Evolution-A Summary

[David Sklansky]

Everybody is wrong again.

Evolutionists who claim their theory is a fact are wrong and always will be. But ID proponents are also almost certainly wrong because they, nowadays at least, try to argue that evolution theory can't explain everything.
Obviously proving that evolution can't explain everything would be nice for them. But so what if they can't?

Suppose another planet was composed of champion poker players who usually check raised semi bluffed when they picked up a flush draw on the turn. Explorers who encountered them might immediately think they read my book. But analysts who came along later would first claim that there is no reason to think they got ahold of my book,and then point out that survival of the fittest by itself would mean that these turn check raisers would have to evolve eventually.

But the above in no way eliminates the possibility that these check raisers actually got good by reading. Same with animal creation and especially human creation. Admittedly if it was God who did it without evolution, it would probably be necessary to concede that he also planted false clues. But so what. And a second problem would be that if the ID account is the more farfetched one, people could not be blamed for not believing in it, if they had no other good reasons for believing in God. But this is only a problem for certain religions.

Bottom line is that evolution can never be a fact. But those who persist that it doesn't do a good job of explaining things, even if it is wrong, are evidently making a fool of themselves.

Meanwhile the whole issue should be meaningless to religious people. Because even if evolution is totally right it doesn't say anything about the God most people beleive or disbelieve in. Because evolution does not as of now, explain how modern apes realize they exist, in a way that monkeys and computers don't. And it doesn't even offer a clue as to how specifically Mike Matusow can come into existence. If God decided to totally let the dice roll until beings smart enough to handle consciousness evolved, and only THEN decided to get involved by "infusing souls", what religious people would have a problem with that? Beside of course those few who have everything invested in a literal interpretation of the bible.

Actually, this "late intervention" by God is, I think similar to what Catholics and Jews believe. And even Not Ready, in his more lucid moments, reluctantly allows for that type of possibility. So why can't other religious people accept this rather than fight a losing battle?

Of course one day science might actually give a reasonable explanation for consciousness. Building a conscious computer would be one way to do it. A reasonable explantion for "selfness" is less likely, in my opinion. But even if they come up with one, keep in mind my earlier statement. Even if engineers can one day create a second RJT, doesn't mean God didn't create the first one.

[chezlaw]

careful, you're beginning to sound like me.

chez

[Unoriginalname]

I'm going to have to disagree with you. Evolution is a fact. The mountain of evidence in support of this is so large, it would be rather ignorant to state that it is not a fact. Virtually every Biologist today (except a tiny minority of quacky ones) would say the same thing. The mechanisms of how evolution occurs are just theories, however.

We KNOW evolution occurred. We just aren't exactly sure HOW it occurred. Saying evolution is not a fact is almost as silly as saying 2+2=4 is not a fact. Sure, it's possible that some omnipotent being created all the complex arrangements of molecules in an instant and purposely littered the planet with numerous clues of an alternative explanation of human origin in order to deceive us. It's also possible that 2+2 really equals 5 and but some all-powerful being has tricked us into believing it really equals 4.

[MidGe]

Exactly, like gravity is a fact that has never been explained. The rules of it are eminently proveable (=falsifiable). So is evolution.

Should that not be the case, you may as well say that nothing is proveable in the physical world.

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
Bottom line is that evolution can never be a fact. But those who persist that it doesn't do a good job of explaining things, even if it is wrong, are evidently making a fool of themselves.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not as foolish as those who don't understand that the word "Evolution" is, unfortunately, used ( like skate and soul) for two different entities.

Evolution the Fact - this is, like water flowing downhill, a process you can observe and needs an explanation.

Evolution the Theory - well, actually a suite of theories held under that umbrella. The Theory of Natural Selection, The Theory of Sexual Selection, the Theory of Genetic Drift, etc.

The clearer way to express this is - Evolution the Fact is described by Evolution the Theory ( which is on much solider ground than the Theory of gravity which will be changed within our lifetimes).

[ QUOTE ]
Even if engineers can one day create a second RJT, doesn't mean God didn't create the first one.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's a rather meaningless distinction since it doesn't rule any other claim either, so we'll have a bizillion explanations for RJT - 1) a product of some engineers 2) a product of evolution, one of the strongest theories mankind has. 3-bizillion) anything else you want to claim. Only the first two have any credence.

luckyme

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
Even if engineers can one day create a second RJT, doesn't mean God didn't create the first one.

[/ QUOTE ]

If my 6 year old suggested a similar justification for one reason for the spilt milk in the kitchen - "well, daddy, we can never know the easter bunny didn't come early this year and was thirsty. Prove me wrong." I'd be tempted to smack him upside the head. To hear such a line of thought expressed on a philosophy forum makes me embarrassed for my species.

Is there anything we can't add the comment "or god did it", or "or the FSM did it" to? What is the point of wasting the bandwidth?

I officially move that in SMP we assume a subliminal "or God/FSM did it" below the sig in all posts. cheeesh.

luckyme

[maurile]

[ QUOTE ]
Evolution is a fact.

[/ QUOTE ]
I don't see how any well informed person can dispute this unless they are mis-using the word "fact" to mean something that's been definitively proven. But in that case, the notion that the Holocaust happened isn't a fact either.

That's a non-standard way to use the word "fact," however.

[Lestat]

Good post.

While one could technically nitpick and make the argument that evolution (or any scientific theory), is not a fact, it's too trivial to take seriously.

What amazes me is how many people do not understand what a scientific theory is. I am NOT referring to DS, but am very much referring to people like godBoy who act as if evolution is little more than a best guess. Let's be straight on what a scientific theory is guys. Maybe it should be put in the FAQ.

A scientific theory is NOT a guess! This quote from wikipedia:

"a theory is a systematic and formalized expression of all previous observations made that is predictive, logical, testable, and has never been falsified."

Sound scientific theories while often improved upon, are almost never proven completely wrong. A scientific theory is STRONG people! You need to stop mistaking the theory of evolution as a good sounding guess.

[maurile]

Evolutionary theory has been tested with great rigor for over a century, and it is the only theory of the origin of species we have that has not yet been falsified. Nothing in science can ever be proven beyond all doubt, but the correctness of evolutionary theory is about as sure a thing as the correctness of atomic theory or of the germ theory of disease.

In other words, it is a fact.

[David Sklansky]

No it is not. It may perfectly explain the diversity of animals. And creationists may be too stupid to realize that. But it does nothing to show why alternative explanations that might come along that would also perfectly explain things cannot be right.

[BluffTHIS!]

David, I think you need to read up on evolution more because maurile is right. Your reasoning could logically be applied to any scientific theory that is not 100% fully formed regarding the alternative explanation stuff, but that wouldn't make it less of a fact. The chain of evolution shown in the fossil record shows for certain that evolutionary changes that result in one species gradually spinning off another and so on has occurred. The fact that science does not have all the individual links in each chain does not lessen the certainty of that evolution occurring. Similarly, important gaps in the theory of quantum mechanics does not make it less certain of a scientific theory.

You are inadvertantly playing into the hands of the ID evolution-denying crowd by not distinguishing between what a theory and an hypothesis are.

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
No it is not. It may perfectly explain the diversity of animals. And creationists may be too stupid to realize that. But it does nothing to show why alternative explanations that might come along that would also perfectly explain things cannot be right.

[/ QUOTE ]

Evolution the Fact - doesn't explain dick. You can go to a lab and watch things evolve. It's an event, a confirmed observation. We say, "hmmmm..." and that leads us to ..

Evolution the Theory - does seem an incredibly tested, successfully predicting theory of what is going on in the fact of evolution we observe.

Of course it doesn't prove some whacko unfalsifiable idea is wrong .. (hint. that's what unfalsifiable means). Why would that ever mean anything to anybody? and what in blazes would that have to do with whether evolution is a fact or not which you deny-

[ QUOTE ]
Bottom line is that evolution can never be a fact.

[/ QUOTE ]

DS, you have enough money to take a few days off, arrange to go to a lab and watch the process yourself. Then, having observed the fact of evolution you can come back here and we can discuss the merits of the theory of evolution.

luckyme

[David Sklansky]

I meant the whole theory.

[Unoriginalname]

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-fact.html

This article on www.talkorigins.org (http://www.talkorigins.org) (for anyone who hasn't heard of this web site, they are the absolute king of information on evolution) explains what we're trying to say: that evolution is both a fact and a theory.

