Sincere question about evolution

[Janna]

I realize I am on extremely thin ice that is cracking even as I type. This is a sincere question and I beg you to see it as such with no flames and with the intense desire that this does not become threatening.

 

*deep breath*...OK...here I go...

 

If humans evolved from apes or monkeys...why are there still apes and monkeys? Wouldn't they no longer be around because they became us? Why are they not evolving? Why are *we* as humans not evolving into another being or animal? Are we the end road - the hierarchy, supreme being - to those who believe in evolution?

 

This article is what has me wondering.

 

Thank you.

[nmoira]

 

If humans evolved from apes or monkeys...why are there still apes and monkeys?

Because we are not evolving "to something," we're just evolving. Speciation is a branching off; sometimes alternatives branches do indeed die off, but that's not necessarily what happens.

[Karen sn]

We didn't necessarily evolve from them. We and they evolved from a common ancestor. We share some VERY distant relative.....maybe.

[Ravin]

What the previous two posters said: we didn't evolve from apes or monkeys. We had a common ancestor. If I recall correctly from intro to physical anthropology, about 55 million years ago for the split from monkeys.

 

All species have just as much evolutionary time behind their existence. The thing about evolutionary theory is that it doesn't put humanity up on a pedestal. We are not superior to other kinds of life by virtue of our origins. Chance has as much to do with it as natural selection, if not more.

 

To talk about direction/destiny, a hierarchy or supreme being, is to bring religion into the mix.

[Mom to Aly]

I was saw an exhibit that so well explains this at the National Aquarium in Baltimore. It was of a species of fish. They lived near a cave. Some stayed away from the cave in sunlight, and had normal eyes; others stayed close to the cave and evolved, in the near darkness, to having very small eyes that did not work well. Still others moved into the cave, in total darkness, and evolved to having no eyes, as they were not necessary. Evolution depends on the environment, what is necessary, which path a portion of the species takes, etc. Not all of a species evolves in the same way, at the same rate, etc. And, if a portion of a species moves off, and has different influences, including nourishment, the change in evolution can be tremendous.

 

Also, by the way, they may have implied in the article that it is because these are our "closest genetic relatives", but in Spain and Europe, it isn't really the way they are putting it, not the majority of people. My ex in-laws are in France (it feels so good to say ex there!), and my ex MIL is a prof of Catalan and very involved with the universities in Spain, and they see it as an important animal rights move.

[manylilblessings]

Ready? I'm coming out on the ice with you...

 

The evolutionary theory is that there is a common ancestor and humans and apes are branches from that ancestor. Fossil evidence of that ancestor does not exist. Fossil evidence of the intermediary steps between that ancestor and humans does not exist. Fossil evidence of any intermediary step in determining the direction a speciation took (macroevolution) does not exist. That's why it's a theory.

 

Mutations have consistently been shown to decrease/diminish the information in the genetic code, not increase it. So, if you call mutations "evolving", then yes, we are evolving, but not into anything more complex than we already are. We're actually disintegrating which follows the theory of entropy.

 

Just like the fish. It can be argued that the fish which had eyes which mutated to be smaller, could only survive in the cave, so that's where they thrived and are found. That mutation decreased the genetic code... it did not enhance it.

 

Brrrrr.... it's cold in this water!

[nmoira]

The evolutionary theory is that there is a common ancestor.

Common ancestors. If you're looking at humans vs chimps there would be a different common ancestor than say humans vs sea sponges. The common ancestor of all living things would be a one celled creature... and it's quite unreasonable to expect one to have been fossilized.

 

Fossil evidence of that ancestor does not exist.

Well, that not quite the case. Here's a summary. However, we need not go by fossil evidence alone. It's particularly interesting to see the how phylogenetic trees generated from physiological and embryological analysis (the "old fashioned way") correspond to those generated from newfangled genetic analysis.

[Kathy in MD]

...... Fossil evidence of that ancestor does not exist. Fossil evidence of the intermediary steps between that ancestor and humans does not exist. Fossil evidence of any intermediary step in determining the direction a speciation took (macroevolution) does not exist. That's why it's a theory.

 

......

 

The majority of scientists do accept certain fossil findings as showing intermediate, evolutionary steps. In recent years, there have been many new discoveries considered intermediate steps for many species. A realitively (10 years+/-) new one shows the intermediate steps for whales leaving the land and entering the sea to eventially become legless.

 

So the question is, how do various individuals explain the fossil findings and what would they require for proof?

