Evolution naysayers
I could barely believe my eyes during the first Republican presidential debate when three hands shot up in response to the question “Who doesn’t believe in evolution?” Raising his hand high was our own Tom Tancredo, cementing his position as Colorado’s biggest political embarrassment.
I wish they’d asked follow-up questions such as “Who doesn’t believe the world is round?” or “Who doesn’t believe the Earth revolves around the sun?”
In the eyes of rational people, a belief in ghosts and magic at the expense of well-established science should disqualify one from serving, but these are Republicans we’re talking about, so no doubt their stock has risen.
Charles Buchanan, Denver
So if a person is not a liberal and believe the same way you do, they are stupid and unfit for life? You are a narrow minded, mean spirited person.
Posted by on May 9, 2007 06:19 AMCharles,
I really do not know enough to claim where we all came from. Or where this incredibly complex and massive universe that we inhabit came from either. But I do believe it was created, just because of the sheer complexity and size of it all. Atoms, molecules, DNA, elements, lifeforms, etc. Stars, planets, galaxies, and all the rest. I find it incredibly hard and quite impossible to believe that it all sprang from nothing with no conscious thought or plan to any of it. I think the real leap of faith is the one that people make to think that it did indeed all spring from nothing. That to me takes a hell of a lot more faith then believing I was created - either with or without evolving.
Faith is highly over-rated. Someone who wants to become the leader of the free world believes in such hocus-pocus is a scary thought. The rampant insecurity of those who profess faith is also astounding in this modern age.
Posted by Brown on May 9, 2007 07:16 AM
There is no serious debate about Evolution. Tancredo was exposed as someone willing to suck up to anyone to get a vote.
"The rampant insecurity of those who profess faith is also astounding in this modern age."
It is quite apparent that you don't understand the definition of the word faith. While I might be inclined to agree that believing in a helpful man in the sky reflects insecurity, that is hardly the only type of faith. People ignorant of science continually try and use it to justify their faith in secular humanism, never realizing that science answers the questions of how but not the questions of why.
Posted by No use on May 9, 2007 07:39 AMNow let's go burn down the Museum of Natural History so we never have to debate this again!!! Wait, we'll have to take out Dinosaur Ridge too. And the national monument that bears that name. And all the petroglyphs. Dammit, we're surrounded by lies!! Why can't we all just love god, listen to the church, and be ignorant? I mean happy.
Posted by shaupeen on May 9, 2007 07:59 AMshaupeen is right. Only fools believe in magic, they should have faith in evolution and they won't seem so idiotic. There is absolutely no debate of any sort regarding evolution.
Posted by [Sean] No use on May 9, 2007 08:26 AMCharles, the question itself is poorly constructed.
I would have answered “no” to a question of whether I “believed in” evolution.
Science does not involve “believing in” anything, to do so would be scientism, not science.
I believe that evolution is the current position of science, that it is robust, productive, and generative of testable predictions. I also believe that evolution is the only standing contender and that there are no other worthwhile theories to explain speciation and genetic diversity at present.
I do not however, believe in evolution.
Posted by Spud on May 9, 2007 08:43 AMMichael, the “argument from complexity” is self defeating unfortunately.
By the same argument a creator must be more complicated than the creation, so you are left with an even bigger mystery as to who created the creator. If you claim it was a miracle, then you have to explain how miracles happen and what controls them, what rules they obey, and how they get something from nothing and complex structures from chaos – again, a far more complicated argument than natural laws and evolution.
Hume had some very insightful arguments and reasons why your argument doesn’t hold water, and most of his writings are free online since he wrote them several centuries back.
http://onlinebooks.library.upenn.edu/webbin/book/lookupname?key=Hume%2c%20David%2c%201711%2d1776
Posted by Spud on May 9, 2007 09:05 AMGreat comment Spud.
I find it interesting that there are really 4 distinct scientific theories that attempt to discover the origin of man (as Darwin called it).I. Darwinism; II. Complex Self-Organization; III. Theistic Evolution; and IV. Intelligent Design
What some people mistakenly believe is that intelligent design is the same as creationism, and they could not be further from the truth. Creationism is a religious philosophy, intelligent design is a scientific theory based on the inability to replicate traditional darwin theory "natural selection."
It is fascinating reading, but a bit over my head. But I am with Spud on this one. The current position of complex self organizational evolution is, right now, the scientific standard.
I and many others around the world are of the strong belief that the universe was created by a Flying Spaghetti Monster. It was He who created all that we see and all that we feel. We feel strongly that the overwhelming scientific evidence pointing towards evolutionary processes is nothing but a coincidence, put in place by Him.
Learn more about the true Creator of the universe, the Flying Spaghetti Monster, at:
http://www.venganza.org/about/open-letter/
Posted by Dave II on May 9, 2007 09:12 AMDan2
"Intelligent design is a scientific theory.." I don't think so, pal. Please go and reexamine the definition of "scientific theory." Here is one definition: an explanation of a set of related observations or events based upon proven hypotheses and verified multiple times by detached groups of researchers.
When creationism was debunked, they tried to repackage it as "science" and didn't fool anyone - to quote the U.S. National Academy of Sciences: "intelligent design and other claims of supernatural intervention in the origin of life are not science because they cannot be tested by experiment, do not generate any predictions, and propose no new hypotheses of their own.
Posted by Drew on May 9, 2007 09:35 AM"are not science because they cannot be tested by experiment, do not generate any predictions, and propose no new hypotheses of their own."
It is interesting that this sort of standard of political correctness is only applied to a hypothesis associated with a belief in a supreme being, and not other hypotheses which could easily fall under the same definition (string theory). Why is it that intelligent design is so flawed that is not even worthy of discussion according to a number of prominent scientists, yet prominent physicists will spend hours and days debating the validity of sting theory?
Posted by No use for a name on May 9, 2007 09:44 AMDrew,
Sorry pal, but the theory of intelligent design is indeed based in science, as it attempts to recreate the physical observation. The US National Academy may not support it, but that doesn't mean it's not science.
I am not a proponant of ID, however it is being debated by scientists that it is indeed a scientific theory. A simple google search will demonstrate that.
The quest for knowledge is something the scientific community strives for. It is simply closed minded not to be open to and review additional theories to discover the origin of man. That is what drove Darwin, and continues to drive biologists and other scientists today. The replication of what led to life on earth, and how natural selection, random adaptation and "other influences" may have impacted our creation.
Posted by Dan2 on May 9, 2007 09:45 AMDave II, it appears that you and Bobby Anderson missed what I thought to be the point of both of those episodes, which I referenced earlier, the part where Stan asks "Couldn't evolution be the answer to how, and not the answer to why?" Science H. Logic, weren't you watching the show, it was hilarious.
Posted by No use on May 9, 2007 09:54 AMWhy was this question asked in the first place. I'd rather know where these guys stand on several very important issues facing us right now.
Posted by KW on May 9, 2007 10:08 AMDan2,
"It is simply closed minded not to be open to and review additional theories to discover the origin of man."
Which is exactly why Tancredo looks like such an idiot for raising his hand.
Having a closed-mind is different than looking at the probabilities and discerning that "intelligent design" is highly unlikely, and therefore unworthy of spending much time contemplating.
