now exploiting the new food source. I explained this all in detail because you used an incorrect shorthand. Evolutionary biologists often speak of "amphibians evolved the ability to walk on land" as tho it were a choice of the individuals involved. It's convenient shorthand. But you seem to have believed the shorthand as the reality. It's not a good way to look at it and it's not valid. It's a misrepresentation of what happens in evolution. Dichotomy really seems to think that organisms "think in terms of resources" and then choose to exploit what is handy! That injects consciousness into evolution and natural selection. In this case, consciousness of the individuals who somehow "choose" to be able to eat plants when they are a carnivore or vice versa. And, yes, Dichotomy, "resources" is often food, but it can be licking stalactites to get needed minerals. Or it can be using a forest to stay hidden from a predator. Or, in the case of mudskippers today, using the land as a resource to escape predators (mudskippers can use their front fins and primitive legs and can breathe out of water).

Actually, most evolutionary biologists disagree. The major textbooks on evolutionary biology -- the ones evolutionary biologists teach from -- view them as separate. Things that mates select can irrelevant to competition for scarce resources. In recent years, some studies have determined that, in some cases, genes for sexually selected traits are linked to genes for adaptive traits: 3. E Pennisi, Females pick good genes in frogs, flies. Science 280:1837-1838, (19 June) 1998. However, in other cases, sexual selection gives traits irrelevent for adaptation: 2. G Arnqvist, Comparative evidence for the evolution of genitalia by sexual selection, Nature 393, 784-786: 1998 (June 25). A good review: 1. LA Dugatkin and J-GJ Godin, How females choose their mates. ScientificAmerican, 278: 56-61, April 1998 Then it's not an independent classification of how natural selection works. You can always "stand by your claim". But you do need some data for your "stand" to be considered valid. I was talking about your attempt to change the definition of "purifying selection". When you change a definition so that you leave out critical components, then you have made an invalid definition. "Positive/negative selection" tells you the effect of natural selection: some alleles are increasing in frequency (= positive selection) and some are decreasing in frequency (= negative selection). Basically, what molecular biologists have is a shorthand label for the effect of the selection coefficient. I'm very surprised that you would consider this a form of NS. "Claim" does not necessarily = true. You should know that. The models and data he refers to are still under dispute.

Let's be clear. The biological species concept states that a species consists of a freely interbreeding population that produces fertile offspring. Horses and zebras and lions and tigers do not freely interbreed. Yes, we can artificially inseminate the female of one of the pairs with the sperm of the other pair, but the product (such as a "liger") is not fertile. Humans and chimps do not freely interbreed. We know that. Your question is: if we artificially inseminated a human woman with chimp sperm or a female chimp with human sperm, would we get a live baby? There are ethical concerns why that is not done. You say you have heard of such being done. Do you have a source? There have been rumors that the Chinese conducted the experiment (human sperm to female chimp) but that is at the level of urban legend. That isn't certain anymore. It isn't certain that all the breeds of dogs still belong to one species. There are some crosses that you simply don't see. Reproductive isolation is more than just DNA sequences. There is genital incompatibility. Breeding a male Great Dane and female chihuaha will kill the chihuaha -- either during sex or during gestation. You really need to do the interbreeding experiment with dogs to see if they really are a single species anymore. Genetically, they are 4 species. There are enough intermediate species in the hominid lineage to make it clear that chimps really do belong in a separate genus. The splitting and speciation since the last common ancestor has made 2 genera (at least). In fact, in the hominid lineage, there are at least 3 genera: Australopithecus, Paranthropus, and Homo. We don't know much about the chimp lineage since the last common ancestor, but I would be much surprised if the same situation did not apply there as well.

Would you give it up with the "hydrogen bonding"? It's been demonstrated over and over again that life is much more complicated than "hydrogen bonding". That's not quite it. When a virus invades a host cell, it uses the host cells protein and DNA/RNA making processes to make virus proteins and DNA/RNA. So the virus does not "start making chemical reactions". Viruses do not have metabolism on their own: they use the metabolism of the host. As just one example, viruses have no means of breaking down food for energy. The host cell has all the anabolic enzymes and the means to produce ATP. Viruses are the ultimate parasites. They have stripped down what is required to be a parasite to the minimum, which means they cannot metabolize or reproduce on their own. Strictly speaking, by the definition of life, an entity must be able to metabolize and reproduce. I'm not going to be strict, because at some point the discussion of whether viruses are alive or not becomes a meaningless philosophical discussion. I would say "don't bother". Viruses do what they do and there is no profit in expending energy debating whether they are "alive" or not.

