Peek a Boo Posted June 28, 2008 Share Posted June 28, 2008 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... argh! Elevator music! I've been jamming to some Led Zeppelin and playing w/ my compass waiting for answers to other questions myself ;) 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? I'm not an ID gal, but the answer to the question you ask is here: http://www.discovery.org/csc/topQuestions.php#questionsAboutIntelligentDesign Wikipedia has a strong bias against it, so while I agree that wikipedia's rundown is likely accurate, I can't offer it as an "unbiased" article in this instance. this guy has a nice collection of links that offer info about evolution, ID, old earth, and young earth ideas: http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/rossuk/c-links.htm Are there any young-earth creationists who are not religious or Christian? ANY? probably somewhere. I don't know about them tho :) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Storm Bay Posted June 28, 2008 Share Posted June 28, 2008 No. The Kitzmiller trial in Dover PA. has some excellent examples of what you're looking for. Okay, I'll check into this trial, but explain the "no" to the question about ad hoc changes. I figured you'd say no, but I'd like to know your back up to this, because I have seen many changes in this over the years from Darwin to now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Storm Bay Posted June 28, 2008 Share Posted June 28, 2008 No. The Kitzmiller trial in Dover PA. has some excellent examples of what you're looking for. Rather than a legal trial, what I want is a scientific piece of work that disproves ID's points. Something that shows the simpler forms exist now, or proves they did. I hardly think the court is the place to find this. At first I was thinking this was some scientific trial as in a test. Silly me. As I see it, neither ID or evolution has really got the hard evidence it needs yet. Perhaps one day one of them will, but until then, I remain skeptical of them, although interested. I quite enjoyed reading the arguments on both sides. I do have a bias against the ACLU, because I've seen them blatantly misrepresent other things and, no, I'm not interested in debating all of that. This is the first hot thread I've been involved with for a while as I took a break from them, but had a few questions to ask here. I do have a bias against many of the decisions by federal judges. I think too many important legal decisions are being handed down by them and it bypasses the entire system of voting for representatives to vote on laws. Not that I think that most politicians are paragons of virtue. Finally, I do have a big issue with the peer review process because I do see it as a form of censorship. If someone publishes "bad" science, others will be quick to prove them wrong, so why not allow others to publish? IMO, if our society was the other way right now, and either Creation science or ID (not the same--I've read all three POVs and arguments) was the only one allowed to be taught, then you'd have evolutionists out there crying to be heard in education. It was one man who came up with this whole definition of what constitutes a scientific theory, and even he pointed out that theory can be wrong and others right. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phred Posted June 28, 2008 Share Posted June 28, 2008 I'm not an ID gal, but the answer to the question you ask is here: http://www.discovery.org/csc/topQuestions.php#questionsAboutIntelligentDesign Heya Peek... no, the answer isn't there. It says what the outcome of the theory would be... but not what the theory IS. Okay, I'll check into this trial, but explain the "no" to the question about ad hoc changes. I figured you'd say no, but I'd like to know your back up to this, because I have seen many changes in this over the years from Darwin to now. The Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection is simple. The percentage of alleles will change within a population from one generation to the next. Those changes that enhance survival will see themselves propagated within the population. Those that do not enhance survival will not. While after the writing of Origin of the Species most biologists were convinced that evolution had occurred, not all were convinced that natural selection was the main driver. After much fumbling around the rediscovery of Mendel's work and modern population genetics laid the groundwork for what is called the modern synthesis of evolution. None of this overturns, but rather strengthens what Darwin proposed over 150 years ago. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peek a Boo Posted June 28, 2008 Share Posted June 28, 2008 Heya Peek... no, the answer isn't there. It says what the outcome of the theory would be... but not what the theory IS. um, actually, it's all over the place and has more links to articles clarifying and explaining :) Exactly what is it that you want to read that are you not seeing? Again, i don't expect one to AGREE with what the theory says, but they are pretty clear about what the gist of the theory is. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phred Posted June 28, 2008 Share Posted June 28, 2008 Rather than a legal trial, what I want is a scientific piece of work that disproves ID's points. Something that shows the simpler forms exist now, or proves they did. I hardly think the court is the place to find this. At first I was thinking this was some scientific trial as in a test. Silly me. As I see it, neither ID or evolution has really got the hard evidence it needs yet. Perhaps one day one of them will, but until then, I remain skeptical of them, although interested. I quite enjoyed reading the arguments on both sides. I do have a bias against the ACLU, because I've seen them blatantly misrepresent other things and, no, I'm not interested in debating all of that. This is the first hot thread I've been involved with for a while as I took a break from them, but had a few questions to ask here. I do have a bias against many of the decisions by federal judges. I think too many important legal decisions are being handed down by them and it bypasses the entire system of voting for representatives to vote on laws. Not that I think that most politicians are paragons of virtue. Finally, I do have a big issue with the peer review process because I do see it as a form of censorship. If someone publishes "bad" science, others will be quick to prove them wrong, so why not allow others to publish? IMO, if our society was the other way right now, and either Creation science or ID (not the same--I've read all three POVs and arguments) was the only one allowed to be taught, then you'd have evolutionists out there crying to be heard in education. It was one man who came up with this whole definition of what constitutes a scientific theory, and even he pointed out that theory can be wrong and others right. The Kitzmiller trial took a week and educated the judge on what the Theory of Evolution is and the science behind it. They then showed that all the IC things Behe claimed were irreducible weren't. (what you were asking for) They then went after the ID folks, and step by step showed that there was not a shard of evidence behind what they were presenting... Michael Behe was a witness for the board and he admitted that to call ID science one would also have to call astrology science. At this point the other so-called ID experts suddenly had better things to do than be witnesses at this trial and they withdrew. Then the Kitzmiller side discovered early copies of the book "of Pandas and People" in which the words God and Creator were used then later just replaced by Intelligent Designer. ID is just Creationism 2.0 The judge's decision was astounding in its one-sidedness for Kitzmiller against the ID folk. You can have your problems with all those organizations just as I have my problems with the right-wing organizations that fund the lawyers who defended this school board. All in an effort to shove God into schools. It's called the "wedge strategy" and evolution is the point. There's only one difference between you and I. I have evidence on my side. Which is also why not everyone is allowed to publish. It ain't science if there isn't evidence. Nobody's being censored... being forced to do the work isn't censorship. It's the method. Don't like it? Then don't call what you do science, because it isn't. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phred Posted June 28, 2008 Share Posted June 28, 2008 um, actually, it's all over the place and has more links to articles clarifying and explaining :) Exactly what is it that you want to read that are you not seeing? Again, i don't expect one to AGREE with what the theory says, but they are pretty clear about what the gist of the theory is. It says, "The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection" That's not a theory... what features, what cause? What predictions can I make from this? Watching a video isn't a theory... these people want to appeal to the general public but if the claim that ID is an accepted scientific theory is to hold true then the darn thing needs to actually BE a theory. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Laurie4b Posted June 28, 2008 Share Posted June 28, 2008 What you said contributes to the discussion. The way you said it is destructive to the community here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peek a Boo Posted June 29, 2008 Share Posted June 29, 2008 It says, "The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection" That's not a theory... what features, what cause? What predictions can I make from this? Watching a video isn't a theory... these people want to appeal to the general public but if the claim that ID is an accepted scientific theory is to hold true then the darn thing needs to actually BE a theory. well, it says a lot more than that, and offers a few articles clarifying [as well as videos], but i would venture to say that if you want more specific details, it would be best to go to the source and email them. There's another site that has lots of links about various viewpoints too. But I'm betting their answers would point to those systems that science has not had a chance to prove as reducible by showing similar evidence like this [from link below]: In April 2006 a team led by Joe Thornton, assistant professor of biology at the University of Oregon's Center for Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, using techniques for resurrecting ancient genes, scientists for the first time reconstructed the evolution of an apparently irreducibly complex molecular system so if science hasn't answered a specific irreducibilty claim, ID will latch on to whatever system hasn't been proven to be reducible yet. all in all, I think it has actually been a great opportunity for science to explain another idea. i like the analogy of a scaffolding "naturally" being built, but ironically, it still kinda points to ID, lol....... but you already know I'm on the Goddidit side, and I'm open to various interpretations of however It happened ;) Karin, you can check out specific examples at wikipedia's article on irreducible complexity: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irreducible_complexity "If truly irreducible systems were found, the implication is that intelligent design is the correct explanation for their existence. However, this conclusion is based on the assumption that current evolutionary theory and intelligent design are the only two valid models to explain life, a false dilemma." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
