»
Discussion
»
Philosophy 101
»
The incorrigible David Berlinski
| Philosophy 101 |
|
The incorrigible David Berlinski |
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA 
|
Though I am certainly not of the opinion that Evolution discounts God whatsoever, for some time I have been a skeptic of Darwinian Evolution presented as a sound scientific explanation for biological diversity. In the course of my ingestion of media surrounding Darwinism and its critics, I've enjoyed listening or reading none as much as David Berlinski ... an agnostic with a wide background in science and philosophy, who is critical of both the new-atheism and its scientific pretentions (an unrelated addendum to the inconclusive scientific theories that allegedly support it), and Darwinism itself. Though I differ ideologically in many ways from Mr. Berlinski, I find his erudite wit engaging and entertaining. I wanted to share some of what he says by providing a link to some of his video clips. Then ask whether you think he, amid his sarcasm, has any valid critique of Neo-Darwinian thought? And what are your thoughts? http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=F9DB30F6802BC5CE Stephen |
||
| © Copyright 2009 Stephen Douglas Jones - All Rights Reserved | |||
|
rad802 Member
since 2008-04-19
Posts 279KY U.S.A. |
This is a very SLOW forum, not much going on here. I will check it out. Thanks Then I will get back to you. A worthy legacy is the irrevocable consequence of dreaming. |
||
|
rad802 Member
since 2008-04-19
Posts 279KY U.S.A. |
I did like what he had to say and for the most part I agree with him. Thanks for the post. A worthy legacy is the irrevocable consequence of dreaming. |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Just read "The Devil's Delusion" by the same. What a great book. |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
Stephanos Good to see you here again. Not sure about David Berlinksi's approach. It is hard to be imprest. It seems many do a similar thing with the bible: focus on possible missing things, and thereby try to minimize or distract one from what the bible actually has. Isn't it better to focus on the strength of Darwin's theories instead of weaknesses or potential weaknesses? In any case, it is not necessary for one to say "Darwinian Evolution". Why not just say "Evolution"? |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Essorant, good to see you too my friend. I don't think Darwinian Evolution can be compared to "The Bible", in any meaningful sense for this discussion. And BTW, the reason for saying "Darwinian" is because gradualism (or evolution) as a theory of how life came to be was around long before Darwin. However, Darwin gave it its supposed scientific modus operandi ... that should have given it credence to the scientific community. Therefore the designation "darwinian" is speaking to a specific claim/claims that probably won't be covered by the word 'evolution'. However, Berlinski has a valid point ... beyond bounded change within species (which everyone accepts, even Creationists), the rest has not been observed or quantified. His talk about the some odd 50,000 morphological changes required to get a land dwelling mammal to live in the open ocean is a salient point. Rather than down Berlinski's approach, I would rather hear you try and answer some of his objections. He speaks very candidly that Darwinism is an intriguing theory and that some things exist in favor it ... but doesn't think the next steps have ever been taken, to progress it beyond speculative conjecture into bonafide science. If, as he charges, Darwinism is no more than the prevailing orthodoxy, or popular myth/narrative taught by the establishment (and there's good evidence of this given the reaction to anything that challenges it), then it ought to be subjected to the rigors of skepticism. Stephen |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
quote: But isn't that just a another way of saying that some kinds of changes are still present, while others are past? Why would we expect all changes still to be present for observation, expecially such kinds as happened thousands and thousands of years ago in very different kinds of conditions? He seems to suggest that the same kind of changes should still happen today, even though the same kind of conditions are not around to allow such changes to happen. |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Which creationists accept bounded change within species? Perhaps I was laboring under the illusion that a fair number of fairly literal creationists were certain the world was only about 6000 years old. That seems hardly enough time for much bounded change within a species (what is the singular?), unless what you mean by bounded change is somewhat more specialized that I understand it to be. One of the things that the theory of evolution and, in this case, christianity, have in common is that they are both prevailing orthodoxies, and both of them should benefit by having some skeptical examination. This is one of the reasons that your attempt to sidestep comparison of the bible with the texts of evolution may be not so well considered. The bible is finished. There is, if I understand you correctly, no more text to be added, while the theory of evolution remains in flux, and even Mr. Berlinski's writing may well be considered an attempt to add to that literature. Whether it actually makes the cut or not depends on any number of things, primary among which will be, or should be, are his critiques researchable. That should be closely followed by, Is Mr. Berlinski willing to propose a research design that he and his scientific colleagues believe will be an adequate test of the points he raises? Will he go ahead and do the experiment and discuss the results with his colleagues and discuss how his data affects the theory in question? Is he actually willing to test the theory he is proposing? Or is he simply representing another orthodoxy? Nothing wrong with that, but it seems that it should be a fairly simple matter for him to test his critiques, if his critiques actually do have a scientific basis. Perhaps he has already done so, and I am uninformed. |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
I haven't read the book - I'll get around to it at some point but to tell you the truth I'm not really looking forward to it after reading a few of his objections. They sound rather weak and, if you don't mind me saying, not a very good advert for the book, take this one: " The appearance "at once" of an astonishing number of novel biological structures in the Cambrian explosion." Even ignoring the fact that "at once" equates to about 70 million years or so there's nothing astonishing about the Cambrian explosion, in fact once you sit down and think about it the Cambrian explosion was more inevitable than astonishing. . |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Essorant: quote: No, it's saying that some kinds of changes (or characteristics) are accounted for while others aren't. Berlinski makes the point that extrapolation doesn't always do the best job of explanation. To use one of Dr. Berlinski's own anaologies ... I can jump off the couch and flap my arms and land three feet away, but that doesn't make it the biological origin of flight. To understand what Berlinski is saying you have to remember what Darwin said about his own theory. He was much more uncertain about it than his successors usually are, noting that in order for it to be true it would have to demonstrated beyond reasonable doubt that the most complex biological things we see developed by means of the smallest beneficial incremental changes linking (in a very long chain) one system to another. This is exactly what is lacking in evolutionary science. However the fact that percentage-wise finch beaks change size in a general population (which already possessed the variations in size to begin with) does not demonstrate the large-scale changes that Darwinism purports to explain. So, its not just a matter of time, but a question of degree. Random mutation and natural selection may explain small changes within a species. But can it explain the existence of complex biological systems to start with? To this Berlinski responds with an emphatic No ... or at least not yet ... landing the whole thing back to the level of speculative theory rather than near-fact status that too many claim. Bob: quote: Bounded change means the bald fact that species have variation, and yet remain distinct species, regardless of time-frame. (You do understand that not all creations are "Young Earth", and that most Intelligent Design advocates accept an old Cosmos, if not the Theory of Common Descent) This kind of "change" has been observed beyond reasonable doubt. But in regards to time, to answer your question more specifically, no where near the amount of time needed for Speciation is needed for bounded variation to occur. If you'll remember correctly, Darwin observed this from year to year, as the drought conditions changed at the Galapagos Islands. quote: I've never sidestepped skeptical questions about Christianity ... You should know that about me by now.  But as far as sidestepping the comparison Essorant made, I would remind you that such a comparison is something Christianity has never accepted, and that Science has never desired ... on its own terms. The two shouldn't have as much in common as you say if one is a religion that professes that a degree of 'faith' is necessary to seeing truth ... and another which establishes beforehand that its claims are limited to the observational, and quantifiable. Though scientific and religious claims have some things in common, namely that you can't even do science without faith in its preconditions, and that the best of religion doesn't deny things like history and nature, their deeply running differences should not be overlooked. Needless to say, this is a thread about a critique of Evolution by an Agnostic. I would rather you critique the critique than to simply object to it by pointing out that Christianity is not unassailable (is anything?). If you wish to discuss the similarity / dissimilarity between the 'dogmas' of Evolution and Christianity, I would recommend starting another thread. Actually I would heartily recommend it if by your comment that "The Bible is finished" you mean to say that a closed Canon means closed revelation, or nothing more to be said. Again, I refrain from making this thread about that ... though I think it would be a very interesting discussion elsewhere. Back to Berlinski's critiques shall we?'quote: You must know that Berlinski is more concerned with open discussion, which isn't often allowed in academic settings, than establishing orthodoxy. He understands that one doesn't need to know one's shoe size to know that a particular pair doesn't fit. He claims his relation to Intelligent Design is "warm but distant, like seeing his Ex-wives in public". A position that I differ from. His main contention about Neo-Darwinism is its massive claims with very little or no conclusive research. He doesn't pretend to have a scientific alternative. He does intend to make pretenders admit that they are. So I'll ask you ... beyond bounded change within species, what scientific research has been done, which shows that Darwin's mechanism (mutation, natural selection) can give rise to complex biological systems? Thus far, truisms are all there is to be found ... such as: Sharks survived from ancient times because they are highly adapted through evolutionary process. We know that sharks are highly adapted through evolutionary process, because they have survived. If you say that research is the benchmark for contributing to the conversation, this is exactly Berlinski's contention that there have only been empty words, beyond the demonstration of small-scale change within species ... something which cannot be extrapolated to explain the whole of biological systems. Grinch: quote: Inevitable? With the Darwinian mechanism how about impossible? And yes I know that the phenomenon has been purportedly explained by sheer description, or worse sheer nominalism ... "punctuated equilibrium". You should take Berlinski's quote in context. By saying "at once" he wasn't suggesting that the entire Cambrian period was short. He was saying that there came on the scene a host of biological life-forms with no antecedents. These, as far as Paleontology is concerned, appeared "at once". If that misunderstanding is what is causing you not to read, you really should reconsider. Stephen [This message has been edited by Stephanos (10-16-2009 11:25 PM).] |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Dear Stephen, Then Mr. Berlinski, or your own incisive self, should propose an experimental test of the parts of the theory that you feel are weak. You are attempting a theoretical test and not an empirical one. Having made a clear appeal that science and religion be accepted on their own terms above, it would seem consistent for you to either abandon that position for your previous point or adapt it for this one, wouldn't it? Of course evolutionary research is a bit on the difficult side at this point, but using extremely short-lived species, such as fruit flies, some research is possible. Using some bacteria may even make it more possible, so long as DNA is the means of transmission. Attacking Evolution does nothing to prove any biblical theory, as you must know. I would be interested in knowing what the science community has found generally acceptable as an alternative theory — not as a niche theory acceptable to those who are members of the community of faith and who do not primarily identify themselves as members of the science community, but the science community themselves. I do not believe there is one. My understanding is that there are alternative theories presented by the faith community as an attack on evolution, but there is nothing of sufficient gravity to replace it. I am a skeptic in the same way I am a Catholic: I respect both positions and know a fair amount about them, but nowhere near enough to practice either. Nor do I have the desire to learn enough to practice either. But I know enough to know if there were a powerful competitive theory in the scientific or the skeptic community that was competitive with evolution, I would at least know about it, and probably know enough about it to have some familiarity with it. The faith community puts forth such possibilities, but they are not even close to reaching respectability in the science community. Why would the faith community not actually put effort into an actual scientific alternative and let the chips fall where they may, instead of confining itself to critiques of the theory of Evolution? What is there that is so upsetting about Evolution to a religion that you tell me did not close its books to new text in the second century or so — if you're a Christian, that is. Offer an experimental test, as befits a challenge to a scientific issue, at least in the terms I understand you to be setting out. Yours, Bob Kaven It remains a pleasure to be talking with you again. I take a great deal of pleasure in our conversation, and your faith is a good thing to find in this world. I wish you and your family all the best in this season. Sincerely, Bob Kaven |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
Stephanos quote: I think that expectation is bit unreasonable. A particular stretch of Evolution in general, seems like a particular civilization in Human Evolution: particular to the conditions that were in that stretch. Even if we could bring back the conditions, it wouldn't guarantee the same changes, even though it might bring about some changes more similar to them. But we can't bring back the conditions. All we can have are the very different conditions of the world today. We cannot witness how the animals came about through long evolution, any more than we may witness how the dinosaurs became extinct. But that doesn't mean we don't have any evidence: fossils are very important. Without fossils, how would we know anything about extinct animals and previous shapes of certain kinds of animals many thousands and thousands of years ago? What theory do you think the fossils best support: that species branched into other species or that they remained the same species (fishes as fishes, birds as birds, dogs as dogs, apes as apes, humans as humans etc) since the beginning of life? |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
quote: I don't think so; natural selection at that particular point in evolutionary time couldn't really go any other way if you think about it. The engine behind punctuated equilibrium is probably necessity the Cambrian explosion was driven by inevitability. quote: Then he's doubly wrong. All the life forms in the Cambrian had antecedents, unless you believe that they suddenly appeared out of thin air. Even If that's the case they didn't all appear out of thin air at once either. Even within the Cambrian explosion there's clear evidence of distinct "appearances" throughout the period - they didn't appear from nowhere and their appearance, and disappearance in some cases, was spread over a very long period of time. Ironically the answer to the questions surrounding the Cambrian explosion also answer the often posed question - "Why don't we see more evidence of evolution happening today". . |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
I'm working the weekend non-stop. I'll try to get back to you gentlemen (or advanced primates  ) early next week.Stephen |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Dear Stephen, Please feel free to think of me as your basic ugly ape. Sincerely, Bob Kaven |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Bob quote: Not exactly Bob ... I am weighing whether the empirical data that exists can support the theory beyond the very speculative, a category in which I believe it is thoroughly stuck. I don't discount Evolution for religious reasons, though I am opposed to the atheism that symbiotically (and precariously) rides upon the back of Darwinism. But I think God could have done it that way. And I stand with the likes of those, like Gilbert Chesterton, who feel that a slow miracle is just as much a miracle as a fast one. quote: Intelligent Design (and especially the critique of Darwinian Evolution voiced within that community) is not limited to those of religious persuasion. Though I think it lacks as a scientific theory (which would only describe how, not who) just as much as Evolution does. What the theory has going for it, is more in the area of the intuitive sense of intentionality and intelligence, along the lines of William Paley. But you must understand, Berlinski's contention is not that there is an acceptable scientific alternative to Evolution, but that Evolution itself is not an acceptable scientific alternative. quote: Does such a respectability always correlate with validity? quote: I have my own answer to your initial question ... it is because the 'hows' of the distant and past (in regard to the origins of biological life) are inscrutable. This may sound fatalist, but saying so is still no guarantee that it is not exactly such. I think there's good intuitive reason to think the world was designed (a premise of Intelligent Design) though I do not think that this necessarily constitutes a replacement theory of Evolution (if I can for the sake of this sentence, assume that Evolution is scientific), since the design argument remains salient whether Evolution is true or no. I do think ID is less involved with the question of how (except in underscoring the question anew for the Evolutionists) and more involved with the question of who ... or at least with the question of whether there was a "who". But either way, I mention this only as an aside. For Berlinski (and for myself), whatever ID lacks as science, is no reason not to ask what Evolution lacks as science. As to your last question ... It (Evolution) is not upsetting to me for religious reasons, nor for many others, though there are many for whom it is. Perhaps it was the atheism that was adjunctively present from its inception? Since I don't believe the question of God can be so easily discarded by something as simple as enlongating natural history, I don't suspect that the atheism is really so inherent to the theory, hence no threat to the perception of the divine. But, as this thread indicates, my difficulty with Evolution in its own right has to do with the suspicion that it holds much more dogma than science, while claiming to be wholly the latter. quote: I don't know that I can do that Bob. But I can reiterate Berlinski's statement about morphological changes. To get a mammal from land to dwelling in the open ocean, a modest 50,000 morphological changes is presented. Has Evolution (beyond speaking of small bounded change) even begun to quantify and show that the fossil record, or any other empirical data can strongly suggest that such a thing actually happened? Nice to talk to you too, Bob. And by the way, I've always thought those Spider-Monkeys were cool. I've never met you but I hope you are something more like that than the basic homely gorilla. Essorant: quote: I'm not sure the fossil record supports any scientific theory that explains biological diversity. I already admitted to Bob that I think the question of "how" is inscrutable to human investigation (and you at least seem to have thoughts along those lines to). I just want to say the claim that Evolution IS supported by the fossil record is more than a stretch. Grinch: quote: Alright. You've said twice now how the relatively fast explosion of diversity that happened during the Cambrian period is "inevitable". But you haven't said why. From a Darwinian perspective, why? quote: You're missing his point. No one believes they came from thin air. Berlinski's point was, that there is no fossil evidence that these many forms had antecedents, which would suggest that one life-form was developing through incremental stages into another. Something was happening. That "something" isn't well explained by random mutation and natural selection bringing about incremental beneficial changes life forms. quote: The questions are totally different. Its obvious we can't see evolution happen in a limited amount of time. But the questions surrounding the Cambrian Explosion involve a larger amount of time, and appeal to the fossil record. Stephen |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
quote: But evolution does happen in a limited amount of time and we can see it, you've already accepted that. quote: Now all you need to do is work out the definition of species: "A common definition is that of a group of organisms capable of interbreeding and producing fertile offspring of both genders, and separated from other such groups with which interbreeding does not (normally) happen." If that's what you had during the Cambrian - a whole bunch of randy organisms that were structurally different but so closey related they could interbreed, so closely related they were, in effect, one species in different body forms - then the Cambrian explosion was inevitable. . [This message has been edited by Grinch (10-20-2009 06:11 PM).] |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
quote: I've already made a distinction between bounded biological variance within species, and the kind of change that might have given rise to ALL the bilogical diversity ever seen, the origin of the eye, lungs, the immune system, nervous system, skeletal system, lymphatic system ... etc ... etc ... The former can be reasonably inferred from watching finch beaks fluctuate in size from season to season, or bacteria become resistant to antibiotics. The latter can't. It doesn't have a problem as speculative theory. It does have a problem as claiming to be much more than that. The mistake that too many make, in my opinion, is to think that the former establishes the latter. quote: If they could freely interbreed, then why the differences, which have been called virtually all the major body types (or phyla) for the animals we see today? If what you say about interbreeding were true, it would seem that the claims to sparsely find possible pre-Cambrian sources for separate Cambrian phlya would be misguided and unnecessary. And what proof is there that they indeed could interbreed, given their differences? How is their proximity or relatedness, given their differing body types, established? Is there any modern equivalent of two different body types which can interbreed? Stephen |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
quote: By itself, simply with research from short term species such as fruit flies and bacteria showing mutations in line with predictions derived from theory, evolutionary theory seems far ahead of any of the religiously based pseudo- science that seeks to replace it. It has the advantage of offering the basis for future prediction whereas, it seems to me, creationism has its hands pretty full trying and pretty much not quite managing to keep up with accounts of past activity. It seems to have difficulty predicting responses to future stressors or even to lab created stressors because creationism, it seems to me, doesn't assert as firm a connection between between events as the more deterministic model posited in science. I am not certain, myself, of how accurately such a deterministic model conforms to all aspects of reality, frankly. But on the whole, for most scientific predictions, I suspect it is a more testable model than the model used in what has been called "creation science." Using a model that insists on including a fudge factor for miracles will not yield as tight a prediction, and the prediction will not be as falsifiable by scientific methods. It basically does not apply the necessary rigor to be thought of as scientific as we understand the term today. And this is without making reference to the fossil record, which allows scientists to fill in the gaps you speak of earlier in reference to the various versions of the nervous system, and the eye and immune system. I am not aware if there has been research done as yet on DNA from an evolutionary perspective, but with our developing knowledge of biochemistry, we may be able to get some idea of where the DNA structures first picked up their earliest passengers, and in which order other passengers got on the bus. This should give us a very good idea about the evolution of the various systems that you are making reference to, and should provide some fascinating confirmation or disconfirmation of the theory as it stands today. We should be able to learn where our mistakes in theory are and what alterations we need to make to bring the theory in line with the best information we have — whatever that information happens to be. In the end, the loyalty of somebody in science has to be to the best and most accurate information, and the best and most accurate and most economical explanations we can come up with to explain that data. Theory needs to change to fit the data. It simply seems to the vast majority of scientific minds, as I understand it, that creationism simply doesn't fit the bill. Should new information emerge from new data that seems to turn things around, the theory will be modified or discarded in favor of something that fits the data in a better way. I've suggested one possible place where I think it may be possible for such data to come from, though I am a complete amateur and have no idea how practical my ideas are. I really don't care what the actual end result is so long as it follows the data and explains it better than any other explanation and that it doesn't prevent people from exploring other ways of approaching the data should they wish to try new theory or experimentation. I confess a bias, however, on the side of beauty, but how that could be worked in, I have no idea at all. Attacking the notion of evolution, in whatever form you wish to castigate it, does nothing to my mind, however, to help the cause of creationism. And the notion of Creation Science has not yet sounded to me like anything other than the oxymoron that it is. This may simply be a problem with not finding the right name, or it may be that the concepts simply do not mesh. I don't know. I think that there is a problem with insisting that one's faith needs to make logical sense when so very little of the world is logical, and when logic is probably the least dependable part of the brain. I would much rather have the "duck" reflex built in, as it is, than to have to reason it out every time somebody close in front of me stopped and turned on their heel too quickly. I've walked into enough elbows as it is. I think that faith is one of those things that you are apt to need too quickly to be able to think through at times, and that you need to be able to feel the certainty in your gut and not your cortex, where some silly fool with a slick line of patter might be able to talk you out of it at the wrong time. There are loads of contradictions to the matter, but I think that's not entirely a terrible way of doing things for most folks. Best wishes, Stephen, — yours, Bob Kaven |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
From the outside, to say one is opposed to Atheism is no more sensible than saying one is opposed to Christianity. The two do not seem to bring out the best in each other. I would hope that as late as the 21st century, when killing atheists is no longer considered socially acceptable, we might consider toning down the rhetoric a bit. I try to get my atheistic friends to keep the the rhetoric down a bit too. |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote: Yea, Bob, that's pretty much what Einstein said about quantum mechanics, too. I am interested, though, in what "predictions" you think macro-evolution has to offer us? Do you have some mathematical calculations that suggest the next leg in human ontogenesis? I mean, discouting Stan Lee, of course. |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Dear Ron, Why would you discount Stan Lee? Sincerely, Bob Kaven |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Dear Ron, Human ontogenesis, no. Time factor would be an issue, don't you think? But you might be able to design some sort of experimental design around a couple thousand generations of bacteria or fruit flies, don't you think? with a large enough population and enough control over the environment and some notion as to the sort of mutation you wanted to encourage as an adaptation. You might well get a set of adaptations that might include some like the ones you're looking for. You should keep in mind that I had trouble coming up with a good design for a single subject research design for reduction of assaultiveness in a psychotic patient that would pass muster for research design. It worked fine, mind you, but I'm not good with nailing down small details. And it sure was a relief not to get punched so much any more, and not to have anyone else punched so much either. I didn't suggest that we were at a place were we could predict human outcomes, did I? Though I did suggest one possible way that folks who had more chops than my non-existant biochemistry chops might have a shot at it. I also disqualify myself from Chemistry and Math and Physics as well on more than a basic conceptual level. Nevertheless, it still seems that science out of evolutionary theory has more predictive value than science that has that fudge factor built in. If you disagree, then I'm interested in hearing the how and why of it so that I can learn and I can discuss it with you. It seems that a theory needs that falsifiability factor in it for the theory to alter to fit the facts as new facts become available from new observations and new thinking. You haven't and won't hear me putting down faith; but you won't hear me proclaiming that it will do for all things, either, and it seems to me that the discussion of evolution is one of those classic places where faith and science think they need to compete when they need to cooperate. There are two separate points of view on a single situation, and each of them acts as though there can only be one sort of reality and one sort of fact when everyday experience more or less demonstrates otherwise, and that one gets into a fairly large amount of trouble when one tries to mix them too much. As in, "Can you be more specific about what you mean when you say 'Duck!'?" Sincerely yours, Quack! |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