In terms of land organisms, yes. Plants evolved to live on land earlier than animals. But it is not clear whether the first amphibians were herbivores or carnivores. Once on land, the first species of amphibians is rapidly going to radiate to take advantage of the empty ecological niche of herbivore. Then there is going to be nearly simultaneous radiation from the ancestral species to prey on the other amphibians. But to answer the the OP, we have 4 classes within vertebrates: amphibians, reptiles, birds, and mammals. As I recall, the first dinos were insectivores/carnivores -- eating insects and small reptiles and mammal-like reptiles. So, in that case, the carnivore came first. Birds evolved from carnivorous theropod dinosaurs and the first birds were carnivorous. It's not definitive. Bacteria today cooperate at times such that they are almost multicellular. The amoeba Dictolystelium is single celled sometimes and multicelled at other times. It is not "plant-ish" in that it does not photosynthesize. The simplest multicellular creature now is the Volvox, which is a hollow sphere of a single type of somatic cells and then has germ cells: so it has only 2 types of cells. As I recall, Volvox feeds on unicellular organisms.

Probably not. As someone noted, organized religion hasn't been around long enough. However, you need to consider another issue: have humans evolved a genetic module in the brain that allows communication with deity? IF there is a deity then communication with humans is going to be done thru the material entity that is the human brain. So let's postulate a genetic module in the human brain that constructs circuits possible to receive communication from deity. This has obvious survival benefit: getting advice and help from deity in handling life's problems is going to be beneficial. Therefore, those indivdiduals with the genetic module will pass it down to their offspring and the genetics will get close to fixation. Currently, 90% of humans report being theists. Does that mean that 90% of humans have the module or part of it? It's an alternative hypothesis to the one that "religion" is genetic. Skills? Or moral and social lessons? No, reason has had to be present from the start of the hominid lineage. After all, it is our ability to reason and solve problems -- such as making tools for a problem -- that is a hallmark of our evolution. I have noticed that the logic and reasoning of children is very pure. They make mistakes (most of them humorous) because they lack relevant information, but their logic based on the info they have is perfect. Bad premise. The reason crawling is "easier" is because a child's brains and muscles are still developing. Humans, remember, are born "premature" so that their heads can fit thru the birth canal. The muscle coordination and balance required for walking is, as you noted, more than required for crawling. The baby has to wait until the physical development is sufficient for walking. Advance movement, by your argument, would not be "will power", but depend on variations between individuals for motor skills. Those on the far right of the bell-shaped curve would be the Michael Jordans and ballet dancers.