Posted by Charles B on May 9, 2007 10:08 AMEvolution interesting theory...theory. It is not fact, because link species have never been discovered that show how primordial ooze became man, dogs, fish, etc. If you want to believe you are descended from monkeys rather than being created in God's image, go for it. How do evolutionists explain how dirt, oxygen, water, carbon, the first living organism came about? Theory. I have a book that tells me how it really happened. Unlike Corky, Mr. Tancredo and I, among millions of others, believe there IS an ongoing debate about evolution. If evolution is real, it was created by God!
Posted by Buff Driver on May 9, 2007 10:14 AMDan2,
OK it's useless to argue with you if you have no idea what a scientific theory is - please refer to my definition or look it up yourself if you don't believe me. ID might be a "theory" but it is a religious theory, not a SCIENTIFIC THEORY. Why is that so hard to understand?
And the scientific community does not debate or discuss ID since this has the same credence to them as creationism.
If a "theory" posits that an invisible poltergeist created the universe in a few days a few thousand years ago, that is certainly not "based on science" - that is based on religious dogma. And a true scientist's quest for knowledge, funnily enough, is conducted through the scientific method - not by positing a religious myth and then desperately trying to find proof for it (which, if you'll notice is the exact opposite of scientific methodology).
The fact that 'scientists are debating intelligent design' does not raise ID to scientific theory of much consquence, certainly not such that 3 of the 10 GOP candidates should sign-off on it with a straight-face.
Follow the same logic: historians 'debate' whether the Holocaust occurred. There are a fringe minority who deny it, with plenty of 'research' and 'evidence.' The rest of the profession refutes this nonsense, in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary. Does this amount to a 'debate' sufficient to raise Holocaust denial to a historical theory that belongs in text books? By the logic in postings above, it would.
Pathetically, we have in this country, a president who panders by saying public schools should 'teach the controversy' in regards to evolution and ID. There is no fundamental difference to Iran's president hosting last year's conference of Holocaust deniers in the name of 'historical accuracy.' Only the reaction: the world roundly lambasted Iran, while no one is calling bullsh*t on the same tactic in America as loudly as we should.
Pandering has a price, and America's economic lunch will be eaten by countries who take science seriously, and not as a shill to gain votes. Weaving scientific theories from political thread is one more legacy for this current knucklehead leader and his enablers.
Posted by on May 9, 2007 10:24 AMAnonymous poster above:
Great comments - couldn't have said it better myself! Aren't you scared that people like Sam Brownback are even candidates for the presidency?
Posted by Drew on May 9, 2007 10:29 AMTo all the creationists-
Please tell me where the fossils came from. How is it possible we can find things that are millions of years old, yet you claim the earth is only 6000 years old? And don't say "faith".
Just curious how you can believe in something that flies completely in the face of everything we encounter on a daily basis.
Posted by Tbone on May 9, 2007 10:36 AMBush believes in evolution while his appointee Fed. Judge Jones in the Dover decision says Intelligent Design is another name for Creationism. Let Bush have his Risen Christ as a result of transmogrification; I'll embrace the Risen Ape through evolution: I love myself.
ps: Anderson: You don't have to reduce yourself to the level of the uncivil; don't let them determine your conduct.
Posted by Richard Grimes (Risen Ape) r22037@yahoo.com on May 9, 2007 10:37 AMEt all.
Theory (as defined by Websters):
a coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena: Einstein's theory of relativity.
2. a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact.
3. Mathematics. a body of principles, theorems, or the like, belonging to one subject: number theory.
4. the branch of a science or art that deals with its principles or methods, as distinguished from its practice: music theory.
5. a particular conception or view of something to be done or of the method of doing it; a system of rules or principles.
6. contemplation or speculation.
7. guess or conjecture.
Drew, there is no point in discussing the elements of scientific theory with you. If someone disagrees with your "made up" definition of theory (which you obviously pulled out of your rear to attempt to add credence to your conjuncture), your comment is that it is useless to argue with me. Why are you even arguing a point you know nothing about? there are 4 DEBATED THEORIES OF THE ORIGIN OF LIFE. That is all I stated. And that Intelligent Design is one of them.
If it's not being debated, then why is it an issue, getting attention in school boards, Congress and even articles in Natural Science and The New Yorker? It is your lack of research and drive for information that makes it impossible to even have a written dialog with you.
You are yet another example of the uninformed, or just lazy that enjoys making up "fact." If have yet to glean any intelligent discourse from your posts, and your statements are nonsensical. You obviously have not done any reading on ID as you still associate it with Creationism, which AS I HAVE STATED IS A RELIGIOUS PHILOSOPHY.
You bore me
Posted by Dan2 on May 9, 2007 10:43 AMBecause, Dan2, libs are the closest things around to facsists. If you don't believe what they believe, then you are stupid and probably deserve to die a swift and undignified death.
Posted by Bob on May 9, 2007 10:57 AMBecause, Dan2, libs are the closest things around to facsists. If you don't believe what they believe, then you are stupid and probably deserve to die a swift and undignified death.
Posted by Bob on May 9, 2007 10:57 AM
I guess it is better to take the position, "cuz it sez so in the Buybull"
Posted by corky on May 9, 2007 11:04 AMDan said “…[ID] is being debated by scientists that it is indeed a scientific theory.”
Sorry Dan, but ID breaks several basic rules of science, the most deadly being that it replaces the null hypothesis and ignorance with an ontological assertion. In other words, they equate being unable to explain something with asserting that therefore whatever it is must be the result of Intelligent Design.
Mr. No Name said ” Why is it that intelligent design is so flawed that is not even worthy of discussion according to a number of prominent scientists, yet prominent physicists will spend hours and days debating the validity of sting theory?”
It certainly isn’t because of political correctness otherwise religious views would all be included in science because that would be the PC thing to do. String theory is what is called “ungrounded theory”, in other word, it is built downwards from a number of observations and theoretical components. It does make predictions that are testable, it is productive, and it has interlocking facets with other mature theories. So it qualifies.
ID on the other hand makes no predictions, isn’t productive of research or theoretical activity, and offers no epistemological or ontological structure other than a flat assertion. Hence not science.
I would refer you to Popper’s falsifiability requirement and Hempel’s nomothetic requirement.
Dan2,
Even if ID qualifies as a theory, you still haven't made the case for paying it a moments notice.
Posted by Charles B on May 9, 2007 11:12 AMNo, corky, it is better to continue to use the scientific method to seek answers to the many questions that the evolution theory leaves unresolved.
Posted by Bob on May 9, 2007 11:12 AMOk, for the LAST TIME, I BELIEVE THAT THE SCIENTIFIC THEORY OF COMPLEX SELF - ORGANIZATION is the dominant theory, and best explains the origins of life, based on DNA and RNA technology.
Tbone, I am no creationist, but because I have read what the creationist philosophy is, I can answer your question. They believe the fossils were created by the flood (when Noah built the Ark), that the earth is 10,000 years old, and that Carbon dating is flawed. That is THEIR belief, not mine.