Doesn't have to be human, Bob; that was just an example. I'll take any prediction that you think macro-evolution has to offer. Being able to go from step A to step B to step C with predictable and repeatable results is the foundation of hard science. Einstein's theories, for example, didn't just explain observed phenomenon, they predicted very precisely what we should see if we went from step A to step B to step C. Do you think macro-evolution can do the same? Can it even come close? Is it "softer" than physics? "Harder" than psychology? Does macro-evolution really allow us to predict something even marginally useful? |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Bob: quote: Actually, Bob, Evolution is not one whit ahead of any Creationists Old-Earth or Young, Intelligent-Design advocates, or anyone else who accepts bounded changed within species. Creationism as science (the how question), is something I feel pretty much the same about as Macro-Evolution. Don't get me wrong, Design is evidently true, in the same way that love is evidently lovely. Neither of these, however, can be proven by science, if the data is inscrutable. I don't support young-earth creationism as science, much in the same way I don't support Evolution as science. Creationism as the best explanation, by way of reasonable faith, is not thereby diminished. I think science is suggestive, but the question is still in many ways out-of-reach of empiricism. Besides, I've already told you, Evolution (purported to explain the "how" of biological life through history) is for many a totally separate question from whether God did it ... in other words, Darwinian Evolution over a long long time would still underscore the need of a Creator. So why do you keep bringing it up in this thread, in a countering kind of way? Surely you don't feel the same antithesis between a scientific theory and a religious belief as Young-Earth-Creationists and Dawkins? I think you might be more shrewd than both of these kinds. quote: I tend to doubt both of these as science in the testable sense. But you tell me, how is Macro-Evolution testable? And don't just say that there is no distinction between micro and macro ... that would be reiterating the whole contention of Berlinski: taking something that all agree on, and presenting it as evidence for something on an entirely different scale. quote: How is macroevolution falsifiable? Is it? If the astonishing paleontology that led to Gould's "Punctuated Equilibrium" didn't do it, I deem that nothing can. quote: That is not necessarily my purpose here ... unless there are those who follow the ideas of Dawkins and (even Darwin to an extent) which connect Evolution and anti-theism or naturalism. I think doubt about Evolution can be a good thing, if it allows someone to consider Intelligent Design. It is certainly popular belief (if inaccurate) that one precludes the other. As for me, Evolution would be no less a divine marvel than a literal 6 day creation ... or an instantaneous one as Augustine proposed, or any other variation of the Miraculous show of Eternal Wisdom and Majesty seen in nature. As it stands for this thread, I simply like to challenge something many people take for granted with very little thought. quote: How people treat each other is one question. Whether two outlooks are fundamentally antithetical is another. I would say that Christians, by both conviction and dogma, are opposed to atheism ... and vice versa. Come on Bob, in a perfectly civil discussion don't start saying that we should all adopt philosophical relativism (ie not believe strongly about much of anything in particular) so that we can all get along with each other better. It seems we are doing just fine don't you think, Ol Pal? Later, Stephen |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Dear Stephen, As always, interesting. The comment was, "from the outside," that is standing apart from either Atheism or Christianity. I have no idea that I am in fact a relativist about religion. I am an Agnostic. I simply don't know. So I can quite clearly stand apart from either Atheism or Christianity and I can say that to those on the inside each is apparently passionately worth defending, because I see them do it. I can also say that I have never seen one or the other win a debate in which a full and authentic case has been presented for both in which both sides walked away agreeing on the winner. Maybe you have. I won't tell you one of them is wrong because I don't know. That isn't relativity. There are real differences between the various kinds of positions on Creation and evolution. I won't say that evolution and God are incompatible because I believe they certainly can be. I will also say that I don't think that evolution is a popularity contest, and that its scientific acceptability makes it correct. Having said that, I will now contradict myself. Among scientific theories, the people who have the best and most in depth understanding of scientific theories on the subject pretty much tend to agree that Evolution is pretty much the best we've got right now, and that there's nothing that looks better right now on the horizon. Nothing is even close. This doesn't mean evolution is right. It's simply the closest thing we've got to a scientific understanding of right, right now. This doesn't mean that David Berlinski doesn't have a point. I don't know if David Berlinski has a point, but he may have and it may be not simply a point but a whole series of stellar points. At this point, he hasn't apparently offered enough to change the opinions of the scientists that are at the heart of the debate. And I would probably have to do days of research that I really don't want to do to dig that information out. Do you disagree with that? The point is that Evolution is a theory, but it's a pretty solid theory. Who exactly are the scientists that would need to be convinced that the theory was wrong to delegitimize the theory as a whole? And what is the nature of that evidence? It seems to me that the efforts in this debate are not being directed at the scientific debate, not at those scientists who think the science is solid and who continue to research the field, but at lay folks like you, or at kids, who are not in a situation to evaluate the science but who are in the process of forming beliefs. This is what makes me believe there is something basically disingenuous about the discussion in the first place. It is not a scientific discussion, and it is not framed that way, and it is not taking place is actual scientific journals but in journals that are frequently sort-of science journals, of the sort that the oil and gas industries create to fund a "debate" on the data about global warming or climate change. This doesn't mean that there isn't any such thing as "design." I have no inside information. But serious discussion of "intelligent design" doesn't seen to appear in the scientific journals, only in journals that try to do a sort of hybrid of science and religion. My personal thinking is that there is too much distance between the two, but I've spoken about that before, and I'm uncertain that further discussion right now would be helpful. And some of the problem, I think, may actually be in the confusion of tongues between People of Faith and People of Science. Call them the Christians and the Atheists that I was talking about earlier. This is one more place where the two communities talk past each other, and in an extraordinarily painful and sad fashion. You're a guy who's chosen to deal with a little bit of that issue in himself, Stephen. Nursing education has more than its share of science in it, softened, thank goodness, with a bit of love and nurture that isn't the fashion in programs for the M.D. And the Love that is so central to Christian belief is something that you've learned to temper with the more structured elements of the Logos, not simply The Word, but the logic behind The Word as well. That illusion of a split is present in the world as well until we can see the way that makes it fit effortlessly and seamlessly together. Once again, Stephen, these things seem to rise out of the most straightforward discussions. All my best to you and your Pals, Bob Kaven [This message has been edited by Bob K (10-23-2009 05:29 PM).] |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
quote: Yes, I noticed. I think you're wrong to make the distinction; especially if the lowest taxonomic group during the Cambrian was not "species" but "life" - which is highly likely. . |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
What else is the link between "before" and "after" except great changes among animals? Isn't the fact of the differences themselves enough evidence? Why do we need to explain exactly "how" they happened to prove that evolution could make such changes? |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Essorant, Because science must be more than assumption if it is to be in any sense empirical. Common Ancestry and Evolution cannot be proven merely by what is seen in the present (highly limited change within species, and profound morphological differences between species). What we see gives rise to the question; it cannot be the answer. Stephen |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Dear Stephen, Let me get my assumptions clear, here. When you say "science," your quarrel is with evolution, not say, physics, or chemistry, or astronomy, or are you suggesting that all of science is essentially "less than" some other approach that you will need to specify. I would need you to tell me what that would be. A quarrel with "science" would suggest that it is not the best way to approach a problem. A quarrel with evolution would suggest that it isn't the best way to approach looking at where humans and other animals have come from. It may, in fact, not be the best, and yet still be better than whatever you might offer for second place in terms of offering a clear and useful answer for scientific problems. A parachute might not be the best way to survive falling from a plane. This doesn't suggest that it would be useful or even smart to refuse one when a wing falls off your Cesna. Common Ancestry and Evolution. They are useful theories. A theory is not a fact, it is a theory. It is a curiously long lived theory. Theories, like the theory of the ether, stay around for a while and when there seems reason to abandon them, poof, there they go. There is some quarrel about them, but they do go. Common Ancestry and Evolution are theories that hang around because the scientific community simply seems to think that they make sense. You have gotten fairly expert in saying why you think that these things do not make sense. You might consider why it is that the broad base of the scientific community disagrees with you and has for a hundred years. Do you believe that you have a larger, deeper and more thorough understanding of the science than they do? Or is there some other reason? The attack on science doesn't make religion better or more appealing. It makes religion sound as though it were in competition. Sincerely, Bob Kaven |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote: In science, Bob, often the best course, be it currently in first or second place, is to realize you have no clear and useful answers. The danger with thinking you do, of course, is that you stop asking the questions. quote: Useful in what way, Bob? You never did answer that question? |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
Stephanos, But I don't think it is just one way. What we see is part of the answer as well. There is also the aspect of philosophy and logic. How do you logically explain the "before" and "after" of differences among the animal kingdom, and lifeforms that weren't here since the beginning of life on earth if you don't explain it as coming from changes among lifeforms that were here? Or are you going to suggest that different and later animals, regardless of how complex, showed up the same way as the earliest and simplest first lifeforms showed up, without any "link" between the two? Elephants just showed up all the sudden as elephants, apes as apes, humans as humans, etc? A theory such as that wouldn't just lack evidence, but would lack logic too. |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
http://books.google.com/books?id=tBxGpaV-ocsC&pg=PA39&lpg=PA39&dq=scientific+usefulness+of+common+ancestry+and+evolution&source=bl&ots=2IwuXBaqdK&sig=ix_yMSBR4-M1tc5hoE9p0qEGJow&hl =en&ei=UhvySsyPDoLosQOFk9kQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=9&ved=0CCIQ6AEwCDgU#v=onepage&q=&f=false I found the above reference which seemed to speak about the usefulness of the theories of common ancestry and of evolution. These theories proved useful as descriptors of past events, and of present events around speciation. They are most effectively used in predicting and in describing events over the lifespans of short lived organisms, where we can have the chance to see the development of species over the course of a reasonably short period of time. The reference above offers a few examples of this. This is how common ancestry and evolution are useful. Should there be more useful and more accurate descriptors and predictors, I would expect them to be used. I don't expect all results of research done on rats to be generalizable to people. I am uncertain as to how completely data on speciation obtained on simpler organisms may apply to the changes that happen over longer periods of time to more complex organisms. But for creationists to take part in that discussion, they would have to make some concessions that they may well be unwilling to make. Perhaps that's not so. At any rate, I can see this particular place as an area where I feel there's some trouble in the scientific discussion. I don't know how solid a criticism that may actually prove to be. But as long as evolution has explanatory and predictive utility for changes in short lived populations where we can do research, then it presents itself as something not easily set aside. I hope that provides something of an answer for you, Ron. I wasn't trying to be mysterious. The section in the book excerpt is fairly decent. Yours, Bob Kaven |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote: I would love to see a reference, Bob, where bacteria has stopped being bacteria or fruit flies have evolved into a new species of insect? I've never seen any indication from even the shortest-lived organisms that support macro-evolution. Have you? The book you cite describes and predicts the past, or at least, what the theory says we should find in the past. Uh, but the theory is predicated on what we found in the past, isn't it? Isn't that a bit circular? What does macro-evolution have to say about the future? What prediction can it make that is useful? Describing the past isn't enough to be a science. Mythologies describe the past. So do the countless conspiracy theories about Earth being seeded by beings from the stars. None of them qualify as science. The leap from micro- to macro-evolution is necessarily a leap of faith. |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
If a sperm in the womb can evolve into a human being in less than a year, is it hard to believe a species can branch into a new species over millions of years? |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
You should note, then, the transformation, mentioned on page 38 of the book whose reference I mention and which you read, the transformation of culex pipiens, the bird blood hungry mosquito from London, over the space of about a hundred years, once the environment had changed and the availability of birds was minimal, into culex molestus, a person blood loving mosquito, and a mosquito of another species over the course of about a hundred years between 1880 and 1990. You might also check out the reference specified in the text. This doesn't make evolution more than a theory. But it does suggest that there is useful science behind it. Useful in the way that I suggested, that it can be used as a guide for planning experiments and for testing and for disproving so that one might come up with a theory that does a better job of doing the same thing. The "research" in creationism is not focused on disproving the theory of creationism because the theory is set up in such a way as to be unfalsifiable. It falls back on faith. Faith is important, even vital to the function of human beings. I would, however, hesitate to use it except metaphorically in lieu of a parachute. Nor would I wish to spend much time praying to a fact. This is a confusion of realms. We call miracles miraculous because they refuse to be made tame and predictable to mere human understanding. Except metaphorically, we do not use faith to power a rocket. We use it instead to encourage belief in our ability to reach beyond ourselves and find a way to solve the problem of how to power the rocket. The two things seem to function on different levels of abstraction, faith and science. And the argument between them seems to me to be a bogus struggle created by refusing to keep our abstractions appropriately sorted. It's a personal point of view, of course, and I don't expect it to carry much weight in this discussion. But it's not offensive, and I like to be known as best I can, when I can manage it. Best to everybody, Bob Kaven |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
Unless the mosquito turned into something that was no longer a mosquito, Bob, you're still conflating micro- and macro-evolution. No one is arguing that a species can't change. There's just no evidence to suggest a species can change as dramatically as macro-evolution would demand. You're also making this into a religious issue, I think, when it's not. It doesn't matter whether you're Christian or Hindu, atheist or agnostic, macro-evolution still requires a leap of faith far beyond any discipline I would care to call science. Indeed, this shouldn't be seen as evolution against creationism (which aren't at odd regardless), but rather evolution against science. |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Dear Ron, The two species are in fact both mosquitoes. One was not there at the beginning, in 1880, and was there in 1890, however. That is a new species. The book is "The Origin of Species." I was talking about the usefulness of evolution in research in speciation. I happen to think in addition that it's our best tool for talking about larger changes as well. Perhaps you have some better method to offer? I haven't seen anything that sufficiently falsifies evolution as a theory to knock it out of the position it now occupies. If you have, name it. If you know of reputable scientific peer reviewed journals who believe that the theory has been invalidated or disqualified, name them. If you know of a single major scientific organization that thinks evolution is not the best scientific understanding we have at present of this material, tell me and give references. None of these people, including "The incorrigible David Berlinski" represent mainstream scientific opinion. None of them, insofar as I understand it, offers a falsifiable alternative. The criticisms they offer have been satisfying to themselves, but have not changed the ongoing development of biology or any of the other mainstream scientific disciplines. They have not, insofar as I understand it, lead to any breakthroughs in technology or scientific understanding that have lead to anything more fascinating than tang. If there has been any breakthroughs on the basis of this line of thinking on, say, gravitation, or quantum physics, or metallurgy or the photoelectric effect or mining technology, I would be happy to see it. And also to see the science it was developed from, and see what the predictions are from from the work that developed it. That's not something you hear of very frequently, I've found, the cutting edge medical research coming out of the Creation Science research centers that's led to all the cures for the diseases that trouble us. You'd think that if their science was so good, they'd really be able to show some results with it, wouldn't you? Evolution against Science? As I suggested, show me the creationist research that's proven to be the widely accepted basis of breakthroughs in science and technology. Evolution has shown speciation in short lived organisms. It's proven it so well, that even most creationists have to make that concession. It is only because scientists studying the theory of evolution have been able to show short term speciation that you are now able to talk about micro evolution at all. The theory of Evolution was the theory of evolution, not the theory of micro-evolution and maybe the theory of macro-evolution. It was the Theory of Evolution. You have simply lost the battle and are seeking to retrench on different ground, where you hope — you hope! — that nobody will find a way to track a larger leap than one between species over a reasonably short run. While I have developed a wild curiosity as to where prions may have come from, and when. Sincerely, Bob Kaven |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote: Ahh. Is your interest in Truth, Bob? Or in quantifying popular opinion? People like Einstein and Bohr didn't represent mainstream scientific opinion, either. They changed it to be representative of themselves. When scientists deduced our sun to be a nuclear furnace it answered a lot of perplexing questions. However, when other high energy sources were discovered in the sky, things like pulsars and quasars, they didn't automatically jump to the conclusion they had found some really BIG nuclear furnaces. They knew that one right answer doesn't always scale to the next right answer. Evolutions is supposed to tell us how life came to exist. However, the touchstone of any good science is repeatability. Even the Big Bang, the most unique event in all of history, is being repeated, in essence, by scientists in Geneva. So, why is evolution excepted from the rigors of repeatability? When scientists can mix a batch of primordial soup, using whatever recipe they want, in whatever conditions they determine best, and produce Life from non-Life, then evolution can be called a science. Until evolution can be repeated in the laboratory, it will remain a pseudo-science like numerology or the I-Ching, of little practical use and not to be trusted. Regardless of popular opinions. |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
Ron, quote: Earlier you were distinguishing between microevolution and macroevolution, but now you are writing off all evolution? |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
quote: In essence Ron? Do you mean they're creating a whole universe from scratch or is the experiment on a slightly smaller scale - a micro version of part of the process perhaps? quote: If that's the case then, unfortunately, the big bang theory falls into the same category along with a whole slew of unrepeatable scientific theories. Fortunately scientific theories don't have to be repeatable, repeatability is only expected in the case of experiments which are claimed to be proof of a particular hypothesis. If the scientists in Geneva get results that aren't repeatable it doesn't mean that the big bang never happened, it simply means that they've failed to prove the particular hypothesis they set out to test. quote: Apart from the evidence of all the diverse animals that weren’t around in the Cambrian and, very conspicuously, are around now. They came from somewhere Ron, either they evolved from earlier life forms or they popped, or were popped, into existence out of thin air. How do you think it happened? . |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Wow, Ron. Got things turned around a little? This doesn't have much to do with popular opinion. Near as I can tell, you're the one who's chucking popular opinion around. Lot of people believing in angels these days, probably more than those who believe in evolution. That's popular opinion. I asked about whether there was any hard science coming out of the laboratories of those people who claimed to be scientists who were researching any of those theories which were competing with evolution. Do I actually get an answer? "Uh, no," is the phrase you use from time to time, isn't it? What I get is an essay on Einstein and Bohr. I might remind you that Einstein went from obscurity in 1905 to world fame and acceptance within perhaps fifteen years. He presented a coherent theory that people might quarrel with. Lots of people did, but it was reasonably clear that they were wrong in perhaps ten years. Bohr's work was accepted though quarreled about by the main stream pretty quickly. He presented a theory that people were able to look at and quarrel about in the open (in peer reviewed scientific journals, both of them). It wasn't popular opinion that swung, it was scientific opinion that swung in both cases. Rush Limbaugh is not peer reviewed. Nobody has to decide that his facts are straight and his reasoning is good before what he says comes out for community consideration. The scientific community runs on different standards. You do know this, and I know that you know this. What I don't know and what I don't understand is why you forgot this in replying to me. All I made claims for was speciation. I showed you references for speciation. They seemed like pretty good references, didn't they? They made the point neatly and directly that here was a case of a new species coming from an old species over the period of about a hundred years. References supplied. Ribbon and bow. Now you'd like me to revisit the Urey-Miller experiment. Why? The Urey-Miller experiment is an experiment in albiogenesis, quite specifically the study of how life may be related to inorganic matter, and how it may have come from that matter. It suggests that it is possible for amino acids to have been created out of naturally occurring chemical processes on the planet billions of years ago. The experiment is important because it proves the possibility is there. The experiment catches in the craw of the folks who don't like any aspect of evolutionary theory to gain credibility because it proved something that had been a point of contention for many years beforehand. Now they must say, Yes, it is possible for such things to happen, and furthermore, the experiment can pretty much be repeated any time and our noses will be rubbed in our denial. So they have now changed the point of contention. Now they have demanded that instead of proving the possibility that life can be created through natural means and chance, they wish to demand, in this case through Ron, that actual life itself be delivered up to them on a plate. Nor can I say that it's an unreasonable request, though I might well wonder where the money to fund such a project might come from. I don't know how much private money is available for research of this type. I'd like to see some money available for such research, myself, and perhaps some more clarity might be achieved, one way or the other. I have no particular horse in the race, but I have a lot of curiosity to see some actual hard data And yes, I'm interested in what the truth of the matter is, Ron. Those who hang their hat on the literal creation story will need to find other, firmer reasons to be Christian — which would help the religion, I think, and maybe, in the long run, help them to a more solid Christianity. I hope. Then you and I can butt heads on the I-Ching. |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
Evolution: quote: Ron: quote: Um, when did the meaning change? quote: But that's your job, Stephen. Why should there be a distinction between micro and macro? If there is, what are the conditions that create that "boundedness"? Predictions: The Future is Wild Not science as such but a hell of a lot of fun. |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote: Yes, in essence. It's arguable whether they can create a whole universe from scratch, but they certainly can't create our universe from scratch. The hope, however, is to recreate the environment that was present immediately after the primordial singularity went boom. If the scientists at Geneva "get results that aren't repeatable" it very simply won't be science. Indeed, I would say that "results that aren't repeatable" is a pretty good definition of miracle? The more important point, however, is that physics tries to test its theories by recreating conditions that can disprove what it hopes to prove. No, the results at CERN won't prove the Big Bang didn't happen (good luck proving a negative), but they just might prove we don't understand what we thought we understood. There is currently no danger of that happening with evolution, though, because evolution can't be tested in the laboratory. It isn't science. quote: That's the question, Grinch, not the evidence, and certainly not the answer. Where did they come from? Maybe they were dropped off by little green men from Tau Ceti. There's certainly as much hard evidence for that as there is for macro-evolution. Judging by the accumulation of UFO reports every year, there might be more. quote: I think you need to read your own posts a little more clearly, Bob. You're the one who keeps going back to what scientists currently think -- as opposed to what scientists have previously proven. quote: I must have missed the query, Bob. I didn't know we were talking about other, competing theories. In any event, I fail to see how any lack of hard evidence for theories competing with evolution is going to produce any hard evidence FOR evolution? quote: LOL. And in doing so, Bob, he upended almost 300 years of your "mainstream scientific opinion." quote: Again with the religion, Bob? Why? quote: Excellent question, Brad. There has to be a distinction because one can be explored scientifically and the other can't, or at least hasn't been in any meaningful way. The leap from micro- to macro is one we are asked to accept on faith. Just to be clear, guys, I'm not arguing that evolution isn't necessarily right. I'm arguing, rather, that it isn't science. It is every bit as much faith based as any religion practiced by man. |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