[diebitter]

[ QUOTE ]
No it is not. It may perfectly explain the diversity of animals. And creationists may be too stupid to realize that. But it does nothing to show why alternative explanations that might come along that would also perfectly explain things cannot be right.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, that is absolutely true. Just as Newtonian Physics was pretty darn good at explaining earth-bound and some solar system phenomena, it has now been superceded by later theories in many parts. Science is and should remain the best approximation of nature and natural events we can get. Doesn't mean it's wrong because it might be superceded, just means it's the best we can come up with with the given information.

Creationists get hung up on trying to prove its not absolutely correct, so it must therefore be wrong - and not just wrong, but completely and utterly wrong. If we now know Newton wasn't absolutely correct, does it mean his theory of gravity is completely and utterly wrong, for example?

[godBoy]

Evolution in this sense I have no problem with accepting.
If it can be scientifically tested then it should be embraced as fact. But, evolution as a whole says a lot more than what can be proven in a lab. Darwin made claims about a primordial soup which has no evidence, future fossils that have not supported his 'theory', and all life having the same origin.
Evolution is not fact, because of it's implications and side stories that at their root are aethistic. The fact that mutations occur can be proven, evolution though is too multifaceted to be called fact. Although some of it's 'faces' could be considered so.

[diebitter]

[ QUOTE ]
Evolution in this sense I have no problem with accepting.
If it can be scientifically tested then it should be embraced as fact. But, evolution as a whole says a lot more than what can be proven in a lab. Darwin made claims about a primordial soup which has no evidence, future fossils that have not supported his 'theory', and all life having the same origin.
Evolution is not fact, because of it's implications and side stories that at their root are aethistic. The fact that mutations occur can be proven, evolution though is too multifaceted to be called fact. Although some of it's 'faces' could be considered so.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think the speculations of a scientist (or anyone actually) should be seen invalidate their solid work (in the case of scientists, their testable, replicable work). I think we're agreeing on that, at least /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[benjdm]

[ QUOTE ]
But it does nothing to show why alternative explanations that might come along that would also perfectly explain things cannot be right.

[/ QUOTE ]
No scientific theory does that. It is a basic principle of science.

[tolbiny]

[ QUOTE ]
future fossils that have not supported his 'theory', and all life having the same origin.

[/ QUOTE ]

Seriously dude, you need to go into an evolution class and learn about PE. Charles Darwin 1809 - 1882. The current year is 2005. Fortunatly for us Biologists haven't sat around for 100+ years taling about how great Darwin is and Evolution has been refined in many ways. Speciation for most Evolutionists is now seen as a very rapid event, not taking hundreds - thousands of generations, but might occur in as few as half a dozen.

[ QUOTE ]
Evolution is not fact, because of it's implications and side stories that at their root are aethistic.

[/ QUOTE ]

How can a side story be at the "root" of something?


[ QUOTE ]
The fact that mutations occur can be proven, evolution though is too multifaceted to be called fact.

[/ QUOTE ]

When Darwin came up with his Thoery on Natural Selection he set out four criteria.

1. Surplus of individuals. That is more are born than can possibly survive and reproduce. True? Yes.
2. Must be variation within a species. True? Yes.
3. There must be differential survival and reproduction, due to differnt traits. Tons and tons of evidence for this one aswell.
4. Traits must be heritable. Thanks to genetics we know this is true.

Natural selection as a thoery is as rock solid as they get, evolution is a logical progression out of natural selection.

[Zygote]

DS, i dont think you know what a scientific fact is.

"
FACT: A statement of an event or condition where the statement can be proven and shown to be correct (or disproven and thus shown to be incorrect) on the basis of some evidence

In science, a fact is data supported by a scientific experiment. A fact is an honest observation. A scientific fact is an honest observation seen by many scientists. A scientific fact is a scientific observation that is so accepted that it becomes difficult to consider other interpretations of the data. A fact may tentatively support or refute a model of how the universe works. Facts do not prove a model is correct. One observation of any phenomenon does not prove anything. (wikipedia)"


As of yet, no scientific model has ever been shown to be correct. Models are only as good as their predictions and descriptions of data.

Fortunately, even though no model can be proven true, Karl Popper provided us with a scientific method that allows us to differentiate between scientific fact and theory and religious philosophy.

Evolution is a scientific fact. The whole theory (hypothesis supported by fact) is currently the best description of the data, has yet to be falsified, and offers the most valuable predictions by far. Any proposal that does not provide a hypothesis to test (falsify) with current data is almost always automatically a religous philosophy. Any proposal that does provide a hypothesis must be tested against the data and compared to evolution to see which provides a better description and more accurate predictions of the data.

[diebitter]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
future fossils that have not supported his 'theory', and all life having the same origin.

[/ QUOTE ]

Seriously dude, you need to go into an evolution class and learn about PE. Charles Darwin 1809 - 1882. The current year is 2005. Fortunatly for us Biologists haven't sat around for 100+ years taling about how great Darwin is and Evolution has been refined in many ways. Speciation for most Evolutionists is now seen as a very rapid event, not taking hundreds - thousands of generations, but might occur in as few as half a dozen.

[ QUOTE ]
Evolution is not fact, because of it's implications and side stories that at their root are aethistic.

[/ QUOTE ]

How can a side story be at the "root" of something?


[ QUOTE ]
The fact that mutations occur can be proven, evolution though is too multifaceted to be called fact.

[/ QUOTE ]

When Darwin came up with his Thoery on Natural Selection he set out four criteria.

1. Surplus of individuals. That is more are born than can possibly survive and reproduce. True? Yes.
2. Must be variation within a species. True? Yes.
3. There must be differential survival and reproduction, due to differnt traits. Tons and tons of evidence for this one aswell.
4. Traits must be heritable. Thanks to genetics we know this is true.

Natural selection as a thoery is as rock solid as they get, evolution is a logical progression out of natural selection.

[/ QUOTE ]

I often wonder how much creationists would absolutely FREAK if they found out about sexual selection as a special case. Best us scientists not even mention that.

[Stu Pidasso]

[ QUOTE ]
If my 6 year old suggested a similar justification for one reason for the spilt milk in the kitchen - "well, daddy, we can never know the easter bunny didn't come early this year and was thirsty. Prove me wrong." I'd be tempted to smack him upside the head. To hear such a line of thought expressed on a philosophy forum makes me embarrassed for my species.


[/ QUOTE ]

You should be more embarrassed for thinking about slapping a six year old just because he believes in the easter bunny.

Stu

[Wynton]

[ QUOTE ]

Meanwhile the whole issue should be meaningless to religious people. Because even if evolution is totally right it doesn't say anything about the God most people beleive or disbelieve in.

[/ QUOTE ]

In fact, I think this issue is meaningless to most religious people. But the "fact" is that evolution contradicts certain fundamentalist views, and it is the adherents to those views who are exercised by the debate.

[maurile]

[ QUOTE ]
No it is not. It may perfectly explain the diversity of animals. And creationists may be too stupid to realize that. But it does nothing to show why alternative explanations that might come along that would also perfectly explain things cannot be right.

[/ QUOTE ]
And the occurance of the holocaust does nothing to show why alternative explanations that might come along would aslo explain things. That doesn't mean the holocaust isn't a fact.

Common descent is a fact because it happened. We know it happened (to the extent anything outside of math can be known) because of all the evidence. Under ordinary English usage, that makes it a fact. Under some kind of non-standard usage where "fact" requires 100% certainty, then almost nothing is a fact, including evolution. But that hardly seems worth discussing.

[tolbiny]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
future fossils that have not supported his 'theory', and all life having the same origin.

[/ QUOTE ]

Seriously dude, you need to go into an evolution class and learn about PE. Charles Darwin 1809 - 1882. The current year is 2005. Fortunatly for us Biologists haven't sat around for 100+ years taling about how great Darwin is and Evolution has been refined in many ways. Speciation for most Evolutionists is now seen as a very rapid event, not taking hundreds - thousands of generations, but might occur in as few as half a dozen.

[ QUOTE ]
Evolution is not fact, because of it's implications and side stories that at their root are aethistic.

[/ QUOTE ]

How can a side story be at the "root" of something?


[ QUOTE ]
The fact that mutations occur can be proven, evolution though is too multifaceted to be called fact.

[/ QUOTE ]

When Darwin came up with his Thoery on Natural Selection he set out four criteria.