There are many explanations, or by definition THEORIES that are based on philosophy, theology, science, mathematics, feelings (obviously), and countless other propositions on the origins of life. It is entertaining to read them all. And they all have a place in our world. Imagine what it would be like not to have had Aristotle, Hobbes, Calvin, Socrates, Einstein, Newton, Darwin, Oppenheimer... These great minds have given us a plethora of information, trains of thought, and even a base in which to continue those strings of theory.
For those that would prefer to live in their own little bubble, knock yourselves out. I will continue to experience, research, and enjoy the differences intelligent people can have, and discuss, philosophically, theoretically, and scientifically the possible and probable scenarios, not just with the origin of life, but also many many topics.
Bob said:
"...it is better to continue to use the scientific method to seek answers to the many questions that the evolution theory leaves unresolved."
And what if this leads you to conclude that what is written in the Bible about creation is bunk? Will you leave behind your superstitions then?
Posted by Charles B on May 9, 2007 11:20 AMDan, I am afraid Websters is not going to be a useful source on what is really a philosophy of science question.
A better source for this would be:
- The Cambridge dictionary of Philosophy
- The Routledge dictionary of Philosophy
- The Oxford dictionary of Philosophy
- The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
Spud,
I understand that ID breaks many rules of science. I was saying that at present there are four main theories of the origin of life. That is all. That is not debatable, as I may point to many documented cases where those four theories are not only debated as science, but as a matter of education and public policy. Not saying that it is right. I am just providing documented evidence of the four theories.
Charles,
I have no desire to make the case for ID. I don't believe in it at all. But, from reading the differences between Creationism and Intelligent Design, it is easily determined that THEY ARE NOT THE SAME.
Do you people even bother to read the full posts, or do you just get fired up because therein, it contains information that you are so blindly set against that it is impossible to get past?
Posted by Dan2 on May 9, 2007 11:24 AMCharles B., congrats on getting your letter published. I recognized it's you from a previous reference to "ghosts and magic" you made in another thread. :)
I'm with Michael's take on your letter, though. And I consider myself a reasonably intelligent person - intelligent AND humble enough to know I don't have any definitive answers to Who or What created this Universe and How and Why, to the point I could say any theory about a divine creator "doesn't hold water."
In fact, I would like to point out that many of the anti-ID people are just as fundamentalist and rigid (read: narrow-minded) in their positions as some of the holy rollers who take every word in the Bible literally.
Posted by mytwosense on May 9, 2007 11:25 AMSpud,
The comment from Drew was that I did not know the definition of theory. He made up a definition and posted it. I posted Websters which is the foremost resource on accepted words and their definition(s).
Dan2,
It's a question of priorities. What should we spend our time learning, and what should we spend our time teaching our children?
Should we go chasing rainbows to find out where they start? Or should we contemplate the interplay of sensory optics and refracted light, conclude that the chase is quixotic, and not waste our time?
Posted by Charles B on May 9, 2007 11:37 AMLet`s lighten this forum up a bit.
Evolution is not about the big bang, something from nothing, primordial soup etc. It is about a mechanism that keeps life going in even the harshest conditions
Everything we know about light is called Light Theory. No bitching there. Theory has a scientific use and a common use such as "I have a theory why Tancredo is anti-evolution" not scientific, just intelligent, on my part.
Back in January this subject came up and a link to a debunking ID site was listed. If you are open to learning something that might make you doubt your Genesis book, this is where to go. If however, you fear knowledge that might mess up your religion, stay away.
Creationism tried to name the "Intelligent Designer, " God.
An alternative theory is mine: When an environment needs a new animal, God makes one whole, puts it in place without parent or linage, and it magically fits in.
I call this "The Plunk down Theory" .
Please feel free to follow me and my new theory, maybe we can make a religion out of it. I could get rich
Posted by Sharon B. on May 9, 2007 11:40 AMCharles,
I'll play along for a moment, and give you my philosophical answer to your question, and then provide a little history lesson for you.
I don't know the answer to your question. Scientifically I have answered it. I believe that science will one day explain the "how" but like another poster stated, we should still contemplate the "why." Should we teach children that there are other theories behind the origin of life? Absolutely as they are continuing theories and as such should be taught that way. Should we teach them every theory (including philosophical and those based in theology) in science class? Absolutely not. But in philosophy and theology classes, in literature classes and maybe even in healthy debate classes, as it will provide for a more well rounded student, one that asks questions and seeks answers on their own, and is not bogged down by dogma, and "talking points" (like our lovely politicians).
And here is your history lesson. If all we ever believed were old theories and opinions, we would indeed still believe the earth was flat, the sun revolved around the earth, that "gods" (Greek and Roman as an example) were responsible for thunder, the ocean, love, life, happiness... that babies come from storks, that humans are direct descendants of Apes. We would have never discovered DNA, RNA, molecular biology, atomic energy, human flight, the internal combustion engine...
It is ok to have differing views and opinions, in my humble opinion. To say that someone else is stupid, or unworthy, is your one, particular judgment. I won't make that judgment. I would personally prefer to gather as much information as possible, and understand the sides of arguments, of science, of philosophy, of religion. I think it makes me a much more tolerant person, and one that enjoys the "academics" of knowledge. I guess it probably upsets some people on these posting boards, because it goes against most political doctrine that the "other side" can never be right. I don't choose to live like that, and I also choose not to judge those that do. I will simply add in my knowledge base and allow others to either learn from my opinion, choose to accept that, or not.
Posted by Dan2 on May 9, 2007 11:49 AM"It certainly isn’t because of political correctness otherwise religious views would all be included in science because that would be the PC thing to do."
What definition of political correctness are you using? Webster's has it as: marked by or adhering to a typically progressive orthodoxy on issues involving esp. race, gender, sexual affinity, or ecology. That sure sounds like what I was describing, the orthodoxy of evolutionism that is resistant to challenges.
"It does make predictions that are testable, it is productive, and it has interlocking facets with other mature theories."
This is great. Exactly which productive predictions of string theory have been tested? No reference to one's that might be tested in the future using new technology, that opens the door to the argument that new technology might make "testable" hypotheses for intelligent design. I'll admit it's been awhile, but my physics professor in college wouldn't even discuss string theory in class due to its lack of tested predictions, it was an after class topic only. Your assertions regarding string theory and ID are just your opinion, please don't try and present them as fact.
It is interesting that you would try and use both falsifiability and a nomothetic ideal as evidence of your argument, since what is arguably the most nomothetic science, mathematics, is often not falsifiable.
I'm not trying to bash evolution, I think it is the best theory to explain the origins and progression of life at present, but I don't think the time to call it a scientific principle has arrived yet.
Posted by No use for a name on May 9, 2007 11:50 AMWell three out of what eight, nine canidates is not bad considering in 2000 there would have been eight hands up in response to the question. Are the Theocrats, I mean Republicans finally getting it through their thick skulls, perfect for crushing nuts thus giving them a survival advantage over thinking liberals and they can pass that trait down to their offspring, that most, not all, Americans are finding that religion and politics are bad news? I mean if you are going to ignore established scientific theory, what is to stop you from ignoring common sense and proper planning and just putting all your faith in God when invading another country?