Ron, "Science" is a variable term. Northrop Frye, for example, likes to call his views of literary criticism "scientific". I don't think we can read that today without a slight cringe (I can't) but writing when he was writing, he seemed perfectly serious. That doesn't mean his ideas are useless. Stephen, I haven't watched all the Berlinski videos yet but I'm struck by two major points. 1. He, intentionally or unconsciously, misunderstands evolution. He makes the offhand statement that in a hundred million years a finch can become an elephant. Evolutionary theory says this is impossible. He's probably being flippant and I'm being nitpicky but it's close enough to the kind of misinformation being brandied about in other venues to be worrisome. 2. He asks for the impossible. Evolution is not teleological.He argues that 50,000 morphological changes have to take place for a cow-like creature to become a whale. He argues that we should be able to quantify that using evolutionary theory (the analogy he uses is changing a car to a submarine). Uh, no. Evolutionary theory can't do that. Look at a lawn sprinkler in your yard or in a park. It is mathematically impossible to predict where each water drop will fall (there are too many variables). What you can do is, knowing where enough drops fall, retrodict the location of that sprinkler (the origin). And that's what evolution does. (Quiz time: anybody know where I got that analogy?) But is that bit of retrodiction not scientific or, worse, unscientific? Ron, With dark matter, dark energy, and the Pioneer anomaly (both spaceships are slightly accelerating), your strict definition of science may rapidly be limited to pure mathematics and nothing else. I can live with that. |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
Up to Berlinski clip 17. Wow! His point isn't just that evolution is problematic, it's that science in general is problematic. "Has Physics progressed since Newtonian mechanics? Well, it's certainly been enriched . . . but we know as little about science as we know about the cosmos . . . ." Honestly, I don't know what he means here but his attitude is clear. His description of science is that of a Romanticized Kuhn. His premise is Socratic or at least the popular version of Socrates: "I know that I know nothing" I read somewhere that that is actually a mistranslation: "I know when I know nothing." That is, I know the limits of my knowledge and you don't. |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote: We also can't predict where every molecule of oxygen in the room will bounce, Brad, but we can statistically analyze where and how the aggregate will behave. Quite accurately, too. That's science. quote: From famous mathematician, Charlie Eppes? quote: Brad, I think those are problems with answers. Just because we don't know the answers (yet) doesn't preclude them from scientific exploration. The Pioneer anomaly is a good example because it is repeatable. The same anomaly should raise its head with every space craft we send out of the solar system. If it doesn't, physics will have some serious problems, not just questions. I will give you this, though: science that can't be expressed mathematically will, to my mind, always be questionable. Psychology would be a good example of that; sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't. The difference is, even with its soft results, psychology can be useful. It makes predictions, even if those predictions are wrong more than right. Evolution can't even do that. When push comes to shove, the best evolution can say is, "Stuff happens." And we sure don't need a pseudo-science to tell us that. |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
quote: Since when are peer reviewed scientific journals "popular opinion" as opposed to evaluated research and comment? If these things were "popular opinion," you might even be able to get away with the sort of statements you're trying to get away with here. In a peer reviewed scientific journal, you'd have to convince a bunch of other folks who understood the field and what you were talking about about the validity of your opinion first. It's not always easy. Even Einstein had to do a bit of hunting for his initial publications in peer reviewed journals. He found them. For you to suggest this is a popularity contest is a distortion 1) of what I said; and 2), the facts as well. The popularity contest seems to be going the other direction since there seems to be a mysterious lack of educational funding for science these days, and the religious right wants equal time for discussion of religious theory in science class, as though it actually had a place there. You seem to be in a hurry to skip over what scientists have already proven. You conflate creation with speciation, for example. Evolution may talk about how one species may move into another, and about how larger shifts may occur, but I can't recall Darwin insisting on any scenarios for creation. Perhaps my memory has developed Brain Fog. Species, yes, creation, not so much as I recall, though I stand ready for correction. I suspect that Darwin didn't actually believe in Divine Creation, mind you, but I don't think that he made that party of his position on evolution. I think he tried to stay neutral, though he didn't really fool many people about his more general air of skepticism. quote: Much as I would like to dispose of any theories you advance by disposing of statements you haven't made on subjects that haven't come up as well, I do try to avoid it. I don't know that I've abstained entirely, but I have tried. I haven't for example, made any statements about creation science (there's an oxymoron for you) being responsible for proving evolution. I have to confess, I was somewhat thrilled to have been put in that position by you, but no; actually I didn't mention evolution in that regard at all. I simply suggested that it would be a good thing if any of their evolutionary research or research into hard science based on their discoveries in creation science had ever been used to produce any practical science — based on their scientific research in creation science, of course. Not in Evolution — heavens to Betsy, no. In any hard science. I actually spent some time listing some of them above, in case you might have misunderstood me. I suggested but did not intend to limit myself to: quote: Wanting to offer you the widest possible latitude for a response, I didn't want to limit you to responding with discoveries in hard science that might pass a generally accepted peer reviewed science journal such as Science or Nature only in areas of biology or evolution, but which might get by such journals in other sciences as well. General Archives of Psychiatry would have been fine with me, and still is, as long as the research comes from the hard research that these Creation Scientists are putting into Creation Science and its spin-offs. Or even the reverse, where experiments in other field of science lead to experiments in another field, as apparently did the Urey-Miller experiments come from looking over earlier experimental data in another field entirely. This single-minded self-absorbtion and self-referential thinking is one of the things that tends to distinguish real science from what you call pseudo science, isn't it? Hard science has spin-offs, and people follow them from say, Special Relativity, to General Relativity, to String Theory and the increasingly more arcane experimental technology that seems to be gathering around these areas. Except in Creation Science, of course, which seems to try to go over the same ground, again and again, looking for new and interesting ways to destroy the wheel. |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
quote: That is probably from the similarity of the Greek `οτε [hote] "when" and `οτι [hoti] "that". |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
Stephen, Thank you, that insult clip alone was worth the time it took to watch all the others. Ess, That sounds good to me. I read that a few years back and never pursued it. Ron, But retro-diction in Evolution works. Berlinski even admits that. What about cladistics, species radiation, and retroviral DNA? At the very least, it tells us in general what to look for and what to prepare for. If you look at, say, the new tuberculosis strains in Russia, wouldn't it have made more sense to take Evolutionary theory seriously instead of falling back on the medicine is magic theory? Does that put us back into micro-evolution? Perhaps, but the more you go after macro, the more micro and related policies, seem to disappear. As Berlinski likes to say, that's just human nature. Apparently, it never occurs to him to ask why that is human nature. |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote: Since you started using them that way, Bob? "Common Ancestry and Evolution are theories that hang around because the scientific community simply seems to think that they make sense." "You might consider why it is that the broad base of the scientific community disagrees with you and has for a hundred years. Do you believe that you have a larger, deeper and more thorough understanding of the science than they do?" "Among scientific theories, the people who have the best and most in depth understanding of scientific theories on the subject pretty much tend to agree that Evolution is pretty much the best we've got right now ... " "None of these people, including 'The incorrigible David Berlinski' represent mainstream scientific opinion." Those are just from your last few posts, Bob. If you want to say that so-and-so did such-and-such experiment and published his results in this-and-that journal, I'm more than willing to listen and respond accordingly. To imply, however, that evolution must be okay because a lot of scientists think it's okay is little more than an appeal to authority. You might as well tell us, "God said so." Your faith in the infallibility of peer reviewed science appears little different than a zealot's faith in his religion. And, frankly, it's probably less justified. "Because science says so" is never going to be as persuasive as why science says so. More later . . . |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
You still need to distinguish between the level of dialogue in peer reviewed scientific journals and in that of "popular opinion." The references I make here are to scientific authority, but then the discussion on "the science of evolution" is a discussion about science and the opinion and research in that subject. If I offer a opinion about the consensus position in science about the subject of evolution, by all means, criticize me for being off-base, for getting my facts wrong, for distorting these facts or misrepresenting them in some fashion. To criticize me for making an appeal to authority is to miss the whole nature of science. Should you have better research and better data, publish it, or quote it from peer reviewed journals. I happen to have a real weakness for many sorts of pseudo-science myself. Friends of mine who are more rigorous must wheeze themselves sick when I start talking about my particular pseudo-scientific hobbyhorses, and I know they do. I can talk to them a bit about why their point of view of the statistics is wrong, and make a fair case. I can convince myself, and do. But I make no bones that trying to convince these fine folks that my thinking on acupuncture, or homeopathy or the I Ching is about to pass for consensus reality in terms of scientific thinking. And generally not with them. I know enough to keep my mouth shut when I talk to psychiatrist or psychologist friends about this sort of stuff unless we're very close friends indeed. These thoughts are not consensus reality, and to mental health folks who don't understand the field well enough, they can mis-understand the meaning and the cultural background of what you're saying. No matter that half the population of China Agrees with you, about the orientalia, and that the largest selling flu remedy in Europe is Homeopathic. We don't like to disturb our pre-defined points of view. In this case, when talking about a project of scientific inquiry, it's appropriate to make reference to scientific authority. Should I attempt to quote art history, interesting as that might be? I happen to think theology is appropriate, but you've made a point of disagreeing with me several times. I think that the scientists in the field who operate according to the rules that current science seems to operate under and do the work that seems to be judged most worthy of publication under those conditions seem to have the best understanding. Is it possible I'm wrong. Heavens, yes! The other way that I thought would be most useful to tell which scientists were most likely to have the best understanding of their fields was to see if their work was connected with other science, and whether they had made use of science from other fields in their work or whether the work that they'd done in either Evolution or biochemistry or Creation Science (to bring in the folks on what I consider to be the other side of the equation here) had been useful to other fields of science. Urey-Miller may have come from German attempts to synthesize ersatz gasoline during world war Two. You might do a little poking around if you're interested, but as I recall the story, the Germans had to keep taking the apparatus apart to clean out all those waste amino acid by-products. Who knew? But somebody was in touch with what was going on in science in general, put two and two together, and said, hey! I'll bet this accident fits in very well just . . . exactly . . . there. Regular science is full of these little pieces of overlap. (Like Brad, using an example from a TV show, a few postings back — Numbers, I believe.) It's only argument to authority if somebody is willing to be cowed by the authority. The scientists are attacking each other's authority all the time, witness Einstein and Bohrs, for example, always taking each other out into the ally to duke it out with thought experiments. No respect, I tell you; they didn't give each other any respect. Why authority would suddenly become so important seems a bit odd to me. It's never been important before. Some of the comments Newton was given to making about his rivals and even potential rivals were legendary in their savagery, and he got as well as he gave at times. If scientists gave each other the respect that non-scientists tend to give God, it might be different. But while they are certainly afraid for their jobs and hungry for fame, their amour propre seems reasonably rock solid. What's a Creationist going to do if he's criticized in print by some famous evolutionary biologist? You may assert that he'd crinkle up into a little ball and blow away. I would raise the possibility that he'd throw a party and ask his institution for a raise, simply for being noticed by folks with actual academic creditability. The more disagreeable the note, in some ways, the better for his status among the Creation Science crowd. That's what I'd think. Once again, we come back to Einstein, one of my personal heros, to end this particular journey. Or to Ron's use of him. quote: No irony here, Ron. If somebody in Creation Science comes up with a brilliant flash of insight that's as startling and fine as Einstein's, I'm all for him. All he has to be able to do is what Einstein did: Have a great theory that could be cleanly laid out and that could be experimentally followed up. Until then, my bets are all on the side of evolution. For somebody who wanted specifics, by the way, you didn't respond to my reference to the book on Amazon and to the reference to the mosquito write up, which appeared fairly specific to me. I think it really is worth a look and a comment. |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote: I disagree, Bob. On the contrary, I think any appeal to authority misses the whole nature of science. quote: Forgive that snicker I suspect you're sensing from me, Bob. From where I sit, psychiatrists or psychologists ridiculing acupuncture smacks of kettles and pots and strikingly similar shades of black. quote: Again, your faith is impressive, Bob. Please, though, don't mistake it for something other than faith. quote: I've already said I don't consider evolution to be good science. My condemnation, however, is not with evolution's lack of rigor, but rather with its pretensions of rigor. It's not science, but being not science is a bad thing only to those who worship at the alter of science. Poetry isn't science, either. The difference is poetry doesn't pretend to be science and, more importantly, doesn't pretend to be THE answer to questions of significant importance. quote: I looked. A mosquito that starts preferring a diet of people over birds hardly qualifies as proof of macro-evolution, Bob. On the contrary, this summer I had quite a few of those people-preferring critters on my back deck. Any "proof" of evolution, Bob, is by its very nature going to be limited to micro-evolution. That's the whole problem. Little changes might scale to big changes; science, however, should be trying to prove that, not insisting we accept it on faith. More examples of little changes are not proof of scale. |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Dear Ron, Your suggestion that I accept your judgement of the quality of the science in peer-reviewed journals over people who are specialists in the field is exactly what you caution me against. But here the authority you urge me to accept is your own... You know Evolution is junk, because of x, y, and z. I should replace my faith in Science by my faith in you. Your reasoning is considerably less persuasive and lacks the community of expertise and experience behind it. Nobody is checking your reasoning with a critical eye or asking you to perform experiments to confirm or disconfirm your findings. These are things to be found in the scientific literature. If you didn’t constantly confuse scientific literature with popular opinion, I might be more inclined to listen to what you have to say. You’ve done this more than once. Perhaps you think the two are not distinguishable. I have a friend who is a specialist in Popular Culture. She is a Disneyologist. What you and I think about Mickey Mouse probably falls into the realm of popular opinion. The Disney People pay for her to attend seminars on the subject. She has expert knowledge about popular opinion, and people will pay to hear what she has to say on the matter. And that is not about science. That is in the department of English. About science, there is a body of theory and fact to be mastered, and competence has to be shown in that. If you wish to make new theory, you are free to do so. You simply have to show how it is more elegant and more correct than the old body of theory. You need to be reasonably familiar with the old body of theory in order to do that, because the old theory has a lot to say about a lot of different things. It’s true in Physics, it’s true, I would assume, in other hard science studies. I am not a scientist, so I can’t give you the information, only my almost random understandings of the bits and pieces I’ve been writing about over time, a sort of glittering crow collection of shiny objects that have caught my fancy. The point is that right now Evolution is the theory that is generally accepted. There are apparently various versions of the theory, but Evolution is the theory. There isn’t any question in the mainstream scientific community that there is a viable theory in competition. A lot of great careers could be made on a swell new theory, just as they have been on string theory in Physics, and on Deconstructionism in English Literature. Folks are always looking for something new and fascinating to hitch their wagons to. It’s a great way to get promotions and to make money and to play politics in academic and scientific circles. There are always allies available for that sort of thing, even, if the bible is a guide, in heaven. “The powers that be are preventing the truth from getting out” is a pretty nonsensical excuse in scientific terms, when you think about it. “They’re preventing our point of view from being known” is pretty feeble as well, and for the same reason. If the new stuff is scientifically compelling and there are careers to be made from it, new peer-reviewed journals with expanding audiences will spring up like weeds. Loyalty will transfer very quickly, sometimes within a matter of months or a few years. The old stuff becomes “the old stuff” and people talk about it as an antiquity. Yet Evolution remains the theory of choice, firmly seated, and “Creation Science” in mainstream circles is given no credence, except as an oxymoron. Evolution reaches out to other scientific studies, chemistry and genetics and geology and each of them seems to contribute to the others in a fairly interesting way. The cross-pollination seems to be interesting for those involved. Perhaps “Creation Science” can point to an explosion of scientific data coming out of diverse fields linked with a single theory or with results flowing from a single theory. What do ice cores tell us about the levels of Carbon Dioxide in the atmosphere at x period in global history? What would we predict the effect of that would be on the evolution of flora and fauna? Does the fossil record bear that out? And so on. . . Enough for now, I think. Sincerely, Bob Kaven |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote: LOL. "Because I said so" is a crummy answer to pawn off on kids, Bob; I certainly would never try to give it to you. And I think you would be hard pressed to find anywhere in this thread (or this forum) where I've argued you or anyone should accept something because either I or "people who are specialists in the field" said so. I'm clearly not communicating very well. If I was, you wouldn't have to spend so much time writing about Disneyologists, alternative theories, competing theories , the Bible as a guide, conspiracy theories, or Creation Science, all of which is certainly fodder for great conversation but NONE which address the clear lack of scientific rigor inherent in evolution. Brad, I'm not purposely ignoring your questions. Being good questions, they just require more time than I have at hand. I think your specific examples, such as cladistics and retroviral DNA, are (as you guessed and already noted) examples of micro-evolution, but I also believe the greater issue you raise is worth discussing. Does micro-evolution and related policies depend on the credibility of macro-evolution? I hope I can find some time to talk about your questions this weekend. |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Brad: quote: In what significant ways are real Evolutionary theory different from what Berlisnki describes? I don't see much of a difference, but I would be willing to listen to what you have to say. Personally I find attributing large morphological changes among biological life forms to the darwinian mechanism quite incredible and beyond the pale of science, no matter what amount of time is appended. quote: And as far as speculation goes that's fine. Berlinski's point is not so much about the prediction, but the weakness of what evidence supports what is said to have happened in the past. Things are connected which ought to have much more conclusive pointers to that connection (scientifically speaking). If there are so many changes involved in getting a mammal in the water, we ought to be able to explain some of it at least ... or else admit its an as-good-as-any speculation on the "how" of biological life through time. There is a complaint that intelligent design (as science) has nothing in the scientific journals. I'm not sure that ID will pass as science either (though I think it makes more sense than random emergence), but that's exactly the charge that Berlinski and others have for Darwinian Evolution. Yes finches change, and bacteria become resistant to antibiotics. But surely Darwinian Evolution has been much more ambitious than that which no one disputes. quote: Yes, I agree. That was great. Berlinski seems to romanticize invective quite a bit. Maybe we should indulge in that a bit more 'round here? Oh yeah, I forgot it would ruffle Ron's feathers (no evolutionary pun intented). quote: Bob, there are no such journals that pertain to anything like the theory of common descent (other than more examples of small-scale change). That's the whole contention. Stephen |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Bob, I've already mentioned that creationism as a religious view is more tenable than its philosophical alternatives, and that the question of evolution, therefore, would be a mere technical question secondary to one's metaphysical/spiritual beliefs. Therefore "creation science" may fail on purely scientific grounds; But "Creation Science" is an attempt to demonstrate scientifically not so much that the Bible is true, but that a very specific interpretation of the first couple of chapters of Genesis is true. I'm not sure there's anyone here who believes that Young Earth Creationism is bonafide science. So I'm curious, with Ron, as to why you keep bringing it up? If we, along with you, reject YEC as science, why keep dragging it back to the bar? Isn't this discussion about Evolution as science? Isn't Darwin at the bar, at least in this thread? Stephen |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Dear Stephen, That's the point. For the mainstream scientific community, it simply isn't an issue; it's a given. It's only a point of contention for those who have, for reasons that seem to have only tangentially to do with science, continue to expect non-scientific work to shake the foundations of evolutionary theory. I have interest in philosophy, but that's part of a discussion on Philosophy of Science. If you wish to disprove the Science of Evolution, then it's going to have to be through the scientific method. No other method is going to convince the scientists who made their decision about the usefulness of that theory based on their scientific education. Unless we wish to go back to the prior discussion on forced conversion. That was a joke. I don't even know any people who know much about "Creation Science" if they haven't been exposed to fundamentalist religious thought. I don't know that people actually see the need for it very much, outside those circles. Inside those circles, it seems to be a necessary thing. It offers an explanation for the universe that puts God firmly back at the center. For most Christians, this is crucial. The point is purely rhetorical: I know and respect your commitment to God and to Christianity, and I understand you feel that science should probably subordinate itself to this project. I simply don't agree with you here, if that is indeed what you think. Perhaps I've misread you, as I do from time to time. I see now your next posting. If Darwin is at the bar, then why distinguish between Micro and Macro evolution, two terms that Darwin never heard of in his life. Then, distinguishing between them, act as though that's Darwin's problem. My understanding, by the way, is that macro-evolution has to do with speciation and distinctions that develop from the species level on up, and that micro-evolution has to do with the distribution of alleles within a given population. By that definition, the example of the mosquito population I gave a few postings back, which Ron pretty much ignored with a comment about his having had a run in with a few hungry mosquitoes himself a few years back, is an example of speciation. The same mosquito population splitting into two populations with enough genetic differences to qualify as distinct species. Macro-evolution. The development of one species from the population of another with the shift of environment and food supply. The two species were even given different names. I think that what Ron had in mind was a firefly turning into a gorilla. These are in fact two different species, but that transition would not necessarily be possible, depending on which lines of development each one followed, would it? Each species does not lead to every other species. I would suspect, for example, that roaches would develop into corporate lawyers. That too was a joke. Respectfully, Bob Kaven [This message has been edited by Bob K (11-07-2009 12:09 AM).] |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Bob: quote: Is this a trick? You can't simply point out that a claimed theory isn't itself scientific, unless you use the scientific method to do so? No one denies "evolution" in the sense of small scale change, but many deny evolution as the source and mechanism that explains all biological diversity. As to the latter, could you explain the usefulness you are referring to? quote: While many, such as Dawkins, felt that Darwin could justify or ratify atheism ... many thoroughly Christian evolutionists have not and do not, (all the way from C.S. Lewis to John Polkinghorne). Though I am not an evolutionist, I still agree that there is no need for a particular scientific theory to "put God firmly back" where he has never left, regardless of his methods whether gradualistic or cataclysmic. quote: I only feel that Science should not assume that it somehow undergirds an atheistic view of the world, seeing that the pedigree of science itself grew within the Theistic framework. But that is quite a separate discussion, than the question of whether Evolution is scientifically tenable. I think God has given science to be a somewhat free area of inquiry. Or, in other words, much more scientific particularism is imposed by religionists than by the Bible itself. So, I'm not sure what you mean when you say that I probably feel that science should subordinate. I think by its very nature, science is subordinate to religious answers, in that it doesn't claim to be authoritative except in what nature itself seems to impose. Religion says otherwise, claiming an authority that transcends nature. I certainly think science has been the richer for (and owes its initial explosion to) the acceptance of a God who made an intelligible (making science possible) and wondrous (making science desirable) universe. Otherwise, I see no need for science to subordinate itself to any particular religious interpretations of the "how" of creation ... especially those which turn out to be mistaken. The Biblical text itself, on the science, seems ambiguous enough (intentionally perhaps?) to make scientific free-inquiry a valid, and Theologically suggestive, endeavor. quote: Because Darwin himself mentions the problem, more than once. Whether he used the exact terms or not is of no consequence ... just as a radical Theologian can't seriously cast doubt on Trinitarian doctrine, by saying "It doesn't say the word 'Trinity' in the Bible". quote: Regardless of whether you call the advantaged mosquito another species, or define macroevolution within this