1. Surplus of individuals. That is more are born than can possibly survive and reproduce. True? Yes.
2. Must be variation within a species. True? Yes.
3. There must be differential survival and reproduction, due to differnt traits. Tons and tons of evidence for this one aswell.
4. Traits must be heritable. Thanks to genetics we know this is true.

Natural selection as a thoery is as rock solid as they get, evolution is a logical progression out of natural selection.

[/ QUOTE ]

I often wonder how much creationists would absolutely FREAK if they found out about sexual selection as a special case. Best us scientists not even mention that.

[/ QUOTE ]

Shhhh, SHUT UP!!! you'll ruin everything.
Of course it depends on what you mean by "special case". Darwin def underestimated the effects of sexual selection, but it doesn't change the basic premise at all. That is that differences between individuals will cause a differnce in reproductive fitness, which sexual selection clearly does.

[maurile]

In the American vernacular, "theory" often means "imperfect fact"--part of a hierarchy of confidence running downhill from fact to theory to hypothesis to guess. Thus the power of the creationist argument: evolution is "only" a theory and intense debate now rages about many aspects of the theory. If evolution is worse than a fact, and scientists can't even make up their minds about the theory, then what confidence can we have in it? Indeed, President Reagan echoed this argument before an evangelical group in Dallas when he said (in what I devoutly hope was campaign rhetoric): "Well, it is a theory. It is a scientific theory only, and it has in recent years been challenged in the world of science--that is, not believed in the scientific community to be as infallible as it once was."

Well evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts don't go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's in this century, but apples didn't suspend themselves in midair, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from ape-like ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other yet to be discovered.

Moreover, "fact" doesn't mean "absolute certainty"; there ain't no such animal in an exciting and complex world. The final proofs of logic and mathematics flow deductively from stated premises and achieve certainty only because they are not about the empirical world. Evolutionists make no claim for perpetual truth, though creationists often do (and then attack us falsely for a style of argument that they themselves favor). In science "fact" can only mean "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional consent." I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms.

Evolutionists have been very clear about this distinction of fact and theory from the very beginning, if only because we have always acknowledged how far we are from completely understanding the mechanisms (theory) by which evolution (fact) occurred. Darwin continually emphasized the difference between his two great and separate accomplishments: establishing the fact of evolution, and proposing a theory--natural selection--to explain the mechanism of evolution.

- Stephen J. Gould, " Evolution as Fact and Theory"; Discover, May 1981

[maurile]

"Evolution" is like "gravity." It refers both to a) a fact, directly observable, and b) a number of theories to describe how it happens.

Evolution is a fact, directly observable. Even speciation events have happened within a recent human lifetime. Furthermore, evolution by artificial selection is entirely uncontroversial; nobody sane doubts that sweet corn, cauliflower, and broccoli are the products of a long time of selective breeding by humans.

Evolution by natural selection is a highly successful theory to explain the observed fact that it occurs without humans to guide it.

All theories are models, or guesses if you like. But the observed fact of evolution is not based on models, assumptions, or guesses. Rather, people invent the models in an attempt to explain the observed facts. All of them are approximations; the best you can say about a theory is that it is consistent with observation to the accuracy and precision of your measurement.

Gravity, like evolution, is an observed fact. Things fall; you can try this at home. People invent theories to describe these observed facts. Aristotle came up with a theory that was truly bogus but probably sufficient for people who didn't think too hard. Kepler came up with three laws that were a good theory for a while. Newton came up with a much better theory that explained Kepler's 3 laws in terms of 2 laws. Einstein came up with an even better theory. People have been trying to come up with even better ones but so far haven't had a lot of stellar success.

Saying that Einstein's theory of gravitation may not be the last word *does not* imply in any way that gravity isn't a fact.

-- Eric Pepke

[diebitter]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

I often wonder how much creationists would absolutely FREAK if they found out about sexual selection as a special case. Best us scientists not even mention that.

[/ QUOTE ]

Shhhh, SHUT UP!!! you'll ruin everything.
Of course it depends on what you mean by "special case". Darwin def underestimated the effects of sexual selection, but it doesn't change the basic premise at all. That is that differences between individuals will cause a differnce in reproductive fitness, which sexual selection clearly does.

[/ QUOTE ]

Er, if my memory of reading 'Descent of Man' is correct (it's been 20 years /images/graemlins/frown.gif ), I don't think he did underestimate it at all. He was spot on, I think.

[chezlaw]

You guys,(except for Lestat) are all nuts. The original post was just standard skepticism.

chez

[tolbiny]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

I often wonder how much creationists would absolutely FREAK if they found out about sexual selection as a special case. Best us scientists not even mention that.

[/ QUOTE ]

Shhhh, SHUT UP!!! you'll ruin everything.
Of course it depends on what you mean by "special case". Darwin def underestimated the effects of sexual selection, but it doesn't change the basic premise at all. That is that differences between individuals will cause a differnce in reproductive fitness, which sexual selection clearly does.

[/ QUOTE ]

Er, if my memory of reading 'Descent of Man' is correct (it's been 20 years /images/graemlins/frown.gif ), I don't think he did underestimate it at all. He was spot on, I think.

[/ QUOTE ]

i meant with regards to origin of species. I haven't ever read Descent of man, though i do know it does talk about sexual selection.

[diebitter]

[ QUOTE ]
Good post.

While one could technically nitpick and make the argument that evolution (or any scientific theory), is not a fact, it's too trivial to take seriously.

What amazes me is how many people do not understand what a scientific theory is. I am NOT referring to DS, but am very much referring to people like godBoy who act as if evolution is little more than a best guess. Let's be straight on what a scientific theory is guys. Maybe it should be put in the FAQ.

A scientific theory is NOT a guess! This quote from wikipedia:

"a theory is a systematic and formalized expression of all previous observations made that is predictive, logical, testable, and has never been falsified."

Sound scientific theories while often improved upon, are almost never proven completely wrong. A scientific theory is STRONG people! You need to stop mistaking the theory of evolution as a good sounding guess.

[/ QUOTE ]

While everthing Lestat says is sound, the Wikipedia quote is just wrong - "never been falsified" as a way to define a theory as good or bad is just wrong. Many scientific theories have had minor flaws, and often these flaws grow, and get to a point where the exceptions make it clear the theory is flawed, and needs to be modified or replaced. Newtonian physics was an example. It holds true in many circumstances on Earth, but not all, and physicists become more and more aware of these flaws as time passed. Doesn't mean it's wrong if some bits of it are refuted, but that it's not a good a fit as it would first appear (it's right in many circumstances, or as good as)

T.S. Kuhn spawned a whole area of work on this, and the rise and fall of scientific paradigms.

This doesn't invalidate scientific paradigms, but let's not pretend any scientific paradigm is completely and utterly rock-solid. That's the way of dogma.

And I lost my dogma a long time ago - it got ran over by my karma.

[Borodog]

[ QUOTE ]
Evolutionists who claim their theory is a fact are wrong and always will be . . .
<font color="white"> . </font>
Bottom line is that evolution can never be a fact.

[/ QUOTE ]

Never thought I'd say this, but . . . David Sklansky, You Are Wrong.

Evolution is an observable fact that begs for an explanation, just like gravity is an observable fact begging for an explanation. Evolutionary theory attempts to (however incompletely) provide that explaination, just like gravitational theory explains the fact of gravity.

Read the Talk.Origins FAQ on it that someone else provided.

[Borodog]

[ QUOTE ]
Speciation for most Evolutionists is now seen as a very rapid event, not taking hundreds - thousands of generations, but might occur in as few as half a dozen.

[/ QUOTE ]

Citation?

[BluffTHIS!]

Karl Popper's standard of falsifiability, which some of the fundamentalist ID/evolution-denying crowd saw in these forums mentioned by myself and latched onto and used inappropriately, is a standard to determine whether an area of inquiry is science or not. The standard is whether a theory is capable of being falsified, not whether something actually has been falsified.

[diebitter]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Speciation for most Evolutionists is now seen as a very rapid event, not taking hundreds - thousands of generations, but might occur in as few as half a dozen.

[/ QUOTE ]

Citation?

[/ QUOTE ]

I didn't state this, so I'm answering for someone else, but it is probably a reference to 'punctuated equilibrium' or similar.

I however am a trained ecologist and pretty strong on evolutionary theory (but left the field &gt; 10 years ago), and I've always believed evolution tends to proceed fastest in small, isolated communities separated in some way from the main gene pool of their species, and subject to a strong evolutionary pressure. I believe humans, for example, partly evolved during a semi-marine phase (which explains hairlessness, nose structure changes, hair alignment on the body, fat distribution, ability of very small infants to actually swim, and so on). Can't cite for that though.

