First, I would point out that I am not a creationist nor an "Intelligent Designer." I do not know the right answer. Is evolution a plausible explaination for the many wonders of this world? I couldn't tell you. But, I can tell you that the support for evolution is not very convincing. Lets not get into the entire debate on evolution, lets focus on the major contention of article. Focusing on this I have two observations.

1. My first question is whether a salamander going blind and losing his eyes is evidence of evolution or adaptation? It is clearly the later, but is it the former? Is the salamader still a salamander? If the answer is yes, which I think we can agree is the correct answer, than we do not have evolution. The salamander has changed into a....salamander. Perhaps my definition of evolution is wrong, but call me when the salamander turns into a sea crab or a fish, until than the spieces has simply adapted to its surroundings while remaining the same species.

2. Aside from attacking Coulter (which I must admit, I read and aside from her more "colorful" comments, she does, in fact, make some valid arguments (or should I say she articulates other peoples valid arguments well)), the argument of de-evolution is evidence of evolution is not very convincing. As Hitchens should know well it is much easier to decontruct, than to construct. Perhaps that is why I have a hard time with evolution. I have been presented with sufficient arguments deconstructing the theory and have yet to here anything that remotely suffices as a response.

3. My final question is for the author himself, b/c only he can answer it, however, in the event that any one reads this crap, you can play along too. Did you read Coulter's book? What were/are your thoughts on her argument (again not really her argument) that survival of the fittest is a tautology? Surely you agree with that observation. Do you? If you do, which you must b/c it is, in fact a tautology (do you remember the fruit fly experiment), why would you use this tautology to back up your argument?

The salamander has changed into a salamander with different characteristics. It is no longer the same sighted salamander the species once was. It changed. Hmm, if only there was some synonym for change over time...

And why did it need to change? Apparently it wasn't designed very intelligently.

If the salamander adapts to a cold climate by changing from scales to fur, increasing it's heartbeat to maintain a constant internal temperature, and hatching its eggs inside its body to protect them from the cold, is it still a salamander?

You may not have a strong belief but it appears that you do not believe that the theory of evolution is valid.

That means you either are a complete agnostic or you are lying to yourself.

One of the reasons I think evolution is on the right track is because there is no way any religioncan logically explain how things got the way they are.Coulter believes in the mystical and she is a creepy strange person.

Hitchens is a prick, but he at least uses human logic, not hocus pocus.

1) It is evolution because it is a new species. These salamanders would not reproduce with the salamanders you might find in your backyard pond. Similarly a treefrog is not a bullfrog. If thats not sufficiently different for you, then come back in a million years and compare the descendants of the blind salamander with the descendants of the salamander from your pond (or look at the fossil record to see what has happened with some other species).

2) De-evolution is a misnomer as it implies some "goal" of evolution, rather than a passive process. I don't really see what argument you are making here, except perhaps "destruction is easier than building". Well, survival is a difficult job and changes that are destructive will get weeded out. Changes that are constructive will continue. Without knowing the arguments you are referencing I can't refute them.

3) I haven't read her. Survival of the fittest is a convenient summary of the theory, but should not be thought to hold some deep deep truth. It is a tautology, but so is the phrase "Denser items sink".

A better question would be WHY did it change at all? How did being sightless IMPROVE its survival chances over a normal salamander? If the answer is "it didn't" then why would the salamander lose its eyes?

Being stronger is a good thing, why didn't the salamanders develop stronger, more efficient muscles that don't use any more energy.

Remember, evolution is a random process, not a goal directed one!

I am an evolution agnostic. I do not believe in evolution b/c I have not witnessed evolution. And a salamander losing its eyes is not evidence of evolution, but of adaptation. And aparently some other threat suggests that the salamander has not actually lost its eyes. Is that true? What the hell do I know.

By the way, I think that religion can provide a logical answer for how we got here, but it certainly is not scientific.

Who is to say that the salamander de-evolved? It looks like it evolved into something that is precisely adapted to its environment as evidenced by its continued survival.

Here is a question for you. Why are you more convinced that some supremely complex being is responsible for all of this than some natural process? Wouldn't the being that created everything have to be more complex than the system that it generated? Do you feel that what you are suggesting is remotely based in logical thought?

OUEllis:

I am an evolution agnostic. I do not believe in evolution b/c I have not witnessed evolution.

Do you say the same thing when you read about history? I don't believe Thomas Jefferson wrote the Declaration of Independence, because I didn't witness it?