category which itself has hardly been defined and agreed upon by scientists, to my mind, and many others, the modest change in blood-feasting (as cool as that may be) hardly seems like a compelling innovation that would suggest the Theory as the explanation for all biodiversity .. the form in which it is primarily taught. Now talk about the mechanism itself for ingesting blood changing into something else entirely, like a vision apparatus, a new wing or appendage, and I'm listening. quote: You're right, but take his point in context. The "fact" of Common Ancestry certainly requires that every lifeform we know had to evolve from unicellular life, right? So even if linking two particular lifeforms would be wrong according to the Theory, there's bound to be others that are comparable in morphological differences. Stephen |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Dear Stephen, quote: But to prove speciation, you do not need to grow an eye. That is not macro-evolution, which is defined as changes at the level of speciation or larger. That is only the development of some of the larger characteristics. Speciation is much narrower. The difference between one species and its neighbor has to do with two previously identical populations developing both different markers of some sort, and losing the ability to generate fertile offspring. Donkeys and horses can breed, but their offspring are sterile — mules. Whether on not you are interested is secondary. You quote:you are interested in macroevolution, but in reality you seem to be interested in it when you are the one who has control of what macroevolution actually is. To prove macroevolution, speciation is all that's needed, the separation of two previously identical populations and their inability to produce offspring capable of reproducing together. Previously yes; afterwards, no. All I am laying claim to is speciation, which by the definitions I've seen, seems to include macroevolution. I happen to think that evolution can and does explain eyeballs and brains and all sorts of other things as well, but all I'm asserting here is that there is evidence for this one case of macroevolution, speciation, and that it's right there. There used to be one species a little over a hundred years ago, and now there are two today. The surface mosquitos who have to walk to work or hitch a ride on birds, and the tube mosquitos, who lunch with people and take the train to work may speak to each other when they get together, but that's about it. Used to be one, now there are two. Your fascination with eyes is wonderful. I wish my own were better, but you don't have to go that far — not so far as one species having a no eyes and the new species afterwards or laterally does. The jump doesn't have to be that great to display speciation. Your attention may be jaded enough so that you require a leap of that sort to have things make you sit up and pay attention, but that's overkill when it comes to speciation. The structures should be different, and the two formerly identical species should not be able to produce fertile offspring together now. If eyes seem to be a useful and workable adaptation, they may well appear over time in a stepwise fashion. Not all adaptations that we think of as useful may actually prove useful. I had a friend who used to claim that intelligence was a highly dubious trait in survival terms, and that we were still very much in a trial period to see if it was worthwhile. I think he has a point. Being toothy, sinewy and mean may be much better in the long run. Nor is it particularly clear that over the long term we'll do better by being as out of control as a species as we are right now. Dumber might work better, as it has for many of our reptile friends. Or if the intellect was divided among the whole group of us, as it is in some fashion among ants. Vision may be a similar trait, where all the votes haven't been counted as yet. One doesn't need drama , is my point here, in order for evolution to be useful as a theory. And those who disagree with the theory haven't offered anything that seems particularly telling scientifically to bring the theory down. There are loads of Instructors and junior professors who would love the chance to get in on the ground floor of some fascinating and lively groundbreaking piece of theory that will help them not only thumb their noses at their forebears, but also get ahead professionally and make some fame and money for themselves in the process. There are loads of potential recruits if there is a theory that is as convincing as Feminist Criticism or any one of several different brands of string theory or even some of the more interesting kind of alternative physical therapies, such as homeopathy. They will crown their way into The Lancet or other peer reviewed journals with exciting new reappraisals of theory that Oliver Wendell Holmes dismissed as Humbug a hundred and fifty years ago. The reason there is no such upsurge is that there is no such actual believe that there is an actual case to be made for anything but Evolution and its variations. And for such a surge of support to happen, there would have to be that basic sense of scientific rightness on the matter among a significant number of excited researchers and innovators in the field. Excited researchers and innovators do not seem to be the people who are drawn to the anti-evolution banner. There is no visible thrill in the excitement of breaking research and discovery that tends to drawn these folks; and, although there are folks who would love for some sort of excitement in science to come along, they haven't seemed to find it here. If it really is a scientific discussion, where is the scientific excitement in the discovery of new stuff on the part of the anti-evolution folks? The sort that draws fervor and thrill and excitement and above all, active scientific research. Where is the rapid expansion of new theory? Not here; not that I've seen. Yes there is, on the side of evolution. Where do these bones belong in the fossil record? How does the ice pack inform us about the climate on the earth over the last several Billion years. How does this effect the emergence of life from the oceans? What effect does the discovery of the life around the volcanic vents on the ocean floor have on our notion of how and where evolution may have started, and what tracks it may have followed? The list goes on. It's an exciting list. There's an emerging sense of patterning that people are busy trying to fill in from many different directions. It's lively, it's alive. There's a thrill to seeing it unfold. All of it seems to re-enforce the sense of patterning provided by the basic sense of the theory of evolution. Stephen, I'd actually need to see some theory that works better to organize this data, and I simply don't. Nor do I find the critiques convincing in themselves, though I like and respect you and what you've done with your life, and the way you've made faith and your religion such a central part of it. But about evolution, I don't see there's a good scientific alternative, nor do I believe that there's a good scientific argument against evolution, for the most part. I simply don't see that. Sincerely, Bob Kaven |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
quote: I do too. I don't know anybody who does that. Whale evolution Next, this is a game but the most interesting thing about it for me is that it unites two different ways of seeing the same thing (the rules of the game, what you see on the screen). Conway's game of Life Nor is this scientific evidence but I think it shows, conceptually, how evolution works: Walking with Monsters |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
I don't think Ron and Stephanos will have an easy time arguing with those last two comments. |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Bob: quote: If your example is a donkey and a horse, and the criteria for speciation the inability to interbreed, then I'm not sure that the darwinian mechanism has been conclusively shown to cause speciation. Do you have researched examples where genetic mutation has demonstrably lead to different species that can't interbreed? If so, that still leaves six other taxonomic categories to explain. Given that speciation via the darwinian mechanism were proven, should the same mechanism be assumed to have caused the differences at the levels of kingdom, phylum, class, order, etc ...? For many the extrapolation is too far to be called science. It is, I'll grant, a bonafide theory. But still far short of conclusivity with which it is presented. quote: For one, there is still a lack of consensus about your definition of species. And secondly, species is the lowest of the seven taxonomic categories. Why in the world would "macroevolution" be defined by the smallest kinds of biological change? Tell me what "macro" means in your neck of the woods. quote: And I happen to think what you describe as "speciation" is microevolution ... and cannot in any convincing way be extrapolated to explain the origins of eyeballs and brains. quote: This definitely takes us more into the philosophical ... But the idea that "intellect" or, by extension, logic reason and knowledge, are merely mutative innovations whose value lie in survival, definitely brings even the theory of evolution itself (or any other kind of human knowledge) into question. Is it true because it is true, or is the ability to gain what we call knowledge just another sheer biological trait on trial? In other words, if the brain is about survival, there's no guarantee it is telling us the truth. You should at least admit that survival value being affirmed by existence, and existence being attributed to survival value, amounts to a circular truism, not science. quote: To be utterly clear on this ... I don't disbelieve in evolution per se. I disbelieve rather in what is commonly and popularly attributed to it, both in the scientific and layman's world. quote: You keep saying this, Bob. But really its the old battle about the burden of proof. Should the burden of proof about a theory be on the theory itself or not? An aternate scienfic theory of biological origins is not needed in order to say that evolution (as a theory of biological origins) is not proven or even likely. quote: You're making an appeal to popularity again (Ron already mentioned the problem with this). Though I think your view that "dissent from Darwin" is limited to non-scientist fundamentalists is far overstated and askew. The following website provides a substantial if minority list of scientists who are scientifically skeptical of darwinism as the overarching theory of biological diversity. While this proves nothing (I already mentioned that popularity in itself is a poor argument), it does show that the scientifically minded, including those who value research, are not limited to the belief in Macroevolution. This would make sense, if as Berlinski and others have stated, there is little-to-nothing by way of research that supports the theory beyond small scale changes among life forms. http://www.dissentfromdarwin.org/ quote: Do you really think that similar conditions were met in the widespread acceptance of evolution as the origin of biological forms? If you study the history, it is much more about the rhetorician than the lab technician. You are demanding something of other theories which has not been provided by the one currently in question. Popularity, as you well know, can be explained by many phenomenon. And excitability need not be related to research results. The beginnings of Darwinism is surrounded by, more than anything else, a large polemical outpour. quote: Paleontology is more a liability to darwinian theory than anything, seeing that it is so sparse. The Cambrian Explosion, as I mentioned before, is one example that required contemporary evolutionists (such as Stephen Gould) to present a theory completely antithetical with what Darwin himself wrote ... punctuated equillibrium. quote: Bob, I have no problem with questions. But that's exactly what these are. I would like to leave you with a question. It seems that many feel the mark of a non-scientific belief, is that it is unfalsifiable. Is evolution falsifiable? And if so how? Give me a specific scenario. Judging from past examples of scrambling innovation at difficulties, it seems to be a kind of accepted framework of plasticity which is able to adapt to most anything, and still survive. quote: Um Darwin did ... as do most of the contemporary priests of Darwinian thought. Are you saying that you accept a form of evolution which does not affirm common ancestry as fairly incontrovertible? quote: Ess, delay and difficulty aren't always correlates. Seriously though, it seems that Brad is saying little more than "But its so fun and exciting, there has to be something to it", as well as Bob as far as I can tell. Something I can concede, surely. But the question of truth and veracity still remains far more uncertain than its entertainment value. As always, I appreciate all the lively input for this thread from everyone. Stephen |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Brad, also, not proof, but at least as suggestive I think as the discovery channel clip you provided. Unlocking the Mystery of life Stephen |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
quote: Punctuated equilibrium is antithetical with Darwin's idea of natural selection? I'm not sure whether it's both theories or one of them that you don't understand - either way the above statement is nonsense. Bob, If you really want to understand Evolution the first thing you need to do is to throw Cladistics and Taxonomy out of the window, along with that inane twaddle about infertile hybrids. All that bunkum doesn't help to understand the evolution of animal diversity - it simply muddies the water. Next you need to forget the often used and completely inaccurate tree of life image evolutionary supporters are so fond of referencing. The genealogical record of life on earth doesn't look anything like any tree you're likely to see and getting that image stuck in your noodle is a definite hurdle you'll need to overcome. Last, but not least, you'll need to be willing to loosen your grip on natural selection as the major mechanism of change - it isn't anything of the sort. Natural selection is simply the sieve that separates the organisms that are fit for service from the not so fit. . |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Grinch: quote: I guess I just need to accept that all the major phyla just sprang up in a relatively short amount of time with no evidence of fossil antecedents. Darwin presented a mechanisim in which "slow though steps" were necessary, not "sudden leaps". The very fact that Gould's forced theory is called punctuated equilibrium, illustrates my point. Grinch, I understand that the Cambrian period is no barrier to believing in Evolution, since so many believe in it notwithstanding (I've already explained my view that Evolution is best viewed as an accepted philosophical framework which places the evidence too far, and therefore cannot be falsified by evidence). However even those who hold to the theory, have admitted that the Cambrian record has posed quite a difficulty and puzzlement. You, on the other hand, seem to gloss over it with utter ease and brevity. I just happen to be one who thinks the difficulty has never been sufficiently answered. quote: Are you referring to "natural selection" alone, or to "random mutation/natural selection", which is what Bob has plainly been referring to? If the latter, are you asking him to loosen his grip on what is the only scientific mechanism that has been demonstrated at all? What other mechanism for change (scientifically speaking) has any credence whatsoever for the theory of evolution? Without the Darwinian mechanism Evolution remains a broad theory of gradualism more based in Greek Philosophy than anything else. I stand correctable here ... if something new has been offered, please inform me. If you are referring to natural selection alone, I don't think that's what Bob was saying at all. In fact I've never heard anyone say that, though they may use the term "natural selection" as a summative word that includes the genetic change that occurs as well. Stephen |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
quote: So it's punctuated equilibrium that you don't understand. For the record it too uses small step changes not sudden leaps. The only difference between Darwin and Gould's theories is that Gould suggested that there were periods of stasis interspaced with periods of gradualism whereas Darwin (and Dawkins) insist that the gradual changes are continuous. quote: I hold to the theory and yet the Cambrian doen't seem all that difficult a puzzle. quote: Maybe you've been looking for the answer in the wrong places. The Cambrian isn't that big of a puzzle, as I said earlier it was almost inevitable. quote: I was referring to natural selection alone as a mechanism for change; my three steps were not related so much to what Bob had said but more to what I think Bob needs to do to understand evolution a little better. If you notice I also mentioned the tree of life, which he also hasn't mentioned but I'm fairly sure he's aware of. If you like though I'll extend my advice to include not relying solely on "random mutation/natural selection". Although it undoubtedly plays an important part in evolution I don't believe that it's the main engine. . |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Grinch: quote: How does the appearance of many phyla without antecedents suggest stasis beforehand? Stasis should present a stable period for the demonstration of fossils. What we have in the fossil record is something altogether different. And what in the fossil record (of the Cambrian) demonstrates the renewed periods of gradual change you mention? Does the introduction of periods of "stasis" create a crisis of time for the emergence of the kinds of biological diversity we see in the natural world? Or is their sheer existence in the present enough to warrant this belief ... kind of like when the belief in improbably naturalistic cosmology is defended by saying "well we're here aren't we"? quote: I already knew that. That's why I contrasted you with many of those in the Scientific community who have undertaken to explain it in more detail. quote: Why almost inevitable? That's the part I don't think you've explained. quote: Okay then. I'm not aware that anything else even close to scientific has been offered, as a mechanism ... so scientifically speaking, what is the main engine? Stephen |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Bob, not trying to give you too much at one time. But one way of looking at macro-evolution is to consider the emergence of a new function versus the slight alteration of one that already exists. The mosquito example you gave may give us demonstrated change in a pre-existing function. But is there anything in the peer-reviewed-journals that demonstrates an actual change of function in biology? I would dare say you're going to respond by pointing out that the gradualism of evolution ensures that we are limited to proving only slight alteration in function ... and that the emergence of new function is unobservable. But that's the very point I'm trying to make. By nature, such a claim is beyond the pale of science right? There is doubtless an intuitiveness about believing this. But science often renders the intuitive as wrong. Stephen |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
quote: It doesn't. Gould looked at the fossil record and believed it reflected long periods of equilibrium punctuated by long periods of gradualistic evolution. Darwin believed the gradual change is, and was, continuous. quote: The fossil record before the Cambrian period suggests soft bodied antecedents, the period after shows a continuation of phyla that arose during the Cambrian but with a reduction of the incidence of new body types. Gould believed that the Cambrian was an example of a period of gradualistic change which was preceded and followed by periods of relative stasis - hence the term Cambrian explosion. The mechanism he suggests drove the explosion of body types however is exactly the same as Darwin's - small step gradual change sieved by natural selection. quote: No, the idea of stasis before the Cambrian is flawed in any case, but even if it were true the Cambrian period is still measured in a geological timeframe sufficient to support a theory of gradualism. quote: I explained it earlier, you must have missed it. quote: Didn't I? quote: The Cambrian explosion and the inherent and inevitable extinctions driven by natural selection created the separation into distinct species. That's one of the reasons I suggested that Bob threw the notion of species as a barrier to evolutionary change out of the window, the chances are it didn't exist in the Cambrian period. The other reason is that evidence later in the history of evolutionary life, including the present period, clearly shows that the barrier between species isn't as complete as the above definition suggests. . |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
quote: I misread this. Nobody attributes large morphological changes to anything (as far as I know, though theoretically possible, extremely unlikely). They attribute large numbers of small morphological changes in a cumulative matrix to the kind of change you are talking about. I'm not sure what Grinch has against present day cladistics but perhaps he wants to get down to the nitty-gritty-nuts-and-bolts-brass-tacks point: Follow the genes. With that, the distinction between all that is micro and all that is macro melts into thin air. |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Must visit the mountains of NC for a few days, after that I'll love to try and respond to Brad and Grinch. Ron, did you drop out of this one for good, or will you adapt and resurface somewhere in the biosphere with some new appendages? Stephen |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
quote: I have a sudden picture of Ron as that four-armed guy in "Mortal Kombat". |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
Maybe a miracle took place and he changed his mind? |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Brad, my mental image of the new Ron was not so becoming as that. lol. Ess, silence is much more likely reloading time. Stephen |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
I'm still reading, guys, but anything worth saying requires more time than I have right now. I've actually started to write a response twice, but stopped after a couple of paragraphs . . . 'cause I was just saying the same things in different ways. Holidays and family are more demanding than usual this year, cutting into my free time badly. I'm still here, though. Like Stephen said, "Reloading." |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Not a bad sort of crowding problem to have, when you think about it. |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
"There are nevertheless all sorts of transitional forms in the fossil record to belie the creationist argument that they do not exist. They exist not only at the species level (creationists consider these only "variant forms of the same basic kind") but between major groups: there are intermediates between FISH and AMPHIBIAN (Ichthyostega), amphibian and REPTILE (Seymouria), reptile and MAMMAL (the mammal-like reptiles), reptile and BIRD (see ARCHAEOPTERYX), extinct ape forms and MAN (see AUSTRALOPITHECINES). But creationists quibble to no end, their basic argument, as paraphrased by biologist Kenneth Miller, being that "the intermediates are not intermediate enough." The creationists consider the reptile-bird intermediate Archaeopteryx, for example, to be "100 percent bird" because it had wings and feathers and flew, when in fact Archaeopteryx was basically a flying, feathered reptile. What creationists, challenge evolutionists to show them, it seems, is a "perfect 10" transitional form, exactly halfway between, say, fish and amphibian. But no such "fishibian" says INSTITUTE FOR CREATION RESEARCH (ICR), has ever been found in the fossils ... There is no general conversion of all parts of a transitional form at the same time, GENETICS would not produce a smooth gradation of all features of an intermediate such as the creationists with their fishibian require, rather it is to be expected that the characteristics of an intermediate will be mixed, a pattern called mosaic evolution. Nor does a fossil form need to be in the direct line of descent between two groups to be considered transitional. Archaeopteryx, for example, was doubtless not the direct ancestor of birds but rather one of that ancestor's cousins. Similarly the fishlike amphibian Ichthyostega was probably a dead end collateral branch of the fish-to-amphibian transition. The point is that a cousin of an ancestor is the more likely paleontological find, given the multiple splitting off of species and the general spottiness of the fossil record, and is evidence enough that a transition occured. The fact is, however, that not even a direct ancesteral "10" would make any difference to creationists. No such form could be accomodated to their preconceived belief system. Thus creationist leader Henry Morris states that even the discovery of a fossil intermediate between men and apes --Morris believes that no such intermediate has been found, the australopithecines being "merely extinct species of apes"--would not be proof of human EVOLUTION. "An extinct ape" says Morris, "could have certain man-like features and still be an ape" and a man could have some ape-like features and "still be a man". In other words, no conceiveable ape-man transitional form could be other than either true ape or true man. Creationists simply cannot alllow transitional forms to exist, for to do so would be to admit that evolution has occurred." (From Ronald L. Ecker's Dictionary of Science and Creationism) Maybe not on behalf of creationism, but I think the same kind of denial of transitional evidence and demand always for "something more" is going on in this thread. That might explain why the fossils themselves have gotten the least attention. |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
quote: I don’t have anything against present day cladistics Brad, I just think that trying to apply a system that relies on specific differences between, and within, species doesn’t make any sense when looking at the Cambrian explosion – a point in time where the definition of species wasn’t yet fixed. You wouldn’t, after all, apply the Dewey Decimal System if the only book you owned was a Gutenberg Bible, would you? . |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
quote: Robber to Jack Benny: "Your money or your life!" Long pause. . . . Jack Benny to Robber: "I'm thinking. . . , I'm thinking. . . ." |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Ess: quote: A bone to pick, though I wouldn't want to split hairs (This whole thing is rich in puns) ... The fossil record is perhaps one of the most inconclusive of all, when it comes to being evidential for common descent. That's not to say there aren't some suggestive things therein (as Berlinski conceded), but a conclusive "heads or tails" cannot be made of something so sparse. That's why in the face of the very large difficulty that macro-evolution poses to the theory, genetic homology is being now presented as reasonable evidence ... not the fossil record. Stephen |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
Stephanos, If there were no fossil proof for the transition of birds from dinosaurs I don't see how genes could show it to us. But the fossil evidence such as Archaeopteryx and Oviraptor and others are not only a physical fact but include that visual ("see it to believe it") experience that makes the fact even that more obvious. This one is perhaps the most "visual" you can get of a little bird-like dinosaur sleeping just as a bird does. If that is not obvious enough, the genetic evidence then makes it even more obvious in conjunction with the fossils. And that is just one example of many great evolutionary transitions that are well documented in the fossils. I don't see how or why you would deny such evolution, unless in desperate attempt to dispute something that contradicts your religion. [This message has been edited by Essorant (12-07-2009 12:46 PM).] |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Essorant, I already said that it doesn't contradict my religion. There are many Christian Evolutionists. I simply don't believe evolution is true; conversly, I see no reason why I should be compelled to abandon Christianity if I found out that it were true. Christianity has a strong case to be made, even within an evolutionary framework, since the long history of biological evolution does not effect the history of God in Christ, nor the complexity and wonder of creation however long it actually took. And as to "seeing no reason" why anyone would deny evolution, barring religious reasons, why not ask yourself why others, like Berlinski, might deny evolution. He's certainly not religious, in any sense of the term. And while you might not agree with him, you shouldn't keep repeating the allegedly invalidating "religiously motivated" charge. It simply isn't true in all cases, and I've already made it clear that it is a non-sequitur regarding this thread, of which Berlinski's critiques are central. As to your statements about fossils, I will answer soon. There are some interesting quotes (by both religious and non-religious) that speak of just how much evidence might be expected from the fossil record if evolution were true, by various scientists/thinkers. I'll gladly begin with Darwin himself. Stay tuned. cordially, Stephen |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
I find it difficult to believe evolution is in conflict with religion. I find it more likely that people are have created conflict by trying to make incomplete explanations serve the place of complete ones. I think its a mistake to blame the systems of thought, which are either incomplete or imperfectly understood. It is too early to establish if one or the other or both or right or wrong. Being people, however, it is never to early to establish that we are right and never to late to establish somebody else is wrong. Whatever you happen to think of psychoanalysis as a theory, Freud had some occasionally brilliant things to say. Here's an incomplete approximation of one of them: "Mental health is the ability to tolerate ambiguity." Just hoping to add some helpful confusion to the mix. |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