[Borodog]

I'm fine with all of that, but speciation within 6 generations is, um, BS.

[diebitter]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm fine with all of that, but speciation within 6 generations is, um, BS.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'd agree, but I'm not up with modern theory on speciation etc, so I'd like a citation too.

[Rduke55]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Speciation for most Evolutionists is now seen as a very rapid event, not taking hundreds - thousands of generations, but might occur in as few as half a dozen.

[/ QUOTE ]

Citation?

[/ QUOTE ]

I didn't state this, so I'm answering for someone else, but it is probably a reference to 'punctuated equilibrium' or similar.

I however am a trained ecologist and pretty strong on evolutionary theory (but left the field &gt; 10 years ago), and I've always believed evolution tends to proceed fastest in small, isolated communities separated in some way from the main gene pool of their species, and subject to a strong evolutionary pressure. I believe humans, for example, partly evolved during a semi-marine phase (which explains hairlessness, nose structure changes, hair alignment on the body, fat distribution, ability of very small infants to actually swim, and so on). Can't cite for that though.

[/ QUOTE ]

Where did you get the semi-marine phase from?

[Rduke55]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm fine with all of that, but speciation within 6 generations is, um, BS.

[/ QUOTE ]

6 is a stretch but there's a recent paper in PNAS suggesting a species of sunflower arose in 60 generations (due to hybridization though). They think it could even be less generations and it's been postulated in some theoretical papers that it can be done in ten generations due to hybrid speciation.
And transposons in bacteria can cause very quick speciation.

[Borodog]

It's called the aquatic ape hypothesis. I'm not sure what the current status amongst evolutionary biologists is, but it always struck me as making perfect sense. Human beings seem to have a suite of adaptations that the other apes do not, but are convergent on the cetaceans. We have a layer of insulating and buoyant body fat that the other apes do not, have much less body hair than the other apes, have voluntary control over our breathing, can learn to swim easily (none of the the other apes can swim), and several others. Human infants can swim at birth, which I find amazing; it's apparently instinctual.

[Rduke55]

[ QUOTE ]
It's called the aquatic ape hypothesis. I'm not sure what the current status amongst evolutionary biologists is, but it always struck me as making perfect sense.

[/ QUOTE ]

It seems pretty far out of favor. Those traits have other possible explanations (just going from what I've read and was taught).

[ QUOTE ]
Human beings seem to have a suite of adaptations that the other apes do not, but are convergent on the cetaceans.

[/ QUOTE ]

I guess the main problem with the aquatic ape hypothesis is that it takes a bunch of adaptations and speculates that they could be useful for aquatic life while other explanations are possible (more probable?). Plus there's no fossil evidence supporting it.



[ QUOTE ]
We have a layer of insulating and buoyant body fat that the other apes do not,

[/ QUOTE ]

This is not confined to aquatic animals. Plus, it has been suggested that replacing fur with subcutaneous fat is useful in animals concerned with shedding heat as the circulatory system can bypass that insulator - not so with fur.

[ QUOTE ]
have much less body hair than the other apes,

[/ QUOTE ]

In addition to the above thermoregulatory reason, some believe this aids in reducing parasites which is also suggested for the naked mole-rat (and also suggested to aid in heat transfer).

[ QUOTE ]
have voluntary control over our breathing, can learn to swim easily

[/ QUOTE ]

In other apes, becaus they are quadrapeds, respiration is tied to gait. Because we are bipedal, it can be disassociated. It's also pretty useful for language.

[ QUOTE ]
(none of the the other apes can swim), and several others. Human infants can swim at birth, which I find amazing; it's apparently instinctual.

[/ QUOTE ]

Got me here. Also, interestingly, most frontal copulators are aquatic (but the Bonobo ape does often) and humans have the diving reflex.

I believe we are having a civil conversation. Weird.

[Matt R.]

[ QUOTE ]
I believe we are having a civil conversation. Weird.

[/ QUOTE ]

BUT GOD DOES/DOES NOT EXIST. PLEASE STAY ON TOPIC PLZ.

/images/graemlins/mad.gif

[Borodog]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It's called the aquatic ape hypothesis. I'm not sure what the current status amongst evolutionary biologists is, but it always struck me as making perfect sense.

[/ QUOTE ]

It seems pretty far out of favor. Those traits have other possible explanations (just going from what I've read and was taught).

[ QUOTE ]
Human beings seem to have a suite of adaptations that the other apes do not, but are convergent on the cetaceans.

[/ QUOTE ]

I guess the main problem with the aquatic ape hypothesis is that it takes a bunch of adaptations and speculates that they could be useful for aquatic life while other explanations are possible (more probable?). Plus there's no fossil evidence supporting it.

[/ QUOTE ]

The other explanations seem in many ways ad hoc, and while on their surface plausible, are contradicted by other animal species (see below). Also, the lack of fossil evidence, in my opinion, seems to be the biggest reason the theory is out of favor (I'm a physicist, so I can't speak to how "far" out of favor it may be). But since most of the sites you would expect an aquatic phase to have taken place are either currently underwater (ancient shorelines), or were not conducive to fossilization (ancient swamps), a paucity of fossil evidence is only to be expected.

As for your specific alternative explanations for specific traits, they're pretty common, and there are some really convincing counterarguments in the wikipedia entry on the AAH: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aquatic_ape

In any event, I'm not taking the AAH as a foregone conclusion, but it certainly seems more likely than not. Part of the problem for me with attempts to explain away all of the various traits with individual ad hoc explanations is that it ignores the very obvious fact that there is a suite of adaptations that makes humans extremely good swimmers. I generally tend to think that a slew of coincidences that end up conspiring to synthesize into a spectacular talent has little explanatory power for me.

[ QUOTE ]
I believe we are having a civil conversation. Weird.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's because you haven't flipped out and insulted me yet.

[carlo]

[ QUOTE ]
Evolution is a fact

[/ QUOTE ]

Extreme generalization at best. What you are saying is that the world and Man in particular has a past, present, and future.

Implicit in this statement is that there is a linear progression of traits(say in Man) which are passed on from generation to generation which can be ascertained by a DNA code which is contained in the materiality of the body. There is also a consideration that these traits can change(mutate) and thusly explain the differences in individual beings in this progression. Neatly wrapped up, material linearity ensconced in a mutative(enviromental?, probablistic?) umbrella, a theory which contains the whole banana.

Considered in one aspect(that of material linearity without mutation) oone would expect traits to be passed from Father/Mother to Son/Daughter. If this were so then the traits would have to be present at the beginning of a family tree. This would mean that the great men of individual families(Bernoulli-mathematicians) for example would have to be at the beginning but contrariwise quite often the greatest of these families are noted at the end of a line. Something has been added which was not present initially.

To assume that DNA offers up the answer to the evolutionist dream is tautamount to saying that my arms will ascertain my character. Short arms obviously bring forth certain characteristics as apposed to long arms.

To offer up mutation as an explanation for the changes is the same as saying that this is up to the genie in the bottle. Positing an outer worldly event of which the religionists are ridiculed.

The body is the colors/palette of the individual soul/spiritual being which brings characteristics to the earth upon incarnation He then creates his painting. An example which explains why families may have long lines of creative individuals(Bachs,Bernoullis) is the fact that if a man is to be a good or great musician he will need a "good ear". This is a physical appliance which can be passed on within families but in no way can this being with great characteristics become a great or good musician without the "good physical ear". Again his colors/palette.



carlo

[Rduke55]

[ QUOTE ]
The other explanations seem in many ways ad hoc, and while on their surface plausible, are contradicted by other animal species (see below).

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think they're contrary to what's expected based on some other animals.

[ QUOTE ]
Also, the lack of fossil evidence, in my opinion, seems to be the biggest reason the theory is out of favor

[/ QUOTE ]

from a brief search in the archives it seems to be pretty far out of favor.

[ QUOTE ]
As for your specific alternative explanations for specific traits, they're pretty common, and there are some really convincing counterarguments in the wikipedia entry on the AAH: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aquatic_ape

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't find them as convincing but neither do many others that do this.

[ QUOTE ]
In any event, I'm not taking the AAH as a foregone conclusion, but it certainly seems more likely than not.

[/ QUOTE ]

Again disagree but I don't really have much to add beyond what I said in my last post.