[manylilblessings]

Phylogenetic trees do not prove links, they prove relationships. Those plants are interrelated. Much like you can tell the works of Seurat because of their commonalities, even though each is different. This speaks to Intelligent Design, not common descent. With a creator, it's quite likely that, like an artist, you would see commonalities in the design, especially with a DNA code that's so miraculously designed that it works!

 

The whale which a PP spoke of is not necessarily a whale at all. There are 5 characteristics which are commonly accepted by scientists to classify a living animal or a fossil as a whale. That fossil, which is not complete, and in fact is quite fragmented, fails the test on 3 of the 5 characteristics. Not definitive proof of anything other than something with legs swam in the sea and became fossilized. Those types of animals are still around now. Science magazine has recently suggested that the whale is actually a terrestrial animal, and not what was originally thought.

 

If you view everything from the grid of evolution being true, you can fit things into the theory to try to substantiate it. But... as we've seen over time, those pieces that are fit into the puzzle don't necessarily fit, and sometimes dinosaurs end up with switched heads. It's an imperfect theory still.

[nmoira]

This speaks to Intelligent Design, not common descent. With a creator, it's quite likely that, like an artist, you would see commonalities in the design, especially with a DNA code that's so miraculously designed that it works!

"Oooh, it was God because it couldn't have been anything else" is not a scientific argument. And why should an omni-omni creator display such very human limitations?

 

Back to science. What about junk DNA, the portions that don't work, that are degrading? Like pseudogenes? Why do we see patterns in these across and between species?

 

If you view everything from the grid of evolution being true, you can fit things into the theory to try to substantiate it. But... as we've seen over time, those pieces that are fit into the puzzle don't necessarily fit, and sometimes dinosaurs end up with switched heads. It's an imperfect theory still.

OK, here you have Darwin who comes up with this idea based on substantial amounts observation. He knows nothing about DNA or mitochondrial DNA, or anything much smaller than the head of a small pin. Since Darwin, we have found more fossils, discovered DNA, made great advances in biochemistry, made more physical observations across disciplines (i.e. geology, biology, etc.). The overwhelming majority of Post-Darwinian evidence supports or is consistent with evolution. That's why it's called a Theory instead of an hypothesis, because the overwhelming bulk of the evidence supports it.

 

Where's your smoking gun? What doesn't fit? What is your evidence that disproves evolution?

[ereks mom]

Ready? I'm coming out on the ice with you...

 

The evolutionary theory is that there is a common ancestor and humans and apes are branches from that ancestor. Fossil evidence of that ancestor does not exist. Fossil evidence of the intermediary steps between that ancestor and humans does not exist. Fossil evidence of any intermediary step in determining the direction a speciation took (macroevolution) does not exist.

 

There's a great explanation about all of this in Apologia's Exploring Creation with General Science.

[HRAAB]

This thread reminded me of something I've been wanting to ask. For those of you who are well educated on the matter of evolution (which I accept), do you have any books to recommend for an 11 yr old which mom could learn from also. Good books, good science. I'm not interested in the argument for creationism. Just a book on evolution.

 

Janet

[nmoira]

 

This thread reminded me of something I've been wanting to ask. For those of you who are well educated on the matter of evolution (which I accept), do you have any books to recommend for an 11 yr old which mom could learn from also. Good books, good science. I'm not interested in the argument for creationism. Just a book on evolution.

These aren't traditional texts, but there are two introductory books we rather like. The first is the Horrible Science book Evolve or Die (from the Horrible Histories people). It's a good, very readable overview that will give you ideas for further research. Another family favourite is The Sandwalk Adventures, a graphic novel about two follicle mites living in Darwin's eyebrow. They think he's a god and he spends the bulk of the book disabusing them of the notion and explaining the theory of evolution. The science is good -- the author, Jay Hosler, is a Professor of Biology -- and you learn a fair bit about follicle mites as well. :) [Hosler's Clan Apis, about bees, is another hit here, though it doesn't deal with evolutionary science.]

[manylilblessings]

The smoking gun, as it were, is entropy and the 2nd law of Thermodynamics. Pseudogenes fall into this category. They're no longer functioning, because of the declining amount of information in the genetic code. The only changes we see, aside from minor adaptive changes which aren't always genetically determined, are ones which decrease the information in the genetic code. That speaks clearly against the idea that over time living things have "evolved" to be more complex.

