Slashdot Mirror
Evolution Endorsed by Steves
Genrou writes "National Center for Science Education (NCSE) has started an interesting and unusual project. Project Steve gathered about 220 scientists - almost all holding PhDs in all areas of science, and inlcuding two Nobel prize winners, eight members of the National Academy of Sciences, and several well-known authors of popular science books - signed a statement on the importance of teaching evolution and against intelligent design. The unusual part is that all of them are named Steve. Eugenie C. Scott, the executive director of NCSE, explained: "Creationists are fond of amassing lists of PhDs who deny evolution to try to give the false impression that evolution is somehow on the verge of being rejected by the scientific community. Nothing could be farther from the truth.
Hundreds of scientists endorsed the NCSE statement. And we asked only
scientists named Steve -- who represent approximately 1% of scientists.""
Hundreds of years ago, the vast majority of "scientists" believed that the Earth was flat! Like a pancake!
"Send an Instant Karma to me" - Yes
If we apply this scientific method to computer science, Microsoft could have collected 220 computer specialists telling the world that Linux is bad, and everyone would have to agree.
--
ah.
The major mistake that creationists make is their attempt to interpret biblical information in a scientific context. It should be noted that the author(s) of the book of Genesis did not write the story of the creation in order to teach how the world came to be, rather it was written to express a spiritual concept - that of a parental higher power, god, or divine origin that preceedes mankind. It suggests that this god preceedes mankind and is therefor not man made. Mistake number two is trying to create a scientific theory that justifies this misinterpretation (putting the cart in front of the horse)
X
I'm not so sure the sampling of only egg-heads named Steve is really random enough to be representative.
What would the results be if you only asked scientists named Mohammed?
Finally!
I'm so happy that Steves endorses Evolution!
Thanks M. Ballmer, thanks M. Jobs!
Finally a free PIM for all platforms!
And they are so humble at Ximian's they don't even report the news on their website!
Great! First the Eric Conspiracy ( http://secretlabs.ericconspiracy.org/ ), now the Steve Conspiracy...
Honesty is the best policy.
*everything* is Orwellian to cats.
My name is Steve (OK, it's actually Stephen).
I disagree, I don't endorse evolution... but I guess my opinion doesn't count, as I don't have a PhD (or any other doctorate).
And since this is an article about Steve's, why does it list someone called Eugenie "Steve" C. Scott?
Are there 220 non PhD Steve's (or Stephen, Esteban, or Stephanie, as the site states) that want to join me in a non-endorsement of Evolution (and I don't mean the Ximian product!)
-Steve
The article isn't saying evolution is right (that's another debate). It's saying that the scientific community is nowhere near about to reject it.
what does that have to do with the article?
Oh, and it would include women scientists, too. 8-)
Yesterday was the time to do it right. Are we having a REVOLUTION yet?
Read the article. They chose "Steves" as a tribute to Stephen Jay Gould, who recently passed away.
You all know MC Hawking's take on the subject, of course.
Fuck the Creationists
Check it out at da Hawkman's Crib, j0.
MC Hawking's Crib
--blob
All sweeping generalizations suck.
Just out of curiosity, how do you know what the author(s) of the book of Genisis meant when they wrote it?
I mean is there somekind of secret page 0 where it says,
"It should be noted that the author(s) of the book of Genesis did not write the story of the creation in order to teach how the world came to be, rather it was written to express a spiritual concept - that of a parental higher power, god, or divine origin that preceedes mankind."
or something?
I sure haven't seen it when I've read it.
rather it was written to express a spiritual concept
Cite?
IMHO with all the recent 'safety-measures' we humans are applying around us we are prohibiting the further evolution of the human race. Back in the good ol' days if you did something stupid you croaked. Now you either can't do something stupid or we'll fix you up again.
;-]
This results in the human race getting weaker, because we don't 'filter' out the weaklings anymore.
I propose some sort of auto-darwination law in which all safeguards against 'stupid' actions should be removed. (Eg. no more airbags and seatbelts)
It's the only way to further ourselves!
- In the beginning there was nothing, and then it exploded
Depending on the branch of Christianity, the bible can also be interpreted in various ways.