Posted by Sean on May 9, 2007 11:53 AMDan2, thanks for posting. You always seem to be open-minded and informed in your posts, and often lead the reader to new points of view.
Posted by No use for a name on May 9, 2007 11:58 AMDan II wrote:
Should we teach children that there are other theories behind the origin of life? Absolutely as they are continuing theories and as such should be taught that way. Should we teach them every theory (including philosophical and those based in theology) in science class? Absolutely not. But in philosophy and theology classes, in literature classes and maybe even in healthy debate classes, as it will provide for a more well rounded student, one that asks questions and seeks answers on their own, and is not bogged down by dogma, and "talking points" (like our lovely politicians).
I agree with this. Why shouldn't education be rounded out to include discussions of philosphy, ethics, and philosophy? At present in our public school system, there seems to be little of this kind of teaching. Science classes are valuable, yes, but the reality is few students will actually pursue a career in the field of science. Yet everyone benefits from exposure to a range of ideas and theories.
I was reading the website of research associate/junior scientist who was adamantly opposed to Intelligent Design being discussed in the schools. Her argument was that it "merely indicated the complexity of life, and thus, not worth even an hour of discussion in the classroom."
I have to say, the arrogance of such a statement truly astounded me. Who are these people to make such judgements of what is "worth" talking about in the classroom??? Who are these people who only want to feed dry information to our children yet deny them the opportunity to question and think for themselves?
No, I am not a proponent of bringing "religion" into the classroom as how some Christians envision it. But God and the idea of God should not be a dirty word hushed and covered up in the classroom. The idea of a Creator is certainly worth talking about for HOURS in a classroom, as any child with even the most rudimentary sense of intellectual curiosity asks WHY as much as they ask HOW.
What I think a lot of the die-hard evolutionists fail to acknowledge is that they own the debate in our schools. There is no other room allowed for other possible ideas or discussion. And I think that's a very sad thing, because it effectively stifles independent thinking and questioning.
Posted by mytwosense on May 9, 2007 12:02 PMThanks no use for a name. I appreciate that comment.
I should apologize to Drew as well. I took issue with what I perceived was a direct attack on my intelligence by stating I was ignorant to the definition of theory.
-Drew, I am sorry that I got a little personal. You don't bore me, but actually pushed a button, and there is no excuse on my part for attacking you like that. I apologize.
Grr, typo: "Why shouldn't education be rounded out to include discussions of philosphy, ethics, and philosophy?" I meant to say, "philosophy, ethics, and theology."
Posted by mytwosense on May 9, 2007 12:06 PMDan2,
You're propping up and slaying straw-men left and right, but still haven't answered my question about priorities.
I have never talked of excluding ideas, or cutting off courses of inquest. I never said that thinking outside the box was ill-advised. I begrudge no-one his or her right to investigate whatever they want as much as they want or to reach whatever conclusion they want.
I've simply digested the evidence I've gathered so far and concluded that I don't want someone who either a) doesn't believe that evolution occurs or b) raised his hand to pander to ignorance to be my president.
Further, your assertion that I am narrow-minded is unsupported.
But I appreciate your devilish advocacy. ;^)
Posted by Charles B on May 9, 2007 12:25 PMIn any classroom where Science is taught, no other idea, notice I did not say theory, on the mechanism that allows life to continue should be taught, discussed or even mentioned. Period.
Any mention of the beginnings of life, based on God, or the unknown Magic guy in the sky belong in religion classes in homes or religious schools.
Children in our country need to see a clear line between science and religion. not this muddled ID or creationism or what it is called next time they try to shove it into the publilc schools.
No other "Idea" is science, it is opinion, dreaming or guessing.
Teach all the social throries you want, but keep biology, geology and all natural sciences free from this plague of nonsense.
Posted by Sharon B. on May 9, 2007 12:28 PMmytwosense,
Why are you so intent on implying that believing evolution happens and valuing philisophical inquiry are mutually exclusive?
And what is a "die-hard evolutionist"?
Posted by Charles B on May 9, 2007 12:35 PMTo the anonymous Repiglican of 6:19 AM. Yes, you are stupid and unfit for life. Just thought we should be clear on that.
Posted by B. Drunk on May 9, 2007 12:44 PMWhy are you so intent on implying that believing evolution happens and valuing philisophical inquiry are mutually exclusive?
I don't think I did imply that, but correct me if I'm wrong by pointing out where.
And what is a "die-hard evolutionist"?
Admittedly not a very sophisticated term, but what I meant was someone who believes in evolution as a proven scientific principle (to quote no use for a name) rather than a theory.
Posted by mytwosense on May 9, 2007 12:46 PMCharles,
Maybe I am not understanding your question as I thought it directly related to teaching and "wasting time." And I was not saying you in particular are narrow-minded, although it could be argued on this topic that you are, as you feel that it is a waste of time to (in your words and opinion) have "a belief in ghosts and magic at the expense of well-established science should disqualify one from serving."
Do I think that we should pursue other theories that are different from the mainstream? Yes. No doubt about it. I don't believe it is a waste of time to educate and inform of other ideas, ever. To use your rainbow analogy, I would teach refractive light in science class, and in a creative writing class give an assignment on the "origins of the rainbow."
If you are asking would I want a President who outright denies evolution? No. Just as I wouldn't want a President that has no faith (not just religious).
I do have a question for Sharon. Would you ever allow a philosophical discussion of God (or god) in a public school environment? And if not, why not? Some of our greatest philosophers were religious people. You look at it as religious dogma, but philosophy is a system of principal guidance in practical affairs and with a liberal mind, I would think that most would support the idea of looking outside the box. Religion, by definition is also a science (Websters: . systematized knowledge in general.
5. knowledge, as of facts or principles; knowledge gained by systematic study.
6. a particular branch of knowledge.) and as such should be allowed to be taught, as a particular source of information.
Just as I would never suggest that we should use only the bible as a possible source for the origin of life, I would not suggest only using Darwin's 'The Origin of Species' as the only source of information either.
Most scientific hypotheses are built from "dreaming" (Newton literally was dreaming when the "apple fell on his head"), or opinion, and then work towards proving that opinion.
My question then is, from a philosophical standpoint, why are you (in general terms) so intimidated by differing view points that it is necessary to label them as having no place in education?
So all of you who believe it's narrow-minded to restrict teaching in science classes to actual scientific theories with actual scientific evidence - why don't you complain about how narrow-minded scientists are in only teaching one theory of gravitation, or one process of photosynthesis, or in favoring the germ theory over the demonic-possession theory of illness?
Oh, because the vast preponderance of evidence in those cases indicates that only one set of facts is actually true? Same goes for evolution.
Science class is not the place for teaching philosophy and theology - that's what philosophy and theology classes are for. And being open-minded is fair enough, but it doesn't require one to accept that 2+2=6 should be taught as an alternate theory in math class. Some things do have a right and wrong answer.
No scientist "believes" in Evolution. We know it is the best scientific explaination of the continuation of life. The best and only scientific explaination for the origin of species.
Evolution is a proven scientific fact, supported by evidence and theory.
Posted by Sharon B. on May 9, 2007 01:18 PMKatja,
I didn't read a post that said we should teach non-scientific theories in science classes. Not one.