 

The problem with evolution, is that for a scientist to doubt it, he would have to embrace a completely different worldview, which, in the scientific community is thought of as intellectual suicide. Every year there are dozens of ways that evolutionary ideas are disproved, but they're just written off as misunderstood. They're the pieces that don't fit. Evolutionist get the benefit of the doubt when they're wrong, but they get paraded around as heroes when they add to the theory. The retractions are done with much less grandeur than the "discoveries".

 

Intelligent Design is a widely accepted theory, even among Evolutionary scientists. Because, the question of origin is the one which is the least proven. None of the theories make sense, but accepting a Creator is contrary to scientific thought. So, ID is the new buzz. The systematic way that living things are designed speak to design, not chance.

 

I know I'll never convince someone who isn't open to thinking about another point of view, but the reality is that Creationism isn't just a set of Bible stories. It's supported by science, moreso each day as discoveries are made. I've learned about Evolution. I have a Bachelors in Biology from UCLA. Have you read everything there is to learn about Young Earth Creationism? Challenge yourself to do so... it takes an understanding of both sides to form a conclusion.

[genie]

 

I know I'll never convince someone who isn't open to thinking about another point of view, but the reality is that Creationism isn't just a set of Bible stories. It's supported by science, moreso each day as discoveries are made.

 

I noticed you're new to posting here, and wasn't sure how long you've been lurking, but I thought I'd link a past thread that you might be interested in reading if you haven't already. (If you've already seen it, just ignore me. )

[nmoira]

The smoking gun, as it were, is entropy and the 2nd law of Thermodynamics. Pseudogenes fall into this category. They're no longer functioning, because of the declining amount of information in the genetic code.

But not because they are no longer expressed, or expressed in a meaningful way such that they present a selective advantage to one form over another? I'm not sure how one can argue from an ID perspective that there are sections genetic code no longer used which are becoming degraded but do not effect the overall appearance, behavior, or outlook of the organism. If evolution doesn't exist, why were they there to begin with?

 

BTW, you are misapplying the Second Law. Our bodies are not discrete energy systems; when we stop supplying them with energy (i.e. food) they break down.

 

The only changes we see, aside from minor adaptive changes which aren't always genetically determined, are ones which decrease the information in the genetic code. That speaks clearly against the idea that over time living things have "evolved" to be more complex.

Do mutations in flu viruses decrease the information in their genetic code? Or mutations affecting an animal's color? Or ridiculously short legs in cats? We see frequently see mutations which do not "decrease the information in the genetic code," so the rest of your argument doesn't follow.

 

Every year there are dozens of ways that evolutionary ideas are disproved, but they're just written off as misunderstood. They're the pieces that don't fit.

So you've said, but you haven't offered any.

 

I know I'll never convince someone who isn't open to thinking about another point of view, but the reality is that Creationism isn't just a set of Bible stories. It's supported by science, moreso each day as discoveries are made.

What science? What discoveries? I'm open to new information.

 

I've learned about Evolution. I have a Bachelors in Biology from UCLA. Have you read everything there is to learn about Young Earth Creationism? Challenge yourself to do so... it takes an understanding of both sides to form a conclusion.

Having a Bachelors in Biology does not make you an authority on evolutionary biology. And, no, I have not read "everything there is." I doubt many have, no matter what their position. Are you well read in Hinduism, Buddhism, Shintoism, animism, paganism? Please challenge yourself to do so if you're not. Many people can reconcile the idea of a Creator with evolutionary theory.

[manylilblessings]

I am new posting here. I've been lurking a few weeks, but thought I'd jump in. I think at this point I've completely derailed the OP's thread, so apologies to the OP for that!

 

I'm in CO as well Genie... funny!

 

Thanks for the link. I'll read through it, it's a lot of pages!

 

Melissa

[HRAAB]

These aren't traditional texts, but there are two introductory books we rather like. The first is the Horrible Science book Evolve or Die (from the Horrible Histories people). It's a good, very readable overview that will give you ideas for further research. Another family favourite is The Sandwalk Adventures, a graphic novel about two follicle mites living in Darwin's eyebrow. They think he's a god and he spends the bulk of the book disabusing them of the notion and explaining the theory of evolution. The science is good -- the author, Jay Hosler, is a Professor of Biology -- and you learn a fair bit about follicle mites as well. :) [Hosler's Clan Apis, about bees, is another hit here, though it doesn't deal with evolutionary science.]

 

Thank you. My dd loves the Horrible Science books. We'll check out the others.