As you are noting, speciation does not happen in a generation. It is a process that covers hundreds/thousands of generations and is a gradual process. What you are talking about is a "chronospecies". If we could take Turkana boy (H. erectus) and bring him forward in time we would find that he could not interbreed and produce fertile offpsring with today's people. He would be a separate species. Where exactly in the sequence of generations did this happen? There is no "exact" spot. If we kept the continuity of the generations then yes, every generation would be able to interbreed with the generation before and after. And yet, H. erectus and H. sapiens are separate species. Ring species are an example of allopatric speciation -- geographical speciation. And yes, they are in the process of reproductive isolation. If the chain of populations is ever broken, you would have 2 species where now there is one. Because speciation (reproductive isolation) happens to population and occurs over hundreds/thousands of generations, we can only tell when it happens but cannot pinpoint a precise moment in time when it does. However, that doesn't stop us from noting that humans and chimps are separate species. We do not interbreed to produce fertile offspring. They are different concepts, but they are both morally relevant. H. sapiens is a member of our species. "People" is an ethical/legal term we apply to deciding who benefits from moral/ethical principles. Within H. sapiens we don't consider all members to be "people". For instance, Terry Schiavo lost her status as "person" and thus could be legally and ethically killed. Many people do not consider fertilized ova to be "people", even tho they are members of H. sapiens. You want to extend "people" beyond H. sapiens. Specifically to chimps. But there are morally relevant issues in doing so. Now, in principle I am willing to entertain the possibility of extending the concept of "person" to non H. sapiens. Sapient species from other planets or sufficiently aware artificial intelligences, for instance. However, the question remains the criteria for doing so. IMO, chimps do not meet the criteria. Although there is no qualitative mental distinction between chimp mentality and ours, there is a quantitative difference such that IMO chimps should not qualify. And that is part of the absence of qualitative distinction. Yes, chimps do show a form of morality and the ability to mentalize the mental state of others. But not to the extent that humans do. Nor to do abstract thought to the extent that humans do. If species membership is irrelevant, then yes, you are advocating treating all species the same. And requiring them to treat us the same way we treat ourselves. If you consider that the properties of the majority of the members of a species are a "thumbrule", then species membership becomes relevant! So what if we are "speciest"? Every species is speciest! If they weren't, they couldn't earn a living. If every species adhered to the rule "thou shalt not kill" then all animals would starve. In time, our species ends when individuals in the past cannot interbreed with individuals in the present. Even tho we can't make an exact generation when that happens, it does happen. This isn't the first time Dawkins has gotten evolution wrong. Biology. According to your argument that "species is irrelevant", a mantis is a person. Why would you exclude it from being a person? If we go back in that chain Dawkins talks about, then guess what? We come to the common ancestor of H. sapiens and the preying mantis. To use your quote again: "where does our species end?" So why don't you consider the mantis a person and thus, why shouldn't we adopt the morality of the mantis? If you don't consider the mantis a person, why not? Dawkins apparently has it end with chimps and humans. But how does he draw that line? Yourdad, Dawkins is drawing just as much a line as I am, but with far less basis in science. Once Dawkins takes that walk back thru many intermediate species to the common ancestor of humans and chimps and decides that species separated by 8 million years and many intermediate species in both lineages are equally "sentient", then how can he draw any other line? Why doesn't he continue that "walk" and go back to mammalian common ancestor, or the vertebrate common ancestor, or the animal common ancestor, or even back to the last common ancestor? What's stopping him? What Dawkins has done is try to subvert science to his emotions. It's not the first time, or the first 10 times. He's not doing science; he's rationalizing using science. He wants chimps -- for his emotional reasons -- to be considered "people". Fine. But don't subvert science to do so. I at least am sticking with the line that is a biological reality: species. I do not want to see any species go extinct because of human activity. Therefore I would side with Dawkins about protecting chimp habitat. But I can do that on ethical principles that do not include trying to extend ethical principles that are only intraspecies to other species and making absurd statements about "equality" between species.

3. C Vila` , P Savolainen, JE. Maldonado, IR. Amorim, JE. Rice, RL. Honeycutt, KA. Crandall, JLundeberg, RK. Wayne, Multiple and Ancient Origins of the Domestic Dog Science 276: 1687-1689, 13 JUNE 1997. Dogs no longer one species but 4 according to the genetics. http://www.idir.net/~wolf2dog/wayne1.htm Mitochondrial DNA from Prehistoric Canids Highlights Relationships Between Dogs and South-East European Wolves. F. Verginelli, C. Capelli, V. Coia, M. Musiani, M. Falchetti, L. Ottini, R. Palmirotta, A. Tagliacozzo, I. De Grossi Mazzorin, and R. Mariani-Costantini (2005) Mol. Biol. Evol. 22, 2541-2551 | Abstract » | Full Text » | PDF » A detailed picture of the origin of the Australian dingo, obtained from the study of mitochondrial DNA. P. Savolainen, T. Leitner, A. N. Wilton, E. Matisoo-Smith, and J. Lundeberg (2004) PNAS 101, 12387-12390 | Abstract » | Full Text » | PDF » Genetic Structure of the Purebred Domestic Dog. H. G. Parker, L. V. Kim, N. B. Sutter, S. Carlson, T. D. Lorentzen, T. B. Malek, G. S. Johnson, H. B. DeFrance, E. A. Ostrander, and L. Kruglyak (2004) Science 304, 1160-1164 | Abstract » | Full Text » | PDF »