[ QUOTE ]
Part of the problem for me with attempts to explain away all of the various traits with individual ad hoc explanations is that it ignores the very obvious fact that there is a suite of adaptations that makes humans extremely good swimmers. I generally tend to think that a slew of coincidences that end up conspiring to synthesize into a spectacular talent has little explanatory power for me.

[/ QUOTE ]

But explaining those very same adaptations for the AAH seems ad hoc also. I would disagree that we're good swimmers when compared to a lot of other animals (even some moles, for example, put us to shame) but I can easily rationalize that some of the traits that we have for other purposes (breath control, etc.) also contribute to us being better swimmers than a gorilla.

[ QUOTE ]
That's because you haven't flipped out and insulted me yet.

[/ QUOTE ]

Probably because you haven't been stumping on the morality of cop-killing.

[Rduke55]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Evolution is a fact

[/ QUOTE ]

Extreme generalization at best. What you are saying is that the world and Man in particular has a past, present, and future.

Implicit in this statement is that there is a linear progression of traits(say in Man) which are passed on from generation to generation which can be ascertained by a DNA code which is contained in the materiality of the body. There is also a consideration that these traits can change(mutate) and thusly explain the differences in individual beings in this progression. Neatly wrapped up, material linearity ensconced in a mutative(enviromental?, probablistic?) umbrella, a theory which contains the whole banana.

Considered in one aspect(that of material linearity without mutation) oone would expect traits to be passed from Father/Mother to Son/Daughter. If this were so then the traits would have to be present at the beginning of a family tree. This would mean that the great men of individual families(Bernoulli-mathematicians) for example would have to be at the beginning but contrariwise quite often the greatest of these families are noted at the end of a line. Something has been added which was not present initially.

To assume that DNA offers up the answer to the evolutionist dream is tautamount to saying that my arms will ascertain my character. Short arms obviously bring forth certain characteristics as apposed to long arms.

To offer up mutation as an explanation for the changes is the same as saying that this is up to the genie in the bottle. Positing an outer worldly event of which the religionists are ridiculed.

The body is the colors/palette of the individual soul/spiritual being which brings characteristics to the earth upon incarnation He then creates his painting. An example which explains why families may have long lines of creative individuals(Bachs,Bernoullis) is the fact that if a man is to be a good or great musician he will need a "good ear". This is a physical appliance which can be passed on within families but in no way can this being with great characteristics become a great or good musician without the "good physical ear". Again his colors/palette.



carlo

[/ QUOTE ]

What?

[Borodog]

Well, it's not my field, so I'm not going to argue further about it. But I would like to say that I find it odd that someone would believe that we are far better bipedal locomotes than the other apes because we evolved to be better bipedal locomotes, are far better tool users because we evolved to be better tool users, have far more complex language skills because we evolved to have better language skills, but are NOT far better swimmers because we evolved to be better swimmers. That, that was coincidental. Shrug. If you say so.

And for the record, it's only moral to kill the cops that deserve it. Like those who violently aggress against innocent individuals. As I have always made clear. You seem to be the one who cannot differentiate between a cop who gets a little old lady's kitten down from a tree and one who breaks down her door and shoots her because he believed she was trafficking in plants. The first one deserves a thank you and a cookie, the latter deserves to be shot. There, you can flip out and insult me now, and the cycle will be complete.

[morphball]

[ QUOTE ]
Everybody is wrong again.

[/ QUOTE ]

...including yourself?

[ QUOTE ]
Because evolution does not as of now, explain how modern apes realize they exist, in a way that monkeys and computers don't.

[/ QUOTE ]

I am pretty sure that many many animals are self-aware such as Lions and Tigers and Bears, Oh my! Seriously though, are you saying that a dog is not aware of itself? If so, prove it.

[ QUOTE ]
Bottom line is that evolution can never be a fact.

[/ QUOTE ]

Interesting, because I once thought that I had caused evolution to occur in my microbiology lab in college. Guess I was wrong, and those pesky bacteria didn't evolve resistance to antibiotics. In fact, they all died and the growth on the agar was just "false clues" planted by God. I guess those ash colored moths in England that used to be white are really still white too...

[ QUOTE ]
And it doesn't even offer a clue as to how specifically Mike Matusow can come into existence.

[/ QUOTE ]

I am pretty sure that nothing can explain that one...

[Rduke55]

[ QUOTE ]
Well, it's not my field, so I'm not going to argue further about it. But I would like to say that I find it odd that someone would believe that we are far better bipedal locomotes than the other apes because we evolved to be better bipedal locomotes, are far better tool users because we evolved to be better tool users, have far more complex language skills because we evolved to have better language skills, but are NOT far better swimmers because we evolved to be better swimmers. That, that was coincicental. Shrug. If you say so.


[/ QUOTE ]

I say so. But I'm not saying that we couldn't have used this to exploit a new niche though. In the mole example they are better swimmers than many other animals with a similar body plan because of their giant forepaws and the musculature and skeletal changes that have evolved for digging . Same idea here. Often in evolution traits for one purpose get co-opted for another. All behavior is not always directly selected for originally. So we could be better swimmers for reasons other than selection for swimming.
For most of these traits the most parsimonious (and supported by the fossil record) explanations are the ones I gave.

I'm ignoring your second paragraph as this is SMP, not politics.

[tolbiny]

Its been a few years- but the gist of the article was a mathematical represenatation of how long it would take for a single allele to encoumpass &gt;90% of reproducing individuals in a population.
If certain conditions ocurred (ie high reproductive success, small population, isolation) and the allele also coded for a behavior modification related to mating (season or interferred with the mating ritual) this could lead to a reproductive isolation of the group, which is, according to some definitions, speciation.
Thoeretically.

[David Sklansky]

"Never thought I'd say this, but . . . David Sklansky, You Are Wrong.

Evolution is an observable fact that begs for an explanation, just like gravity is an observable fact begging for an explanation."

Why doesn't everybody realize that when I used the word "evolution" I meant the theory that all animals incluidng man evolved? Meanwhile this whole subject was not the important point of my post. Why isn't anybody writng about my point that assuming evolution is true is no big deal?

[diebitter]

[ QUOTE ]

Why doesn't everybody realize that when I used the word "evolution" I meant the theory that all animals incluidng man evolved? Meanwhile this whole subject was not the important point of my post. Why isn't anybody writng about my point that assuming evolution is true is no big deal?

[/ QUOTE ]

Because for this forum, assuming evolution is true is indeed a big deal. And unfortunately, a significant number of contributors really can't get past that.

Pisser, isn't it?


EDIT: I agree completely evolution is no big deal. Why bother arguing if diversity arose by natural or supernatural means if you believe it all started by supernatural means anyway? Who cares? If you believe, why do you need to establish proof?

[KipBond]

[ QUOTE ]
Why doesn't everybody realize that when I used the word "evolution" I meant the theory that all animals incluidng man evolved?

[/ QUOTE ]

That's a scientific fact.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-fact.html

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
"Never thought I'd say this, but . . . David Sklansky, You Are Wrong.

Evolution is an observable fact that begs for an explanation, just like gravity is an observable fact begging for an explanation."

Why doesn't everybody realize that when I used the word "evolution" I meant the theory that all animals incluidng man evolved? Meanwhile this whole subject was not the important point of my post. Why isn't anybody writng about my point that assuming evolution is true is no big deal?

[/ QUOTE ]
Why don't you think its a big deal for literal christians? NotReady accepts (I think) that his presupposition of meaning is theoretically consistent with evolution but can't believe its actually the case because it conflicts with his interpretation of the bible which he believes to be true (a belief shared with more than almost none).

That seems entirley lucid and obviously correct if only for the reason that man can't have evolved from nothing in a few thousand years. What are we missing?

chez

PS why not tell us which bit of your post is your important point when you make the post

[maurile]

[ QUOTE ]
Why doesn't everybody realize that when I used the word "evolution" I meant the theory that all animals incluidng man evolved?

[/ QUOTE ]
We do. That part is a fact.

The theoretical part is how all animals including man evolved -- what are the mechanisms. Current theories include natural selection, genetic drift, neutral evolution. More specifically, we've got theories about mutation rates, the randomness of mutations, rates of change in junk DNA, etc.

But the fact that humans and monkeys have a common ancestor -- that's one of the facts that our theories seek to explain. It's not a non-fact.