 

Janet

[Janna]

Thank you to all who responded (and fell into the icy-cold water with me). I don't think I fully understand what the *exact* definition of biological evolution is and it's inherent meaning. But it sounds like I'm not the only one. I truly appreciate what everyone said. I will continue looking into this. However, I'm bowing out because I don't want this thread to go into a possible flame-war. Thanks again!

[Phred]

The smoking gun, as it were, is entropy and the 2nd law of Thermodynamics.

Well, I held back as everyone else was doing such a good job. But this is just too far. By invoking the 2LOTD you've basically just let us all know you have no idea what you're talking about. The second law of thermodynamics relates to a CLOSED system, unlike the earth... which happens to have the SUN blasting energy into it 24 hours a day.

 

The problem with evolution, is that for a scientist to doubt it, he would have to embrace a completely different worldview, which, in the scientific community is thought of as intellectual suicide. Every year there are dozens of ways that evolutionary ideas are disproved, but they're just written off as misunderstood. They're the pieces that don't fit. Evolutionist get the benefit of the doubt when they're wrong, but they get paraded around as heroes when they add to the theory. The retractions are done with much less grandeur than the "discoveries".

In other words, accept Goddidit... forget about needing evidence and accept the Bible as all the evidence that is ever needed. Only that's not science. That's not a problem with evolution... it's a problem with religion. You don't have the evidence needed to be science.

 

Intelligent Design is a widely accepted theory, even among Evolutionary scientists.

That's a lie.

 

Because, the question of origin is the one which is the least proven. None of the theories make sense, but accepting a Creator is contrary to scientific thought.

No evidence, no science. There's no evidence for a creator. See how that works?

 

So, ID is the new buzz. The systematic way that living things are designed speak to design, not chance.

No... it's the same old buzz... you had your chance to show off ID in Dover PA and the judge termed it "astounding inanity". Some "new buzz".

 

I know I'll never convince someone who isn't open to thinking about another point of view, but the reality is that Creationism isn't just a set of Bible stories

All you need is evidence. Sadly, you have none.

 

It's supported by science, moreso each day as discoveries are made. I've learned about Evolution. I have a Bachelors in Biology from UCLA. Have you read everything there is to learn about Young Earth Creationism? Challenge yourself to do so... it takes an understanding of both sides to form a conclusion.

You have a BS in Biology? And you still talk this way? I hesitate to call you a liar but... I find it hard to believe... you use the hackneyed 2LOTD argument? Comon...

 

Tell me, what's an endogenous retrovirus and why is it important... without google.

[Margo out of lurking]

a species of fish. They lived near a cave. Some stayed away from the cave in sunlight, and had normal eyes; others stayed close to the cave and evolved, in the near darkness, to having very small eyes that did not work well. Still others moved into the cave, in total darkness, and evolved to having no eyes, as they were not necessary. Evolution depends on the environment,

 

 

I just wanted to say that this fish example is micro-evolution, which is commonly accepted no matter what you believe about evolution. Micro-evolution differs from macro-evolution, where the fish would change into a completely different animal...

 

I always find these threads so interesting.

[newlifemom]

I think that questioning someone's intelligence is not very respectful. I found both discussions of this thread very interesting although I do support ID until this last one and can understand why the OP bowed out. The great thing about classical education and thinking is the conversation which needs to be courteous and respectful at all times. Thanks for listening.

 

Pam

[Tabrett]

Mutations have consistently been shown to decrease/diminish the information in the genetic code, not increase it. So, if you call mutations "evolving", then yes, we are evolving, but not into anything more complex than we already are. We're actually disintegrating which follows the theory of entropy.

 

Just like the fish. It can be argued that the fish which had eyes which mutated to be smaller, could only survive in the cave, so that's where they thrived and are found. That mutation decreased the genetic code... it did not enhance it.

 

Brrrrr.... it's cold in this water!

 

Would this be akin to Sickle Cell Anemia found in people of African origin? It protects them form malaria, but causes them to die young?

[manylilblessings]

I in no way suggested that I'm an expert on evolutionary biology... simply that acquiring a degree required me to learn a great deal about evolution. After that point, I read an equal amount on creationism. In college I could reconcile evolution with my faith. After researching the Young Earth side, I could no longer reconcile the two. That's why I suggested being familiar with both sides. It seems to me that creationism isn't given it's due when it comes to scientists who should at least read it. On the other side... most people have read the opposite viewpoint by default.