monk17 Posted June 29, 2008 Share Posted June 29, 2008 I've been reading Behe's book and trying to educate myself on this topic for the last couple of years. Being an accounting major in college I haven't had a biology or science class in quite some time. Debate was a favorite activity back in high school ( Nixon was president then) and I did start life as a philosophy major. So my credentials are pretty weak here. What I have noticed is that ID is not a credible "theory" to science folks. When you're debating it needs to be clear what the words mean. Not what the words are co-oped into meaning. It seems to me that the ID folks have tried to elevate ID into equal footing with evolution. An alternative to disprove evolution. I think it's pretty well been shown in my eyes that this strategy has failed miserably. That doesn't mean that evolution has won the day! It means that ID is not a viable "scientific theory" at this juncture. I'm real skeptical of scientific study and the conclusions it draws. Wasn't the genetic monk guy proven to be false and that he probably doctored his results to fit his hypothesis? My wife is an ARNP and has helped with medical studies during her time at the VA hospital. We witnessed many studies being halted when results weren't going quite right. Only to have the study done again, this time screening the patients a little differently and the results coming out in a more predictable manner. She left there very shortly afterward. I realize this is anecdotal evidence and not all science is done that way but I'm skeptical to worship at the alter of logic and science being all knowing and truthful. Science is not as modern as we would like to think. I remember the warnings that the earth was cooling to fast. I also remember the predictions by scientist that we would only need six computers in the whole world. 250 years ago scientist thought the body produced all the blood that went through the heart (no recirculation). It is amazing to me how the hard core ID folks hang on to their beliefs. After the 6,000 year deal was disproved they retreated to a new position. Science proved there was probably a great flood , so right away there must have been a Noah with the animals and stuff. Anyway thank you for both sides in presenting different views into this topic and thanks to the original poster for the question? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Storm Bay Posted June 29, 2008 Share Posted June 29, 2008 It ain't science if there isn't evidence. Nobody's being censored... being forced to do the work isn't censorship. It's the method. Don't like it? Then don't call what you do science, because it isn't. Actually, as I see it, where you and I differ isn't on what constitutes science, but on what constitutes reasonable doubt. I think that the theory of evolution, which may well be scientific, like ID, which may or may not be scientific, and creationism, which is religtious, are all interpretive until one of them can PROVE their case beyond what I see as all reasonable doubt. This is why my kids are switching to Real Science 4 Kids, because it presents the evidence with no interpretation on the origins of life or the universe. My kids can learn what's there and then study the interpretations separately. Because I studied biology and evolution in university, I feel far more comfortable reading the evidence in a scientific periodical or book than in a court document. I'd like to read about the actual research done, ideally from the researcher who did it. Primary source as opposed to media or legal system. Part of the biology program I was involved with, and I'm guessing this was normal, was for us to design and carry out our own research projects, so I am familiar with scientific method and sometimes studies are poorly done, sometimes not. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Virginia Dawn Posted June 29, 2008 Share Posted June 29, 2008 Butting in with sincere curiousity. What makes the theory of evolution falsifiable? I've never heard this explained. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Storm Bay Posted June 29, 2008 Share Posted June 29, 2008 First off, I think biology should be taught in schools with no interpretation--not evolution, ID or creationism, and yes, it's possible to do that. Okay, I found one article, and here is what the author has to say about the argument of irreduceable complexity: Such arguments are easy to make, of course, but nature of scientific progress renders them far from compelling. The lack of a detailed current explanation for a structure, organ, or process does not mean that science will never come up with one. This is by Kenneth Miller from Brown University at this link: http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/design2/article.html He does go on to argue that this example is actually reduceable, and I'm not going to reexplain it. However, as I understand it, ID needs to only find one (and, again, I don't ascribe to ID). Also, no one has yet to prove life starting from nucleic acids, etc, and to me, that's the clincher, not the ID stuff. Prove that to me, and you have my attention, but to me that is just as speculative as ID or any other interpretation. I'm not against speculation, just against it being called science over other speculation--separate the speculation and teach what we actually KNOW in schools. Save the interpretation for older ages and home. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phred Posted June 30, 2008 Share Posted June 30, 2008 Butting in with sincere curiousity. What makes the theory of evolution falsifiable? I've never heard this explained. For one thing, if there hasn't been enough time for it to happen. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phred Posted June 30, 2008 Share Posted June 30, 2008 First off, I think biology should be taught in schools with no interpretation--not evolution, ID or creationism, and yes, it's possible to do that. That's... silly. Class, here's a frog. Enjoy. Okay, I found one article, and here is what the author has to say about the argument of irreduceable complexity: Such arguments are easy to make, of course, but nature of scientific progress renders them far from compelling. The lack of a detailed current explanation for a structure, organ, or process does not mean that science will never come up with one. This is by Kenneth Miller from Brown University at this link: http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/design2/article.html He does go on to argue that this example is actually reduceable, and I'm not going to reexplain it. However, as I understand it, ID needs to only find one (and, again, I don't ascribe to ID). Also, no one has yet to prove life starting from nucleic acids, etc, and to me, that's the clincher, not the ID stuff. Prove that to me, and you have my attention, but to me that is just as speculative as ID or any other interpretation. I'm not against speculation, just against it being called science over other speculation--separate the speculation and teach what we actually KNOW in schools. Save the interpretation for older ages and home. You're all over the place. IC, ID, evolution, abiogenesis... here's the problem as I see it. Most people don't have a clue what they don't understand. Is it the Theory of evolution that you don't much care for? Is it abiogenesis? At this point you've just said that you agree with everything short of life starting from non-life without a creator. Then the Theory of Evolution stands. It has nothing whatsoever to do with the beginnings of life. I'd love to try and walk thru this without it being adversarial... the problem is that we never manage to discuss one thing before we jump to another, then we're onto a strawman and so it goes. Want to try, one thing at a time? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peek a Boo Posted June 30, 2008 Share Posted June 30, 2008 That's... silly. Class, here's a frog. Enjoy. Well that's a bit simplistic. you really think it's SILLY to study allllll the different biological happenings of what makes something as "simple" as a frog? Then you know less about biology than I thought. An entire class could study only one organ of one type of frog for years and still make new discoveries. Your dismissal of biology w/o evolution is problematic to new discussion. here's the problem as I see it. Most people don't have a clue what they don't understand. ...which is exactly what I was trying to say above :) What you quoted was one sentence from one site of linked articles. At this point you've just said that you agree with everything short of life starting from non-life without a creator. Then the Theory of Evolution stands. It has nothing whatsoever to do with the beginnings of life. same w/ ID. They are both speculation. I'd love to try and walk thru this without it being adversarial... the problem is that we never manage to discuss one thing before we jump to another, then we're onto a strawman and so it goes. Want to try, one thing at a time? YES!! which specific topic do we start with? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Perry Posted June 30, 2008 Share Posted June 30, 2008 same w/ ID. They are both speculation. No. ID is speculation. There is evidence- TONS of it- for evolution. There is no evidence for ID. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phred Posted June 30, 2008 Share Posted June 30, 2008 Cool. Let's not talk about creationism or ID or such at all for a moment. Let's just clarify what the Theory of Evolution is and what it is not. The Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection proposes that all life shares common ancestors and that, eventually, if you were to trace our family trees back far enough all life on earth would share one or just a few common ancestors. These being the first self-replicating organisms. We can discuss this in much more depth soon... but for now, just this. The ToE does NOT deal with how those organisms came to be. That's a Theory called Abiogenesis and is separate from the ToE. The ToE does NOT suggest human beings came from modern gorillas and monkeys. It suggests we share a common ancestor with all of them as we are primates ourselves. In fact, we are apes. Our closest relatives are Chimps and Bonobos. Populations evolve, not individuals. An organism will die with the genes it was born with. Microevolution and Macroevolution are just parts of the same whole. If you can admit that small changes happen, and they do... then what barrier exists to stop those small changes from building up to become large changes? These are all simple things. So let's start here. Any questions? Comments? Clarifications? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peek a Boo Posted June 30, 2008 Share Posted June 30, 2008 No. ID is speculation. There is evidence- TONS of it- for evolution. There is no evidence for ID. there is NO "evidence" for the huge amount of change over millions of years that evolution supposes. If we line up these fossils just so, it will sure look like it tho.... THAT is speculation based on what we HAVE been able to observe. THAT is the "barrier" of which Phred speaks. The lack of hard, irrefutable evidence that says "this organism used to be this." The "evidence" for ID is similar: based on what we HAVE observed, there are still some things that don't hold water via the theory of evolution, based on evidence of what we see and what we know about the world around us: how things end up w/o having someone there to guide the matter. there's a lot to the discussion of fossils --esp transitional fossils, so maybe that should be the first topic we tackle. pros and cons to what constitutes a transitional fossil? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transitional_fossil If we assume the fossil we find is close enough to be a transitional fossil, then you have a strong theory. If the fossil you find and label as "transitional" really was an entire separate entity, then the theory of evolution fails to explain the diversity of life: it fails in that there WASN't a "common ancestor", but instead a common creator. We know that changes happen. We DON'T know [for a fact] the extent to which those changes contribute over millions of years. We are theorizing-- using evidence to assume a course of action. Every piece of "evidence" that is used to support evolution can easily --EASILY-- support the idea of an intelligent designer. We have animals that have not evolved and have been recognized by fossil records. It is not necessary to assume that EVERY animal evolved when we study biology. however, as I have mentioned previously, i am neither strongly for or against evolution or ID. I am happy to be a goddidit person, whether God used evolution or ID tends to be irrelevant to me. And maybe that's why it is easy for me to see the various viewpoints out there. If the transitional fossils end up being irrefutably and accurately placed? Great! If not? i have nothing to lose :) anyway... back to transitional fossils? maybe we'll hit gene sequences next.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Storm Bay Posted June 30, 2008 Share Posted June 30, 2008 That's... silly. Class, here's a frog. Enjoy. Actually, there's a LOT of information on a frog that doesn't involve evolution. Where it fits in its ecological, physiology, life cycle, ethology, types, diet, etc, etc. And that's just a frog. You're all over the place. IC, ID, evolution, abiogenesis... here's the problem as I see it. Most people don't have a clue what they don't understand. Is it the Theory of evolution that you don't much care for? Is it abiogenesis? Well, back in the dark ages when I went to university, the theory of abiogenesis was part of the theory of evolution. At least, it was taught along with it in high school, in first year biology, in vertebrate evolution, in all of it. So, are you saying that abiogenesis is falsifiable or not? Do we agree, then, that this cannot be scientific because it cannot be falsified? How would they be separate in an atheistic, by chance version of evolution? This question intrigues me. If you could prove abiogenesis by chance in a lab, though, I would have to take a new look at macroevolution. At this point you've just said that you agree with everything short of life starting from non-life without a creator. Then the Theory of Evolution stands. It has nothing whatsoever to do with the beginnings of life. You must have forgotten that I'm a non-trinitarian Christian. I was totally convinced of macroevolution until I studied biology in a liberal, atheistic evolution teaching university. No, I believe in what you call microevolution, but am not yet convinced of macroevolution. Why? Because I think that all this "proof" comes from evolutionists seeking to prove macroevolution, and, like Karl Popper, I would consider real confirmation to be discovered from those trying to disprove the macroevolution but found out they were wrong. Unlike you, I am no longer convinced that microevolution automatically means there is macroevolution. Now, speciation, technically, could be called falsifiable if you could prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that it has never happened, but that's tough because so far none of the evidence used to support it disproves ID or creationism. However, how is one to disprove it and publish it in today's scientific community? Such a finding would never pass the peer review process. Bear in mind that I do not expect you or any other committed evolutionist to change your beliefs, because in my experience it's those who are either always asking why (me from the time I could phrase the question) or who are questioning their beliefs that change, not those who are convinced of what they believe. I'd love to try and walk thru this without it being adversarial... the problem is that we never manage to discuss one thing before we jump to another, then we're onto a strawman and so it goes. Want to try, one thing at a time? Actually, I entered this thread discussing falsifiability and if you thought there have been ad hoc changes to the theory of evolution. I also had wanted to ask which scientists that are working do disprove evolution have found something that proves it--which was one of Popper's points. Confirmation found by those looking to confirm a theory doesn't count in the original points of scientific theory being falsifiable (remember the 7 points from Popper's book?) I wanted to see how you explained that evolution has not changed ad hoc. I had thought you might compare original Darwinism with today's neo-Darwinism, showing point by point with logical arguments how it hasn't changed ad hoc. That would have been something to work with. But the way I see it, there have been huge changes from Darwin to now, and the theory has been modified many times in a great many ways. Even the part of the theory that natural selection produces the surivival of the fittest has been modified to that of survival of any trait that doesn't cause a species to go extinct--that was a big one in the ethology & ecology courses I took, and it's a lot more than the altruism debate. There are many other points, but it's too much for one post. As for these apparent strawmen, they're not. Different versions of evolution and/or ID do adopt these; there isn't just one school of thought among evoltionists, and there hasn't been for a long, long time. Same with ID proponents--some are hard core agnostics who don't believe in God, just some intelligence in the universe, and to those who are strong Christian/Muslim/Jewish, etc., there is a world of difference between some vague intelligence in the universe and God. Creationists also disagree on different things, such as 6000 years, 10,000 years, or the gap theologians who put all the dinosaurs, etc, before a big cataclysmic event. Even the gap folk have different ideas. Then you have those who claim these theologies started after Darwin in defense, but this isn't always the case. Mainly, you have a lot of arguing between the three. Most of the time it seems that people start reading the other points of view with immediate knee jerk reactions of "they're wrong!" without using any methodology or logic to truly examine what they're reading. I really don't know how life started--God didn't write it down and I don't think science can prove it, either. I think "microevolution" exists, although I don't know that we've proven it happens solely due to mutations and it may just be a natural adaptive mechanism. I think "macroevolution" is an interesting theory, but not a proven fact. Not at this point. However, I think ID is just as interesting. Neither is proven yet. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phred Posted June 30, 2008 Share Posted June 30, 2008 there is NO "evidence" for the huge amount of change over millions of years that evolution supposes. from here Nothing in the real world can be proved with absolute certainty. However, high degrees of certainty can be reached. In the case of evolution, we have huge amounts of data from diverse fields. Extensive evidence exists in all of the following different forms (Theobald 2004). Each new piece of evidence tests the rest. All life shows a fundamental unity in the mechanisms of replication, heritability, catalysis, and metabolism. Common descent predicts a nested hierarchy pattern, or groups within groups. We see just such an arrangement in a unique, consistent, well-defined hierarchy, the so-called tree of life. Different lines of evidence give the same arrangement of the tree of life. We get essentially the same results whether we look at morphological, biochemical, or genetic traits. Fossil animals fit in the same tree of life. We find several cases of transitional forms in the fossil record. The fossils appear in a chronological order, showing change consistent with common descent over hundreds of millions of years and inconsistent with sudden creation. Many organisms show rudimentary, vestigial characters, such as sightless eyes or wings useless for flight. Atavisms sometimes occur. An atavism is the reappearance of a character present in a distant ancestor but lost in the organism's immediate ancestors. We only see atavisms consistent with organisms' evolutionary histories. Ontogeny (embryology and developmental biology) gives information about the historical pathway of an organism's evolution. For example, as embryos whales and many snakes develop hind limbs that are reabsorbed before birth. The distribution of species is consistent with their evolutionary history. For example, marsupials are mostly limited to Australia, and the exceptions are explained by continental drift. Remote islands often have species groups that are highly diverse in habits and general appearance but closely related genetically. Squirrel diversity coincides with tectonic and sea level changes (Mercer and Roth 2003). Such consistency still holds when the distribution of fossil species is included. Evolution predicts that new