Stephanos quote: But the truth is we know better than man being made from dust, woman from a rib, all animals being stuffed into an ark, etc. Those are some unique and admirable stories. But if you believe those things are better explanations of life, Stephanos, then I do judge it as preferring myths instead of facts, that those myths are contradicted by the facts, and that the preference of them is standing in the way of you accepting the facts of evolution. How or why do you accept those as true on behalf of simply being stated in the bible, but then turn around and treat evolution as if it isn't and can't be true on behalf of so much evidence of fossils, genes, comparative anatomy, and other things that thoroughly support evolution? There is plenty of chance for fossils, genes, anatomy and other things to contradict evolution, instead of support and prove it, but they never do. They support and prove it over and over again. There may be some things that have yet to be established about little details within evolution, but evolution in general is well established and factually proved to be true. Things such as man being made from dust, woman from man's rib, and animals being stuffed into an ark, though, are contradicted and proved to be mythical stories. It doesn't make sense to bow down to some kind of political correctness and pretend the two are equals and likenesses. They do contradict each other, and they are not equal because one is factually based on evidence and the other is a mythical story. There is nothing wrong with preferring the mythical story, but I do think there is something wrong with treating it as if is true and based on evidence, when it is not, and then turning around and saying that evolution is not based on true evidence, when it is based on ever increasing evidence from the kind of things mentioned above. quote: I agree that there are some scientists that disagree, but usually those are scientists that aren't specialized in dealing with the areas most important to evolution. It looks like Berlinski's fields are philosophy and mathematics. He is not specialized in the fossils as paleontologists are. It is easy for philosophers and mathematicians to be detached and abstract and generalize from a distance about something. You know how much we do it in this forum. But those that actually specialize and deal directly with the evidence (especially the fossils) have little or no room to avoid the truth of evolution because the evidence proves and supports it over and over again. [This message has been edited by Essorant (12-09-2009 12:37 AM).] |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
quote: Essorant, how can you in the same breath call them myths, and then charge them with not being pedantically factual? Those much more familiar with Ancient Near East literature than either you or I, have recognized that such metaphor-laden storytelling was used to communicate things (in the case of Genesis, the Theology of the Cosmos). That doesn't make the Theology untrue. And it certainly doesn't make it necessary to try and thrust the story on the procrustean bed of Western post-scientific cultural expectations. And for that very same reason, it can't be made intrinsically incompatible with scientific descriptions ... simply because it isn't that kind of description. Nor, thankfully, should we have expected it to be. In Theology there is such a thing as "accomodating language". Augustine was one of the first to mention it. You should understand this, we use it still today. We'll tell a child that "The sun is rising", which in scientific terms (which comes with greater awareness) is absolutely meaningless. But it gets the job done. To me anyone can see that its not unreasonable to think that what we have going on in Genesis (at least from the Divine perspective) might be the same kind of thing. There's good reason to think a story about God making everything in six days, where light is created on one day and the stars on another, might be parabolic ... a fairy-tale-like attempt to describe the indescribable, with delight, wonder, and simplicity. You continue to bring up issues of interpretation of an eclectic text (the Bible having many types of writing within it- from parable to historical narrative to love poetry to official record-keeping). But the fact remains that many intelligent people have seen reasonable room within the first Chapters of Genesis to accommodate scientific realities or theories. In other words, it is another debate for another thread (which I would gladly participate in should you start one). But for the purposes of this thread, isn't it enough for me to say that I personally am okay with Genesis only describing in unique ways the sheer fact of creation (both the agent and the wonder), not the analytical how of creation? And Berlinski, whose ideas are central to this thread, isn't religious at all. So what gives? Why not take my word for it, and discuss the topic? If I was religiously-motivated here, I might say that the reason you adhere to Evolution is because you are religiously motivated to deny God's creation. But I refrain from saying so, since I think Evolution to be a separate question altogether .. and don't think it, if sincerely believed, should come between a person and Christ. Now the parasitic atheism/ naturalism that is often associated with it, I will heartily refute. Evolution I too will refute, but for totally different reasons. Can we continue to discuss the strengths and weakness of evolution ... without attributing motives (religious or otherwise) to my critique? Your interpretation of what Genesis may exegetically allow, allow for another day and another thread. quote: This is not altogether true, since the greatest critiques of Evolution have come from micro-biology and paleontology. Are you just assuming that there is only critique coming from philosophers and mathematicians? I mentioned Berlinski because this is a philosophy forum, and because he is most entertaining ... but his is not the only critique to be considered. I'll be back soon with those quotes I mentioned to try and convince you that Evolution isn't unassailable from it's own relevant disciplines. More than persuading someone to believe that Evolution isn't true, I would be just as happy to dislodge the sheer trust that it has to be, which often is more the result of an osmotic popular orthodoxy, than of any searching thought process. later, Stephen Bob, thanks for getting this much, even if we can yet agree on no more. [This message has been edited by Stephanos (12-09-2009 01:30 AM).] |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
concerning the fossil record: "The number of intermediate varieties, which have formerly existed on the earth [must] be truly enormous. Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps is the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory" (Darwin, The Origin of Species) "The fossil record of evolutionary change within single evolutionary lineages is very poor. If evolution is true, species originate through changes of ancestral species; one might expect to be able to see this in the fossil record. In fact it can rarely be seen. In 1859 Darwin could not cite a single example." (Zoologist Mark Ridley, The Problems of Evolution) "We are now about 120 years after Darwin and the knowledge of the fossil record has been greatly expanded. We now have a quarter of a million fossil species, but the situation hasn't changed much. The record of evolution is still surprisingly jerky and, ironically, we have even fewer examples of evolutionary transition than we had in Darwin's time." (Paleontologist David Raup, from Conflicts Between Darwin and Paleontology, Field Museum of Natural History Bulletin, January 1979). "The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of palaentology." (Paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould, Evolution's erratic pace, Natural History, 86, 1977) "When we do see the introduction of evolutionary novelty, it usually shows up with a bang, and often with no firm evidence that the fossil did not evolve elsewhere. Evolution cannot forever be going on somewhere else. Yet that's how the fossil record has struck many a forlorn palaeontologist looking to learn something about evolution. ... We palaeontologists have said that the history of life supports [gradual adaptive change] knowing all the while it does not." (Paleontologist Niles Eldredge, Time Frames: The Evolution of Punctuated Equilibria, 1985) "The history of most fossil species includes two features particularly inconsistent with the idea that they gradually evolved: 1. Stasis) Most species exhibit no directional change during their tenure on earth. They appear in the fossil record looking pretty much the same as when they disappear; morphological change is usually limted and directionless 2. Sudden appearance) In any local area a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and 'fully formed'." (Stephen Jay Gould, The Episodic Nature of Evolutionary Change, The Panda's Thumb, 1985) "Forms transitional between species can be observed today, and can be inferred to have existed in the past. Nevertheless, the net result is very far from a seamless tapestry of form that would allow an investigator to read the Tree of Life simply by finding the intermediates- living and extinct- that in principle connect all species. On the contrary, biologists are much more impressed by the discreteness of organic form, and the general absence of intermediates." (paleontologist Simon Conway Morris, The Crucible of Creation, 1998) "That (extrapolating small biological changes, back through geological time) to my paleontological eyes is just not good enough. Simple extrapolation does not work. I found that out back in the 60s as I tried in vain to document examples of the kind of slow directional change we all thought ought to be there ever since Darwin told us that natural selection should leave precisely such a tell-tale signal ... I found instead that once species appear in the fossil record, they tend not to change very much at all. Species remain imperturbably, implacably resistant to change as a matter of course- often for millions of years." (Niles Eldredge, Reinventing Darwin 1996) "...I fully agree with you comments on the lack of direct illustration of evolutionary transitions in my book. If I knew of any, fossil or living, I would certainly have included them. You suggest that an artist should be used to visualize such transitions, but where would he get the information from? I could not honestly provide it, and if I were to leave it to artistic license, would that not mislead the reader? ... I will lay it on the line- there is not one such fossil (a fossil ancestral or transitional) for which one could make a watertight argument." (paleontologist Colin Patterson, in a personal letter responding to comments made by Stephen Jay Gould) These are just a few of the quotes by scientists (paleontologists, zoologists, or biologists), many of whom nonetheless support the theory of Evolution, to demonstrate that the fossil record is pretty much vacuous as regards to providing evidence for the Theory of Common Descent. Stephen |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
Stephanos, quote: I don't think I will be able to do so without the religious side Stephanos, because I already see a great lopsidedness between your approaches to the bible and your approaches to evolution. You suggest that the bible "gets the job done" within theology (despite some disagreeing), but the same may surely be said for evolution. It "gets the job done" too within science (despite some disagreeing). If you go by that principle, then you ought to accept both as true. In other words, evolution, subjectively within its own "sphere" is true too for the same reason things such as man being created from dust and woman from man's rib in the bible may be. But I am also saying there are objective facts (such as the fossils, in this case) by which both may be judged and one may correspond more than the other in comparison relative to the facts. The fossils don't bear out man being created from dust, but they do bear out ape-like forms graduating to human-like forms in the sequences of fossils. Therefore, comparative judgement is important. Evolution is not just true because it works subjectively within its own sphere, but because it works objectively supported by facts and comparatively supported by facts more than other explanations (including religions). Therefore, no matter how subjectively the biblical descriptions may work, which one is more supported objectively by the facts: that man was created from dust or that he evolved from ape-like ancestors? If you persist with "dust" (because the bible does) how can I say that your answer is not religiously motivated? [This message has been edited by Essorant (12-09-2009 04:11 AM).] |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
Obviously people didn't find transitional fossils because they were easy to find or because they weren't rare, but they did find them, Stephanos and there are many examples in the fossil record, especially which were discovered within the past twenty years (Tiktaalik is one of the most important in the transition between fish and amphibian) There are not just a few examples, but series pf gradual devolopment through the ages bearing out the transitions between the major groups of animals. Which transition do you want to begin with? |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Ess: quote: Essorant, my whole point is that science (in the case of Evolution) is treated more like religion than science, all the while claiming the empirical objectivity of science. You're scolding me somewhat for treating them differenty, but by their own standards they are supposed to be different. In fact, no scientist who adheres to evolution, nor Theologian who adheres to Christianity would ever want your conflation of religion and science. That's not to say that there are not similarities. But an imbalance of your own exists in the fact that you never acknowledge the differences, unless, conveniently, you mean to discredit religion by admitting them. It is like someone trying to impose the rules of accounting onto love poetry ... then when someone points out that accounting is not love poetry, excoriating their love poetry for not being statistical enough ... or ridiculing them for having a poetry journal and at the same time an accounting ledger in which they wouldn't want any verse at all. Would that be a consistent approach? quote: I can think of no statement more consistent with biological evolution than to say that man came from the "dust" ... that is, the earth itself, which is exactly what evolution teaches in its own way, though you try in vain to pit a contemporary and prosaic scientific treatise with an ancient poetic description. So in any serious interpretive sense, Genesis is not incongruous with Evolution. A religious critique is not (has never been) my critique of Evolution. quote: I never said there weren't examples that are suggestive, and can be construed to be transitional forms (Berlinski concedes this too). What I'm saying (along with all the paleontologists I quoted above) is that such a smattering of not-unambigious examples does not meet with what should be expected if Darwin's Theory were indeed true. That bar was set by Darwin himself, much more agnostic about his own theory than many of his modern devotees. Stephen |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
quote: I am sorry for persisting with this, but I feel this is an important point. I am trying to point out what you pointed out about "the sun is rising" in respect to religion is not what you seem to be doing between the evolution of man coming from an animal and man coming from "dust". Regardless of whether it "gets the job done" so to speak, you recognize that the sun (itself) is not rising. It is an objective knowledge that the sun itself is not rising, regardless of the way we speak of it. But you aren't realizing there is much more obvious difference involved with the "dust" and "animals" in respect to human (and any other animal in fact). The "sun is rising" at least still includes a reference to the sun, but "dust" doesn't even refer to an animal, our animal ancestery is far from "dust". No sane science says that the human comes from dust/earth to human, without the evolutionary links in between (i.e life forms). The fossils and other evidences, no matter how much you want to make them appear cloudy. are not cloudy in that most important theme and major themes within it. Not only is there much between "dust" and "humans", but there is an order to the things that come in between. Humans don't appear before those primitive apes, but in a line of forms appearing from more ape-like to more human-like forms. There is no cloudiness about that general theme and there is no evidence that contradicts it. For example, the same happens no where else but beginng in Africa and beginning around seven million years ago (Sehelanthropus) and the evolution of apelike to human-like is spelt out clearly as you follow the fossils through the ages. We don't see that happening elsewhere or human or human-like fossils showing up in dinosaur times where a series of dinosaur fossils appear more and more human-like through the ages and eventually so human that you need to call them human, even though they are still dinosaur-like in some aspects. But if they did, we would say humans came from dinosaurs. The point is that I think you are clouding the obvious: the evidence says humans evolved from other animal ancestors (apes), not from "dust". The earliest life form may be similar to being from dust to life, but the human is far from the earliest life form. "Dust" was already life long before the human came along. And that is why there is a specific time and place of devolopment within that "life" that proves they evolved from it and didn't just come from the "scratch" of dust so to speak. The knowledge of animal-links in between the earliest "dust" and the present "human" is just as scientifically established as the fact that the earth revolvings around the sun and the sun isn't (literally) "rising" in the morning. |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Essorant, really, you're splitting hairs, and literally caviling dust. You should at least admit it's not too hard to think of "dust" in terms of the most basic constituents of the Earth. In that most basic sense, we are made of dust, whether it all happened via Evolution or no. And that "to dust we will return" is quite understandable in the same kind of way, though we don't exactly magically turn to dust when we die. So why insist on a stilted and wooden literalism when it comes to a very poetic and mystical text as Genesis chapter one? quote: Even if such were granted ... It would still be okay to say that man "came from dust", just as it would be okay to say that the "sun rises". That's what I meant by "accomodating language". I was merely veering from my main point in this thread, to grant that even if Evolution were true, the Genesis story stays pretty much what it is ... a non-specified, fantastical, mystical text written to communicate Theological and Cosmological truths. Stephen |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
quote: Because you seem to be denying the truth and knowledge of the evolutionary steps between dust/earth to human, Stephanos. It obviously much more than just dust/earth and human. We scientifically trace and know of it coming through animal ancestors. It is not an "if", anymore than the earth revolving around the sun is an "if". quote: Of course it is alright to say. But that doesn't make it objectively correct. Just as the sun doesn't literally rise, nor do humans literally come to the form of being "human" from dust. The earth revolves around the sun and humans evolve from earlier life forms. These are facts and contrast with those poetic conveniences. |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Ess: quote: No, for the sake of THIS point, I am granting that evolution may be true. Regardless of "evolutionary steps", man still comes from the basic elements. Regardless of how many steps are in my staircase, I still came from the ground floor. Stephen |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Essorant you seem to be mingling two different arguments at one time, which is very confusing. I have hypothetically assumed, to make my point about being motivated from something other than religion, that evolution is true. Yet in arguing me on this one point you keep telling me that evolution is as incontrovertible as the sun's relation to the earth. And no, it's not as incontrovertible and untouchable as that. But that has NOTHING TO DO with the question of whether Genesis may exegetically allow an evolutionary interpretation of the origins of life on earth. So, tell me, Which point are we currently arguing?? Stephen |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
quote: Well if you're ready to actually tell someone they are being non-sensical for saying that the sun "rises", then I have made my point in full. For your criticism of those who don't read Genesis as if it were written like a scientific treatise is comparatively droll. Stephen |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
I am not saying it is wrong or nonsensical, I am just pointing out that we know the objective truth contrasts with them. The main point is that we know that evolution is a reality and that is why saying human came from "dust" to being human is mythical and poetic instead of literally or scientifically true. |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Essorant, I have already explained that I am fine with the text of Genesis chapter one being "not literal" ... that, in fact, was my whole argument for not being religiously motivated to refute evolution. The accomodating and poetic language of the passage which states that man was made from the dust, though not exactly literal, may still contain much truth. Much in the same way that the statements "the sun rise was beautiful", and "she broke my heart" are far from being untrue, non-sensical, or being void of true knowledge regarding the realities they describe. Evolution may be allowed from the poetic text of Genesis One. I'm just not sure it should be reasonably allowed from the empirical texts of Science. Stephen |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
For sure, Stephanos. I agree that it has figurative truth. But it is because you know evolution is a literal truth that you also know man didn't literally come simply from dust to being man. In other words you know that evolution is literally true, but don't seem to be willing to say it is! |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Let me see if I understand this. I really may not, because folks are trying to make this more complicated than it needs to be, it appears to me. When we're talking about evolution, the discussion is about science, not religion, right? Everything that has to do with atheists and the bible probably belongs someplace else. That would be talking about the religion and religious preferences of those who do the science. It would seem to me that what would be relevant would be instead the science and the scientific preferences of everybody who's talking about the science. I don't care what your religious affiliation is, as long as your scientific affiliation is at least as well trained as the standard experts in the field and the field is something connected directly to evolution. If it's philosophy, I'd think that you're an educated person, but you might be short on an education in the field. If it's theology, I'd say the same thing. If it's engineering, I'd want the connection demonstrated in a clear fashion. Wouldn't you? About fossil records, I think if complete fossil records were available for everything, it would be very nice. There will never be complete fossil records available for everything, if we are to go on the basis of other sciences, where conclusions are reached not on the basis of complete examination of every example but on the basis of samples. We do not know that gravity accelerates at a constant rate of 16 point whatever feet per second per second everywhere on earth. No sir, we do not; because we have not measured that rate on every single spot on earth. We simply have a very good idea that this is so. Nor do we know that two hydrogen atoms and one oxygen atom will form water when heated in the proper conditions simply because that's how we have formed water in the past, and because we can separate hydrogen and oxygen gasses out in that ratio when we do the proper electrical process on water. We simply know that that's the way it's worked so far, and the next time it is certainly possible that a fuzzy blue ball of lint could emerge from one of those electrical connections instead of the predicted gas. It's not likely. It is possible. The reason that we are reasonably certain about these things is that we are able to generalize from sample data. Certainly the more complete the data may be, the better things are, but we still generalize from samples. Those who want more and more complete sample data for the fossil record are not wrong in wanting that data. More data is generally better data. And more analysis is generally more interesting than less, but the data we have is enough to convince the overwhelming majority of scientists in their field that evolution is the way to go. By all means continue to gather data and construct alternative theories. If any of these theories are persuasive, the shift to the new theory will be swift. Until then, none of the material that I've seen brought up appears to offer any threat to the theory of evolution itself. Nothing seems to have mainstream scientists scrabbling back to their drawing boards for a major redraft of the theory or for a new theory to replace it. Nothing seems to have even the critics thrilled and excited in such a way as to make them believe that they have this pesky theory of evolution on the run, and that everybody now knows what a sham and falsehood it is. I've looked around for such a thing, and haven't seen it in the journals or even here, where the discussion is stuck on the basic details of material that is so tiny that it makes the process of watchmaking look bold and sweeping as Napoleonic strategy. Nobody is discussing the new breakthrough science that makes evolution obsolete. And the incorrigible David Berlinski hasn't done much to budge our stalwart Essorant. Where is the breakthrough science that makes evolution obsolete? Where is the breakthrough science that convinces mainstream science that evolution isn't the language it needs to be speaking right now? Thrill me, Chill me, Convince me, because that's the task you've got before you with not only me, a regular guy with only a little scientific understanding, but most importantly, with the scientists themselves, who aren't about to be mislead by this stuff about incomplete fossil records. How about something that's scientifically convincing? |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
quote: Ess, If I knew it was true, why would I be unwilling to say so? That makes no sense. Care to explain? Stephen |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
Stephanos quote: Because you know that there must be an evolutionary transition between that "dust" (before) and the "human" (later) to get "dust" to "human", but then say that evolution is not true. I think you also know that it takes a lot more than just "dust" to get to human, but keep denying the most major part of the equation: the long evolution through the animal kingdom to get to the "human". You accept an original "dust" and the complex life form of "human", but are unwilling to accept the evolutionary steps through lifeforms that it took to get to the human, steps through bacteria, worms, fishes, amphibians, reptiles, and mammals and ape-like mammals to the human. Without any one of those "steps" that "dust" wouldn't have been able to make it to the "human" and if certain other major events hadn't happened, the evolution to human probably hadn't either. For example, If the catastrophe that doomed the dinosaurs didn't happen, mammals probably hadn't been able to gain enough ground to flourish as they did and eventually allow humans to come about. Even within mammals though, a little change could've easily prevented us from coming about or prevented us from being more intelligent than other animals. We are lucky that things happened the way they did. [This message has been edited by Essorant (12-28-2009 09:45 PM).] |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
Boy, you sure got a whole lot of steps under consideration there, Ess. How about just detailing the step between dust to single celled living creature? That would go a long way towards convincing me. |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
Ron, I was using "dust" loosely to be agreeable with the biblical sense of living things going back to an unliving thing. The more scientific word would be "molecules". As much as one might wish to know exactly "how" the earliest microbes evolved from molecules, there may never be be anyway to know the details for sure. Such an evolution needed conditions that would allow for it and the ability of the molecules to build up to it. But eventually microbes evolved, therefore, in one way or another whatever the "right" conditions and molecules were at the time, they certainly happened. |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote: So your contention is that evolution must be right because, what, there's no other explanation for the existence of microbes? That sounds an awful lot like religion to me, Ess. If your dead molecules turned into living microbes under the right conditions, Essorant, then science should be able to duplicate those conditions today. The laws of physics, after all, haven't changed since just after the Big Bang. On the other hand, if life was breathed into the molecules by divine intervention, well, that would be a little harder for science to duplicate, I guess. So, the question becomes, can science duplicate the creation of life in the laboratory? |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