 

Yes, I've studied the religions of the world. I did my time in a small liberal arts college before transferring with the masses to UCLA.

 

Phred.... your manner is insulting, so I will respectfully bow out.

 

Melissa

[Phred]

I just wanted to say that this fish example is micro-evolution, which is commonly accepted no matter what you believe about evolution. Micro-evolution differs from macro-evolution, where the fish would change into a completely different animal...

 

I always find these threads so interesting.

Hi Kristine... Micro and macro evolution are aspects of the same thing. Small changes become big ones. The thing is, whatever change happens, it's gradual. A fish never just changes into a reptile or a dog or something. A fish will always give birth to a fish. Just a slightly different fish. That fish will give birth to a slightly different fish. It may take thousands and thousands of generations before the tiny fish's progeny becomes a giant fish... but that's how it works. I repeat... never do two parents ever give birth to something that isn't what they are. Yet, if you compare those two parents to the creature 100,000 generations removed from them, a blink of an eye in geologic time, they likey wouldn't recognize the animal they're related to.

[Phred]

I in no way suggested that I'm an expert on evolutionary biology... simply that acquiring a degree required me to learn a great deal about evolution. After that point, I read an equal amount on creationism. In college I could reconcile evolution with my faith. After researching the Young Earth side, I could no longer reconcile the two. That's why I suggested being familiar with both sides. It seems to me that creationism isn't given it's due when it comes to scientists who should at least read it. On the other side... most people have read the opposite viewpoint by default.

 

Yes, I've studied the religions of the world. I did my time in a small liberal arts college before transferring with the masses to UCLA.

 

Phred.... your manner is insulting, so I will respectfully bow out.

 

Melissa

Hey Melissa. If you're still reading... you should know better. Science and religion are NOT equal, they are NOT two sides of the same argument. One is based in evidence, the other based upon faith.

[manylilblessings]

Of course I'm still reading, as are you. I find it amusing that you've taken your board insults to private insults. My rep number means nothing to me. I have nothing to prove to you... I'm simply on the other side of this issue, and I suggested that you read Creation Science, not to change your mind, but because in the pursuit of truth, reading all the sides of the argument is generally thought to be the best way to formulate your own opinions.

[Phred]

I'm simply on the other side of this issue, and I suggested that you read Creation Science, not to change your mind, but because in the pursuit of truth, reading all the sides of the argument is generally thought to be the best way to formulate your own opinions.

Did you read all the creation myths in existence before deciding that the Christian version was the right one? If not, how can you slight me for deciding to read one less? I don't need to read "creation science" (although that's a misnomer, it's not science) even though I have, quite thoroughly... to know it's false. How do I know? There. Is. No. Evidence. For instance, you claimed earlier that Intelligent Design is an accepted scientific theory. Would you please post here what it states? What is the "theory of intelligent design?"

[Melissa in NC]

A simple explanation as to why there is still monkeys and apes around is this:

 

You and your cousin have a common ancestor in your grandparents. Just because you exist does not mean your cousin could not exist. You are descended from different branches of your family.

[Storm Bay]

Back to evolution so soon. Here are a few new thoughts I didn't share before (if you disagree, please read carefully before responding as this is mostly food for thought, not argument--none of us can go back to the start and demonstrate our side, and I'm not a 6000 year old earth person.) Plus, I've FINALLY found the answer to a question I posted twice before as to the origin of the falsifiability stuff, and don't think that I'm going to say this is wrong!!!! I'm not.

 

I have been doing some reading on all sides of this basically 3-way argument between creationists-ID advocates and evolutionists.

 

First off, we need to look at a few things.

 

There isn't just one form of evolutionary theory out there, and none of the ones I'm aware of are exactly what Darwin first put down in his general and special theories. Also, and I'm not an ID person, NOT all ID followers are Christians; some are agnostics, such as the famous, or infamous, depending on your POV, Michael Denton from NZ. Serious neo Darwinists tend to despise IDism and claim that it is unscientific because you can't prove God because it's not falsifiable.

 

What no one answered for me before was the who and the when behind the given that all true science has to be falsifiable. The best I've found out is that it was the scientific philosopher Karl Popper who first proposed this. He'd grown up with Freud, Einstein, et al and by the time he came up with this, Freud, who'd been considered scientific and right, had been written off, but Einstein hadn't. He, (please hang on to your seats and bear with me to the end before becoming angry[:001_smile:/I]) initially argued that evolution was not falsifiable, but later went back on this after great backlash from the evolutionists.