[maurile]

Here's some stuff you might find informative on the aquatic ape theory: Aquatic Ape Theory: Sink or Swim? (http://www.aquaticape.org/)

[carlo]

[ QUOTE ]
But the fact that humans and monkeys have a common ancestor

[/ QUOTE ]

This is definitely not a FACT. But clarity might help for the statement is somewhat vague.

Who's first, ape to human or human to ape or other(please explain}.

carlo

[maurile]

Your whole post doesn't make sense. Humans and monkeys have lots of common ancestors, including fish. So I guess fish were first. No, wait, bacteria were. No, wait . . .

In any event, humans are apes, but non-human apes preceded human apes.

[carlo]

[ QUOTE ]
In any event, humans are apes, but non-human apes preceded human apes

[/ QUOTE ]

You are saying that humans are apes which had non human apes as an ancestor? I gather you are also saying that there is a linear regression to , for example, a bacteria or at least an amino acid , this in keeping with the big bang?

I need to have you clarify the matter-I understand that it would be difficult to delineate the absolute progression(squids to fish to dolphins to apes,etc) but I would like to know whether you bring to the table the progression of simple matter(inorganic?) to complex forms(man?). Details are understood to be clarified in the future.

carlo

[maurile]

[ QUOTE ]
You are saying that humans are apes which had non human apes as an ancestor?

[/ QUOTE ]
Of course. That's not controversial (except for religious reasons).

[ QUOTE ]
I gather you are also saying that there is a linear regression to , for example, a bacteria or at least an amino acid , this in keeping with the big bang?

[/ QUOTE ]
I have no idea what you mean by "linear" in this context (or "regression" for that matter), and I have no idea what amino acids have to do with the big bang.

[ QUOTE ]
I need to have you clarify the matter-

[/ QUOTE ]
No you don't. Anything I would be able to tell you is easily accessible with a Wikipedia search (or even better, Talkorigins).

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I need to have you clarify the matter-


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


No you don't. Anything I would be able to tell you is easily accessible with a Widipedia search (or even better, Talkorigins).

[/ QUOTE ]
Carlo, I hear the Ancestors Tale by Dawkins is a good read on this topic.

chez

[carlo]

Chez,thanks for the offer. As stated by some of the religious types they have no problem with this type of progression from the big bang to human but I'm trying to show that this movement from simple to complex is specious at best.

What is being said is that matter by its own ability is making this movement(materialistic science) or matter by an unseen guiding hand(some religious are ok with this) moves from simple to complex. I can only refer to the remarks by godboy who states that the thoughts of the creator are needed to "put the car together" or in this case "put the matter in place".

My concern is that this simple to complex is a thought hypothesis whether you choose the primacy of matter or the unseen guiding hand but this certainly does not prove that the idea of simple to complex is valid.

Certainly the primacy of inorganic matter is clarified in the case of death in which the body decomposes within the chemical reactions we have learned in our education. This is the only known FACT as to the primacy of inorganic matter, death and decomposition. This does not begin to comprehend the idea of the plant,animal and human kingdoms which are imbued with LIFE.

Now in the case of the unseen guiding hand the religious ,perforce, must posit a world which is unseen but to many, unknown. 'The question is, can one logically state that there is indeed this movement from to simple to complex which is still a variation on a theme of the materialistics? This looks like the tail is wagging the dog.

So is there another alternative? I think so, but the primacy of matter must be obviated and beings who are of soul/spiritual nature would have to be comprehended by looking at the world. This would have to be accomplished by SCIENTIFIC THINKING which is tethered to both worlds. This last paragraph does not begin to answer and may throw confusion in the ranks, I know, but I hoped to throw light on this linear progression (simple to complex) which must be questioned.

carlo

[KipBond]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm trying to show that this movement from simple to complex is specious at best.

[/ QUOTE ]

With all due respect, I request that you please try harder, as I have no idea what you are trying to say. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[Borodog]

[ QUOTE ]
"Never thought I'd say this, but . . . David Sklansky, You Are Wrong.

Evolution is an observable fact that begs for an explanation, just like gravity is an observable fact begging for an explanation."

Why doesn't everybody realize that when I used the word "evolution" I meant the theory that all animals incluidng man evolved? Meanwhile this whole subject was not the important point of my post. Why isn't anybody writng about my point that assuming evolution is true is no big deal?

[/ QUOTE ]

Because when you use terminology incorrectly, it leaves the door open for miscommunication. And we're not psychic.

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]

You should be more embarrassed for thinking about slapping a six year old just because he believes in the easter bunny.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm trying to raise a rational being. I taught him about the easter bunny and he should bloody well know the only evidence for easter bunnies is EGGS !! stupid brat.

luckyme

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
Why isn't anybody writng about my point that assuming evolution is true is no big deal?

[/ QUOTE ]

er, uhm, Isn't that self-explanatory?

luckyme

[Stu Pidasso]

[ QUOTE ]
Why isn't anybody writng about my point that assuming evolution is true is no big deal?

[/ QUOTE ]

Your audience already understands this. Make a point that is contentious and we will be all over it.

Stu

[Wynton]

[ QUOTE ]
Why isn't anybody writng about my point that assuming evolution is true is no big deal?

[/ QUOTE ]

I did.

[godBoy]

[ QUOTE ]
Seriously dude, you need to go into an evolution class and learn about PE. Charles Darwin 1809 - 1882. The current year is 2005. Fortunatly for us Biologists haven't sat around for 100+ years taling about how great Darwin is and Evolution has been refined in many ways. Speciation for most Evolutionists is now seen as a very rapid event, not taking hundreds - thousands of generations, but might occur in as few as half a dozen.

[/ QUOTE ]

Agreed, so darwinian evolution is not fact.. I mean Darwins tree of life - every living thing coming from the same simple organisms. Is this fact?

[ QUOTE ]
How can a side story be at the "root" of something?

[/ QUOTE ]

Sorry it was misunderstood. The side story was not at the root of evolution. The root of the side stories themselves are atheiestic.

When Darwin came up with his Thoery on Natural Selection he set out four criteria.

[ QUOTE ]
1. Surplus of individuals. That is more are born than can possibly survive and reproduce. True? Yes.
2. Must be variation within a species. True? Yes.
3. There must be differential survival and reproduction, due to differnt traits. Tons and tons of evidence for this one aswell.
4. Traits must be heritable. Thanks to genetics we know this is true.

Natural selection as a thoery is as rock solid as they get, evolution is a logical progression out of natural selection.

[/ QUOTE ]

What about the tree? It's named after Darwin.
The primordial soup? or was this a later attachment to his theory of natural selection.

[ QUOTE ]
Natural selection as a thoery is as rock solid as they get

[/ QUOTE ]
A question i have been pondering - why would genetic mutations only be helpful to a species? or aren't they, so they die instead(if a mutation is unhelpful). Are these genetic mutations in fact random.
If so, what's the likelyhood of a random mutation that helps the organism survive?
The hardest part of natural selection I find to understand is the earliest stages, actually forming complex life from chemicals due to random genetic mutations.

[Jeff V]

[ QUOTE ]
Actually, this "late intervention" by God is, I think similar to what Catholics and Jews believe. And even Not Ready, in his more lucid moments, reluctantly allows for that type of possibility. So why can't other religious people accept this rather than fight a losing battle?


[/ QUOTE ]

The reason is that evolution &amp; natural selection are very cruel ways to speciate. This doesn't match up with the loving God in the Bible.

[Rduke55]

[ QUOTE ]

A question i have been pondering - why would genetic mutations only be helpful to a species? or aren't they, so they die instead(if a mutation is unhelpful). Are these genetic mutations in fact random.

[/ QUOTE ]

Most mutations that affect phenotype are bad for an organism. (most overall are neutral)

[ QUOTE ]
If so, what's the likelyhood of a random mutation that helps the organism survive?

[/ QUOTE ]

Pretty small. That's why it takes so many generations normally.

[IronUnkind]

Perhaps because we agree. Lately, you have taken some time to point out a very important aspect of faith: that many of the supposed threats to it are impotent but for the fear of the believer.

I try to avoid, inasmuch as possible, defining God to such a degree that my entire faith would shatter if certain ideas turned out to be untrue. No literal six days? Big deal. Genesis isn't a textbook. Many believers never seem to get that our faith is in God Himself, not Things About God. This is true idolatry.