I like your examples though. Very creative. Using your logic though, we would have never experienced the work of Galileo, as his theories and "idea's" were considered witch-craft and so devoid of Aristotelian theory (the accepted theories of his time), although Galileo can also be arguably credited with separating science from theology and philosophy, although he wrote that to do so would "limit the advance of science to the physical."
So, indeed history does teach us that a "close mind" inhibits not only the evolution of philosophy, but theology, and science, and that all three have a place and not only can co-exist, but should (it may be argued credibly at least, with historical reference.
I will leave you all with this parting thought on this post. From Albert Einstein, without question one of THE greatest scientific minds ever:
"even though the realms of religion and science in themselves are clearly marked off from each other, strong reciprocal relationships and dependencies... science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind ...a legitimate conflict between science and religion cannot exist."
Sharon,
Re-read your last post, especially your last sentence. Care to revise that statement? I'll hold off commenting until I hear from you, but I can't promise that everyone else will.
Posted by Dan2 on May 9, 2007 01:29 PMDan2,
Apology accepted - although I seem to recall that I am supposed to be the "name-caller."
If you go back to the original post, you stated: "Intelligent design is a scientific theory" to which I responded it is not - that's all. For the record, I never said you didn't know what a theory is. And after you gave me 7 different definitions of "theory" it is still apparent that you don't know what a "scientific theory" is. So at the risk of "making up definitions" again here are 2 definitions of scientific theory and scientific method, which amount to the same thing:
wikipedia:
In science, a theory is a mathematical description, a logical explanation, a verified hypothesis, or a proven model of the manner of interaction of a set of natural phenomena, capable of predicting future occurrences or observations of the same kind, and capable of being tested through experiment or otherwise falsified through empirical observation. It follows from this that for scientists "theory" and "fact" do not necessarily stand in opposition.
Websters: scientific method
Function: noun
: principles and procedures for the systematic pursuit of knowledge involving the recognition and formulation of a problem, the collection of data through observation and experiment, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses.
So, scientific theory involves stating an hypothesis and then carefully collecting and analyzing data, sometimes for generations & then reaching a conclusion as to whether the theory is valid.
Creationism/ID START with the conclusion - God created everything - and then work backwards to try to find evidence that supports the conclusion - this is not SCIENCE.
And you keep saying that creationism and ID are not the same yet you don't provide any details/evidence as to why. What gives?
Posted by Drew on May 9, 2007 01:29 PMDan2, sorry, missed your question. In public schools in science classes, any philosophy that discusses God brings in, whose God?, which Gods? Why instead of how. This is a waste of class time in a science class. This will lead to endless hours of argueing about ideas of God, Goddesses and other magic and miracles.
However I loved discussing Evolution with the Christian students I tutored because that was the first time these college kids had ever heard their Bible contradicted.
Please don`t use the word intimidated to me that way. I am never intimidated by pseudo-science.
Last night I was playing games on Pogo dot, you know what, when tornados started hitting all over Oklahoma. One woman kept praying to God to help them all, while the others said "out of here" and went for shelters. Wonder if God took care of her, bet a dime she dis-believes in Evolution. Science illiteracy can kill a person.
Religion is not science. Webster can call it what ever. Scientists know science from philosophy. Just keep the two seperated. God is mentioned in public schools all the time in History, Geography and Social studies, but not taught as science.
Personal aside: I think God is the Universe. A physical, amoral, distant God that takes no interest in individuals, species, families, groups, or life on any one planet.
Evolution is Gods method of staying "alive" no matter what.
The Universe is so large because this gives life a chance to exist without cross-contamination.
God is the physical laws of nature, and God is knowable, but not loveable, through science and nature.
Most of us like the God of Einstein but we are open to other ideas. We just never mix God and science.
Ok, remember the rainbow after the Flood. God gave the rainbow to man then. Light theory says the rainbow is a property of light, a property it always had,not a gift from God at any one time. Should we teach light theory and after the flood light theory in public schools.?
In Leviticus there is mention of rabbits chewing their cud, that would be a nice counter theory in biology. Maybe current bunnys have forgotten how to do that. do you see where alternate ideas lead to.?
Posted by Sharon B. on May 9, 2007 01:54 PMEvolution is a proven scientific fact
Yeah, Sharon, I gotta call you out on that one. It isn't proven as fact, unless you subscribe to ideas like this writer who quotes Stephen Gould in that we shouldn't consider facts an "absolute certainty" and that "In science "fact" can only mean "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional consent."
The writer then tells us evolution is a fact because "Ithe experts on evolution consider it to be a fact."
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-fact.html
I mean, you read arrogant assertions like this, and it's no surprise that this debate never goes beyond a certain point and other ideas are summarily silenced.
Posted by mytwosense on May 9, 2007 01:56 PMDrew,
Ok, I think we are on the same page with theory (the 7 definitions are all the definitions in Webster's I didn't want you thinking I was being selective, and there is a difference between theory and scientific method, but that is picking nits as they say)
I'll be a little sly here in stating that if scientific theory "involves stating an hypothesis and then carefully collecting and analyzing data, sometimes for generations & then reaching a conclusion as to whether the theory is valid." and that "...START with the conclusion ...and then work backwards to try to find evidence that supports the conclusion - this is not SCIENCE." How do you explain man-made global warming theory? Not part of the topic, but by your definition, all assessments done by the IPCC are not science.
Again, by your definition (and one of the big problems with Darwinism) is that there has been no ability to predict the outcome similar to what has occurred. That has been why there are "theories" on evolution, expounding on Darwinism, and not just Darwin's theory. It was a great foundation, but DNA and RNA have shown there is no link between humans and the great ape, which is why complex self-organization has become a more accepted theory than Darwinism within the molecular biology community.
The difference between Creationism and Intelligent Design (as you are fond of Wikipedia) are as follows:
"Creationism is the belief that humanity, life, the Earth, and the universe were created in their entirety by a supernatural deity or deities (typically God), whose existence is presupposed.[1] Biblical creationism is the belief in literal interpretations of Genesis.[2] The term strict creationism is sometimes used to avoid confusion with the more general concept of creation held by those whose faith accommodates theistic evolution.[3] Creation in this context refers to the specific supernatural act of creation."
"Intelligent design is the proposition that "certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection."[1] It is a modern form of the teleological argument (an argument for the existence of God), framed in such a way that it does not specify the nature or identity of the designer"
In a Feb 9, 2006 article in the London Daily Telegraph, Stephen Meyer writes:
"Contrary to media reports, ID is not a religious-based idea, but an evidence-based scientific theory about life's origins. According to Darwinian biologists such as Oxford University's Richard Dawkins, living systems "give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose".
I know it is hard to believe. And I personally do not believe in Intelligent Design. But the debate between you and I is not what we believe, but where are we getting our information, and what we are, for this purpose basing our opinions.
Now you have that information. Here is the link to that article. While not peer reviewed, it does provide a strong case that ID is indeed a scientific theory, and that was my whole point in my very first post:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2006/01/28/do2803.xml
Dan II noted:
I didn't read a post that said we should teach non-scientific theories in science classes. Not one.
