Does this make Susan Estrich a genetic throwback?

. . . or Paul Begala?

How can you exclude changes in diet from evolution?

You can't. But it's obviously intelligent design.

"You can't. But it's obviously intelligent design."

How so? Did the Neanderthal say to himself, I'd like a smaller face, so I'll start cooking my meals?

Indeed, he said, "Hey, this stuff's easier to chew. I think we'll eat more of this." Of course, it's the perfect illustration of what Darwinism actually explains, because we remain the same species throughout our dietary changes.

Yours is such a delicate position, OJ. No wonder you won't address allopatric speciation.

Brit:

At the point where you add such a prefix you're acknowledging the failure of Darwinism to produce speciation. At the point where you guys had to start playing with meanings you'd lost.

That gives a whole new meaning to C S Lewis's book "Till We Have Faces".

"Till We Have Faces" is also Over The Rhine's first album. A darned good one it is, too.

OJ:

If we're arguing over whether allopatric speciation counts as part of 'Darwinism' then I'm not bothered either way. I'll stick to 'theory of evolution' if you prefer.

The theory of evolution, including both Darwinism under your definition and allopatric speciation, explains evolution better than ID.

Darwinism explains everything but speciation, which is all it's supposed to explain. The observation that nature functioned like breeding was brilliant, but everything beyond that failed.

Orrin,

"Indeed, he said, "Hey, this stuff's easier to chew. I think we'll eat more of this."

Which of course has nothing to do with intelligent design, but plenty with the theory of evolution. A population is faced with different options, one of which makes it easier to survive, and the population over time adapts and changes accordingly. As the article you linked to said: "What’s more, we are growing less teeth. Ten thousand years ago everyone grew wisdom teeth but now only half of us get them, and other teeth like the lateral incisors have become much smaller. This is evolution in action."

"The observation that nature functioned like breeding was brilliant, but everything beyond that failed."

You've still never explained how you think it failed exactly.

"At the point where you add such a prefix you're acknowledging the failure of Darwinism to produce speciation."

"Allopatric" is not a prefix, and allopatric speciation is one kind of speciation, but speciation all the same. It being allopatric (which means a population when split evolving in different directions) doesn't take away from it being speciation in the slightest. It's like saying a cumulus cloud is not a cloud.

"Darwinism explains everything but speciation, which is all it's supposed to explain."

Why do you insist on this 'Darwinism' strawman and shrink from discussing the theory of evolution, which does explain this?

creeper:

Yes, we eat different stuff and we change, but never speciate.

Allopatric means they don't speciate--just that different groups within a species choose not to breed that often.

Darwinism insists that speciation occurs because of such eating decisions and breeding decisions--it fails to prove is, thus is a failure as a science.

You creeped right up to the edge of insight this week. Just engage this question and you'll see that you believe in nothing:

If beliefs are merely a function of evolution then why isn't belief in evolution a mere affect?

"If beliefs are merely a function of evolution then why isn't belief in evolution a mere affect?"

Are beliefs as such a "function of evolution"? Beliefs can be a factor in evolution, as beliefs can have an impact on the ways groups interact and as a result affects the group's survival chances. It is not the only such mechanism, as there are other ways in which groups exert control and function efficiently.

The question shows, though, how your insistence on framing 'Darwinism' as a religious faith leads you to see an opposition where there is none. Religious beliefs can be beneficial to a group's survival, but exploring science does not need to stand in opposition to that. It doesn't matter one bit to the beneficial effects of religious beliefs whether you believe that God made man less than 10,000 years ago in more or less his present form, or whether you believe that man evolved from lesser forms of life and at some point God provided man with "God-given dignity".

What you call "belief in evolution" is simply an aspect of the belief in the natural world, and that what we experience with our senses reflects the physical world around us. It is not at odds with the notion of there being anything more or other than what we are capable of perceiving. Acceptance of the scientific theory of evolution, or of scientific exploration as such, is not at odds with religion as a whole. Merely with the literal interpretation of some religious texts.

This whole debate as you frame it presupposes the belief that science is fundamentally anti-religious, when all science really is is a-religious; it is simply a different field of human knowledge and exploration. Yes, there are some scientists who are anti-religious, but there are also some who are strongly religious. Science unto itself is neutral on the matter of religion.

The theory of evolution does not say that God does not exist; it doesn't even imply it, unless you make God's existence contingent on God having intervened and still intervening in life on Earth to a staggering extent. There is no theoretical obstacle to the notion that God set the process of natural evolution in motion and then let it be; such a belief would mesh quite well with the notion of God giving man free will, as it is often posed. God intervening in the path of evolution over and over and over would mesh less well with such a belief.

The theory of evolution simply says that, for a phenomenon, here is an explanation that does not require God's intervention. It's up to you whether you believe in God, but accepting the theory of evolution as science does not need to have anything to do with which religious belief you choose, and does not affect the effect that religion has in a community one bit.

creeper:

Okay, you're getting there now. So in the same way that belief in religion is merely a product of Darwinian forces, so too must belief in Darwinism be.

However, and here's the interesting part, those states--Western Europe and Blue State America which believe in Darwinism are finding it to be a maladaptation that is destroying the groups' capacities to survive.

So you're stuck with the bizarre argument that Judeo-Christianity is false, though it aids survival, and Darwinism true, though suicidal. Of course, from within your theory, your argument is itself just a product of Darwinism and shows Darwinists to be unfit and so on and so forth in a closed and nonsensical loop.