 

In order for a theory to be falsifiable, it has to make statements which have the potential to be proven false. What I found surprising in my reading, since I'm not an ID supporter, is that even though you can't falsify God, many ID people DON'T believe in God AND, like Einstein, there are specific things mentioned that actually can technically be proven false. I had to return the book, but the one I can think of off the top of my head is the one that says that there are irreducibly complex systems that cannot have evolved one small step at a time. So, all you have to do is prove that these systems can do that, and you've disproved ID.

 

2. The thing about proof of evolution is complicated, because generally when you prove something, you disprove your rival theories and/or hypotheses at the same time. For a very simple eg, when the first artificial insemination was done, it disproved, once and for all, that women had to enjoy s*x in order to conceive. On one hand this greatly helped r*p* victims who conceived, on the other hand it led to the era when nice women weren't supposed to enjoy it at all. When we find apparent fossil links they don't actually disprove ID because they don't disprove the irreducibly complex systems, some of which occur in seemly very simple cells. When great genetic discoveries are made they technically neither prove nor disprove any of the three arguments, because all three can be supported by the same find.

 

3. When it comes to the number of ID vs neo-Darwinist (or other evolutionary groups) it's difficult to say who is in the vast majority as it depends on the survey--surveys aren't the most accurate way of proving a case. Also, many ID proponents in the scientific world are advised to stay quiet about their beliefs so that they will be able to find employment.

 

4. When it comes to evolution, though, it has never stated, as I've studied it, that we came from apes, but from a common ancestor.

 

5. If you study the history of science you'll find that it is rare (but not unheard of) that older scientists change their stances. Usually it's the younger generation that does that.

 

6. Did you know that when Einstein published his papers there was no peer review system? Would they have been published if there had been? Many argue that this system does more to repress science and keep it in a box than to help it. Now that's a hot topic!!!

[Phred]

In order for a theory to be falsifiable, it has to make statements which have the potential to be proven false. What I found surprising in my reading, since I'm not an ID supporter, is that even though you can't falsify God, many ID people DON'T believe in God AND, like Einstein, there are specific things mentioned that actually can technically be proven false. I had to return the book, but the one I can think of off the top of my head is the one that says that there are irreducibly complex systems that cannot have evolved one small step at a time. So, all you have to do is prove that these systems can do that, and you've disproved ID.

Actually, you've disproved IC... irreducible complexity. That's Michael Behe's hypothesis from his book, Darwin's Black Box. It's not ID.

 

Otherwise, great post.

[tibbyl]

(Janna wrote: This article is what has me wondering.)

 

Synopsis: Spain extending dignity to great apes by prohibiting their use in certain entertainment and commercial endeavors.

 

This is NOT a reply to the original poster's evolutionary question.

 

Spain's transition from the fascist Franco-ruled unenlightened poor backwoods cousin of Europe to a thriving egalitarian socialist (in generic sense) democracy in less than three decades is nothing short of extraordinary. Maybe they could teach a few other countries a thing or two.

 

In Europe, it was not all that long ago that Spain was right up there with Greece for allowing and even encouraging unnecessary cruelty to animals. Now if they can just continue down that path ...

[tibbyl]

Oops, I omitted: ...continue down that path to ban bullfighting.

[tibbyl]

This thread reminded me of something I've been wanting to ask. For those of you who are well educated on the matter of evolution (which I accept), do you have any books to recommend for an 11 yr old which mom could learn from also. Good books, good science. I'm not interested in the argument for creationism. Just a book on evolution.

 

Janet

 

 

Janet, Bill Bryson's book "A Short History of Nearly Everything" has a clearly written chapter on evolutionary theory. Also, PBS produced an excellent documentary 7-part series titled "Evolution." Netflix carries it; you could also check your library. There are evolution books written specifically for children, but we have not read any of them.

 

Even though the following book for 5th-9th graders is not about evolution, it provides an excellent explanation of how science works and how to apply logic, reason, and probability: How Do You Know It's True?: Discovering the Difference Between Science and Superstition.

My reluctant reader gave the book rave reviews, and frankly I enjoyed it too.

[HRAAB]

Janet, Bill Bryson's book "A Short History of Nearly Everything" has a clearly written chapter on evolutionary theory. Also, PBS produced an excellent documentary 7-part series titled "Evolution." Netflix carries it; you could also check your library. There are evolution books written specifically for children, but we have not read any of them.