Nor did I. And I don't understand why this is being otherwise implied by arguing religion doesn't belong in science classes.
I for one said we should include philosophy, theology, and ethics courses that can allow students to explore "WHY" and by "WHO" the Universe is created. However, because some scientists believe there is no "WHY" or "WHO" such discussion is frowned upon, even if it's proposed to take place in other classes outside science. And I think that's a wrong tactic. Children are constantly wondering and asking why...should we really discourage their inclination to do so?
Posted by mytwosense on May 9, 2007 02:01 PMWhat difference does it make what someone believes regarding the origins of this planet and our beings? What possible effect does that have on our lives here and now.
What changes politically, economically, socially or whatever simply because someone believes differently than you. Especially since neither viewpoint has ever been proven?
Posted by KW on May 9, 2007 02:03 PMWhat difference does it make what someone believes regarding the origins of this planet and our beings? What possible effect does that have on our lives here and now.
KW, what if you were a kid asking these questions in a classroom, and you were told your questions had no place in the classroom?
That's all I'm getting at in my posts...that there is a viable portion of debate about the origins of life, indeed, the "meaning" of life, that is missing, in my opinion, from our schools.
Posted by mytwosense on May 9, 2007 02:07 PMEvolution is a proven fact. A fact of life. Proven to scientists who look for facts.
If you read my opinion on God, would you want me to have the ability to "teach" it to your kids in school?
Remember now, when one God idea is admitted, the door opens for all God ideas.
I only care about what is taught in science classes as science Teach anything you like in non-science classes.
and quote all the odd-balls who reject Evolution, maybe you guys can have a meeting in a phone booth some where.
If all you are saying is that God designed Evolution, you are probably right, just can`t say that in science classes no matter how hard you try.
Posted by Sharon B. on May 9, 2007 02:17 PMSorry Charles, but I'm not religious. And, have never used anything in the Bible to support my opinion. I think that evolution has a lot of holes that are filled with pretty pictures drawn by artists. If evolution is right, then great. But let science prove its hypotheses, not insults.
Posted by Bob on May 9, 2007 02:18 PMSharon,
You did miss my question. You stated:
"Any mention of the beginnings of life, based on God, or the unknown Magic guy in the sky belong in religion classes in homes or religious schools."
My question to you is then should we not ever teach PHILOSOPHY in public schools if it mentions God, be it Christian, Jewish, Islam, Hindu, Buddha, or any other "god" which is why I included "(god)" in my question, as you stated it should only be taught in "religion classes in homes or religious schools"
I can see why you wouldn't be intimidated though, as anything you seem to either not know of, or disagree with, you label as pseudo science. And you are right, if you say religion is not science, then no matter what the dictionary says, Sharon is right and Webster's, with all its credibility, goes right out the window and is totally wrong.
Your statements are showing a lack of understanding and free thinking in my opinion. Religion may not be physical science, but by definition is a science in and unto itself, as it is knowledge gained by systematic study. That doesn't mean we should teach religion in physical science classes, but a Bachelor of SCIENCE degree is awarded in theology.
We have gotten lost debating definitions that we have missed the point of Charles' letter, which I think maybe the big picture is "what do we really know about the "theories of evolution and the origin of life." Charles, am I right, or was your intent just to show, in your opinion, how unintelligent Rep. Tancredo is on the subject of origin of life?
Sharon,
I gave you a shot to revise your statement and add some credibility to your claim, and you didn't, you actually restated it.
Based on that evidence, I am forced to conclude that you have no idea what you are talking about, at least in regard to the scientific theory of evolution (I don't even know what evolutionary theory you subscribe actually, but will assume Darwinism).
Posted by Dan2 on May 9, 2007 02:28 PMNo Use said “ What definition of political correctness are you using?”
I am using Argyris’s Model-I as the archetype for PC. Received wisdom which is considered impolite or impolitic to question and where it is also considered impolite to articulate that questioning the received wisdom is impolite at all. So not only is the specific subject taboo, but mentioning that it is taboo is also taboo.
I apply it to all forms of received wisdom held as unquestionable, regardless of the position on the political spectrum, and I ally it to the Sapir-Whorf linguistic theories but also to any other form of inculcated or received worldviews which are held to be “off limits” for questioning.
I take the OED in preference to Websters ” appropriate to the prevailing political or social circumstances”
The Fontana dictionary of modern thought also has a good reference, but I don’t have it at hand to quote from.
Your discomfort with Super-string theory is understandable, and in light of the fact that it has made no new testable predictions, you would be quite in your rights to view it as nascent or larval at best.
However, it can at least articulate theoretical or future testable predictions.
ID has been unable to articulate even a theoretical prediction or falsifiable situation.
Under Popper’s guide, that makes it a pseudoscience.
MTS - Questions like that are good and students should be allowed to discuss all theories whether scientific or religous.
The place this question doesn't belong is at a presidential debate. The only reason it appeared was an attempt to use a candidates faith to make them appear foolish and construe them as unfit for public office.
Has anyone compared the questions asked at the dem debate to what the reps had to respond to. Utterly amazing.
Posted by KW on May 9, 2007 02:39 PMDan2, teach anything anywhere about God, but not in science classes. Your BS in theology is not physical science as you stated and that is what Evolution is all about.
I did not think to say physical science classes but glad you did because you made my fine as a gnats hair point. Religion is not science. The study of religion can be done in a scientific manner, ie graphs, charts, gathering facts and data.
But that is on religion, not religion itself.
Someone said we only respond to parts of letters, I see that all the time.
Obviously we care about this subject, on my part I care to give each student the best factual information on Earth History, and let God be where ever God is, just not in science based, physical science classes
And by the way, just what linkage between humans and apes is missing.? Who posted that?
I think I answered your question of where God based philosophy can be taught in public schools, but again. Any class not teaching physical science
Posted by Sharon B. on May 9, 2007 02:41 PMThose 3 guys are slaves to their superstitions. And slaves to their superstitious followers.
Posted by Liam on May 9, 2007 02:43 PMDan2,
I really can't speak to global warming & Darwinism.
On your next point, though, whether you call the driving force behind the universe a "supernatural deity" or an "intelligent cause," I'm not quite sure what the real difference is (in relation to creationism vs ID).
I just have a problem with creationists dressing the same topic up as intelligent design and trying to pass it off as science when it in no way fits any definition of science. It's religion - and just be intellectually honest enough to call it what it is. ID is proposed mainly by Christian apologists at the Discovery Institute and their allies, who feel science threatens their Biblical-based view of reality.
And Richard Dawkins (whom you quote) is a brilliant man and one of the premier debunkers of ID. You should read his book, "The God Delusion," - he trashes ID and related topics in great detail and with great scientific aplomb. To quote Dawkins:
"(Intelligent Design) doesn't explain where the designer comes from. If they're going to emphasize the statistical improbability of biological organs-"these are so complicated, how could they have evolved?"--well, if they're so complicated, how could they possibly have been designed? Because the designer would have to be even more complicated.
Anyway, we're arguing in a circle, so on some issues we'll have to agree to disagree.