[IronUnkind]

The problem with this reference is that it is devoted not so much to the science as it is to the scientific controversy. My experience is that the people who engage in this non-debate ALL seem to have ontological commitments to their viewpoint. Even if the evolutionists (whatever that means) are correct on every point, their fanaticism renders them automatically suspect. This is obviously true of creationists as well.

[carlo]

[ QUOTE ]
With all due respect, I request that you please try harder, as I have no idea what you are trying to say.

[/ QUOTE ]

/images/graemlins/smile.gif /images/graemlins/smile.gif /images/graemlins/smile.gif I see. Out of the "bang" comes inorganic nature and we'll pick minerals(mineral) for convenience sake.

Nitrogen-Nitrous Oxide-Sulphur Dioxide-Carbon-Silver-Gold-Phosphorus-etc.------amino acid-virus-bacterium-cell-plants--insect(s)-birds-worms-snakes-ducks-cats-baboons-apes-man.

This is difficult: to even conceive the actual progression(according to simple to complex in modern terms) is repellent.

I gather it is common belief in the scientific community that it may be possible to produce organic from inorganic matter in the laboratory. This thought is a direct result of this type of linear progression which states that the simple is the precurser of the complex. Therefore attempts have been made to produce amino acids in a test tube, as a first step to LIFE(say mineral to plant).

In this type of thinking, which is evolution in the scientific sense, the primacy of the mineral world(dead in the beginning) is the underlying thought. Probabilities are brought in to explain the event(s) but in all cases the casual connection between earlier and later is believed(mineral produces plant, plant produces animal, ape produces man). In the materialistic scientific sense, the force or geist of this movement is the matter itself and all one has to do is repeat the conditions of matter and life will be produced.

There are many holes in this THEORY which is based upon billiard ball thinking(ball hits ball and the world of force, momentum, inertia, speed ,etc. manifests).

In no way does this mean that I espouse the mineral beginnings as stated above but I am displaying a reasonable understanding of the "bang" at the beginning. Can't imagine the originators believed flying apes came out of the bang immediately. Of course you could have quarks, photons,atoms, bubbalicious or whatever is the latest particle on the dock, even waves.

carlo

P.S.-Objectively, the LAWS of the mineral kingdom have nothing to do with growth, or life but only destruction. As noted previously, the decompensation of the dead body follows the laws of the mineral kingdom. In FACT the inorganic does not have one LAW which grants the ability to jump from a mineral conglomeration to as an example the most primitive plant form. In the 17th century the scientist Francesco Redi stated that "LIfe only comes from Life". He said this in response to the common belief that organic matter(maggots) are produced from a decaying body. Other animals were believe to be produced from other inorganic debris. The "Big Bang" appears in this light to be a modern form of maggots from decaying bodies(mineral, atom,etc.).

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
There are many holes in this THEORY which is based upon billiard ball thinking(ball hits ball and the world of force, momentum, inertia, speed ,etc. manifests).....
Of course you could have quarks, photons,atoms, bubbalicious or whatever is the latest particle on the dock, even waves.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, don't keep it to yourself - discredit the theory and claim the Nobel.

luckyme

[tolbiny]

"I mean Darwins tree of life - every living thing coming from the same simple organisms. Is this fact?"

This is pretty well agreed on for the most part, genetic similarites support this alot. All mammels share a common ancestor according to mDNA analysis.

The Darwin tree and the primordial soup are not the core components of NS. The primordial soup was offered as a possible explanation for how self replicating beings could come into existance from non self replicating beings.

The tree of life is an representation of how evolution might work. Evolution doesn't deny the possibility that life could have started in several different places and there are several ancestral strains that life evolved from.

"A question i have been pondering - why would genetic mutations only be helpful to a species? or aren't they, so they die instead(if a mutation is unhelpful). Are these genetic mutations in fact random.
If so, what's the likelyhood of a random mutation that helps the organism survive?"

As another poster pointed out most mutations are "neutral" that is in the immediate environment they are neither beneficial or harmfull. Some mutations are harmfull, but we have a built in defense mechanism for that. Two genes, one from your mother, and one from you father- so if one stops working correctly the other can take over the work and keep plugging away (some mutations are so harmfull that they are fatal).
I can't tell you the ratio of neutral - harmfull - beneficial mutations. That probably depends on a lot of things, environmental conditions for example. If your species is well adapted to an environment then the chances of a mutation being "better" are fairly low. If the environment changes then new mutations can have a higher probability of being beneficial. But its not just "new" mutations- the neutral mutations that have built up in populations over the generations might suddenly be beneficial or harmfull in a new environment, so the selection process can move very rapidly as there is huge store of possibilities within a population.

"The hardest part of natural selection I find to understand is the earliest stages, actually forming complex life from chemicals due to random genetic mutations."

This is difficult. Much like imagining 4 dimensional space is difficult for me. The evidence presented tome is enough for me to say that it is very probably true (or correct) though i can't visualize all of the intracasies.

[carlo]

[ QUOTE ]
Well, don't keep it to yourself - discredit the theory and claim the Nobel.


[/ QUOTE ]

It's been laid out for you-can't feed you -you have to do it yourself.

carlo

[maurile]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Well, don't keep it to yourself - discredit the theory and claim the Nobel.


[/ QUOTE ]

It's been laid out for you-can't feed you -you have to do it yourself.

carlo

[/ QUOTE ]
Dude, the Nobel comes with $1 million. If anybody actually found a serious hole in evolutionary theory, he'd be an absolute shoe-in for the Prize.

Since you've done it (or know of someone who has), just get it published in a science journal and sweeten your bankroll.

[maurile]

[ QUOTE ]
Why doesn't everybody realize that when I used the word "evolution" I meant the theory that all animals incluidng man evolved?

[/ QUOTE ]
I don't think that's what's confusing people. I think the confusion is that you're using the word 'fact' differently from some of the rest of us.

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I gather that when you say "evolution is not a fact," you mean that the common ancestry of humans and shrimp has not been established with 100% certainty. There are still other possibilities, including the fact that God poofed everything into existence a few thousand years ago.

If that's what you are saying, you are absolutely right. The common ancestry of humans and shrimp has not been established with 100% certainty, and there are other possibilities.

The semantic problem, though, is that just because something hasn't been established with 100% certainty doesn't mean that it isn't a fact. The way most people use the word "fact," they mean simply that it's true. Not that it's definitely, without a doubt true.

That the Roman Empire once existed is a fact. That Lincoln was shot in a theater is a fact. That the earth's surface used to be much hotter than it is now is a fact. None of these things can be established with 100% certainty. There are other possible explanations, including more poofing by God. But just because we are only 99.999% sure of them instead of 100% sure of them doesn't turn them into non-facts.

The common ancestry of humans and shrimp is in the exact same category.

It will never be proven with 100% certainty. But as the saying goes, proof is for alcohol and math. Empirical claims are never proven. But many of them are still factual, as most people use that term.

There is no reasonable doubt that humans and shrimp share a common ancestor, just like there is no reasonable doubt that the Holocaust happened.

That's what the rest of us mean when we call those things facts.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
Perhaps because we agree. Lately, you have taken some time to point out a very important aspect of faith: that many of the supposed threats to it are impotent but for the fear of the believer.

I try to avoid, inasmuch as possible, defining God to such a degree that my entire faith would shatter if certain ideas turned out to be untrue. No literal six days? Big deal. Genesis isn't a textbook. Many believers never seem to get that our faith is in God Himself, not Things About God. This is true idolatry.

[/ QUOTE ]
I don't know if that's now DS's position but it sure seems right to me. Trouble is it means he has to give up his conviction that (dis)belief in god has anything to do with Bayes theorem, Fractals etc etc and that seems unlikely. He may even (gasp) have to renounce his claim that its anything to do with intelligence.

The only serious problem is with the literal chaps and really anyone who believes a book contains literal truth is never understanding anything.

chez

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
The only serious problem is with the literal chaps and really anyone who believes a book contains literal truth is never understanding anything.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

This is a bit off the point you are making but the literalists seem to have by far the strongest approach ( which has no bearing on the truth contained in the book). If a book is metaphorical and subjective .. who needs the book? You can come up with the same claims without it. It's a bit dizzying to say, "It doesn't mean what it says, but here's what it says." or, "It doesn't mean what it says, except in these parts I like", or ...