 

Even though the following book for 5th-9th graders is not about evolution, it provides an excellent explanation of how science works and how to apply logic, reason, and probability: How Do You Know It's True?: Discovering the Difference Between Science and Superstition.

My reluctant reader gave the book rave reviews, and frankly I enjoyed it too.

 

Thanks for these recommendations. I remember the PBS series.

 

Janet

[HRAAB]

Another question I forgot.

 

Is there anyone who supports the young earth, creationist theory that is not Christian? Coming strictly from a scientific background with nothing to prove (biblical truth)?

 

Janet

[nmoira]

 

Is there anyone who supports the young earth, creationist theory that is not Christian? Coming strictly from a scientific background with nothing to prove (biblical truth)?

:lurk5:

[genie]

:lurk5:

 

Hey Moira, you got enough for me?

[nmoira]

 

Hey Moira, you got enough for me?

As long as you're not vegan; mine's already buttered. :)

[tibbyl]

Another question I forgot.

 

Is there anyone who supports the young earth, creationist theory that is not Christian? Coming strictly from a scientific background with nothing to prove (biblical truth)?

 

Janet

 

Janet, I have wondered that very same thing and did google searches. Came up empty handed.

[genie]

As long as you're not vegan; mine's already buttered. :)

 

Me? Vegan? Nope, I like meat way too much! :tongue_smilie:

[KidsHappen]

Another question I forgot.

 

Is there anyone who supports the young earth, creationist theory that is not Christian? Coming strictly from a scientific background with nothing to prove (biblical truth)?

 

Janet

 

I read a book by Richard Milton called, "Shattering the myths of Darwinism" that kind of comes at this from this angle. You might want to do some internet research on him before reading it as I seem to remember that it may have been debunked. I think that Doran may have lead me in the direction of the internet info on it. Can't remember, it was a while ago. Anyway, you can probably get it at your library.

[nmoira]

I have wondered that very same thing and did google searches. Came up empty handed.

I was thinking maybe some fundamentalist Muslims, and sure enough found this in Wikipedia. However, there's no source listed.

[Phred]

Why would anyone want meat on their popcorn.... gravy maybe...

[Phred]

I'll withhold comment on the question until all the non-religious young-earth creationists have had time to answer.

 

:lurk5:(without meat thank you)

[genie]

Why would anyone want meat on their popcorn.... gravy maybe...

 

Ah Phred, you slay me!

[Haiku]

If humans evolved from apes or monkeys...why are there still apes and monkeys

 

Because we didn't necessarily evolve from the same branch of apes/monkeys that are around now. We evolved from a different branch.

 

Why are *we* as humans not evolving into another being or animal?

We probably are. But evolution happens so slowly, it's not really something we'd observe happening.

 

Are we the end road - the hierarchy, supreme being - to those who believe in evolution?

I certainly hope not. If humans are the best thing that will ever come along , we're in deep trouble.

 

I've actually felt that those who don't believe in evolution are more likely to view humans as the pinnacle of beings (second, of course, to god, for those who believe).

 

Tara

[Phred]

So... for those of you just joining us... we've been listening to Frederic Chopin's Polonaise for pianoforte, composed in 1818. It was originally presented by Chopin to the Empress Maria Teodorowna, mother of the Czar, on the occasion of her visit to Warsaw on 26 Sep 1818.

 

Meanwhile, there are no answers posted yet to any of the questions asked so far... to recap:

 

What is the Theory of Intelligent Design? Since it's claimed to be an accepted scientific theory it should be able to be posted here for us to discuss. What is it, what predictions does it make and what does it describe?

 

Are there any young-earth creationists who are not religious or Christian?

 

While we're waiting, let's listen to some other musical programming...

 

:lurk5:munch, munch...

[Storm Bay]

So... for those of you just joining us... we've been listening to Frederic Chopin's Polonaise for pianoforte, composed in 1818. It was originally presented by Chopin to the Empress Maria Teodorowna, mother of the Czar, on the occasion of her visit to Warsaw on 26 Sep 1818.

 

Meanwhile, there are no answers posted yet to any of the questions asked so far... to recap:

 

What is the Theory of Intelligent Design? Since it's claimed to be an accepted scientific theory it should be able to be posted here for us to discuss. What is it, what predictions does it make and what does it describe?

 

Are there any young-earth creationists who are not religious or Christian?

 

While we're waiting, let's listen to some other musical programming...

 

:lurk5:munch, munch...