Posted by Drew on May 9, 2007 02:53 PMI normally try to stay out of the debates because they pretty much end up where they started, but this caught my attention:
Dan2:
"It was a great foundation [Darwinism] , but DNA and RNA have shown there is no link between humans and the great ape, which is why complex self-organization has become a more accepted theory than Darwinism within the molecular biology community."
Can you substantiate those claims? They sound rather suspect to me.
Posted by CL on May 9, 2007 02:54 PMC'mon Drew. ID wasn't created by Christian apologists as a CYA. It's a theory that better fits the observed facts than evolution. Random selection is a theory in need of scientifc proof. Some proof exists, but nothing anywhere near what it would take to substantiate the theory beyond question. ID just says that we observe nothing random about this, so maybe it's by design. ID doesn't claim the designer to be a Christian god (the Creationism) or anything else. With humility, just say I don't know for sure.
Posted by Bob on May 9, 2007 03:14 PMMy Websters says nothing about religion being science or a science in any way. It also diferentiates between religion and philosophy thus: religion is based upon faith, philisophy is based upon reason. Paraphrasing here but that is ol webs def.
Christians think Evolution says humans came from apes. then they argue from that point.
CL. DNA and RNA show links between humans and lots of lower life forms. We have more cousins then we think. And no, I am not going to verify, they can find this stuff on their own. The looking will teach them more then we ever could in these little posts.
Posted by Sharon B. on May 9, 2007 03:15 PMSharon B.
"CL. DNA and RNA show links between humans and lots of lower life forms. We have more cousins then we think. And no, I am not going to verify, they can find this stuff on their own."
I know, I'm aware of the DNA relationships/links, but I'm curious to see how Dan2 came to a different conclusion.
Posted by CL on May 9, 2007 03:32 PMCL. me two.
Posted by Sharon B. on May 9, 2007 03:39 PMCL:
The biologist August Weismann proposed the continuity of the germ plasm, where phenotypic changes environmentally caused in the soma are not converted into changes in the genotype (Weismann, 1893). The classic illustration of this principle is that even if you cut off the tails of thousands of generations of rats, they will always produce tailed offspring.
"If the central dogma is true, and if it is also true that nucleic acids are the only means whereby information is transmitted between generations, this has crucial implications for evolution. It would imply that all evolutionary novelty requries changes in nucleic acids, and that these changes - mutations - are essentially accidental and non-adaptive in nature. Changes elsewhere - in the egg cytoplasm, in materials transmitted through the placenta, in the mother's milk - might alter the development of the child, but, unless the changes were in nucleic acids, they would have no long-term evolutionary effects. (Maynard Smith, 1998, p.10)"
While Sharon did a marvelous job at showing the "cousin link," genetic and recombinant RNA demonstrate (along with the genetic coding breakthroughs) that there really can't be a way that humans evolved from primates
If you are interested, check out these two links:
profiles.nlm.nih.gov/SC/Views/Exhibit/narrative/defining.html
www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=00023D61-9116-14E3-911683414B7F0000
It demonstrates both the link to, as Sharon put it, our cousins, and the neo-Darwinism that has occurred as a result that we may have indeed evolved separately from one another and are not as directly linked.
Hope that helps a little.
Posted by Dan2 on May 9, 2007 03:44 PMOK Bob, so what are the "observed facts" that ID identifies - because organisims are "complex' they had to be designed by something? And if the "designer" you're always going on about is not the Christian God, then what are you referring to, a flying omniscient teapot? And what about Mr Dawkins's question on who designed the designer?
No-one knows for sure, but just because you don't is no reason to attribute the creation of everything to an all powerful supernatural being - that sounds like the easy way out to me. And not very credible.
Posted by Drew on May 9, 2007 03:45 PMHowever, I would love to be paid to run the ID lab in a school since that would be the least work I can think of.
Ditto the Creation Science lab. what a hoot that would be.
All questions one answer: God did it!
Posted by Sharon B. on May 9, 2007 03:55 PMAnd Sharon, look up the definition of SCIENCE, not RELIGION. Religion can be defined as a science. Are you not comprehending the information, or are you choosing to be obtuse to the information provided?
Drew,
Excellent response, and I think you are missing my point still. It is argued (not by me per se) that ID is indeed a scientific theory of evolution. I think we have covered that this is not a theory I subscribe to, as it is indeed lacking in scientific evidence. But has been documented as being argued by the scientific community.
I think we actually agree more than we disagree. I feel like I got stuck as the spokesperson for something I don't subscribe to, just because I have done the research on the topic. If that is my cross, I shall bear it (pun again intended... haha).
What does frustrate me in open discussion forums such as these are people like Sharon who opine based on presumptions and not on evidence. As is her right, it can lead to a very confusing dialog (written obviously) because it is impossible to have reasoned discussion. As an example her statement that Darwinism is fact, completely destroys any credible argument she purports, as she doesn't have credible evidence to not only support her statement, but there is copious evidence to discredit her statement as NO ONE in the scientific community calls Darwinism fact.
Posted by Dan2 on May 9, 2007 03:57 PMWell Dan2, they really do use the word fact.
so it all comes down, to the word fact? That and nothing else I said meant a damn thing to you. Yes you did get stuck and you did a yoemans job of making me think.
But remember my version of God? If God goes into the classroom She may wear a dress. The ID people would pull ID out in a heartbeat if a teacher said Goddess is the Designer.
I will now move on to grousing about pot and the laws against it. Oh and its Bingo nite.
Posted by Sharon B. on May 9, 2007 04:10 PMSharon
Who is they? would be my first question, and yes, if you state the Darwinism is fact, then it destroys the rest of your credibility.
I couldn't care less about God in this argument, so your version of God to me is the same as any other version because it is not based in science (of which we agree), but on theology and faith. So I was at a loss to your reference to it.
I think we would agree on pot laws though, so we should discuss that tomorrow.
Thanks everyone. I like these kind of days. Helps me stay on top of subject matter.
Posted by Dan2 on May 9, 2007 04:15 PMDan said "Religion can be defined as a science"
Are you saying that under the philosophy of science that governs "contemporary western empirical science" this is true, or are you saying that under some as yet undisclosed philosophy of science, religion(s) could be seen as sciences?
Again, not in my Websters
Posted by Sharon B. on May 9, 2007 05:07 PMNewmanism, a growing religion I founded long ago, states that God created the universe and everything in it, including evolution, several billion years ago. He occassionally intervenes to help out, like when he sent jesus down to found Christianity.
It is a swell religion.
Posted by Gunny Bob on May 9, 2007 05:23 PMbtw, there is no such thing as "Darwinism" in contemporary science.
Biological Evolution is the more proper and contemporary term, and covers more than Darwin had originally outlined.
Posted by Spud on May 9, 2007 05:57 PMDan2,
I'm quite familiar with Weismann, Watson and Crick. Weismann demonstrated that heredity doesn't occur via the inheritance of acquired characters or Lamarckism:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lamarckism
Darwinism & evolutionary theory are vastly different from Lamarckism, so I don't know why you mentioned Weismann. You don't think Darwinism & evolutionary theory rely on the inheritance of acquired characters do you (seriously, because it isn't clear to me whether you do or don't).