The argument I usually have with literalists is the contextual one ( not referring to biblical literals ..who argues with them :-), both the context of the document and the context of the exchange it was created in. The work can still be literal, that does not mean it is line-by-line.

luckyme, "yeah, right" means NO, cheeesh.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The only serious problem is with the literal chaps and really anyone who believes a book contains literal truth is never understanding anything.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

This is a bit off the point you are making but the literalists seem to have by far the strongest approach ( which has no bearing on the truth contained in the book). If a book is metaphorical and subjective .. who needs the book? You can come up with the same claims without it. It's a bit dizzying to say, "It doesn't mean what it says, but here's what it says." or, "It doesn't mean what it says, except in these parts I like", or ...

The argument I usually have with literalists is the contextual one ( not referring to biblical literals ..who argues with them :-), both the context of the document and the context of the exchange it was created in. The work can still be literal, that does not mean it is line-by-line.

luckyme, "yeah, right" means NO, cheeesh.

[/ QUOTE ]
The distinction is between whether the book is a guide to morality, gods nature etc or whether stories about floods, eden etc. are true.

There's also no inconsistency between a christian god, religon and subjective morality. There's no reason why god couldn't make us different and want us to take different moral messages from the stories.

There's also no inconsistency between god, religon and it being right not to believe in god. One things I know for sure is that despite an empathy for most christian ethics (not sadly the ones displayed by many so called christians) I cannot believe that christianity is true faced with no sensible evidence - that doesn't prove the christian god doesn't exist but it does show that if he does exist he made some of us to not believe and it does prove that the literal chaps are wrong.

chez

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
There's also no inconsistency between a christian god, religon and subjective morality. There's no reason why god couldn't make us different and want us to take different moral messages from the stories.

[/ QUOTE ]

Agreed. What I was touching on was that because of the above there isn't really any 'xtrian morality'. People throughout history share the bulk of the same general moral codes that get culturally tweaked. This is not to be confused with imposed conduct by any given regime in power. We swing between political periods of enlightenment and periods of oppression, but the centralizing force is still our innate sense of justice, responsibility, charity, etc that is more visible in a local neighbourhood regardless of the position of the political pendelum.

Reading the book metaphorically simply extracts our personal innate and nutured views from it and we'd reach the same spot by reading any poetical commentary on morals, gods, or the nature of truth.

None of that challenges what you are saying about inconsistancy and is meant to expand on my claim that we don't need 'the' book once we agree it's not a literal document. We could sit down an write a new one today and attempts like the UN 'human rights' and even the constitutions of western democracies are forms of moral codes.

[ QUOTE ]
it does prove that the literal chaps are wrong.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sure they're wrong, but at least if they were right that specific book would have very special value. Literalists being wrong makes the book just one of many that could serve the same purpose, totally different books or major rewrites of the same one. ( agreed that none of it has anything to do with whether there is a xtrian god).

luckyme

[IronUnkind]

[ QUOTE ]
I cannot believe that christianity is true faced with no sensible evidence - that doesn't prove the christian god doesn't exist but it does show that if he does exist he made some of us to not believe and it does prove that the literal chaps are wrong.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't see that it proves much of anything. Why should anyone assume that god would be the cause of your unbelief?

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I cannot believe that christianity is true faced with no sensible evidence - that doesn't prove the christian god doesn't exist but it does show that if he does exist he made some of us to not believe and it does prove that the literal chaps are wrong.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't see that it proves much of anything. Why should anyone assume that god would be the cause of your unbelief?

[/ QUOTE ]
If god then I'm one of gods creatures. If I'm unable to believe then that's the way he made me.

and a merciful, wise, just, omnipotent etc god wouldn't hold it against me. He made me dependent on reason for my beliefs for a reason.

chez

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
Agreed. What I was touching on was that because of the above there isn't really any 'xtrian morality'. People throughout history share the bulk of the same general moral codes that get culturally tweaked. This is not to be confused with imposed conduct by any given regime in power. We swing between political periods of enlightenment and periods of oppression, but the centralizing force is still our innate sense of justice, responsibility, charity, etc that is more visible in a local neighbourhood regardless of the position of the political pendelum.

Reading the book metaphorically simply extracts our personal innate and nutured views from it and we'd reach the same spot by reading any poetical commentary on morals, gods, or the nature of truth.

[/ QUOTE ]
Total agreement, but it would be expected that if morality comes from a christian god then the morality taught would coincide with the morality we discover within ourselves. The bible is then a teaching aid and jesus was a teacher. The political wing of christianity is just sad.

chez

[KipBond]

[ QUOTE ]
There are many holes in this THEORY which is based upon billiard ball thinking(ball hits ball and the world of force, momentum, inertia, speed ,etc. manifests).

[/ QUOTE ]

I think there aren't as many holes as you think there are. You should read the book that chezlaw recommended, or read the Blind Watchmaker (also by Dawkins). Complexity can and does arise from simplicity.

[Shandrax]

I stopped believing into Evolution when some "scientist" claimed that dinosaurs learned to fly. On the other side, I like the idea. Wouldn't it be nice if we could all grow wings and fly around like birds? The only problematic part could be the decision process. Shall we vote on it and what about those who don't want to join the fun?

[MidGe]

[ QUOTE ]
I stopped believing into Evolution when some "scientist" claimed that dinosaurs learned to fly. On the other side, I like the idea. Wouldn't it be nice if we could all grow wings and fly around like birds? The only problematic part could be the decision process. Shall we vote on it and what about those who don't want to join the fun?

[/ QUOTE ]

The amount of ignorance displayed on this board is remarkable. God save America, for she surely needs to be saved. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[Lestat]

[ QUOTE ]
I stopped believing into Evolution when some "scientist" claimed that dinosaurs learned to fly. On the other side, I like the idea. Wouldn't it be nice if we could all grow wings and fly around like birds? The only problematic part could be the decision process. Shall we vote on it and what about those who don't want to join the fun?

[/ QUOTE ]

Truly scary stuff.

[Borodog]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I stopped believing into Evolution when some "scientist" claimed that dinosaurs learned to fly. On the other side, I like the idea. Wouldn't it be nice if we could all grow wings and fly around like birds? The only problematic part could be the decision process. Shall we vote on it and what about those who don't want to join the fun?

[/ QUOTE ]

The amount of ignorance displayed on this board is remarkable. God save America, for she surely needs to be saved. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not sure who I'm paraphrasing, but . . . I have never met a single person who could both understand evolution and reject it.

[maurile]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm not sure who I'm paraphrasing, but . . . I have never met a single person who could both understand evolution and reject it.

[/ QUOTE ]
I say that all the time, and I think I got it from either Lenny Flank or Michael Suttkus. In any event, it's very true.

[AceofSpades]

[ QUOTE ]

If god then I'm one of gods creatures. If I'm unable to believe then that's the way he made me.

and a merciful, wise, just, omnipotent etc god wouldn't hold it against me. He made me dependent on reason for my beliefs for a reason.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

I think this is a common misconception based on a viewpoint of God that is probably not correctly based on the bible. If God was directly in control of everyone/thing on earth then God would be evil and Earth is just his ant under the magnifying glass.

Humans have free will, therefore they are responsible for their decisions.

As to the whole evolution thing, I believe with most people there is a difference between believing microevolution (as in: changing variation between traits as explained by the principles of natural selection, genetic drift, etc) and evolution as going from nothing/big bang/whatever to different species. The former can be proved, watched in the lab etc, like the changing colors in moth population which is a fact.

The latter is inductively based on the former and doesn't have the same amount of scientific evidence supporting it.

Joseph

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

If god then I'm one of gods creatures. If I'm unable to believe then that's the way he made me.

and a merciful, wise, just, omnipotent etc god wouldn't hold it against me. He made me dependent on reason for my beliefs for a reason.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

I think this is a common misconception based on a viewpoint of God that is probably not correctly based on the bible. If God was directly in control of everyone/thing on earth then God would be evil and Earth is just his ant under the magnifying glass.

Humans have free will, therefore they are responsible for their decisions.


[/ QUOTE ]
Not a misconception, you just misunderstood me. I'm not talking about the free will to choose between things I'm able to do. I'm talking about what I'm able to do and not being omnipotent there are plenty of things I find I'm unable to do. Good example are flying by flapping my arms and believing in fanciful beings without any reason.

chez

[KipBond]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm talking about what I'm able to do and not being omnipotent there are plenty of things I find I'm unable to do. Good example are flying by flapping my arms and believing in fanciful beings without any reason.

[/ QUOTE ]

Maybe you can learn to fly like the dinosaurs did. Of course, you will need to unlearn to belive in the fanciful being. /images/graemlins/smile.gif