Ron quote: No, not at all. There are many other explanations, including religious ones. But evolution is the only logical ones. The world goes from being a world without life, to being a world with simplest forms of life. A supernatural creation could've gone directly to all, or at least many kinds of the animals we see today, and not taken three billion years or so to get to something more complex than a microbe. It began where one would expect it to in an evolutionary world and in a difficult world took a long time to become more advanced than microbes, and after that long time, only to graduate the next logical step, of simple multicellular life. All that would be needless in a miracle-world, where the means to get to further lifeforms would be readily available to create at anytime. But I agree that the stronger parts of the "records" of evolution are not during the times of the littlest and softest creatures. Just as life eventually waxed larger and firmer the records and evidence of it did as well. quote: I don't think it makes much sense to expect man to be able to do everything that Nature can. There is so much indirect evidence to recognize the earliest microbes came from molecules that there is no need for direct evidence, as much as we wish for it. Everyone with a bit of education knows that things are made up of smaller building "blocks". They come together to build the rest of nature and therefore they obviously came together to create life too. It would be contrary to basically everything, if molecules that build up to everything else, didn't build up to life too. The indirect evidence of the rest of the world is overwhelming. It doesn't leave much room for doubt. I already mentioned how the development from one-celled to simple multicelled to more complex multicelled makes sense in an evolutionary world. The stage of molecules before the earliest onecelled organisms, fits into that picture like a puzzle peice, even if we don't have direct evidence. The other "puzzle pieces" of our understanding that are based on stronger evidence, outline its place and show that it is a fitting peice. |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote: Why not, Ess? What do we lack? What was on the Earth three billion years ago that we can't replicate today? You're talking about a totally random series of events and conditions leading to the first life on the planet, perhaps the first life in the universe, Essorant. Surely, we can do better than a capricious and unthinking nature did? If not, perhaps it's important to understand why? |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Essorant: quote: Last time I checked Ess, science doesn't accept as premises, things that "must" be ... rather it puts forward a hypothesis, and then asks whether there is sufficient evidence that it actually was. If you say that something "must be", you are engaging in something a whole lot more like religious faith than scientific inquiry. I have no problem with that actually ... Some of the most "right" answers in the world are along these lines. But Darwinian Evolution is claiming an altogether different type of justification ... not revelation, or even intuition, but robust empirical confirmation. And this is exactly where Evolution does not deliver. That's why it is strange to me that some keep asking where the science is behind a skepticism that is merely asking where the science is. quote: If you're going to prove I walked to China (a much different assertion than saying I was present in China), you're going to have show me more than a few footprints in my own Garage, and a few more in Beijing. quote: Okay, I don't care what terminology you use, either molecules or dust ... just describe the steps from molecules to replicating life, and you'll have a start, As hard as it is to defend Evolution as the Theory of Common Ancestry, once you've already been granted the mysterious existence of replication and reproduction ... you should at least know you are attempting to describe abiogenesis, the emergence of life from non-life ... a concept about which science has nothing really to say, no mechanism, no theory, which has not proven to be fruitless. All we know is that life appeared. I do have to thank you for bringing this up though, for the thread is about Darwinian evolution which only concerns itself with reproduction and survival. I was dealing with this because it is the only part about evolution which can be called scientific at all. The widespread popular belief about evolution ventures quite beyond this, not content to chronicle the brief winding path of life through biological history, it presumes to explain the existence of life itself ... and call it science. quote: Logic has nothing to do with it Essorant. Logic is naked syllogism, and depends upon variables. Logic has nothing whatsoever to say regarding whether life evolved from non-life, or whether God created (though I would find someone hard pressed to explain even logic without God's existence) else you don't understand logic. Ron at least pointed out that, logically speaking, it is hard to believe life came from non-life naturally, if the phenomenon can't be reproduced given the same physical laws. Stephen |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
quote: The reason you need to ask the question answers it, I think, Ron. We don't know exactly what was going on, so how can we replicate it? It is not easy to study a microscopic event that took place over three billion years ago! |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote: And yet . . . you call it evolution? I admire your faith, Essorant. Forgive me, however, if I don't mistake it for logic? |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
quote: Maybe not, Stephanos, But I don't think it especially accepts denying something when the evidence comes from all directions either. The fossil evidence covers all the major groups, but there is also further evidence from every other relevent science to support the evolutions. On the other hand though, there isn't any evidence to support the denial of evolution. What evidence supports your denial? Nothing. There are no fossils of humans before earlier mammals, nor fossils of birds before dinosaurs, nor fossils of multicellular life before unicellular life, nor anything else that contradicts evolution. Not accepting the evidence that supports evolution is not "evidence" to support your denial, but you keep on chanting "no" anyway. That to me seems a shame Stephanos. Taken to different levels and extremes, it is the same kind of things that leads to Holocaust-denial or denial that the earth is round. quote: No offence, but that seems another attempt to trivialize the fossils and other evidences. You could preach "not enough" about to try to deny anything Stephanos, that doesn't support or prove your side of it though. The side of evolution already brings forth its evidence. But what evidence do you bring forth that contradicts it? Saying "not enough for me to believe"? Sorry but that is not evidence, Stephanos. quote: No thanks Stephanos. I am not going to fall in to a pedantic trap. It seems obvious why you would "pick on" the cloudy microscopic origins, instead of well-documented transitions of major groups of animals. [This message has been edited by Essorant (12-30-2009 01:44 AM).] |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
quote: What do you call it then, Ron? If you show me better I will follow your example. |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
You might find this article interesting: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,479777,00.html |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
quote: I'm not "picking on" microscopic origins ... You were the one, after all, who brought up the transition from molecules to cells. Asking for an iota of evidence for what you call "logic" is pedantic? As for the fossil record, I've already pointed out to you that Paleontologists (even those who tend to believe in Evolution) do not consider it to be Evolution's strong suit ... that is, evidence conclusive of the Theory of Common Descent. I've backed this assertion up with some significant quotes. If you want to deny paleontology's "trade secret", by continuing talk about the overwhelming evidence, then by all means. quote: You said it Essorant, Holocaust denial and Flat-Earth-Theory involve "different levels and extremes" ... quite different levels of evidence to be sure. quote: You miss the point. Denial does not exactly need evidence ... only a lack of evidence for the alternate assertion. And all that about there being no humans before earlier mammals ... so? That is no proof of the Theory of Common Descent, or the scope of Darwin's mechanism, only an observation that animals existed before (and after) humans. We don't disagree on the basic facts, or upon what is observable. We simply part ways on a certain sweeping inference and whether it is scientifically justified, or philosophically arbitrated. Stephen |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
About that article Ess ... The word "almost" is interesting, in that it can be misleading. Think of someone saying "I almost won" or "I almost passed" ... and the emergence of life doesn't grade on a curve, being like pregnancy where she either is or isn't. As the article said though, it gives scientists some new data to chew on for a while, which is not a bad thing. But I wouldn't expect anything running on your hamster wheel any time soon. Stephen |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
quote: I already gave it in the points I mentioned to Ron earlier. But "logic has nothing to do with it" according to you, so what is the point? quote: You gave a bunch of quotes Stephanos, hardly evidence against the fossil record or evidence that the authors are denying the fossil record as evidence, or denying evolution. If some find weaknesses in the fossil record, that is not the same as questioning it as evidence of evolution, or questioning that evolution happened itself. You would have to give much more context to try to prove that about the paleontologists whose words you gave. I am confident I could find a lot more quotations proving that most paleontoligists and other scientists do believe the fossil record is one of the strongest, if not the strongest evidence for evolution. But that would be useless. Numbers won't make disbelievers believe in the reality of evolution, but hopefully the truth eventually will. "When Darwin published On the Origin of Species in 1859, his arguments were based almost exclusively on the evidence from living organisms. Darwin spent two entire chapters appearing to apologize for the incompleteness of the fossil record and for the seeming lack of support it offered for his radical new idea of evolution. Actually, if you read those chapters closely, Darwin very cleverly convinces the reader that the fossil record is exactly as one would expect, given the processes of geology and the vast expanses of time that were already accepted for the age of the earth. In the second of the two chapters, he argues convincingly that the fossil record, as imperfectly known as it was back then, is still strongly supportive of his ideas. But if the fossil record was not much help to Darwin in 1859, it soon became his chief line of evidence. Only a year after his book was published, the first specimens of the transitional fossil Archaeopteryx were found in Germany, and soon the British Museum had spent a fortune to acquire the first decent skeleton of this classic fossilized transition between birds and reptiles. In the 1870s, American paleontologist Othniel C. Marsh laid out a remarkable series of horse fossils that demonstrated how the entire lineage grew from a small dog-sized form with three or four toes to our modern race-horse. Soon other examples of evolutionary transitions in the fossil record were being described and published, and by 1900, some of the first fossils that belong to our family, but not our species ("Java Man," now known as Homo Erectus), were discovered as well. The early twentieth century brought an incredible explosion of paleontological discoveries as the great museums mounted expeditions to the western United States and Canada, Asia, and Africa to secure great dinosaur skeletons for their exhibit halls, again producing further evidence of evolution in the fossil record. But the past 20 years have produced some of the greatest discoveries of all, including incredible fossils that show how whales, manatees, and seals evolved from land mammals, where elephants, horses and rhinos come from, and how the first backboned animals evolved. We now have an amazing diversity of fossil humans, including specimens that show we walked upright on two feet almost 7 million years ago, long before we acquired large brains. In addition to all this fossil evidence, we have new evidence from molecules as well that enables us to decipher the details of the family tree of life as never before. Although scholars in 1859 may have considered Darwin's evidence from fossils weak, this is no longer true today. The fossil record is an amazing testimony to the power of evolution, with documentation of evolutionary transitions that Darwin could have only dreamed about... The fossil record is now one of the strongest lines of evidence for evolution, completely reversing its subordinate status only 150 years ago. " --Donald R. Prothero. Evolution: What the Fossils Say and Why it Matters, 2007 We've also seen that evolutionary biology makes testable predictions, though not of course in the sense of predicting how a particular species will evolve, for that depends on a myriad of uncertain factors such as which mutations crop up and how enviroments change. But we can predict where fossils will be found (take Darwin's prediction that human ancestors would be found in Africa), we can predict when common ancestors would appear (for example, the discovery of the "fishapod" Tiktaalik in 370 million year old rocks...) and we can predict what those ancestors should look like before we find them (one is the remarkable "missing link" between ants and wasps...). Scientists predicted that they would find fossils of marsupials in Antarctica--and they did. And we can predict that if we find an animal species in which males are brightly colored and females are not, that species will have a polygynous mating system. Everyday, hundreds of observations and experiments pour into the hopper of the scientific literature. Many of them don't have much to do with evolution---they're observations about details of physiology, biochemistry, development, and so on--but many of them do. And every fact that has something to do with evolution confirms its truth. Every fossil that we find, every DNA molecule that we sequence, every organ system that we dissect supports the idea that species evolved from common ancestors. Despite innumerable possible observations that could prove evolution untrue, we don't have a single one. We don't find mammals in Precambrian rocks, humans in the same layers as dinosaurs, or any other fossils out of evolutionary order. DNA sequencing supports the evolutionary relationships of species originally deduced from the fossil record. And, as natural selection predicts, we find no species with adaptions that benefit only a different species. We do find dead genes and vestigial organs, incomprehensible under the idea of special creation. Despite a million chances to be wrong, evolution always comes up right. That is as close as we can get to a scientific truth. Now when we say that "evolution is true", what we mean is that the major tenets of Darwinism have been verified. Organisms have evolved, they did so gradually, lineages split into different species from common ancestors, and natural selection is the major engine of adaption. No serious biologist doubts these propositions. But this doesn't mean that Darwinism is scientifically exhausted, with nothing left to understand. Far from it. Evolutionary biology is teeming with questions and contraversies. How exactly does sexual selection work? Do females select males with good genes? How much of a role does genetic drift (as opposed to natural or sexual selection) play in the evolution of DNA sequences or the features of organisms? Which fossil hominins are on the direct line of Homo Sapiens? What caused the Cambrian "explosion" of life, in which many new types of animals appeared within only a few million years? Critics of evolution seize upon these contraversies, arguing that they show that something is wrong with the theory of evolution itself. But this is specious. There is no dissent among serious biologists about the major claims of evolutionary theory--only about the details of how evolution occured, and about the relative roles of various evolutionary mechanisms. Far from discrediting evolution, the "contraversies" are in fact the sign of a vibrant, thriving field." Jerry A. Coyne Why Evolution is True, 2009 "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 do not go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. " Stephen Jay Gould, Evolution as Fact and Theory) [This message has been edited by Essorant (12-31-2009 01:11 AM).] |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
quote: That is faulty reasoning because being "pregnant" doesn't exclude being other things that in fact are not dependant on the condition of being pregnant. A pregnant woman is of course a living being, which encompasses more than just pregnancy. Just like being pregnant, being living is not just being living, but it is being a structure made up of smaller entities, energies, etc. Therefore, while you call it "life", that doesn't remove it from still being molecules as well. Self-replicating life-like molecules make complete sense as a transition toward life. It doesn't need to be absolutely alive, because just as a pregnant woman is more than just pregnant, a living thing is more than just living: it is a structure made of smaller things. |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Ess: quote: The point is, I'm not asking you to keep repeating that it is "logical". I'm asking for the information upon which logic depends. Logic says if A is true, B follows. Logic does not dictate that life developed incrementally from non-life ... it would however allow that it might have depending upon the evidence. What is the scientific evidence that life developed by natural causes from non-life? Remember you can't use what is given as proof. Present life, or even the first cells cannot be used as evidence for how they got here. quote: It would not be useless. It's not numbers but persuasion. And I'm only suggesting the effort since you mistakenly think the fossil record to be so conclusive, and so suited only to point to Evolution. Most of my quotes about the fossil record are from Paleontologists, while neither of your quotes were, except for the third by Gould, which interstingly enough, isn't about the fossil record. Gould, if I may say so, may believe that Evolution is a fact, because he, as Philip Johnson and others have pointed out, can think of no other possibility as long as naturalism as philosophy (the belief that nothing exists or can exist but natural forces) is adhered to. Biological gradualism and Naturalism both have long pedigrees in Greek thought, and need no science to be believed and held as "fact". I personally think Gould holds this belief despite the scientific difficulties he has candidly and honestly shared, more because of his philosophy than anything else. That's just what I think. I could be wrong. You can at least relate, in that you admitted that abiogenesis is "logical" even without the evidence. You as much as plainly said that it had to have happened that way. I get the feeling that this feeling is mainly what drives the "scientific" fact of Evolution. quote: Of course it makes complete sense, Essorant ... and if you read the article closely, it is about RNA, a constituent of living cells. These scientists didn't show that RNA can develop of its own accord ... they synthesized it. That's some cool reverse engineering, but it doesn't come anywhere close to addressing the issue of how replicating molecules came to exist ... or even if those molecules can further develop into living organisms. exerpted from the article: "Specifically, the researchers synthesized RNA enzymes that can replicate themselves without the help of any proteins or other cellular components, and the process proceeds indefinitely ... 'Immortalized' RNA, they call it, at least within the limited conditions of a laboratory." Highly interventional (to say the very least), does this whole thing lend more to intelligent design, or to the naturalistic development of life? Stephen [This message has been edited by Stephanos (12-30-2009 09:39 PM).] |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
Stephanos, quote: The evidence is the context of the rest of the evolutionary world, the context of the evolutions of unicellular to simple multicellular to complex multicellular, and since all things have the building "blocks" of molecules in their makeup. Based on this indirect evidence the earliest life forms being microscopic life most likely came from microscopic molecules, for there are no other lifeforms to come from. Life runs out of lifeforms to come from at that point. The only thing left are the next best things: the "building blocks" themselves. quote: You ought to look a little further, Stephanos. Donald R. Prothero is a very wellknown Paleontologist. He also speaks out very directly about his dislike for how creationists treat evolution. You can listen to a lecture by him at this site. "Donald R. Prothero is Professor of Geology at Occidental College in Los Angeles, and Lecturer in Geobiology at the California Institute of Technology in Pasadena. He earned M.A., M.Phil., and Ph.D. degrees in geological sciences from Columbia University in 1982, and a B.A. in geology and biology (highest honors, Phi Beta Kappa) from the University of California, Riverside. He is currently the author, co-author, editor, or co-editor of 25 books and over 200 scientific papers, including five leading geology textbooks and three trade books as well as edited symposium volumes and other technical works. He is on the editorial board of Skeptic magazine, and in the past has served as an associate or technical editor for Geology, Paleobiology and Journal of Paleontology. He is a Fellow of the Geological Society of America, the Paleontological Society, and the Linnaean Society of London, and has also received fellowships from the Guggenheim Foundation and the National Science Foundation. He has served as the Vice President of the Pacific Section of SEPM (Society of Sedimentary Geology), and five years as the Program Chair for the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology. In 1991, he received the Schuchert Award of the Paleontological Society for the outstanding paleontologist under the age of 40. He has also been featured on several television documentaries, including episodes of Paleoworld (BBC), Prehistoric Monsters Revealed (History Channel), Entelodon and Hyaenodon (National Geographic Channel) and Walking with Prehistoric Beasts (BBC)." quote: Indeed, but it shows that molecules are capable of being very life-like. Don't you think that comes closer to proving the capability of molecules to be the transition between the unliving and the first living things? quote: I think it supports naturalistic devolopement. It shows molecules are capable of being lifelike and might be the transition between unliving and living, bringing about life through nature. Where is divine intervention necessary? Is life less life if divine intervention were not involved? It may hurt people's feelings a bit if they are very fixed on believing in a supernatural cause, but we need to let the evidence speak and even say "it is not as religion says it is" when it speaks such. Infectious diseases were oft thought to be caused by divine punishment or demons, but eventually man looked closer, and found the microscopic. Is it a coincidence that the microscopic are involved surrounding the origins of life too? |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Essorant, I'm doing a stretch of work days, so I look forward to replying to you in more detail later. But it will suffice for now to remind you that the RNA was synthesized by scientists in the experiment you mentioned. In nature RNA is ALWAYS transcribed by DNA, a molecule that is ALWAYS copied by previous DNA within living cells. Therefore it is obvious to anyone who really thinks about it ... these scientists haven't even begun to begin showing that life (or even the amazing molecules that ONLY show up in living things) comes from non-life. Such manipulation, and borrowing from the end-product in question, is much more suggestive of Intelligent Design, not the spontaneous naturalistic development of living things. Yes, the experiment shows that molecules can be "life-like" (something we already knew by watching the molecules within living cells- hardly needing an experiment), but from an evidentiary perspective, such molecules are made and exist (apart from intelligent manipulation) within the framework of life. Back to the lab Igor. Stephen |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Has anyone actually defined "life" here. since there seems to be an awful lot of fine details flashing before my face, and a lot of the sentences seem to use the word "life" as if all of us were clear that we had a common definition. All this tap dancing could be simply a matter of people having different notions of what they're talking about. I can't tell you, when I really really think about it, what life actually is. Perhaps one of you lucky folks actually can? Everyone seems to be acting as though it were some sort of simple matter that everybody ought to understand before breakfast. I don't. [This message has been edited by Bob K (01-04-2010 04:20 AM).] |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
It doesn't matter. Evolution has evidence from hundreds of millions and millions of years, far from needing to depend on the cloudy origin of life to make its case. We have fossil sequences through the ages showing the evolution of amphibians from fish, reptiles from amphibians, mammals from reptiles, sea mammals (especially whales) from certain landmammals, and others. But evolution-deniers continue to deny anyway, no matter how much evidence there is and will be in the future. Even if we had no evidence for the larger scale evolutions over larger lengths of time, we have smaller scale evolution even within our lifetime (as this example) but they still deny. What is the difference between denying this evidence and denying the evidence we have for the holocaust, or for the earth being round? Not much in my opinion. |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Yes it matters, regarding abiogenesis, because it is the most important gap or keystone in the belief of spontaneous biological development. It is currently a belief that can only be described as dogma, not science ... something seldom admitted. Regarding the fossil record, I can only repeat that it is mystifying at best, and holds as many or more problems for the theory, as it does confirmations. Do you think anything in the fossil record could ever falsify the theory? If so, explain. Your suggestion that nothing would ever suffice as far as evidence for those who doubt is appreciated. But you should also appreciate that the advocates of Darwin would likely also continue to believe, despite incongruencies and realities that might cast doubt on the theory. Regarding small scale change, did I ever once deny it? Were we debating this much, your example would have force. Its the extrapolation of major bilogical overhaul ... attributing the surety of one type of phenomenon for another quite unobserved. If you ask what the difference between belief a Jewish Holocaust at the hands of Hitler, or the science of Newton regarding gravity, and something like The Theory of Common Descent ... it is simply one of scale ... for one, in the area of historical veracity (we have videos of Auschwitz and people still alive who were involved), and the other in the area of precision mathematical and astronomical demonstration. Darwinian evolution, beyond a demonstration of the kind of bounded biological change we all accept, has nothing like this. And Bob ... does the fact that no word can be precisely defined ever strike you as curious? And if so, should that fact be a conversation stopper, used for a dilutional obfuscating effect? A discussion about the definition of life might be interesting, but doesn't mean we can't meaningfully draw the line at the cell, or constituents of the cell, and ask whether it is scientifically shown that such specific phenomenon can happen spontaneously. I guess what I'm trying to say is, before we can proceed further you're going to have to define the word "definition" for me. I can't figure it out before my morning coffee, for sure. Stephen |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
quote: quote: quote: Yes, it can be a conversation stopper. I included the definition of "Definition," above, and some initial shots at the definition of "life." I was going to talk about The Meaning of Meaning, but that's been covered elsewhere. Please pardon the bad joke. I had written a lot more, but had the good sense to omit it. Hope everything was good for everybody, with a pleasant Christmas behind and a happy New Year waiting ahead for all. Appreciation and affection to all. And to all a good night. |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