I'm Protestant, as my associate pastor once explained to our youth group, "While the Bible may have originally been the Word of God, it was orally passed down by people for centuries, written down by a person, and later translated by other people. As such it is not necessarily accurate."
retrorocket.o not found, launch anyway?
I seriously hope no one else initially thought that in addition to being able to find the best deals in Europe, Rick Steves had suddenly thrown his hat into the evolution debate as well.
"Understand you're having a little Jimmy Page trouble."
Not just burning at the stake. Why not crucify all the creationists as well.
quite right. What's also important to remember, is that the laws of physics apply to everyone - so if we were "created", we'd then have to fight about which of the MANY versions of creation is the right one...if creationism is true science, it would have to apply in India as well here.
Since the Bible is clearly not the oldest book of that sort, perhaps the one that was closest to the actual "creation act" would be the most accurate.
I'd rephrase that to say the the problem is "Creationists taking biblical text" full stop
I am constantly amazed by this whole thing. Like it or not science and religion are both belief systems. Depending on what school you attend, you might have a class for each. Religion seems to think it's OK to subvert the scientific method while science (some science teachers anyway) seem to think it's OK to claim that science delivers truth.
You keep your religions texts out of my science class and I'll quit stating theory as truth. Now are you happy? Didn't think so...
It's good to hear the slashdot community is still holding strong when it comes to ignoring people with better qualifications and more sense. Science is not a belief. Belief doesn't drive your car, light your electric lamp, or completely eliminate all traces of natural smallpox. Science does.
One of my professors was wearing his "Over 200 scientists named Steve support evolution" on Tuesday. He said the campaign is in response to advertisements saying "50 Scientists do not believe in evolution", to which the appropriate response is: How many of them are named Steve?, which is now a fair metric for comparison.
BTW, the campaign is named after Stephen J. Gould, RIP. (the same Stephen J. Gould that creationists/intelligent designoids think supports their positions, just because he believes his theories contradict the "accepted" understanding of evolution? What, are scientists supposed to agree about everything?)
I would have to disagree. Most of the documentation bieng used is extremely out of date. A lot of holes exist, No proof of evolution can trult be found only genetic mutations. ie. (galapagos) birds loss of flight etc. And most creationists are not using the bible to prove their theories. It's just if evolution is flawed what is left
Put them in the iron maiden.
Yes, hundred of years ago, the Earth was flat, but there's been quite a bit of inflation since then.
That's "Mr. Soulless Automaton" to you, Bub.
Evolution and Creation share the same problem. They are both improvable. Evolution fundamentally is a way to explain life and the origin of man without intelligent design. Regardless of the weight of evidence to support evolution available now or at any point in the future it is unlikely that it will ever be possible to prove that God was not involved. In reality it comes down to a metaphysical discussion on the existence of God, and both are not scientific. People who do not want to believe in God tend to believe in Evolution, and those who believe in God tend to believe in some kind of intelligent design. Some people feel it is reasonable to straddle the fence between the two competing ideas, but I personally have given up on that strategy. It is either or for me.
That was supposed to be unprovable. I am new here and I haven't been able to figure out how to edit.
"While the Bible may have originally been the Word of God, it was orally passed down by people for centuries, written down by a person, and later translated by other people. As such it is not necessarily accurate."
For your consideration:
Jewish Law forbids its oral communication to written source. That is, that when writing the Bible, it *must* be written from a written source. The Bible has always been written, and never transmitted orally. As such, I cannot understand how the associate pastor can be correct.
Have you read my journal today?
Unless you take into account the translation and retranslation of the bible, mistakes made by scribes during transcription, and other associated errors. Plus, the bible itself was written at some point, but are we guaranteed that was exactly when the events occured? Because if not, there could be errors during the writing down of these events, not to mention observer bias, etc.
The statement only rejects the teaching of creationist pseudo-science in the science curricula. It does not say creationism should not be taught as a religious belief. I don't think any of the scientist would want these students to be intentionally not taught about relgion. Some of the religious opponents do want young people to be ignorant of the scientific evidence for evolution.
It is probably wise to only include in the science curricula what has been arrived at via the scientific method. I don't think anyone believes creationism was arrived at via the scientific method.
First, this is not to say that when two different disciplines contradict one another there should be no conversation on it. However, you first have to know what the disciplines are saying before you have a conversation. I am sure you are all aware that in the US there have been attempts to replace evolution altogether by creationism.