Evolution is a historical and ongoing event. Speciation happens slowly, so one can't easily witness it directly, but the evidence for it occuring is all around us, in the fossil record, in the geographic distribution of species, and in the patterns we witness in genetics. I guess I can understand being agnostic if you don't know about those details, but I think the skepticism is unfounded, and the idea that the only way to know about something is to directly witness it is a standard you probably don't apply to everything in life.

No the phrase 'survival of the fittest" is not a tautology. It is quite possible for "the fittest" to not survive in any particular circumstance. That is because at the individuated level survival is a much more complex and unpredictable process than any single evolutionary process. Consider:

One species of fly is separated into two populations by a lava flow (this happens all the time in Hawaii). Pretty soon you have some random genetic mutation that occurs so that Species B now lives twice as long as the original species with no adverse effects to Species B. Clearly B is the "fitter" species since longer life means larger population pool, more gene propogation and diversity etc. etc.

Shortly thereafter the volcano re-erupts, except this time the lava flow wipes out Species B and Species A continues to survive.

Thus survival is not synonymous with fitness. Thus "survival of the fittest" is not a tautology.

Coulter regularly engages in this sort of pseudo-logic. And as the original poster points out, this is a form of thinking that appeals to some individuals. It just isn't based in structured or logical reasoning about any subject. Coulter rarely makes any actual points that are supportable in fact. That is part of why she refuses to let most of her speeches be recorded. Because where they recorded, she could not weaselword her way out of the outrageous claims she makes.

"And why did it need to change? Apparently it wasn't designed very intelligently."

There should be a complaint box.

Exactly right I think. The phrase refers to survival of the fittest.

Not the strongest, or the fastest, or the tallest.......

And in any case the theory itself is based on random mutation, not all of which are fit, nor survive. The fit of course naturally survive, thus the tautological "survival of the fittest" is simply more precise than survival of the strongest (or some other adjective).In the case of the salamander's I would posit that a lessoning dependence on eye-sight where such sight conveys no advantage, would, over time likely increase the acuity of other senses. How does the sightless salamander's hearing, smell, sensitivity to tempature or vibration compare to the sighted salamders?

1. How do you know that the cave dwelling salamander wouldn't get it on with the salamanders in my backyard? Who has tried this research? Additionally, I will have a hard time coming back in a million years. And maybe in a million years we will have proof of evolution, by documention. If that happens, than this debate is over, but to claim it is over today by referencing a million years from now and claim that you know what the evidence will show at that time is not a valid argument. (for the record I am not conceding that the blind salamander is a different species. Through adaptation the salamander lost its eyes, but it is still a salamander. Through adaptation black people became darker skinned (or white people became whiter), and people developed blonde hair and black hair and brown hair and different color eyes, but they are not different species are they?)

2. I did not mean to imply some goal. My argument and many scientists have argued that the complexity of the eye is mathmatically impossible to create through random changes over a long period of time. Maybe they are wrong, but nobody has proven them wrong yet, b/c we hav enever documented the evolution of an eye before. Science the basis of science is observation, and it has not been observed, how can we claim that evolution is fact (as other posters have)? We cannot.

3. You are correct that denser items sink is a tautology (or at least is sounds like one), but it is also a provable fact and can also be predicted, everytime based on our knowledge. Through the scientific process we can explain why. Survivial of the fittest, however, does not have the luxury of being tested or predicted.

Your questions aren't particularly well reasoned.

1. Evolution IS Adaptation. Your definition of evolution is wrong.

2. There is no such thing as de-evolution (except perhaps in the case of Coulter :-) ). Your "hard time" with evolution is based in a misunderstanding of what evolution is and how it proceeds. (and I have yet to see or read any "valid arguement" put forth by Coulter. Invariably her arguements are tautological (arguing by axiom) or intentionally misrepresent known facts).

3. "suvival of the fittest" is not a tautology. A tautology is a statement in which both parts are a repetition of the same idea. Survival is a more complex process than being "fittest" for an environment. Survival includes statistical probability. An earthquake, volcano eruption, a falling tree - all can kill the better adapted population/individual. But over time STATISTICALLY, the part of the population that is more able to adapt to the randomness of the environment will have a higher rate of survival. Thus the measure of fitness is simply the measure of the ability to react to the environment.

so restated "survival of the fittest" is

Those most able to deal with the surrounding environment are more likely to survive than those who are not IN THE LONG RUN.

That's not a tautology. And if Coulter claims it is then she isn't reasining very well.

Designed with ability to adapt to the surrounding...that sounds pretty intelligent to me. I think the question is whether that is sufficient proof that Salamanders can indeed evolve into something entirely different given enough time and some "blind" chance.