quote: Abiogenesis matters regarding abiogenesis? True, but you missed my context, which was not abiogenesis, but that the evidence of evolution doesn't need the cloudy origin of life to make its case. It doesn't revolve around lifeforms evolving from unlife-forms, but lifeforms evolving from lifeforms. But as is to be expected, people that deny evolution would rather focus on something that is cloudy and detached and try to apply that to evolution, instead of directly referring to the fossils, and giving their own ground for denying the evidence as evidence of evolution, or the order in which they are found through the ages, or the molecular evidence that supports those connections. Instead of speaking aloof with generalizations about the fossil record, why don't you specifically address the fossils? I mentioned transitions above, yet you never directly address them and tell me what contradicts it being evolution. Therefore, indeed, that kind of denial does seem like standing back and denying something religiously or as far as evolution is concerned, making denial your "religion" and sticking to it. The fossil evidence itself is the evidence used for the evolution of whales, including their evolution from landmammals, for example. I challenge you to show me what your evidence or at least your basis is for saying that the evidence is not evidence of the evolution of whales. And don't just say "it is mystifying". No scientists say "this is so mystifying, that it must be evolution". They study the fossils thoroughly and carefully and in geological order. Therefore, anyone that challenges them, ought to be challenged as well, and challenged to show a reasonable ground for denying the evidence as being evidence. Without having that reasonable ground, voicing a denial is just that. It is wind without ground. quote: Yes, the fossil record could certainly falsify evolution. If any fossil were out of evolutionary order, one mammal-fossil found in times before mammals evolved, if one little mouse-fossil were discovered in the Cambrian, evolution as we know it would be completely shattered. But that doesn't happen. That is part of why the fossils are such solid evidence of evolution. quote: I don't agree. Scientists adjust science according to evidence, unlike religion that sticks to the same thing over and over again, despite the evidence. quote: Yes, you did, because you denied evolution, but evolution is small scale change. Small scale changes over millions and millions of years can add up, but you don't seem to be willing to accept that part. You speak against evolution in general (even though evolution is small scale changes), but accept small scale changes (even though small scale changes are evolution, and are large-scale evolution in the sense that they can add up to large scale differences). That kind of principle is present in far more things than just evolution though. How do you think mountains came about? If you contrast "flat ground" with "mountain", do you think, therefore, that "evolving" to a mountain is out of the question? If you deny little changes among animals from adding up through the ages, what stops you from denying gradual changes of the earth from adding up to bring about mountains? [This message has been edited by Essorant (01-05-2010 02:56 PM).] |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Essorant, some Paleontologists will say that the fossil record does not contradict evolution, few to none will say that it is conclusive ... that it is the strong suit of Evolutionary theory. Why do you think Gould said the scant evidence in the fossil record was the "trade secret" of Paleontology? quote: You really don't think scientists would say that the mouse fossil was "misplaced" in Cambrian strata, by some catastrophe or another? Its funny that you should bring up the Cambrian, since I already mentioned that the relatively quick appearance of all the major phylum during this period, with no antecedents, was problematic enough for Gould to develop a theory that Evolution doesn't happen like Darwin described at all, but could happen very very rapidly .... punctuated equilibrium. I'm not saying the theory can't be believed. I'm not saying there are no fossils that can be called, as hypothesis, "transitional" (Berlinski said this too). I am saying that what we see in the fossil record is not even close to what Darwin said should be observed were his theory true. No the theory is not seriously challenged by findings. No, in many cases, science is as dogmatic as religion ... especially when it rules out beforehand anything other than spontaneous development. quote: And that's the part that doesn't add up, either in terms of mathematics or empirical evidence. An eye may change color. No one has shown that a non-eye can become an eye by random mutation. It is forever outside of the realm of science to say the emergence of highly complex organ systems happened in the same way. It can't be extrapolated from observing different colors of moth wings, or size in finch beaks. My legs can get stronger and stronger, so that when I jump off the couch I stay suspended a bit longer than before ... that doesn't mean we've identified in this, the origins of flight. No one disputes small bounded change. To say "this is evolution" is bogus, when you think about the sweeping claims of evolutionary theory. quote: My point exactly, wind erosion and water erosion did not cause the mountains. Something much more sudden and catastrophic did. What could bring about mind-boggling complexity in biology, other than random mutation and natural selection? I think Intelligent Design has the best explanation. But whatever you think, the former has not been established by science ... and the second is more intuitive regarding how we usually approach complexity and specificity. We've gone far past pointless repition here. Let's say we agree to disagree, and let this thread die? I don't think it is going to mutate into anything more for now. Stephen |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
quote: Because, apart from a few isolated examples, the fossil record doesn’t seem to contain many intermediary fossils, a fact that seemed to support his theory of evolution - punctuated equilibrium sieved by natural selection. Here’s the rub though Stephen, even if Gould was right it’s still evolution, the only difference Gould was arguing against was the mechanics not the general process. Gould was right – sort of. He simply didn’t go far enough and recognise that random genetic mutation, while important, isn’t the main contributor to speciation and the story of the evolutionary development of life on earth. Dawkins makes the same mistake only on a far bigger level. Darwin though is less guilty in that regard largely because he developed his theory before genetics were understood, all his theory of natural selection required was a tendency towards difference, the mechanics of change was less important. So what does the fossil record tell us? Well it tells us that millions of years ago life on earth was very simple and as time went by organisms that are more complex appeared. It tells us that the diverse life we see today hasn’t always been around, that at various times in earth’s history the flora and fauna on this planet has looked very different to the flora a fauna that now exists. quote: Quick? Even in terms of geological time the Cambrian period can hardly be called ‘quick’. To put it in perspective America was discovered 620 years ago – give or take a couple of years. The Cambrian period however lasted a mere 114,000 times longer than that. Still not long enough for substantial change? 70 million years ago, dinosaurs walked the earth, as evidenced by the fossil record. At that time there weren’t any chimpanzees – we went from dinosaurs and no chimpanzees to no dinosaurs and oodles of Chimps in 70 million years, a fairly substantial change you’d have to admit – BTW the Cambrian period lasted 70 million years too. No antecedents? What about all the life forms in the Ediacaran Period fossil record that pre-date the Cambrian? Can’t they be classed as antecedents? quote: That’s odd because I’ve never come across anything that even resembles an explanation from the wedgies. Could you, or anyone else for that matter, explain the ID theory that you believe is better than the theory of evolution? . |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
quote: "Conclusive" is fairly irrelevent Stephanos. No one says or expects that the fossil record be at an end or complete. Scientists generally wish the fossil record had more to it. But wishing that doesn't mean they don't acknowledge what we do have as evidence of evolution. I guess you are loth to take up my challenge to discuss specifically an actual part of the fossil record itself, the fossils for whales, and to show me what your ground is for denying the fossil-evidence as being evidence of their evolution from landmammals? Or the ground to deny the evidence of left-over leg-parts in whales, and the the reason they are mammals instead of fishes? Which part of this equation doesn't say "evolution"? The reason you can't tell me is because every part does say "evolution". quote: Not if there weren't evidence to point to that. They would need evidence of such catastrophe or evidence of different strata interrupting the Cambrian from whence a mousefossil would come. quote: If you looked a little more thoroughly you would realize nothing is miraculous about the Cambrian explosion, or even very explosive about it. I am weary of hearing those kind of misdescriptions over and over again. But since my words never convince you, hopefully you will at least take Prothero's more seriously: If the soft-bodied multicellular (but nonskeletonized) Ediacara fauna represents the next logical step from single-celled life, then the next step beyond that would be the appearance of mineralized, fossilizeable skeletons. But if life took almost 3 billion years to develope the ability to mineralize shells, we expect that it would be a difficult process and would not arise fully fledged. Sure enough, the earliest stages of the Cambrian (known as the Nemakit-Daldynian and the Tommotian stages, from 520-545 million years ago) are dominated by tiny (only a few millimeters) fossils nicknamed the "little shellies" or "the small shelly fossils... Whatever the reason, for almost 25 million years, the Cambrian explosion was burning on a slow fuse. The little shellies were abundant, but larger fossils were not. The earliest sponges had already appeared back in the late Vendian, but this is not surprising, considering that all lines of evidence show that sponges are the most primitive animals alive today. By the Tommotian Stage (530 million years ago), a slow trickle of other groups of larger invertebrates began to appear, including the first "lamp shells" (brachiopods) and also members of an extinct sponge-like group known as archaeocyathids. Diversity in the Tommotian reached only about 50 genera, about the same as in the Vendian...thus, the earliest Cambrain shows evidence of a gradual increase in diversity from the Vendian, but no "explosion." The third stage of the Early Cambrian is known as the Atdabanian Stage (515-520 million years ago), and with this stage, we finally see a great increase in diversity: over 600 genera are recorded. However, this number is misleading and a bit inflated. Most of the genera are trilobites, which fossilize readily and so greatly increase the volume and diversity of the large shelly fossils. Most of the other animal phyla had already appeared by this time (including mollusks, sponges, corals, echinoderms) or would appear later in the Cambrian (vertebrates) or even the Ordovician Period that followed (e.g the "moss animals" or byrozoans). By the Middle of the Cambrian (500-510 million years ago) diversity had actually dropped below the Atdabanian levels to about 450 genera. It is during this time that we have extraordinary soft-bodied preservation of fossils from places like the Burgess Shale in Canada and Chengjiang in China...We have many bizarre worm-like and odd fossils, many of which don't fit into any living phylum. (...) Thus we have seen that the Cambrian explosion is a myth. It is better described as the Cambrian slow fuse. It takes from 600 to 520 million years ago before the typical Cambrian fauna of large shelly organisms (especially trilobites) finally develops. Eighty million years is not explosive by any stretch of the imagination! Not only is the explosion a slow fuse, but it follows a series of logical stages from simple and small to larger and complex and mineralized. First, of course, we have microfossils of cynobacteria and other eukaryotes going back to as far as 3.5 billion years ago and spanning the entire fossil record since that ancient time. Then, about 600 million years ago, we get the first good evidence of multicellular animals, the Ediacara fauna. They are larger and multicellular but did not have hard shells. The earliest stages of the Cambrian, the Nemakit-Daldynian and Tommotian stages, are dominated by the little shellies, which were just beginning to develop small mineralized skeletons. Only after several more steps do we see the full Cambrian fauna. In short, the fossil record shows a gradual buildup from single-celled prokaryotes and then eukaryotes to multicellular softbodied animals to animals with tiny shells, and finally by the middle Cambrian, the body size and skeletonization bears no resemblance to an instantaneous Cambrian explosion that might be consistent with the Bible but instead clearly shows a series of evolutionary transformations. (From Prothero's Evolution: What the Fossils Say and Why it Matters). quote: I admit, I don't know his theory closely enough to know how much it differs from Darwin, but Wikipedia gives me a suggestion that you might be taking it overboard: It is often incorrectly assumed that he [Darwin]insisted that the rate of change must be constant, or nearly so, but even the first edition of On the Origin of Species states that "Species of different genera and classes have not changed at the same rate, or in the same degree. In the oldest tertiary beds a few living shells may still be found in the midst of a multitude of extinct forms... The Silurian Lingula differs but little from the living species of this genus". Lingula is among the few brachiopods surviving today but also known from fossils over 500 million years old.[41] In the fifth edition of On the Origin of Species Darwin wrote that "the periods during which species have undergone modification, though long as measured in years, have probably been short in comparison with the periods during which they retain the same form."[42] Thus punctuationism in general is consistent with Darwin's conception of evolution.[40]... But: "Thus punctuated equilibrium contradicts some of Darwin's ideas regarding the specific mechanisms of evolution, but generally accords with Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection" That doesn't sound like an evolution that doesn't happen like Darwin described at all. But even if it were, there is nothing about the theory of evolution that suggests that it should stay the same forever. Just as in other areas of science, we should expect different theories about specific details and to develop with further understandings over time. That is part of science. quote: That is not true, Stephanos. Life is life. Unless there is evidence and reasonable grounds to show that life all the sudden doesn't evolve, but out of the blue starts coming out of thin air, then there is no reason why the same principles at work today weren't also at work in the past. That would be reasonable on its own. But the fossil record gives us solid proof of both changes within species and transitions into new species. Therefore there is double reason to believe that the same principles at work today were at work yesterday too. What evidence do you have to back up a position that the same principles weren't at work? quote: But who is giving that answer, you, or science? If you let science speak for itself, I think you will get a much different answer! [This message has been edited by Essorant (01-07-2010 12:34 AM).] |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Ess: quote: No, of course not. Nor am I saying that anyone expects it should be. But Darwin kind of set the bar high at a robust if not seamless demonstration of fossils that pointed to continuity (he expected a plethora of discovery that would later affirm it, though in reality only a very scant few things have been found that can be called transitional between major groups). No, I'm not demanding seamless perfection, but I am pointing out that the fossil record is inconclusive and sparse enough that even many paleontologists who believe in evolution don't consider it the "best foot" to put forward. I can discuss any particulars you wish. I'm not avoiding any. quote: Okay, Berlinski was right about probably 50,000 or more morphological changes between a whale and a cow. If you think the mere fact of both being a mammal is sufficient (when that much isn't sufficient even to establish the common decent of two land dwelling mammals), what about the rest of the changes? Make your case with the fossil record. In the mean time I'll try to gather some information on the differences between land dwelling mammals and whales .. and ask whether we see anything of those transitions in the fossil record. quote: How can I argue with that? I myslef wouldn't say "EVERY PART says no evolution". Maybe you should second-guess yourself whenever you're not conceding anything at all. quote: My point was that there have already been significant anomalies in the fossil record which have been explained not by science but by added theory (punctuated equilibrium is one). It is fairly elastic. quote: Essorant, in this thread I am not arguing a positive case for the miraculous in the Cambrian period (though I can make a pretty strong case that highly specified life in any period of time is miraculous). Rather, I'm telling you that not a few have found it perplexing and problematic as it relates to Darwinism. I'm not arguing for anything conclusive either way regarding darwin. I am saying that doubt and negation is as justified as belief and affirmation of the theory, if evidentiary science is the ground. The Scientific Controversy over The Cambrian... quote: What evidence do you have to back up a position that the same principles (random mutation/natural selection) are responsible for large scale change, other than an exiguous fossil collection? Even Grinch has to (unlike Dawkins and others) let go of the mechanism of Darwin in order to explain ... though no mechanism other than Darwin's has been demonstrated as far as I know. quote: With such a high degree of inference, subjectivity, ambiguity, and no ability to reproduce anything ... it is not so simple as "science speaking for itself". Grinch: quote: Not exactly true. Punctuated Equilibrium, more nominal than explanatory, hardly offers a testable mechanism. Isn't it as much as saying that random mutation and natural selection (for reasons inexplicable) worked much faster? Educate me if I'm looking at it wrong. quote: So, scientifically and testably speaking, what is? quote: bologna. The mechanics of change was the only thing that made Darwin's version of gradualism (that had been around more or less since ancient times) scientific and "respectable" ... to use Dawkin's words. quote: Very general, and very undisputed by me. quote: Nice trick, juxtaposing human (a late mammalian novelty) history against evolutionary history. that's like saying 365 days is an eon to a mayfly that lives a mere half hour. You can always apply a crude relativity in order to make an invalid comparison. In evolutionary terms, and considering the kinds of significant biological change in question, the Cambrian explosion (only a portion of the whole period, BTW) was relatively quick. quote: quoting how long the entire Cambrian period was, is to miss that the so-called "explosion" occured over a much shorter time in the Early Cambrian, probably less than 10 million, big by our watch, small by evolutionary standards. quote: I didn't say nothing living existed before the Cambrian Explosion. rather, I'm saying that the appearance of all the different phylum, is not obviously traceable to an old lineage. There was significant and diverse change on too many levels to call these "antecedents". quote: I'm not sure that design can be established scientifically any more than evolution can ... in that much I differ from many ID advocates. However I find intelligent design more sensical and believable than spontaneous naturalism, which is what I was refuting when I wrote what you quoted (Ess and I were talking about abiogenesis). The premise of Evolution in general, does not affect intelligent design one way or another, to my mind. Whether life was created instantaneously, through some lengthy process, or through a process interspersed with moments of quantum intervention, is fairly irrelevant as touching whether Intelligent design is reasonable. My quote comes not from debating the science of Darwinian Evolution (which can only begin with reproducing life), but when we were talking about the ridiculous notion that complex life just happened spontaneously and randomly from nature alone. Such biological systems have the mark of design, and therefore of a designer with intelligence (for lack of a better word) and intentionality. But no, I'm not sure that design can be established by science any more than the Theory of Common Descent can, or (even worse-off evidentially speaking) abiogenesis. It is something known on a more intuitive level I suppose. happy mutations, Stephen [This message has been edited by Stephanos (01-07-2010 01:58 AM).] |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
Stephanos, quote: All of that is a mistaken approach though. The quantity of fossils doesn't say anything about evolution. We could have far more fossils with far less diversity and showing far less than what we have. The point is the importance of the fossils that we do have, not the fossils we don't have. In Darwin's time, there weren't any transitions (if I understand correctly) beyond Archaeopteryx. Today however, there are many transitions. Archaeopteryx is one of the most important fossils that marks the evolution of birds from dinosaurs. It was strong evidence on its own. But it is no longer on its own. There are many others now that give Archaeopteryx company. To name a few on the dinosaur-toward-bird-side Sinosauropteryx, Protarchaeopteryx, Sinornithosaurus, Caudipteryx, Beipiaosaurus, Anchiornis, Microraptor and Mei Long and Oviraptor. A more recent discovery is Limusaurus inextricabilis. Further are transitional fossils on the bird-from-dinosaur-side of the transition: Rahonavis, Confuciusornis, Iberomesornis, Sinornis. These are just some of the most important transitional fossils that prove that birds evolved from dinosaurs. To say that there are too few, would be ridiculous. Darwin's opinion of the fossil record during his time is out of date and out of context as far as judging the fossil record today. Just as the other quotations from years ago in differing degrees tend to be. If you sought the modern opinions of scientists you would find out what scientists today are saying in the right context: in the context of the fossil record as it is today, not fifteen, twenty, and especially not a hundred or more years ago. I have no doubt that if Darwin were around he would be much-rejoicing at the state of today's fossil record, far from his opinions about it in his time! quote: I know you can, but it does seem like you are avoiding things when you keep referring to some level of fossil evidence we don't have instead of the importance of the evidence we do have. quote: No, he was not correct. Whales are only related to cows, not descended from them. A hippopotomus is a much closer relation to a whale, and is big and watery, but whales are not descended from hippos either. Whales are not descended from any modern animal. That is why the fossil record is the only true evidence about the lineage from which whales come. The other mistake is speaking in terms of "a whale and a cow (even though cow is incorrect to begin with). It gives the impression that a given "cow" would be experiencing massive change, which is not true. Evolution is small-scale change. Little changes over generations and generations make their difference, and added up over millions and millions of years, they make a big difference. quote: I didn't say that. I said that it is part of the compound evidence. An animal that many people do mistake as a "fish", has a reason for not being a fish: because it is evolved from non-fish, from landmammals. Why didn't you say anything about those leftover leg parts in whales? When all of these are taken into compound consideration, they do share a common direction. But let's refer to actual fossils. Here is web page with a chart representing the most important fossils we have for the transition of whales from land mammals. As Stephen Gould concludes, "If you had given me a blank piece of paper and a blank check, I could not have drawn you a theoretical intermediate any better or more convincing than Ambulocetus. Those dogmatists who by verbal trickery can make white black, and black white, will never be convinced of anything, but Ambulocetus is the very animal that they proclaimed impossible in theory." Natural History magazine, May 1994. Here is another site with more information. quote: Again, there is nothing to point to large scale change in evolution. We have evidence of small scale change within our lifetime and we have evidence of large scale differences from the fossil record over millions and millions of years. Put those things together, there is nothing contradictory. Small scale changes add up to large scale differences over many and many years. Scientists differ about the details of "Natural Selection", how much different aspects may contribute (such as sexual selection) or how gradual or how rapid changes may be, etc, but they don't differ in accepting the established framework of Natural selection. I don't know for sure, but I doubt Grinch does either. He may theorize that something different has the most important role within Natural Selection, but that doesn't mean he no longer accepts the general mechanism of Natural Selection. [This message has been edited by Essorant (01-07-2010 08:15 PM).] |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
quote: You’d be correct. quote: Unfortunately you’re absolutely wrong. Everything I’ve written in this thread is 100% compatible with Darwin’s mechanism – natural selection. In that regard I agree completely with Dawkins and Gould. Where I part company with Dawkins, and to a lesser degree Gould is with regard to the mechanism of change. Although small step change undoubtedly plays an important part in the evolutionary process I don’t believe that it is the main mechanism that drives speciation. quote: I think that you’re getting a little confused Stephen. Yes, Darwin’s theory depends on change but that isn’t what made it so important, as you say that idea wasn’t new, even in Darwin’s day. As Richard pointed out though it was the theory that natural selection dictated the course of evolution that was so important. The actual mechanics – the nuts and bolts of how the changes occurred are a minor part of Darwin’s theory. quote: It’s not a crude relativity Stephen, it’s an absolutely valid comparison, life on earth went from dinosaurs and no primates to no dinosaurs and oodles of primates in the same length of time that it went from soft bodied organisms to the forefathers of the major animal groups. Both are frighteningly long periods of time and yet you’d describe both as happening quickly. I’d describe a process that took 70 million years as anything but quick. quote: Bologna – Sorry Stephen but that’s just plain wrong. The oldest fossil bi-valve organism was discovered in rocks dating back 542 million years, very early in the Cambrian. The Emu bay shale and Burgess shale both contain evidence of more advanced organisms and proof that the “explosion” was still in full flow, the latter being some 37 million years older than the first fossils. Even latter fossil evidence shows a continuation of diversity and the “explosion” throughout the Cambrian period and beyond. Where did you get the 10 million year figure from? Don’t get me wrong, it was a very busy 70 million years or so in evolutionary terms but there are simple reasons for that, and more than enough time for the changes in flora and fauna to occur. quote: OK, let’s set aside evolution for a second. Where do you believe that the organisms in the late Cambrian came from? quote: Don’t worry about explaining it scientifically – a simple explanation will do, just the barebones mechanics – we can get to the scientific validity of evolutionary theory and Intelligent Design theory later. |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Essorant: quote: "The number of intermediate varieties, which have formerly existed on the earth [must] be truly enormous. Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps is the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory" (Darwin, The Origin of Species) Are the so-called transitions you mentioned "truly enormous"? I don't think what was anticipated by Darwin is what we've seen. Of course paleontology is slow business, but what has been found (by way of possible transitions) is still very little and plauged by subjectivity and limited analysis. More about that in a bit ... ""Forms transitional between species can be observed today, and can be inferred to have existed in the past. Nevertheless, the net result is very far from a seamless tapestry of form that would allow an investigator to read the Tree of Life simply by finding the intermediates- living and extinct- that in principle connect all species. On the contrary, biologists are much more impressed by the discreteness of organic form, and the general absence of intermediates." (paleontologist Simon Conway Morris, The Crucible of Creation, 1998) From these quotes, and others like them, my case is made that inconclusivity is still a live option scientifically speaking, regarding the fossil record. I'm not saying you can't believe what you do. I am saying that you can't pretend its a slam dunk. quote: In addition to the "jerky" and sparse appearance of fossils that could be called transitional, when a much more robust demonstration of common ancestry should have been expected according to Darwin himself ... you have the problem of subjectivity and limited analysis. If the Duck-billed Platypus can have both mammalian and bird-like features, and yet be no transition between mammals and birds (which, according to evolutionary theory did not come through the same lineage), how can we be sure ancient "transitionals" are not also mere oddities of anatomy? There are more than a handful of examples where similar homology has been shown to be genetically disparate (both genes and geology have shown very striking likenesses to be quite unrelated). Consider the following clip about homology, and what it can and cannot conclude ... NeoDarwinism's Homology Problem Jonathan Wells also wrote the following about homology: "The concept of homology can thus function in several ways, which can be brought into sharper focus by placing them in the context of syllogisms: A. Classical (morphological) view:
Premise 2 (Empirical observation). A bat’s wing and a whale’s flipper have similar structures. Conclusion. Therefore, a bat’s wing and a whale’s flipper are homologous features. A'. Darwin’s extension of the morphological view:
Premise 2 (Proposed explanation). Features are homologous because they are inherited from a common ancestor. Conclusion. Therefore, a bat’s wing and a whale’s flipper are inherited from a common ancestor. B. Post-Darwinian (phylogenetic) view:
Premise 2 (Assumption? Empirical inference?). A bat’s wing and a whale’s flipper are inherited from a common ancestor. Conclusion. Therefore, a bat’s wing and a whale’s flipper are homologous features. Ironically, the post-Darwinian (phylogenetic) definition of homology undercuts one of Darwin’s own arguments for evolution, since it requires that common ancestry be established (or assumed) before features can be called homologous. Logically speaking, it is a fallacy to infer evolution from phylogenetic homology: once one determines (or assumes) that features are homologous because of common ancestry, it would be circular reasoning to claim that homology demonstrates common ancestry." quote: Big and "watery"?? quote: Okay, well then Berlinski was basically correct to assume that a cow might be a good analagy of a land dweller that had to take on all the morphological changes necessary to evolve into a whale. Take a hippo if you wish, I don't think the differences are any less staggering. quote: And the fossil record is precisely where there is next to nothing reflecting the kinds of radical changes necessary throughout a common line of descent. quote: Because a few disconnected bones that are presumed to be the remnant of "legs" have been sadly subjected to the same kind of fallacious subjectivism as much of homology has been in the history of Darwinism. About Ambulocetus ... like the Duck billed platypus ... mere subjective intuitive connection cannot establish that a whale evolved from it. It is still in many regards light-years away, and doesn't look a darned thing like a whale. The fact that a mammal travels in water and on land does not make it a transition. It may be, but there's much more work to be done, if the inconclusivity of homology has taught us anything. quote: Bingo, I never said otherwise. What I am saying is that the fossil record does not reflect anywhere near most of, or even one percent of one percent of all the "little changes". We have a grossly different image here, and a grossly different snap-shot there with some similarities. But similarities are nothing new even among genetically disparate creatures. Some foot prints in Atlanta and some in Beijing do not prove a walking visit. (I have been there though, twice. )Grinch: quote: Sorry, I misunderstood you. It wasn't clear what you had in mind. It still isn't really. What other mechanisms of change, than genetic mutations, have been scientifically tested? quote: Speaking of sheer hypotheses that have been offered, your statement might be true. But the established aspect of the scientific theory, ie that genetic mutation can produce small-scale biological change, seems to rely soley on this 'minor' part. As scientifically established mechanisms, I don't believe what you're saying is true. I am hitherto unaware of any. And so I have opportunity to learn something. Let me hear it. quote: Grinch, the difference is, one involved the emergency of all the major phyla, the other didn't. Presumably mammals existed alongside these dinosaurs, if not primates. You seem to be overstating the similarity of evolutionary accomplishment in my opinion, though admittedly both examples of evolution are quite incredible to me. quote: Most references to the "explosion" say around 30 million years, though Samuel A. Bowring wrote that the appearance of all the major phyla was "unlikely to have exceeded 10 million years" in his "Calibrating Rates of Early Cambrian Evolution," Science 261 (1993). At any rate when the history of multicellular organisms is some 600 million years, and considering the diversity that appeared at the CE, even this would be somewhat small. quote: If you're asking for a mechanism I can't say. If you're asking for a reasonable explanation (evolution or no), it is Intelligent Design, and in some fashion or another the interposition of miraculous creation. It probably bristles with your scientism; But still I spy how a naturalistic philosophy must dictate biological grandualism, no matter how unlikely it might look. In that regard alone, like religion, it stems from other than scientific proof. Naturalism is a faith-in-something, even if that something happens to be nothing. But as I've stated from the beginning of this thread, the lack of a specific scientific theory (I personally believe bilogical origins to be somewhat inscrutable due to our limitations and time), does not make the criticsm of an existing one invalid. My wife doesn't have to have the perfect slipper, in order to know that another one doesn't fit. quote: In this case, I don't think the mechanic has revealed his mechanics. We only hear the distant roar of the engine, smell the fumes, and see a few tracks most of which have faded away. I really couldn't tell you how those guys down at the Honda dealership put in my new transmission, but I can tell you it wasn't by throwing in random pieces of scrap metal. Stephen |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
quote: We are not talking about perfect anything. There is no such thing. Should you get theological, I would suspect that it is reductionistic to consider God as a thing. If His works are perfect, that is a matter of faith and not empirical knowledge, since there is no measure for perfection other than my wife. Your wife can take up the subject with her. That is not the requirement. Your wife may not have a perfect slipper, but she is entirely likely to assume the flaws are in her foot rather than in the slipper itself. Since it is unclear which archetype we are talking about here, she may even be correct. The logic is not as clear as you would wish it to be. Or as I would wish it to be. There are a lot of different kinds of slippers. quote: You contradict yourself. The second you affirm that there is such a thing as "genetic mutation," which sounds a lot like "mutation" to me with an extra word tacked on to make it sound fancy, you contradict yourself. "Genetic mutation" is small scale biological change. Mutation is a scientifically established mechanism. We usually notice it as harmful or fatal, though that doesn't mean that harmful or fatal is the way it shows up most, I suppose. It simply means that obvious mutations appear to be fatal. This may or may not be true in the real world, but in observation it seems to be. Sometimes these mutations work and are incorporated. Remember the variety of mosquito around the London subways that turned into two species, one on the surface, one subsurface, over the course of a hundred years? Mutation to speciation. If you are not aware, you are not paying close attention to what you yourself are saying. quote: It strikes me that Darwin, in thinking that "every geological formation and every stratum" might be full of fossil record may simply not have been aware of which rock were capable of bearing fossils and surviving, and which ones were not, and how and where they might be laid down. The geology seems to have been revealing itself steadily as time between Darwin's time and our own seems to have passed. It seems that the various sedimentary rocks are best for fossil preservation, and not all areas of the planet have been muddy or swampy or — pardon me, Stephen, "watery" — over the last couple hundred million years. It also strikes me that the requests for intermediate forms has continued unabated over the past hundred fifty years no matter how many of them have been supplied. Folks in the scientific community have begun to have some difficulty with the request. Or at least with the urgency of the demands. No matter how many gaps are filled in, the folks who are inclined to discount the evidence will continue the mounting evidence because the concern isn't actually with the evidence, it's with fighting what amounts to a holding action. I happen to think that evolution is where the evidence is, and nothing else makes much sense. I also think that this does absolutely nothing to the necessity of religious belief for those who find in it a deep sense of personal meaning. The two should not be in competition. Science, sadly, refuses to admit to the competition it is in as a belief system with religion, and religion refuses to admit that the basis in fact that makes it so overwhelmingly real has not found a way of being tested empirically. It is still as real as being hit in the face by a two by four for those who have experienced its authority. It is this disagreement that gets played out on discussions such as this one. It seems to me, by the way, that it's as valid for a scientists to ask somebody convinced of intelligent design what the evidence is for intelligent design, and to question that as it is for somebody from a religious background to question evolution. I think intelligent design is a particularly silly scientific point of view to take because there is little scientific evidence to defend it, and to pretend otherwise makes it appear even more silly than it is. The best defense of a religious position is quiet faith in man's humanity, and in — should you hold that way — the divinity of God. It's really not such a bad position if you believe in it. Bob Kaven |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Bob, three points: 1) I was merely asking grinch for a mechanism of reproduced biological change, other than mutations. He keeps mentioning that genetic mutation is only a "small part", but I am not aware of any other scientifically established agent of change. I don't know it all, and would like to learn whether this is bluster or something to take note of. 2) I am not pitting Darwinian Evolution against religion or ID ... My discussion of ID has only emerged when discussing the belief in abiogenesis, or the spontaneous emergence of life. 3) I appreciate your views of how faith should present itself. And yet I cannot see the value of taking an existential approach by which God is made separate from any objective reality ... to such a degree that a creation-inference could not be called more correct than attributing the appearance of design to random and impersonal forces. Goodnight, Stephen |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
The spontaneous emergence of what? Did you mention that thing that you haven't defined again? You make it sound as though there were some HUGE threshold that was crossed, before which there was no life and after which there was life, like an on/off switch, such as exists between, possibly, life and death when a person has died. Surely you have no evidence for such a claim, only a supposition? Indeed, prions and viruses could be evolutionary precursors; trial runs, as it were in an evolutionary sense. Why would the evolution of "life" be so far beyond your conception if you can see potential trial runs at such a phenomenon still hanging around and, in fact, sometimes in competition with us "life'-forms for roughly the same ecological niche? Hummm? Namely, in the form of prions and viruses, which are complex proteins, and not particularly different from nano-machines. The creation of these things seems improbably or impossible because, I think, people believe they have some sense of the amounts of time involved, when they really don't. What they have is our mathematical way of describing numbers that are for all practical purposes too large to conceptualize, and this gives the illusion of some sense of understanding and control of the actual size of numbers and amounts of time large enough for oceans to dry up and for continents that we once joined to drift three thousand miles apart at the rate of one to three inches per century. To say that minor changes in chemical balances on the earth due to temperature shifts couldn't produce proteins over a long enough period of time is an underestimation of the actual amount of time involved. A person could look at the figures, and still have no actual notion of the amount of sheer time involved; the mass of it is almost literally beyond human apprehension. With a little understanding and a few tools and some understanding of chemistry, we have begun to research nano-machines within two-hundred years of chemistry first actually becoming a science. Nature's been at it for several billion years, trial and error, and is quite far ahead of us. But to say it can't be done by chance and that much time simply shows a limited understanding of the actual amount of the time. In my opinion. BK |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
Stephanos, quote: Yes, they are "truly enormous" as far as their importance as evidence, especially compared to Darwin's day. But I am starting to see it is not actually "many" or even "enough" that you seem to be demanding anymore. You are looking for "perfect". I gave you more than a few just for one area of the fossil record and there are yet even more for the same area, and all you do is write them off and avoid the evolutionary theme they bear out and bear out in conjunction with other evidence that supports it. You might find this article interesting: http://www.astrobio.net/pressrelease/3114/preserved-proteins. In 2007 protein was found on a Tyrannosaurus bone and it was found to match a chicken's more closely than any other kind of animal. Another example of protein from a hadrosaur confirms the results even further. One more thing you can try to shrug off and pretend is not scientific. quote: "Inconclusive" has nothing to do with it, as we spoke about earlier. Science is never concluded, because new evidence can always come in and change our understanding. When lines of evidence come in that contradict, instead of support, the evolution of birds from dinosaurs, (and other evolutionary relationships) then your denial may have the scientific ground you religiously pretend that evolution doesn't have. quote: That is completely false Stephanos. There is nothing different about how transitional fossils show up. They show up as fossils in sequences and geological orders, just as all other fossils, and in geographical distributions as well. There is nothing different surrounding the reality of their fossilhood. Scientists may have difficulties about classifying a fossil in a sequence when it shares features of more than one group, but that just proves the more that they are transitional: If they were obviously the one group or the other, there wouldn't be difficulty about which group it belongs to. Ambiguity--from features of both sides of a transition--goes hand in hand with the evidence of fossils being transitional. But this is not the case for the main theme of dinosaur to bird (and certain other major transitions), for we have strong evidence on both sides of the transition, showing each how the theme of bird-like characteristics comes about in dinosaurs and how dinosaur-like characteristics continue in birds and evolve more and more toward the familiar aspect and appearance of modern birds. There are difficulties about specific groupings of the fossils, but not about the general theme that they bear out. quote: The same way we know that whales are not derived from fish, we know that the platypus is not derived from birds or birds from it. Mammals evolved from egg-laying reptiles. But becoming non-egg-laying mammals didn't happen overnight. The platypus is a member of mammals that became geographically seperated from other mammals and therefore managed to take very different path. Why do you think they are only found in Australia, along with other animals unique to Australia? Biogeography is just one of many major areas that sheds light and evidence for evolutionary relationships among animals. Not to mention the fact that mammals still have the three genes for producing a protein called "vitellogenin". Vitellogenin is still used by birds, reptiles and monotremes like the platypus for making eggs. The only difference is that the genes are no longer used by us. They are "dead" or "vestigial". You can add those things to your grocery-list of things to deny. quote: Exactly, that is why there is no such blind use of homology in science. It wouldn't be good science if there were. Scientists use geological order and sequences, geographical distribution, and (now a days) molecular evidences, as well, to understand evolutionary relationships. If your approach were correct, scientists would just look at pterodactyls and say that birds came from them instead, or say that whales come from fishes because they are fishy in appearance, or that the platypus evolved from birds because it lays eggs and has a beak. But it doesn't work like that at all. If you think it does, then you don't know much at all about how much science goes into studying evolutionary relationships. quote: Didn't you know Hippos spend most of their time in water? quote: You are talking in terms of major misconceptions again. There are major differences between aquatic and non-aquatic animals. A line of animals already on the "aquatic side" is not anywhere as far from being more and more whale-like over time than an animal that is not, especially after millions of years of evolution. But I see how acknowledging those things obviously wouldn't come in handy for trying to deny such evolution. [This message has been edited by Essorant (01-08-2010 08:07 PM).] |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
For those who are interested, Here's More Berlinski: http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/204696-1 |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
quote: Do you really trust what the "Discovery Institute" puts out Stephanos? Anyway I will take a closer look, but I fear it will be a very familiar broken record. |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Ess, I said "for those interested" However to answer your comment: The "Discovery Institute" has some very noteworthy media and insights. Their stigmata according to the "atheist science" crowd is that they don't swallow contemporary Darwinism uncritically. That can be a difficult and unpopular position to take. Besides all that, as a scientist Berlinski has more brain in his little finger than you or I have in our heads, combined. That doesn't mean that I take him uncritically. He's an agnostic ... a position I vehemently disagree with obviously. If you fear it will be too familiar (if you really are familiar with either common Intelligent Design ideas, or of Evolutionary criticism) I think you'll be surprised. Rather than limiting talk to the fragmentary fossil record, or of complex biology, he went a direction that was surprising to me, speaking of the much broader philosophical history and cultures surrounding these issues. My point? We can all learn things from quarters we never dreamed of; Therefore the prejudice of your remark is unwarranted. Why not be a bit more open and limit comment to content? Hey, why not? After all, I've listened to your broken record for years now. That doesn't mean you haven't occasionally played some music I can appreciate. Stephen |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
Stephanos Have to admit that I was pleasantly surprised. It was a fairly intelligent discussion, thankfully not some attempt to say that there is no strong science behind Evolution. That was the "broken record" I was afraid of! |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Actually he does say there's little to no science (although a lot of commitment) behind evolution, much less strong science ... but I think this particular discussion went the cultural / philosophical route, concerning the recent spate of "scientific atheism". It just so happens that Evolution plays only a part in that whole discussion. He wrote an article called "The Deniable Darwin" that deals a little more with Evolution. It too is fairly intelligent, though sarcastically critical at times (then again, for me that's half the pleasure of reading Berlinski) http://www.arn.org/docs/berlinski/db_deniabledarwin0696.htm At any rate, glad you enjoyed. Stephen. |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
quote: I think I will let Dawkins' book "The Greatest Show on Earth" answer this part, since it addresses it much more sharply than I can: "Actually, we are lucky to have any fossils at all, let alone the massive numbers that we now do have to document evolutionary history - large numbers of which, by any standards, constitute beautiful "intermediates". I shall emphasize in Chapters 9 and 10 that we don't need fossils in order to demonstrate evolution is a fact. The evidence for evolution would be entirely secure, even if not a single corpse had ever fossilized. It is a bonus that we do actually have rich seams of fossils to mine, and more are discovered every day. The fossil evidence for evolution in many major animal groups is wonderfully strong. Nevertheless, there are, of course, gaps... Let's again make use of our analogy of the detective coming to the scene of a crime to which there were no eye witnesses. The baronet has been shot. Fingerprints, footprints, DNA from a sweat stain on a pistol, and a strong motive all point towards the butler. It's pretty much an open and shut case, and the jury and everybody in the court is convinced that the butler did it. But a last piece of evidence is discovered, in the nick of time before the jury retires to consider what had seemed to be their inevitable verdict of guilty: somebody remembers that the baronet had installed spy cameras against burglars. With bated breath, the court watches the films. One of them shows the butler in the act of opening the drawer in his pantry, taking out a pistol, loading it, and creeping stealthily out of the room with a malevolent gleam in his eye. You might think that this solidifies the case against the butler even further. Mark the sequel, however. The butler's defence lawyer astutely points out that there was no spy camera in the library where the murder took place, and no spy camera in the corridor leading from the butler's pantry. He wags his finger, in that compelling way that lawyers have made their own. "There's a gap in the video record! We don't know what happened after the butler left the pantry. There is clearly insufficient evidence to convict my client." In vain the prosecution lawyer points out that there was a second camera in the billiard room, and this shows, through the open door, the butler, gun at the ready, creeping tiptoe along the passage towards the library. Surely this plugs the gap in the video record? Surely the case against the butler is now unassailable? But no. Triumphantly the defence lawyer plays his ace. "We don't know what happened before or after the butler passed the open door of the billiard room. There are now two gaps in the video record. Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, my case rests. There is now even less evidence against my client than there was before". The fossil record, like the spy camera in the murder story, is a bonus, something that we had no right to expect as a matter of entitlement. There is already more than enough evidence to convict the butler without the spy camera, and the jury were about to deliver a guilty verdict before the spy camera was discovered. Similarly, there is more than enough evidence for the fact of evolution in the comparative study of modern species (Chapter 10) and their geographical distribution (Chapter 9). We don't need fossils - the case for evolution is watertight without them; so it is paradoxical to use gaps in the fossil record as though they were evidence against evolution. We are, as I say, lucky to have fossils at all." |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
But Dawkins doesn't mention the fact that there is little to no hard science which has shown random mutation capable of advancing function, and certainly nothing to show that it can transform any system from one thing to another altogether ... much less to advance one species to another (though I'm aware that there is no precise definition of species either). The fossil record is, at best, inconclusive. Many many paleontologists have expressed doubt (and still do) about how the fossil record can positively recommend Darwin's Theory ... and not always based upon what is not seen, or not available, but upon what is seen. "Intermediates" suffer, as always, from the spectre of vague homology, and from the sheer subjectivity they depend on, if they are to be considered "evidence" for evolution. That's as "soft" as science gets in my opinion. Back to Dawkins ... you do realize the argument he's making right? He's as much as conceding that the fossil record doesn't show that much ... and making the case (without actually making the case) that the evidence lies elsewhere, and therefore it wasn't needed anyway. Make no bones about it. Stephen |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Here we go again. It appears to me that the scientific argument for evolution is stronger than the scientific argument for God, and the faith based argument for for God and the Faith Based argument for evolution and for science are about equal, depending on what your predisposition may be, toward science or faith, in the first place. I don't think the dispute can be settled this way. I personally find the current definition of science as being identical with the scientific method as being lacking, and my faith in this form of science is not strong, though I see it as a powerful tool. I see religion as powerful, but as having its dangers as well, such as being taken over by archetypal forces and being led into irrational and dangerous directions such as the messianic fervor related to some of the sky God archetypes, such as Wotan or YWAH, or being overtaken by elements of the Magna Mater and losing the Self. |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Bob you don't think the dispute can be settled this way? Did we come here solely to settle the issue or to explore it, and test the limits of our own and others' arguments? I notice you didn't cease to express your views about the scientific veracity of evolution once you made the announcement it wouldn't be settled this way. I don't know whether that means you don't want me to respond to your statements. But I will venture to do so anyway. quote: I don't see how this can be, since evolution deals with appearances and extreme forms of extrapolation, unless you want to include as science the design inference from specified complexity. We can look at an outboard motor and know some intelligent mind made it, because of specified complexity. We can also look at a bacterial flagellum which puts the outboard motor to shame by way of form and functional elegance. What limits your definition of science again? On the other hand, if we are to accept the current region of the philosophy of science, as verifying only the empirically reproducible, and not intuitively inferential ... Then neither Darwinism or Deity have much if any evidence by way of strict science. But under such views of science as we now hold (generally speaking), it is healthy to note how incredibly limited science is. There is a host of things we know (some of them the most important things to us) which are not scientifically known. That doesn't mean that they are unscientific, but that science hasn't got the measuring tools. Not only doesn't it have the right tools, it doesn't even have the right kind of tools by nature of its own proper boundaries. That's okay, I'm comfortable with science not being "all that". To me that marks the difference between a due respect of science as a part of human knowing and achievement, and scientism. quote: I would, of course, say that the two are not equals here, since naturalistic evolution proposes an astounding amount of complexity, beauty, form and function ... all apart from intelligence. As Dawkins reminded his "parish" to remember that biological systems appear designed, but they're not. Perhaps this form of evolution is believed, not so much because of its faith appeal, but because, barring God (and all the irksome meddlesome issues that entails), it's the only game in town. At least that's my opinion as to why it's often believed. If God is rejected, it had to have happened. The details are second fiddle. Of course, the other option is accept God and Evolution as faith propositions. I'm surprised you didn't mention this, since you usually point out that science and faith need not be oppositional. My point is, there's no reason for someone to have one disposition or another. As I myself have a healthy interest in science, and am a Believer too. While I can't find myself convinced of the Theory of Common Descent, I certainly respect those who adopt this position or reconciliation between Darwin and Theism. And no one here doubts that religion is dangerous, as well as science. But so is marriage, and anything worthwhile. Stephen. |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
I need more time to respond, Stephanos, because it's late and because I can't say that I have serious quarrels with what you're saying at this point. I am bothered by the either/orness that folks tend to fall into when they don't consider things from as many angles as possible, but you're not doing that here. I'm not one to think that simply because one is willing to examine the world with and through the experience of wonder andf awe that Divinity must ride in on the back of those emotions. I think, paradoxically, that such a viewpoint may be reductive. As Lao Tsu says,"The Tao that can be named cannot be the true Tao." The true question about the statement is how wrong might it be? It must have some error built in because of the paradox, right? And it will certainly build at least a little from there. Best to you, your family and church. Bob Kaven |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
quote: Isn't something such as nipples on a male an example of a "random" mutation? I don't think anyone is saying that kind of mutation is an example of "advancement" of function. It is just an example that some features that are included are not there for an especially beneficial reason, as far as we can tell. The much more important part as far as advancement or complexity goes are the changes that aren't "random", the "Natural Selection" or differences that outstrip other differences and are "selected" (able to survive long enough) to be passed on into future generations. There are many living examples of natural selection showed through bacteria, birds (the finches' example being the most obvious), guppies and other fishes, lizards, plants. But as we said earlier changes are accumulative, small things that can add up to fairly big differences only after big amounts of time. Again, why would this principle not be at work as far as the long term of evolution and macro-evolutions or "transitions" of the fossil record are concerned (one-celled organism to muticellular, fishes branching to amphibians, amphibians branching to reptilian, dinosaurs branching to birds, etc. The fossil record DOES show evolutionary links/sequences from certain major species to other major species. If the first ancient microbes hadn't evolved into more advanced species (multicellular) then we would all still be unicellular microbes today. The same principle that allow finches to have more efficient beaks for their diet, is also what allowed the microbe to evolve beyond the microbe, fishy to branch into amphibious, amphibious to branch reptilian, reptilian to branch into mammalian, dinosaurian into avian etc. quote: We already discussed this though. There are always minorities that deny or doubt things, that is why we still have folks denying that the earth is round or that the holocaust took place. Saying that there are exceptions doesn't remove the general rule. The expressions/quotations of "doubt" you gave earlier were bits and peices from scientists works, which scientists mostly could be proved aren't in any major doubts about the basic/important parts, they just question some of the details, which is part of science. Indeed, in every group you will find people quibbling about the smaller details, but I don't know any serious work (especially not a recent one) by a paleontologist that denies that the fossil evidence supports the MAIN principles of Darwin. But even if some of Darwin's main principles were ever contradicted, that wouldn't remove the evidence that evolution still happens, it would just make us less confident of HOW It happens. quote: Do you have an example? The methods for judging evolutionary relationships are very STRICT. Scientists don't pile things together just because they are similar, they have very rigorous methods for distinguishing synapomorphies for example. Not only that but, geological sequences and geographic distrubution certainly help their understanding. You need to look carefully into all of those things to understand how much science goes into it. It is very excruciating! quote: I don't think he is saying it doesn't show much, he is just saying that our knowledge of evolution (at all) is not dependant on the fossil record. Without the fossil record we wouldn't know (or know very certainly) about many of the evolutions that DID take place from species to species, but we would still have strong evidence that evolution does take place. [This message has been edited by Essorant (08-06-2010 04:05 AM).] |
||
|
|
⇧ top of page ⇧ |
|
| All times are ET (US). All dates are in Year-Month-Day format. | ||
