ID is valid

[Morcova]

Don't look down on the Bandit... he can't post a response... he's busy running from the law.

 

[FishFace]

On the matters of this group's opinion, evolution is no more of fact than Intelligent Design.

"Fact" does not admit of degrees. Evolution is a fact, Intelligent Design is an unfalsifiable piece of pseudo-scientific sophistry. It doesn't belong in schools because it is religion, a direct product of the creationist movement, and because it isn't science. Teach it in RE if you want.

Science proves nothing when it comes to evolution (where are all the fossils of transitional species?).

What like Tiktaalik, Archaeopteryx, Lizard jaws, whales with legs, to name but 4?

Why should it be considered relevant material to teach? Because it has been created through experimentation and observation?

Yes.

There has yet to be an experiment or observation which refutes intelligent design.

There has yet to be an experiment or observation which refutes the existence of fairies.

To completely deny the relevance of intelligent design one must be:
A.) Completely ignorant concerning the complexities of the human body
B.) Completely ignorant on the processes of carbon and other forms of radiometric dating

Irrelevant.

 

[FishFace]

Most (if not all) women have one breast that is (naturally) slightly bigger than the other. Usually it isn't noticeable at all, but I have seen some extreme difference.

By your logic, women aren't/weren't designed.

And...if what I've heard about testicles is true...men aren't/weren't designed either.

Therefore, human beings were not intelligently designed, right?

Also, any good tailor will ask a man which way he... hangs... in order to cut a little extra room on that side.

 

[Loudmouth]

LM, is it a real phenomenon that more basal animals (ok, barring the basalmost... Trichoplax doesn't really have any symmetry AFAIK) are actually more symmetrical than, say, a snail or a human? Or is my half-informed intuition leading me in the wrong direction?

Interesting question. Cniderians are symmetrical across more planes than bilaterians. Sponges are the same. I wouldn't call it "more symmetrical" but the trend does appear to be symmetrical across more planes.

I'd reckon that breaking a radial or a bilateral symmetry actually adds another level of complexity to the developmental process. Does that make sense?

I will have to do some reading on that, if I have the time and motivation. I really don't know if radial symmetry is a derived trait or a trait shared by the common ancestor of all symmetrical animals.

I think I'm thinking too much again

That's what I was thinking, too.

 

[Naraoia]

Interesting question. Cniderians are symmetrical across more planes than bilaterians. Sponges are the same. I wouldn't call it "more symmetrical" but the trend does appear to be symmetrical across more planes.

Yes, I think that was roughly what I meant. Language is my enemy

I will have to do some reading on that, if I have the time and motivation. I really don't know if radial symmetry is a derived trait or a trait shared by the common ancestor of all symmetrical animals.

Please please update me if you do the reading!

(My line of reasoning went something like: a radially symmetrical animal has to organise itself along a top to bottom and a centre to edge axis. A bilateral one has to do that top to bottom, centre to edge and head to tail, that's one more axis. Add anything that breaks the symmetry and you have to invent extra regulation for that. But the whole idea is kind of irrelevant if radial isn't the more ancient form of symmetry.)

That's what I was thinking, too.

I couldn't stop even if I wanted to...

 

[Loudmouth]

Yes, I think that was roughly what I meant. Language is my enemy

Please please update me if you do the reading!

(My line of reasoning went something like: a radially symmetrical animal has to organise itself along a top to bottom and a centre to edge axis. A bilateral one has to do that top to bottom, centre to edge and head to tail, that's one more axis. Add anything that breaks the symmetry and you have to invent extra regulation for that. But the whole idea is kind of irrelevant if radial isn't the more ancient form of symmetry.)

I couldn't stop even if I wanted to...

The story is more complex than I imagined. Some researchers have suggested that the common ancestor of modern bilaterians and modern cnidarians was a bilaterally symmetrical. That's right, radial symmetry (perhaps) is a derived trait in the cnidarian lineage.

http://nimravid.wordpress.com/2008/03/27/cnidarians-bilaterian-ancestor/

 

[Naraoia]

The story is more complex than I imagined. Some researchers have suggested that the common ancestor of modern bilaterians and modern cnidarians was a bilaterally symmetrical. That's right, radial symmetry (perhaps) is a derived trait in the cnidarian lineage.

http://nimravid.wordpress.com/2008/03/27/cnidarians-bilaterian-ancestor/

Based the blog post this seems very much a "perhaps". I guess we shall wait and see how it turns out. Though that thing about anthozoa being basal does make me wonder. Heh. Shall I write lab reports or read papers tonight?

(Whatever happened to the proposal that puts Ctenophora outside sponges+cnidarians+bilateria? I saw it in a ScienceDaily report a while ago and it would seem like an idea that turns many things we thought about animal origins on their heads, but I haven't seen anything about it since then.)

 

[Loudmouth]

Based the blog post this seems very much a "perhaps". I guess we shall wait and see how it turns out. Though that thing about anthozoa being basal does make me wonder. Heh.

I think it is safe to say that the answer is still up in the air.

[quoet]Shall I write lab reports or read papers tonight? [/quote]

I hate lab reports. Read the papers.

(Whatever happened to the proposal that puts Ctenophora outside sponges+cnidarians+bilateria? I saw it in a ScienceDaily report a while ago and it would seem like an idea that turns many things we thought about animal origins on their heads, but I haven't seen anything about it since then.)

Thinking again are we?