structures are adapted from other structures that already exist, and thus similarity in structures should reflect evolutionary history rather than function. We see this frequently. For example, human hands, bat wings, horse legs, whale flippers, and mole forelimbs all have similar bone structure despite their different functions. The same principle applies on a molecular level. Humans share a large percentage of their genes, probably more than 70 percent, with a fruit fly or a nematode worm. When two organisms evolve the same function independently, different structures are often recruited. For example, wings of birds, bats, pterosaurs, and insects all have different structures. Gliding has been implemented in many additional ways. Again, this applies on a molecular level, too. The constraints of evolutionary history sometimes lead to suboptimal structures and functions. For example, the human throat and respiratory system make it impossible to breathe and swallow at the same time and make us susceptible to choking. Suboptimality appears also on the molecular level. For example, much DNA is nonfunctional. Some nonfunctional DNA, such as certain transposons, pseudogenes, and endogenous viruses, show a pattern of inheritance indicating common ancestry. Speciation has been observed. The day-to-day aspects of evolution -- heritable genetic change, morphological variation and change, functional change, and natural selection -- are seen to occur at rates consistent with common descent. Furthermore, the different lines of evidence are consistent; they all point to the same big picture. For example, evidence from gene duplications in the yeast genome shows that its ability to ferment glucose evolved about eighty million years ago. Fossil evidence shows that fermentable fruits became prominent about the same time. Genetic evidence for major change around that time also is found in fruiting plants and fruit flies (Benner et al. 2002). The evidence is extensive and consistent, and it points unambiguously to evolution, including common descent, change over time, and adaptation influenced by natural selection. It would be preposterous to refer to these as anything other than facts. Links: Theobald, Douglas. 2004. 29+ Evidences for macroevolution: The scientific case for common descent. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/ Colby, Chris. 1993. Evidence for evolution: An eclectic survey. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-research.html Moran, Laurence. 1993. Evolution is a fact and a theory. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-fact.html Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peek a Boo Posted July 1, 2008 Share Posted July 1, 2008 from here[*] Nothing in the real world can be proved with absolute certainty. However, high degrees of certainty can be reached. right! and if you change "common descent" to "intelligent designer" in alll those pieces of "evidence" you end up w/ a similar outcome, based on the similar assumptions. So your "evidence" becomes THEIR "evidence" :) Real "evidence" will show beyond a doubt what we don't know yet. The fossil record [and our knowledge of DNA, since it is integral to this discussion] is --as is frequently freely admitted-- MINISCULE compared to the number of life forms we know about. that we haven't found in the fossil record organisms similar to what we find now doesn't mean "spontaneous creation" is then nullified. To make such a broad assumption on the miniscule fossil record we know about [that itself is constrained by needing specific events to happen] is less than scientific. But i do agree that is a great list to start with. I think trying to line up a buncha fossils chronologically and then saying "SEE!!" just isn't enough for some people. Seeing a chronological similarity isn't enough to prove "common descent." It is, however, enough to prove a similarity. So yeah-- there's a lot that we DO know, but the ToE is just that: a theory that we have a lot of pieces to, but we might be trying to fit them in the wrong frame. or we might not be ;) we'll see, eventually. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peek a Boo Posted July 1, 2008 Share Posted July 1, 2008 ....but am not yet convinced of macroevolution. Why? Because I think that all this "proof" comes from evolutionists seeking to prove macroevolution, and, like Karl Popper, I would consider real confirmation to be discovered from those trying to disprove the macroevolution but found out they were wrong. This is a biggie for me too. "well of COURSE the ICR found "proof" that the earth is only 6000 years old! They were looking for ANY little thing to bolster their view!" ditto that to those hard core people that will defend ToE at any cost. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phred Posted July 1, 2008 Share Posted July 1, 2008 right! and if you change "common descent" to "intelligent designer" in alll those pieces of "evidence" you end up w/ a similar outcome, based on the similar assumptions. So your "evidence" becomes THEIR "evidence" :) Real "evidence" will show beyond a doubt what we don't know yet. The fossil record [and our knowledge of DNA, since it is integral to this discussion] is --as is frequently freely admitted-- MINISCULE compared to the number of life forms we know about. that we haven't found in the fossil record organisms similar to what we find now doesn't mean "spontaneous creation" is then nullified. To make such a broad assumption on the miniscule fossil record we know about [that itself is constrained by needing specific events to happen] is less than scientific. But i do agree that is a great list to start with. I think trying to line up a buncha fossils chronologically and then saying "SEE!!" just isn't enough for some people. Seeing a chronological similarity isn't enough to prove "common descent." It is, however, enough to prove a similarity. So yeah-- there's a lot that we DO know, but the ToE is just that: a theory that we have a lot of pieces to, but we might be trying to fit them in the wrong frame. or we might not be ;) we'll see, eventually. That's so much more than a chronological symmetry. So very much more. Throw out the fossils entirely and you still have overwhelming evidence for evolution. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peek a Boo Posted July 1, 2008 Share Posted July 1, 2008 That's so much more than a chronological symmetry. So very much more. Throw out the fossils entirely and you still have overwhelming evidence for evolution. ok, so now that we're throwing out fossils, let's move on to tackling the next thing: one idea at a time. Want to try, one thing at a time? sure!! I'll let you pick: Where would you like to go next? ========== newsflash! -- check out the Sea Turtle thread I'm getting ready to post!! we're excited here :D Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greta Posted July 1, 2008 Share Posted July 1, 2008 Because I think that all this "proof" comes from evolutionists seeking to prove macroevolution, and, like Karl Popper, I would consider real confirmation to be discovered from those trying to disprove the macroevolution but found out they were wrong. Karin, I'm intrigued and a little confused. I think perhaps I am misreading you. It sounds like you are saying that it's not about the evidence that the scientist presents, but instead is about his or her motivations for looking for the evidence in the first place. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Virginia Dawn Posted July 1, 2008 Share Posted July 1, 2008 I think Karin's points are interesting. They raise another question in my mind about the way all the "evidence" for evolution is handled. Before something is purported to be such evidence is there every effort to first prove it is not? Isn't that the way the modern scientific community is supposed to work? That seems to be what is being done to refute any claims from the I.D. camp, but is there just as much rigor to attept to disprove their (evolutionary biologists) own claims? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peek a Boo Posted July 1, 2008 Share Posted July 1, 2008 Karin, I'm intrigued and a little confused. I think perhaps I am misreading you. It sounds like you are saying that it's not about the evidence that the scientist presents, but instead is about his or her motivations for looking for the evidence in the first place. motivations are a HUGE part of what makes a study credible. How many times have you heard left-wing groups discount studies by Exxon Mobil? "follow the money!" Or the ICR [as I mentioned above]? Well, that goes both ways. Conservative groups will have their pet peeves too: a study by a group that has as its stated purpose "to DEFEND the theory of evolution" is going to encounter credibility problems. Will they publish studies that show faults w/ the ToE? Will they even pursue experiments that might possibly show the ToE to be wrong? unlikely. Real scientists aren't invested in which conclusion they reach: they just want to make sure the conclusion is ACCURATE. Statistics and variables and knowledge being what they are, it can be very difficult to put forth a theory that everyone can agree on. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phred Posted July 1, 2008 Share Posted July 1, 2008 one idea at a time. sure!! I'll let you pick: Where would you like to go next? I'd like to be sure we're all talking about the same thing. What is evolution? Not who's looking at what from where... just simply what is the the scientific Theory of Evolution? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greta Posted July 1, 2008 Share Posted July 1, 2008 motivations are a HUGE part of what makes a study credible. I'm certainly not discounting the fact that motivations play a role. But what I'm saying is that evidence stands on its own feet. Verifiable empirical evidence is what it is, regardless of the emotions of the person(s) who first discovered it. Will they publish studies that show faults w/ the ToE? Will they even pursue experiments that might possibly show the ToE to be wrong? unlikely.Now on that I have to wholeheartedly disagree with you. If a scientist were to find real empirical evidence which disputed or disproved evolution, can you imagine how famous s/he would be? The Nobel Prize would probably only be the start. His/her name would virtually replace Darwin's in all the history and science books. But, IMO, ain't gonna happen. :D Statistics and variables and knowledge being what they are, it can be very difficult to put forth a theory that everyone can agree on.Yes, but truth doesn't require everyone's agreement. Facts are facts, whether everyone acknowledges them or not. ;) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phred Posted July 1, 2008 Share Posted July 1, 2008 Karin, I'm intrigued and a little confused. I think perhaps I am misreading you. It sounds like you are saying that it's not about the evidence that the scientist presents, but instead is about his or her motivations for looking for the evidence in the first place. Karin? I think Karin's points are interesting. They raise another question in my mind about the way all the "evidence" for evolution is handled. Before something is purported to be such evidence is there every effort to first prove it is not? Isn't that the way the modern scientific community is supposed to work? That seems to be what is being done to refute any claims from the I.D. camp, but is there just as much rigor to attept to disprove their (evolutionary biologists) own claims? When a scientific paper is conducted there is every effort made to prove it is correct, not incorrect... then the scientific community at large, generally those that have competing ways of looking at the same evidence, try to disprove what is being presented. For example, currently there is a tussle over whether the T-rex was a scavenger or a predator. There are two sides with evidence to back up both competing ideas. Now, in the grand scheme of things this is a minor matter, but seeing as this is humanity's favorite dinosaur there's a lot riding on the outcome. So both sides are seeking out more information to make their cases to the scientific community at large. One side or the other will win out eventually. I suspect it may be a combination of both...but that's just my rather uninformed opinion. A scientist does not spend time trying to disprove his own work. Which is what made Darwin rather unique. He foresaw many of the objections that would be raised and dealt with them in the "Origin of the Species" when it was published. I.D. on the other hand does nothing BUT try to tear down modern science... it presents nothing of its own. There are no papers, nothing for the scientific community to discuss... just "goddidit". That's the whole of I.D. At first I.D. was an information theory. How do we recognize that something has been designed? The example being Mt. Rushmore. If humanity disappeared tomorrow and aliens landed, how would they know that Mt. Rushmore was built by an intelligence and not by natural forces? Much time was spent analyzing human constructs to determine the mark of design. Problem is, nature can be a designer. It was quickly recognized that natural sculptures like "the old man of the rock" in Connecticut fit the bill for design too. So if you can have design by unintelligent forces, how in the world do you tell the difference between intelligent and non-intelligent designs? That's when the religious folks jettisoned the informational design scientists. They no longer suited their needs. So I.D. morphed into something different... creationism 2.0. It's when the book "of pandas and people" was rewritten to change the wording from "god" to "designer". ID is no longer a scientific pursuit. It's religion in disguise. Google "wedge strategy" and you'll see what I mean. However, science is still working to determine how we recognize design. If ID were real that's where the money would be going. Sorry, I've gone on again... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greta Posted July 1, 2008 Share Posted July 1, 2008 Before something is purported to be such evidence is there every effort to first prove it is not? Isn't that the way the modern scientific community is supposed to work? That seems to be what is being done to refute any claims from the I.D. camp, but is there just as much rigor to attept to disprove their (evolutionary biologists) own claims? That's been done, and we're so far beyond that point now. Saying that biologists have to work to disprove evolution now with all the overwhelming evidence in favor of it is a bit like saying that physicists need to work at disproving Newton's gravitational theory before putting it to use. The work of attempting to disprove and proving these theories has already been done. Now we put the theories to use to learn more about the world we live in (and, incidentally, in doing that, the theories are constantly being re-tested and re-evaluated and refined). That's how science works, it's progressive, it builds, it grows. You don't have to keep reinventing the wheel. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phred Posted July 1, 2008 Share Posted July 1, 2008 motivations are a HUGE part of what makes a study credible. How many times have you heard left-wing groups discount studies by Exxon Mobil? "follow the money!" Or the ICR [as I mentioned above]? Well, that goes both ways. Conservative groups will have their pet peeves too: a study by a group that has as its stated purpose "to DEFEND the theory of evolution" is going to encounter credibility problems. Will they publish studies that show faults w/ the ToE? Will they even pursue experiments that might possibly show the ToE to be wrong? unlikely. Real scientists aren't invested in which conclusion they reach: they just want to make sure the conclusion is ACCURATE. Statistics and variables and knowledge being what they are, it can be very difficult to put forth a theory that everyone can agree on. So then you would agree that the Answers in Genesis Journal is a farce since they use the below criteria to accept papers. Upon the reception of a paper the editor-in-chief will follow the procedures below: The following criteria will be used in judging papers: 1. Is the paper’s topic important to the development of the Creation and Flood model? 2. Does the paper’s topic provide an original contribution to the Creation and Flood model? 3. Is this paper formulated within a young-earth, young-universe framework? 4. If the paper discusses claimed evidence for an old earth and/or universe, does this paper offer a very constructively positive criticism and provide a possible young-earth, young-universe alternative? 5. If the paper is polemical in nature, does it deal with a topic rarely discussed within the origins debate? 6. Does this paper provide evidence of faithfulness to the grammatical- historical/normative interpretation of Scripture? If necessary, refer to: R. E. Walsh, 1986. Biblical hermeneutics and creation. Proceedings First International Conference on Creationism, vol. 1, pp. 121–127. Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania: Creation Science Fellowship. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greta Posted July 1, 2008 Share Posted July 1, 2008 Janna, I hope you haven't given up on this conversation entirely. The conversation took on a life of its own, as they often do. But I wanted to check with you and see if your questions got answered. I would like to attempt to answer you, but I should point out that I have a B.S. in Zoology, which makes me an educated layperson, NOT an expert! I would strongly encourage you to consult real experts on this topic. There is so much wonderful information out there. I hope you won't form your entire impression of so vast a topic from one message board conversation. Go straight to the sources! This could be one potential starting point: http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/evo_01 I also like Richard Dawkins' The Selfish Gene. 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? I think this one did get answered. Basically, humans, apes, and monkeys all branched off into slightly different directions from a point on the evolutionary tree. This kind of diversification is quite common, actually. And there's nothing in evolutionary theory which claims that when a new species evolves from an older one, the older one has to die off. Sometimes, the new one simply occupies a different ecological niche -- maybe it moves into a new environment or it exploits the same environment in a slightly different way. So both species can continue to exist. Why are they not evolving? They are! Why are *we* as humans not evolving into another being or animal? We are! Several factors have slowed human evolution, but we are still evolving. First of all, when a population is very small, change in that population can occur very quickly. But as a population grows larger, the rate at which a new allele spreads through it is slowed, so it's evolution is slowed. Also, I've never read anything about this personally, but I wonder to what extent our invention of medical care has changed the way we are evolving. But both of the above deal with natural selection, and natural selection is not the only mechanism which drives evolution. There are other forces such as genetic drift, founder effect, and so on. I would suspect (again, as a layperson and not an expert) that the primary factor shaping human evolution right now is the the fact that just a few generations ago, various populations of humans were effectively separated and did not interbreed (much, if at all). But now because of our large population size and ease of transportation, previously separated populations have "bumped" into each other, and genetically diverse groups are interbreeding more. Are we the end road - the hierarchy, supreme being - to those who believe in evolution? Absolutely not. Evolutionary theory does not predict any supreme being, only that living things adapt to their environments (and since environments are ever-changing, there is no one "perfect" being that evolution is leading up to). Did that help at all? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Storm Bay Posted July 2, 2008 Share Posted July 2, 2008 Karin, I'm intrigued and a little confused. I think perhaps I am misreading you. It sounds like you are saying that it's not about the evidence that the scientist presents, but instead is about his or her motivations for looking for the evidence in the first place. Yes and no:001_smile: I'm referring, in part, to the post I made earlier in this thread where I quoted Karl Popper's list of 7 things that make a theory testable (aka falsifiable). I do think the evidence is important, regardless of motivation, but I think that what is considered evidence isn't always true evidence because it's evidence that can easily support all 3 arguments in the evolution/ID/creationism debate. People tend to see what they're looking for in that evidence. I am hoping to be able to make the time to go through Phred's list one item at a time, but things have been very busy IRL and many of those really need to be addressed more individually. In the past threads one of the key points made is that in order for a theory to be scientific, it must be falsifiable. Intrigued, I asked a couple of times if anyone here knew when and how that premise came to be as it sounds almost philosophical, but no one answered my question about this. When I started to read more on the 3 main sides in the evolution/creationism/ID debate I finally found my answer. It was the scientific philosopher Karl Popper (for more info see http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/popper/. I haven't read all the links in this website) I ordered a couple of his books from the library, and found one, Conjectures and Refutations, from the 1960s that discusses this very topic. Since he was not a young earth creationist or an ID proponent, as best as I know so far, I thought I'd bring up his argument as a kind of neutral. To make it easy, I'll quote those here and will bold the part I was referring to: "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.." One other point, but I haven't been able to read it myself to confirm it, is that apparently Popper originally questioned the falsifiability of the theory of evolution, but after enormous pressure from the scientific community, he let that drop. I haven't been able to get his first book on the subject. Regardless of what you believe, if you enjoy reading philosophy, his is a very interesting book which I haven't finished. I, for one, do believe that every scientist has some type of philosophy or theology behind what s/he believes, whether or not they are aware of this, but I don't think that that's inherently bad. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greta Posted July 2, 2008 Share Posted July 2, 2008 Karin, thanks so much for taking the time to give me such a thorough answer to my question. I would like to think over some interesting points you raise and talk about it more. I certainly understand about how things IRL have to take priority! For that reason, I'm not going to attempt to continue the conversation tonight, but I hope to soon! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Storm Bay Posted July 2, 2008 Share Posted July 2, 2008 Thanks for the list. Just to reiterate, I really don't plan to change your mind or that of any evolutionist--I simply enjoy discussing this topic, dh doesn't, and I find it stimulates thought. It's easy to talk with people who agree with me, but I don't learn nearly as much because it doesn't force me out of my comfort zone. I'm going to take the liberty of numbering the points in this quote from your quote, and thought we could take this one at a time, in part because I'm so busy and it's about all I can manage to do one, and in part because they take time. But I'm not going to go in the order they are on the list. In the point 8 today, ontogeny I'm going to primarily refer to the work of well-known evolutionary biologists, but not completely. from here Nothing in the real world can be proved with absolute certainty. However, high degrees of certainty can be reached. In the case of evolution, we have huge amounts of data from diverse fields. Extensive evidence exists in all of the following different forms (Theobald 2004). Each new piece of evidence tests the rest. 1. All life shows a fundamental unity in the mechanisms of replication, heritability, catalysis, and metabolism.2. Common descent predicts a nested hierarchy pattern, or groups within groups. We see just such an arrangement in a unique, consistent, well-defined hierarchy, the so-called tree of life.3. Different lines of evidence give the same arrangement of the tree of life. We get essentially the same results whether we look at morphological, biochemical, or genetic traits.4. Fossil animals fit in the same tree of life. We find several cases of transitional forms in the fossil record.5. The fossils appear in a chronological order, showing change consistent with common descent over hundreds of millions of years and inconsistent with sudden creation.6. Many organisms show rudimentary, vestigial characters, such as sightless eyes or wings useless for flight.7. Atavisms sometimes occur. An atavism is the reappearance of a character present in a distant ancestor but lost in the organism's immediate ancestors. We only see atavisms consistent with organisms' evolutionary histories.8. Ontogeny (embryology and developmental biology) gives information about the historical pathway of an organism's evolution. For example, as embryos whales and many snakes develop hind limbs that are reabsorbed before birth.9. The distribution of species is consistent with their evolutionary history. For example, marsupials are mostly limited to Australia, and the exceptions are explained by continental drift. Remote islands often have species groups that are highly diverse in habits and general appearance but closely related genetically. Squirrel diversity coincides with tectonic and sea level changes (Mercer and Roth 2003). Such consistency still holds when the distribution of fossil species is included.10. Evolution predicts that new structures are adapted from other structures that already exist, and thus similarity in structures should reflect evolutionary history rather than function. We see this frequently. For example, human hands, bat wings, horse legs, whale flippers, and mole forelimbs all have similar bone structure despite their different functions.11. The same principle applies on a molecular level. Humans share a large percentage of their genes, probably more than 70 percent, with a fruit fly or a nematode worm.12. When two organisms evolve the same function independently, different structures are often recruited. For example, wings of birds, bats, pterosaurs, and insects all have different structures. Gliding has been implemented in many additional ways. Again, this applies on a molecular level, too.13. The constraints of evolutionary history sometimes lead to suboptimal structures and functions. For example, the human throat and respiratory system make it impossible to breathe and swallow at the same time and make us susceptible to choking.14. Suboptimality appears also on the molecular level. For example, much DNA is nonfunctional.15. Some nonfunctional DNA, such as certain transposons, pseudogenes, and endogenous viruses, show a pattern of inheritance indicating common ancestry.16. Speciation has been observed.17. The day-to-day aspects of evolution -- heritable genetic change, morphological variation and change, functional change, and natural selection -- are seen to occur at rates consistent with common descent. Links: One of the reasons I chose ontogeny first is because I used to find the argument of recapitulation (ie recapitulation of evolution in the developing embryo) so fascinating when I was an evolutionist. It's an interesting concept that began, the best I can see, back in the 18th century. Perhaps one of the most influential promoters of the theory that phylogeny was the mechanical cause of ontogeny was Haeckel. However, I'm going to focus on the contemporary evolutionists Gould (Dawkins--I didn't find much by him on it today) & an older one, de Beer. In the books I found, Dawkins said little on this, other than to call Gould's book, Ontogeny and Phylogeny a classic, and to basically say that recapitulation isn't correct. Stephen Jay Gould, however, devoted an entire book to this discussion. In a nutshell, Gould argues and provides evidence showing that this argument has collapsed, although it is still one of the great themes of evolutionary biology. Instead of recapitulation, the changes in embryos (such as human embryos having gills for a while) are called neoteny, which is basically the opposite of recapitulation. That said, he thinks that these changes are retained juvenile characteristics of evolutionary ancestors. Naturally, I disagree with his conclusion, but I wanted to show that ontogeny is no longer seriously accepted by many leading evolutionists (or, in the case of Gould, late evolutionists, but he published right up to 2002). There are questions raised about the theory of evolution by embryology. Evolutionary scientist Gavin de Beer, one of those who showed why the theory of recapitulation has been rejected (he's written a number of books, including the 1930 book Embryology and Evolution, the one I have from the library, Embryos and Ancestors, Oxford University Press, 1958, & his 1971 book, Homology: An Unsolved Problem. The reason he wrote the last book is because not all traits previously (and perhaps still by many) considered homologous arise from the same part of the embryo, although he concluded that homologous sturctures did not have to be controlled by identical genes. Now, I do not consider this a strawman, considering that it came from an evolutionist, nor do I consider the following questions strawmen, because they're straight from the scientific study of developmental biology. And they're questions, not necessarily conclusive one way or another. And, in the fairness of full disclosure, de Beer's examples from his 1971 book have been taken from Michael Denton's book since I didn't see that book in our library. You may hate Denton, but he's an agnostic, not religious, at least not when he wrote that book. Now, this may not phase you, but these are the kinds of things that make me doubt evolution. Some things embryology have discovered include: the alimentary canal arises from several different places - in the shark, from the roof of the embryonic gut - in the lamprey, from the floor of the embryonic disc - in frogs from the roof and floor of the embryonic gut - in birds & reptiles, from the the lowere layer of the embryonic disc vertebrate forelimbs develop from the following embryonic trunk segments: - newt- segments 2, 3, 4 & 5 - lizard - segments 6, 7, 8 & 9 - man - segments 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, & 18. Now, I did note that we don't see the segments of animals closer to man on the tree, but this still raises questions to me. There are other examples of organs forming from different embryonic tissues, but this is enough for now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peek a Boo Posted July 2, 2008 Share Posted July 2, 2008 So then you would agree that the Answers in Genesis Journal is a farce since they use the below criteria to accept papers. So are you saying that any scientific organization that only lets specific work be published is a farce? i don't think i necessarily agree with that. i would agree that i would NOT limit my scientific reading to AiG, but I would also expect the papers in their journal to withstand other scrutiny. But no, i wouldn't call them a 'farce" anymore than i would call a journal that refused to print anything that did not support the ToE a "farce";) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peek a Boo Posted July 2, 2008 Share Posted July 2, 2008 I'm certainly not discounting the fact that motivations play a role. But what I'm saying is that evidence stands on its own feet. Verifiable empirical evidence is what it is, regardless of the emotions of the person(s) who first discovered it. i think Karin covered this topic well enough in her explanation of Popper's... #1, in bold, so I'll defer to her explanation. Now on that I have to wholeheartedly disagree with you. If a scientist were to find real empirical evidence which disputed or disproved evolution, can you imagine how famous s/he