Another example would be the Christian teaching that:
Mark 10:25 - It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God.
Verus the implicit "maximize your wealth" philosophy taught in economics classes.
We should see both points of view and decide for ourselves - with their strengths and weaknesses. Scince should be taught in science classes, religion in social sciences, literature or religion classes.
You probably would not read origional science texts as literature as they would not be great examples of writing. (Perhaps some are.) You should not read about religious beliefs which do not make very good science. (Perhaps some do.)
Should there be more integration of knowledge from different fields together? Certainly - but only after the fundamentals are mastered. It is on this we should focus first because despite the well educated slashdot readers, there are many high school students who cannot read or write, and I know from personal experience that many, many of them here at Cal State University Northridge cannot do any algebra at all. I would trade in an instant all their knowledge of evolution for a single decent semester of math.
Please, please remember how poor our education system is in America (please ignore if you aren't in America) before wasting breath and emotion on evolution. There are bigger fish to fry.
a war on terrorism? How can we end a war on a method?
A new and better theory of Evolution that more accurately fits the current knowledge.
But knowing that evolution theory can never and will never be good enough, it would inevitable fall to a religious text of some form. So then, I guess the question becomes which religious text? What makes the judeo-christian religion text a better source than older religious texts? Beyond the fact that the creationists we're talking about are Christians and have an interest in spreading their religious views and only their religious views.
I agree with that statement. They have it completely backwards.
Creationists should be interpreting scientific information in a biblical context.
The only complaints I have seen is when science drifts from the realm of what can be observed and tested (cars,lamps, smallpox) into the black box of "origins".
The story of the blind men and the elephant can apply as easily to modern science groping in the unprovable realm of origins as it does to religion.
Until someone comes up with a time machine that allows us to go back and see (and return to tell the tale) any theory of origins will require a measure of faith from its adherents.
you cant edit... try the preview button next time :)
Evolution is a fact with several real-world examples this past decade. Evolution is most certainly "improvable": if it wasn't then it could never be labelled a science. Falsifiable hypothesis is the keystone of all science.
Evolution is science. It says nothing about the existence of God. Having all the answers is not a pre-requisite for being scientific. You are being ignorant when you claim otherwise.
In Genesis, the word translated as "day" actually means "period of time." Puts a different spin on things. Evolution isn't even completely against the Bible and Creationism. Last time I checked, evolution doesn't do a great job of explaining how life came into existence, only how it developed. Theories as to how simple organic molecules organized themselves into self-replicating macromolecules don't enjoy as wide a base of scientific support as evolution.
The second use of day in the example (it took five days) clearly, from the context, refers to 24-hour, calendar days.
The third use (during the day) clearly refers to daylight hours, again this is obvious from the context.
In Hebrew, "yom" is quite similar to the English "day" in that it can have these three meanings. And there are also parallels to how to distinguish the meanings. A more reliable method is to examine the context in other parts of scripture, to see if there are absolute rules that can be worked out from non-controversial passages to apply to places we are trying to understand.
Following those guidelines, Genesis 2:4 is a use of "day" where it means a span of time.
Similarly, using other passages of the OT, a simple set of rules comes out for when to consider "day" or "yom" to mean a literal 24-hour calendar day. From the context in every other usage, any time a number (5 days, one day, day 3) is associated with "yom", it means a 24-hour day. Also, any time "evening and morning" is used with "yom", it means a 24-hour day.
In Genesis 1:5, 1:8, 1:13, 1:19, 1:23, and 1:31 we see both the number and the "evening and morning" phrase applied. Basically, this is about as clear as it can get in Hebrew that this means a 24-hour day. Evening, morning, number, day means 24-hour calendar day. There just is no plainer way to put it.
(many thanks to Ken Ham for the principles used in this writeup)
What stupid idiots would accept creationism as scientific fact?!?!?!?
Non-Linux Penguins ?
"Only people named 'Steve'? Well, that's not very scientific."
...then they must understand much better than the average person about how matter, antimatter, energy, etc. can be created from nothing, or where the ubiquitous singularity which was "always here" came from.