Watson and Crick "cracked" the genetic code, showing the structure of DNA. Biologists and darwinist/evolutionists certainly recognize DNA's role in heredity and evolution:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_evolutionary_synthesis So I really don't see the relevance of mentioning Watson & Crick's work either - it's pretty common knowledge and accepted by evolutionists (I don't like the term "evolutionists", but I don't have a better one).
So, to the SciAm article you linked:
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=00023D61-9116-14E3-911683414B7F0000
I read that article a while back, and thought of it specifically when you claimed "DNA and RNA have shown there is no link between humans and the great ape", that you cite it as support for you claim is rather puzzling because I don't see how it does at all.
For example the article explicitly says:
"Yet that 2 percent difference represents at least 15 million changes in our genome since the time of our common ancestor roughly six million years ago."
and
"Now a new computational technique has identified 49 regions that have changed particularly quickly between humans and chimps, and may have revealed at least one gene critical to the development of our larger brains."
(emphasis mine)
Then you wrote:
"It demonstrates both the link to, as Sharon put it, our cousins, and the neo-Darwinism that has occurred as a result that we may have indeed evolved separately from one another and are not as directly linked."
For quite some time, the theory has been that man and chimps (which are apes, as are we) share a common ancestor (which was also an ape). As far as I can tell, this does nothing to support the idea that we evolved "separately" from apes or that their is no "link" to apes.
Maybe I'm missing where you think this supports your case, if so I think you need to elaborate.
Posted by CL on May 9, 2007 07:15 PMGunny Bob,
"Newmanism, a growing religion I founded long ago, states that God created the universe and everything in it, including evolution, several billion years ago. He occassionally intervenes to help out, like when he sent jesus down to found Christianity.
It is a swell religion."
Ignorance is bliss I guess...and you're the happiest guy I know with yours.
Posted by Charles B on May 9, 2007 08:31 PMDan2, you seem to be arguing, in part, that because mutations are the foundation for phenotypical change (which is true) and because mutations are random (which is also true), that all phenotypical change in a species over time must be random (which is not true).
Mutations are random, yes. But the process of natural selection, which determines which mutations survive and lead to phenotypical change in a species over time, is not.
Say I have two jars, one empty (representing the future of the species) and one full of red marbles (representing the current genetic population of the species). Every so often, a marble randomly changes color to either blue or green (representing random mutation - blue mutations are beneficial, green harmful). I (representing natural selection) randomly draw marbles from the jar. All green marbles are discarded. All blue marbles go into the next jar. Half the red marbles are discarded, and half go into the next jar.
Then the marbles in the next jar magically reproduce themselves and produce the next generation (technically, there should be mating and gene recombination here, but that's overcomplicated for this simple example - let's just say that blue marbles tend to produce more blue marbles and red ones produce red marbles - occasionally a marble will produce a marble of another color, either red, blue or green. Blue marbles, being better adapted, tend to produce more "offspring" than red marbles.).
Again, we go through the selection process. All blue marbles are saved. All green marbles are discarded. Half the red are saved and half discarded.
Do you not see, if we continue this process over and over again for thousands upon thousands of "generations", that the population will become steadily bluer and bluer over time, despite the randomness of the original mutations?
Katja, nice explanation, and I am so glad you are splitting mutation from selection, too many explanations munge those together.
One criticism though, we do not really know if mutations are random or if there is some kind of underlying pattern or rule as to what mutates and how.
So the process is inscrutable or pseudo-random rather than known to be actually random.
Spud:
"One criticism though, we do not really know if mutations are random or if there is some kind of underlying pattern or rule as to what mutates and how.
So the process is inscrutable or pseudo-random rather than known to be actually random."
Yep.
Different locations have differing susceptibility to mutations (different mutation rates) and the mutation rate at some locations differ depending on external conditions (presense, absence or level of certain hormones for example) so all mutations can't be purely random.
The mouse named "Faith" answers the Easter Bunny who asks: "Why do you avoid the cat named "Reason" ~~~ The mouse answers: "Even the dumbest animal recognizes his natural enemy."
Happy days, fellow posters: Bush thinks he is the decider; however I know I'm your friendly deicide plotting to slay the fictional assassin in Luke 19:27 who says: Bring them hither and kill them in front of me.
Posted by Richard Grimes(Risen Ape)r22037yahoo (See ffrf.org) on May 10, 2007 10:38 AMCan`t give references on this but I have read of information transfer between bacteria, maybe even virus. No nucleui is involved. Denver Post had article on MRSA, and went into this info transfer that helps germs resist antibiotics.
Mutations are caused by cosmic rays, radiation in the environment, chemicals, hormones etc. Lots of room here for a burst of new species.
One last idea on the randomness of mutations. If they are governed by chaos theory, then under the apparent chaos there is a pattern. Applying chaos theory and mathmatics to evolution might be a great new field of study. Maybe it already is.
The trouble with ID and Creationism is that new areas of study never appear. No great new theories or fields of study spring from those two. They are dead, mute explainations for the continuation of life.
Posted by Sharon B. on May 10, 2007 11:17 AMSharon B.
Horizontal gene transfer:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horizontal_gene_transfer
CL,
I'm reaching back into my brain to a lecture a few years ago, so forgive me if I am on the wrong track, but are you essentially arguing for a cladistic (rather than Linean) organization of species in order to help support your evolutionary viewpoint?
Also, I haven't stayed on top of the current peer reviewed literature in the last two years and a lot can happen in evolutionary science at that time, but if I recall, haven't they shown limited Lamarkian evolution at least on a micro scale.
I think the research best supports a classic Biological Evolutionary perspective (what you are referring to as random) but the wonderful thing about this field of science, is that we are finding a lot of subtle complexity to the processes involved under different circumstances.
Keri,
I really wasn't arguing either, if anything I think more along Linnean lines than cladistic.
I'm not familiar with any examples of Lamarkian evolution, but I suppose it can occur to some extent with some types of asexual reproducion (like budding) or something like mammalian immunity is in the mix (with some immunity is passed via the mothers milk).
Posted by CL on May 10, 2007 04:53 PMMan, I just found this thread... bummer.
"What I think a lot of the die-hard evolutionists fail to acknowledge is that they own the debate in our schools. There is no other room allowed for other possible ideas or discussion. And I think that's a very sad thing, because it effectively stifles independent thinking and questioning."
mytwosense, this is my BIGGEST problem with evolution today- the way it's taught. Sadly, there is a judicially imposed monopoly on the Darwinism doctrine in our public schools. Funny how the proponents forget the philosophy of their two forerunners-
"A fair result can be obtained only by fully stating and balancing the facts and arguments on both sides of each question."
- Charles Darwin, "On the Origin of Species."
"If you limit a teacher to only one side of anything, the whole country will eventually have only one thought. ... I believe in teaching every aspect of every problem or theory."
– John Scopes
"Evolution is a proven scientific fact, supported by evidence and theory."
WRONG. Sharon, you do understand the difference between fact and theory? Also, the concept of the scientific method, where you can repeat and demonstrate the same observeable results? As such, Darwinism evolution must be deemed a theory, and not fact.
Posted by fiesty on May 12, 2007 01:30 PM