 

Okay, I'm NOT an ID advocate, just read a couple of books on it to see what people have to say that believe in it. I'm far more interested in discussing Karl Popper, to be honest. He defined the scientific method. While I haven't read the entire book yet, having finally got to the point of starting it after wading through other books. The book I've started now is Conjectures and Refutations. Although he started his definition of the scientific method in 1919, this book is from the 1960s. To really see what he has to say, you have to read the book. However, here are a few quotes from the first chapter, "Science: Conjectures and Refutations."

 

1. "The problem which troubled me at the time [1919] was neither, 'When is a theory true?' nor, "When is a theory acceptable?' My problem was different. I wished to distinguish between science and psuedo-science; knowing very well that science often errs, and that pseudo-science may happen to stumble on the truth." [emphasis is Popper's]

 

2. "I knew, of course, the most wideley accepted answer to my problem: that science is distinguished form pseudo-science--or from 'metaphysics'--by its empirical method,..."

 

on pages 36-37 he has a list of seven things. Emphasis all his. Any typos mine.

 

"1. It is easy to obtain confirmations, or verifications, for nearly every theory--if we look for confirmations.

2. Confirmations should count only if they are the result of risky preditions; That is to say, if, unenlightened by the theory in question, we should have expected an event which was incompatible with the theory--an event which would have refuted the theory.

3. Every 'good' scientific theory is a prohibition: it forbids certain things to happen. The more a theory forbids, the better it is.

4. A theory which is not refutable by any conceivable event is non-sceintific. Irrefutability is not a virtue of a theory (as people often think) but a vice.

5. Every genuine test of a theory is an attempt to falsify it, or to refute it. Testability is falsifiabililty; but there are degrees of testabililty: some theories are more testable, more exposed to refutation, than others; they take, as it were, greater risks.

6. Confirming evidence should not count except when it is the result of a genuine test of the theory; and this means that it can be presented as a serious but unsuccessful attempt to falsify the theory. I now speak in such cases of 'corroborating evidence'.)

7. Some genuinely testable theories, when found to be false, are still upheld by their admirers--for example by introducting ad hoc some auxiliary assumption, or by re-interpreting the theory ad hoc in such a way that it escapes refutation. Such a procedure is always possible, but it rescues the theory from refutation only at the price of destroying, or at least lowering, its scientific status. (I later described such a rescuing operation as a 'conventionalist stratagem'._

 

"One can sum up all this by saying that the criterion of the scientific status of a theory is its falsifiability, or refutability, or testability.."

 

Now, having recently read both the ID and evolutionist arguments, I have noticed that both sides accuse the other of many things, and don't really want to get into that part. I also noticed that there is neither one school of thought on evolutionary theory, nor just one in ID'sm. There are Christians on both sides of the debate, as well as agnostics and atheists.

 

What I would like to ask is, upon studying the history of evolution from Darwin to now, and the different current forms of the theory of evolution (neo-Darwinism is one), has the theory of evolution been changed ad hoc? For example, Darwin had a totally different concept of what cells are than microbiology discovered to be correct. He also had no understanding of genetics and just how traits are passed on. Mendel's "genetics" hadn't been combined with evolution yet; that was a twentieth century melding.

 

Bear in mind, that I don't think the earth is 6,000 years old, nor do I think one global flood can account for the geological and fossil records we see. I haven't bothered to bring up what I think there, and don't really want to at this point, because I'm more interested in the philosophical underpinnings of what constitutes science vs psuedo-science, etc. I find that emotions get hot on all sides of this debate, and am not even bringing up religious beliefs in this post because so many times the discussion has revolved around what constitutes science.

 

One other question is, is there a good new book that clearly, with lab results, shows the irreduceably complex systems to be incorrect? Not just a theoritical explanation, but something solid. As I said, I'm not an ID proponent, because from what I've seen it's basically a guided evolution via God or an intellegence or else the result of "panspermia" or some other theory/theology.

[Phred]

What I would like to ask is, upon studying the history of evolution from Darwin to now, and the different current forms of the theory of evolution (neo-Darwinism is one), has the theory of evolution been changed ad hoc?

No.

 

One other question is, is there a good new book that clearly, with lab results, shows the irreduceably complex systems to be incorrect? Not just a theoritical explanation, but something solid. As I said, I'm not an ID proponent, because from what I've seen it's basically a guided evolution via God or an intellegence or else the result of "panspermia" or some other theory/theology.

The Kitzmiller trial in Dover PA. has some excellent examples of what you're looking for.