would be? The Nobel Prize would probably only be the start. His/her name would virtually replace Darwin's in all the history and science books. But, IMO, ain't gonna happen. :D I don't think I'd count on that. There are plenty of times in history where "real empirical evidence" has been squashed or silenced by those in power or who have an intimate, invested relationship [financial/ emotional] w/ their own ideas. I would like to THINK that the scientific community would embrace such a drastic change, but historically.... no. Scientific change on that level has rarely been embraced. http://www.asis.org/Conferences/AM04/posters/2.doc Yes, but truth doesn't require everyone's agreement. Facts are facts, whether everyone acknowledges them or not. ;) i absolutely agree w/ you on that :) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phred Posted July 2, 2008 Share Posted July 2, 2008 Thanks for the list. Just to reiterate, I really don't plan to change your mind or that of any evolutionist--I simply enjoy discussing this topic, dh doesn't, and I find it stimulates thought. It's easy to talk with people who agree with me, but I don't learn nearly as much because it doesn't force me out of my comfort zone. I'm going to take the liberty of numbering the points in this quote from your quote, and thought we could take this one at a time, in part because I'm so busy and it's about all I can manage to do one, and in part because they take time. But I'm not going to go in the order they are on the list. In the point 8 today, ontogeny I'm going to primarily refer to the work of well-known evolutionary biologists, but not completely. One of the reasons I chose ontogeny first is because I used to find the argument of recapitulation (ie recapitulation of evolution in the developing embryo) so fascinating when I was an evolutionist. It's an interesting concept that began, the best I can see, back in the 18th century. Perhaps one of the most influential promoters of the theory that phylogeny was the mechanical cause of ontogeny was Haeckel. However, I'm going to focus on the contemporary evolutionists Gould (Dawkins--I didn't find much by him on it today) & an older one, de Beer. In the books I found, Dawkins said little on this, other than to call Gould's book, Ontogeny and Phylogeny a classic, and to basically say that recapitulation isn't correct. Stephen Jay Gould, however, devoted an entire book to this discussion. In a nutshell, Gould argues and provides evidence showing that this argument has collapsed, although it is still one of the great themes of evolutionary biology. Instead of recapitulation, the changes in embryos (such as human embryos having gills for a while) are called neoteny, which is basically the opposite of recapitulation. That said, he thinks that these changes are retained juvenile characteristics of evolutionary ancestors. Naturally, I disagree with his conclusion, but I wanted to show that ontogeny is no longer seriously accepted by many leading evolutionists (or, in the case of Gould, late evolutionists, but he published right up to 2002). There are questions raised about the theory of evolution by embryology. Evolutionary scientist Gavin de Beer, one of those who showed why the theory of recapitulation has been rejected (he's written a number of books, including the 1930 book Embryology and Evolution, the one I have from the library, Embryos and Ancestors, Oxford University Press, 1958, & his 1971 book, Homology: An Unsolved Problem. The reason he wrote the last book is because not all traits previously (and perhaps still by many) considered homologous arise from the same part of the embryo, although he concluded that homologous sturctures did not have to be controlled by identical genes. Now, I do not consider this a strawman, considering that it came from an evolutionist, nor do I consider the following questions strawmen, because they're straight from the scientific study of developmental biology. And they're questions, not necessarily conclusive one way or another. And, in the fairness of full disclosure, de Beer's examples from his 1971 book have been taken from Michael Denton's book since I didn't see that book in our library. You may hate Denton, but he's an agnostic, not religious, at least not when he wrote that book. Now, this may not phase you, but these are the kinds of things that make me doubt evolution. Some things embryology have discovered include: the alimentary canal arises from several different places - in the shark, from the roof of the embryonic gut - in the lamprey, from the floor of the embryonic disc - in frogs from the roof and floor of the embryonic gut - in birds & reptiles, from the the lowere layer of the embryonic disc vertebrate forelimbs develop from the following embryonic trunk segments: - newt- segments 2, 3, 4 & 5 - lizard - segments 6, 7, 8 & 9 - man - segments 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, & 18. Now, I did note that we don't see the segments of animals closer to man on the tree, but this still raises questions to me. There are other examples of organs forming from different embryonic tissues, but this is enough for now. While you've done some research (wow!) you haven't done it in the direction of the statement I provided. All that was suggested was that ontogeny supports evolution because whales (the given example) grow limbs and then reabsorb them. Why in the world would a whale grow limbs and reabsorb them if it didn't, at some point in its past history, actually HAVE limbs? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peek a Boo Posted July 2, 2008 Share Posted July 2, 2008 I'd like to be sure we're all talking about the same thing. What is evolution? Not who's looking at what from where... just simply what is the the scientific Theory of Evolution? You are asking two different questions: I'm going to cut n paste to save a buncha time ;) What is evolution?:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution In biology, evolution is the process of change in the inherited traits of a population of organisms from one generation to the next. observing changes in a population is a given. The THEORY of Evolution --The Modern Evolutionary Synthesis-- is a bit different: yes, there is a difference between the origins of life --abiogenesis-- and the evolution of life. As was stated in the first link: "The origin of life is a necessary precursor for biological evolution, but understanding that evolution occurred once organisms appeared and investigating how this happens, does not depend on understanding exactly how life began." So i am game for discussing the ToE and not Abiogenesis for now. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionary_history_of_life I think "common descent" is the closest to a short answer, and is usually the most misunderstood. i like the way berkley explains it: http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/0_0_0/evo_07 The Modern Evolutionary Synthesis gives the best overview of where questions occur: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_evolutionary_synthesis Tenets of the modern synthesis 5. In palaeontology, the ability to explain historical observations by extrapolation from micro to macro-evolution is proposed. Historical contingency means explanations at different levels may exist. Gradualism does not mean constant rate of change. It is this extrapolation that brings in the most questions about the history of life on earth. would you like to add anything Phred? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Storm Bay Posted July 3, 2008 Share Posted July 3, 2008 While you've done some research (wow!) you haven't done it in the direction of the statement I provided. All that was suggested was that ontogeny supports evolution because whales (the given example) grow limbs and then reabsorb them. Why in the world would a whale grow limbs and reabsorb them if it didn't, at some point in its past history, actually HAVE limbs? That is an excellent question. I think you'd really enjoy Gould's book because he is an evolutionist. I think my post did answer because so many respected evolutionists have discounted ontogeny as support for evolution (that the evolutionary history is replayed, that when a human embryo has gills it's a fish, etc) and moved in the other direction of neotony, which they feel supports evolution but is quite different. Scientifically, neotony & ontogeny are very different. I can't do justice to all of his book in a short post, particularly when I didn't read the entire book, just parts--I don't have time to read a 400+ book in a day and still take care of my dc. I think the questions raised about homology, are also good ones, and thought provoking, to say the least, since homologs are one of the most vital components required to support the theory of evolution. If virtually all parts of physiology were analogs, that would weaken the theory considerably. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phred Posted July 3, 2008 Share Posted July 3, 2008 That is an excellent question. I think you'd really enjoy Gould's book because he is an evolutionist. I think my post did answer because so many respected evolutionists have discounted ontogeny as support for evolution (that the evolutionary history is replayed, that when a human embryo has gills it's a fish, etc) and moved in the other direction of neotony, which they feel supports evolution but is quite different. Scientifically, neotony & ontogeny are very different. I can't do justice to all of his book in a short post, particularly when I didn't read the entire book, just parts--I don't have time to read a 400+ book in a day and still take care of my dc. I think the questions raised about homology, are also good ones, and thought provoking, to say the least, since homologs are one of the most vital components required to support the theory of evolution. If virtually all parts of physiology were analogs, that would weaken the theory considerably. Nobody's talking about Haeckel's biogentics. That's what you're refering to when you talk about an embryo replaying it's ancestral roots. The comment in question is simply saying that a whale, for example, grows and then reabsorbs legs during it's embryonic stages. It still has all the bones necessary for hind legs even in the adult. But... here, take a look at this... Haeckel's biogenetic law was never part of Darwin's theory and was challenged even in his own lifetime. Haeckel himself did not necessarily advocate the strict form of recapitulation commonly attributed to him (Richardson and Keuck 2002). Irrespective of biogenetic law, embryological characters are still useful as evidence for evolution (in constructing phylogenies, for example), just as adult characters are. Furthermore, there is some degree of parallelism between ontogeny and phylogeny, especially when applied only to individual characters (Richardson and Keuck 2002). Various causes for this have been proposed. For example, there is selective pressure to retain embryonic structures that are needed for the development of other organs. Links: Chase, Scott, 1999. Is Haeckel's law of recapitulation a problem? http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/postmonth/feb99.html Wilkins, John, 1996. Darwin's precursors and influences: 1. transmutationism. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/precursors/precurstrans.html I don't see any problems with homology at all. This is snipped from here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greta Posted July 3, 2008 Share Posted July 3, 2008 Karin, even though it has taken me awhile to get back to you, I have been thinking about this! I have also heard this argument that evolution is not falsifiable. To be honest, I dismissed it without a lot of consideration because it just seems obvious to me that there are tons upon tons of things that we could have discovered or observed in the natural world that would have disproved evolution, but we haven't found such things. Also, this view that a scientific hypothesis has to be falsifiable is, as you noted, Popper's claim, it's not one that is universally accepted by philosophers of science. I have always accepted it, but I found this interesting little tidbit on the talkorigins website: A minor quibble should be dealt with - Popper knew that the Falsification Principle could not be falsified. It was openly metaphysical. In this context, it makes sense why a pro-evolutionist like Popper called Darwinism a metaphysical research program. It was no more falsifiable (he thought) than the view that mathematics describes the world, and it was just as basic to modern biology [Popper 1974: sect 37]. So I just found that somewhat amusing -- I mean, I've always kind of accepted the Falsification Principle (sadly, I must admit, without thinking about it that deeply) as a basic principle of science, but the Falsification Principle itself is not falsifiable, LOL. That puts a new perspective on things! But anyway, getting back to the point, I want to address this part of your post: but I think that what is considered evidence isn't always true evidence because it's evidence that can easily support all 3 arguments in the evolution/ID/creationism debate. I think I personally need some definition of terms here, because I have always considered ID to be the new name for the same old creationist viewpoint. But you seem to be treating them as two different things. So I would like to know how you are distinguishing them. I think I need clarification on that before I can go on. Are you using one of them to mean "Old Earth Creationism" and the other to mean "Young Earth Creationism" or something else entirely? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phred Posted July 3, 2008 Share Posted July 3, 2008 And... by the way... the Theory of Evolution is easily falsifiable... if there hasn't been enough time for evolution by natural selection to take place, find a bunny rabbit fossil in a rock layer with a T-rex, find a true chimera... that means an organism that is a true mix of say lizard and mammal. Like a Griffin. Any of these things and gazillions more would falsify evolution. But none have been found. The Theory of Evolution predicts that none will ever be found. If they are, the Theory will be falsified. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phred Posted July 3, 2008 Share Posted July 3, 2008 You are asking two different questions: I'm going to cut n paste to save a buncha time ;) What is evolution?:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution In biology, evolution is the process of change in the inherited traits of a population of organisms from one generation to the next. observing changes in a population is a given. The THEORY of Evolution --The Modern Evolutionary Synthesis-- is a bit different: yes, there is a difference between the origins of life --abiogenesis-- and the evolution of life. As was stated in the first link: "The origin of life is a necessary precursor for biological evolution, but understanding that evolution occurred once organisms appeared and investigating how this happens, does not depend on understanding exactly how life began." So i am game for discussing the ToE and not Abiogenesis for now. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionary_history_of_life I think "common descent" is the closest to a short answer, and is usually the most misunderstood. i like the way berkley explains it: http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/0_0_0/evo_07 The Modern Evolutionary Synthesis gives the best overview of where questions occur: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_evolutionary_synthesis Tenets of the modern synthesis 5. In palaeontology, the ability to explain historical observations by extrapolation from micro to macro-evolution is proposed. Historical contingency means explanations at different levels may exist. Gradualism does not mean constant rate of change. It is this extrapolation that brings in the most questions about the history of life on earth. would you like to add anything Phred? Karin, and anyone else, would you agree to this? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greta Posted July 3, 2008 Share Posted July 3, 2008 I don't think I'd count on that. There are plenty of times in history where "real empirical evidence" has been squashed or silenced by those in power or who have an intimate, invested relationship [financial/ emotional] w/ their own ideas. I would like to THINK that the scientific community would embrace such a drastic change, but historically.... no. Scientific change on that level has rarely been embraced. I certainly agree that something that drastically contradictory to what is scientifically understood to be true would be met with skepticism and even resistance at first. I'm sorry if I implied otherwise. Scientists would be extremely hesitant to embrace it without some very rigorous testing and evaluating first (and that process could take years, maybe decades). And I think that's as it should be. But if it were true and valid, it would win out. And I think history shows us that that *is* how science works. Ideas that we almost unthinkingly accept as true today were met with extreme resistance when they were first presented. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phred Posted July 3, 2008 Share Posted July 3, 2008 I certainly agree that something that drastically contradictory to what is scientifically understood to be true would be met with skepticism and even resistance at first. I'm sorry if I implied otherwise. Scientists would be extremely hesitant to embrace it without some very rigorous testing and evaluating first (and that process could take years, maybe decades). And I think that's as it should be. But if it were true and valid, it would win out. And I think history shows us that that *is* how science works. Ideas that we almost unthinkingly accept as true today were met with extreme resistance when they were first presented. Yeah, that wacky theory where the earth goes around the sun. Everyone can plainly SEE that the sun goes around the earth. Demons cause disease, not germs. Why in the world should a doctor wash his hands? Thing is... what people who want to tear science down see as "radical change" is really just making things right. What was once thought was the best that could be known at the time and as we learn more, as we are able to build better instruments our knowledge of the universe around us changes. We're not like a factory hiding an accident to be able to still say 300 days without a work-related injury! If we find out something new, we talk about it and revamp what we thought was right. And, yes... the new ideas will meet with resistance, as they should... that way they're put to the test. But maybe we could meet them with a little less fervor than putting the adherents of the new ideas in prison for heresy... whatcha think? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greta Posted July 3, 2008 Share Posted July 3, 2008 And... by the way... the Theory of Evolution is easily falsifiable... if there hasn't been enough time for evolution by natural selection to take place, find a bunny rabbit fossil in a rock layer with a T-rex, find a true chimera... that means an organism that is a true mix of say lizard and mammal. Like a Griffin. Any of these things and gazillions more would falsify evolution. But none have been found. The Theory of Evolution predicts that none will ever be found. If they are, the Theory will be falsified. Right. When I first became interested in Classical homeschooling (this ties in, I promise!) someone loaned me an audio CD of a talk given at a homeschooling convention here about teaching the trivium. If I remember right, it was Harvey Bluedorn who was giving a brief overview of logic and talking about logical fallacies. He chose to use "evolution" to illustrate logical fallacies, but every single one of his arguments against evolution was a pathetic strawman. One was an evolutionist sitting by a pond who sees a frog jump in the water, and a few moments later an alligator walks out. And the evolutionist points and says "see, the frog evolved into an alligator!" not realizing that underneath the water where he couldn't see it, the alligator had eaten the frog. (I may not be retelling the story exactly, but that was the gist.) Quite obviously, in fact, any such occurrence (of a frog transforming into an alligator) would completely DISPROVE Evolutionary Theory as we know it. (And on a side note, I probably would have been turned off to Classical Education forever had I not subsequently discovered the far more logical SWB.) When I think about Darwin's original claim, the first thing that comes to my mind is that if we had discovered that traits which increase survivability are not inheritable by offspring, that would have completely blown the whole thing out of the water. You mentioned how a particular distribution of fossils in rock layers could disprove evolution. There's also the fact that evolution predicts particular patterns in the distribution of plant and animal life currently alive on the planet -- biogeography. If plants and animals were randomly distributed around the planet rather than being distributed in patterns predicted by Evolution, that would also disprove the theory. There are, I agree, virtually limitless ways that the theory could be disproved. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greta Posted July 3, 2008 Share Posted July 3, 2008 Yeah, that wacky theory where the earth goes around the sun. Everyone can plainly SEE that the sun goes around the earth. Funny, that's exactly the one I was thinking about when I wrote that. :D Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.