I know from being in graduate school that these questions are becoming clearer every day!! So hopefully someday when they ask all the PhDs named Matt questions that have nothing to do with our research, we will be able to confidently answer with an intellectual, condescending tone.
Go evolution! The idea of mankind being created in steps is completely against what the Bible teaches! Those creationist morons!
[End Sarcasm]
It would have been interesting to see what the responses remaining would look like if they filtered out all the Steves who could not give specific arguments for both evolution and creation. Then we could see if they actually have a basis for their opinion or if they are just agreeing with everything they have been taught in science class.
I would say that most of the apparent problems with the creation account in the Bible deal with time and verb tense. Days did not even exist before the earth was created, and the Hebrew word for day that is used can have many more meanings than the English word for day.
If you want to learn more about possible interpretations of the Bible and which ones correlate with scientific discoveries, read The Genesis Question by astronomer Hugh Ross.
Ultimately, I think scientists will admit that what we believe to be the universe cannot exist by itself, and alternate universes do not account for the the problems with the isolated universe.
As far as chronology goes many biblical events are not recorded in the order in which they happened. Most eastern writings are that way. One of the biggest problems with Christendom is applying our western ideas to eastern writings.
no big sig
Unless you take into account the translation and retranslation of the bible,
Could be, if you deal with translations. We are dealing here with Christians belief, and (I assume that) they believe that the Bible was transmitted by G-d in Hebrew to the Jews, and that Moses wrote it down right then. With that, and the abundancy of Hebrew texts, this should not be an issue.
mistakes made by scribes during transcription, and other associated errors.
All Bible scrolls are checked for errors before use. And, considering that there are hardly any differences between the traditions (except one letter which does not change the meaning of the word) it is unlikely that any mistakes ever made it in.
Plus, the bible itself was written at some point, but are we guaranteed that was exactly when the events occured?
From the Chrisitan belief, that the Jews got it from G-d and it was written just then, yes, it is in agreement.
Because if not, there could be errors during the writing down of these events, not to mention observer bias, etc.
That much is true. However, not possible form a Judao-Christian vantage point.
Have you read my journal today?
I am another Steve (not on the original list). I have a Ph.D. in biochemistry I also endorse evolution. I have two other friends, also named Steve. One has a Ph.D. in Physics, and the other has an MD. They both also endorse evolution. Seems to be a trend... 3 out of 3 Steves.
Is there a point in debating this? Probably not, but I will state that I disagree with this point of view. Evolution is a theory with many components developed as an explanation of why and how we exist. It may be routed in and supported by scientific inquiry, but it is still an origin story, just as creation is an origin story. Evolution is an theory that explains how life originated from chance occurrences. This implicitly excludes the existence of an intelligent designer or God. It does not need to be stated openly (often it is), but it is what is implied. There is an assumption made, that there is no God, and without it the theory would be rendered meaningless. Anyone that says otherwise is denying reality, or wants to avoid the debate.
I think you were saying that it is possible that evolution can be disproved, and this is what makes it valid as a scientific theory. I agree that certain mechanisms within evolution have the potential to be disproved, but I can not see how it would be possible to disprove a fundamental component of evolution - that chance occurrences led to the development of organic molecules, protein precursors, and so on to the first living organism, unless an intelligent designer stood up and let us all know that we were wrong. This hasn't happened yet and probably won't happen anytime soon.
In fact there is a lot of evidence that says that chance occurrence could not have led to the development of life, that the probabilities are just too astronomical. Scientists must wrestle with this, and try to come up with mechanisms that lower the probabilities down to something manageable. I don't think that they have addressed this issue all that well as of yet. The theory of evolution is constantly in flux, but at its route, it is still a way of explaining the development of life from chance occurrences. This will never change and is a component of the theory that can not be disproved.
If a creationist feels that there is scientific evidence to support their ideas that the world was created by God then let them do their work. In reality it is no different then the evolutionist working to support the theory that life developed by a series of chance occurrences, or without god, or whatever way you want to say it. It is all the same, they are both based on assumptions. I think you can fairly say that Darwin did not come to the initial theory by first assuming that there isn't a God, but he understood the implications of his ideas, as it relates to belief in God.
In the end how can you say that evolution is a fact? These real world examples you mention don't prove anything, they may support the theory, but that is entirely different. There are so many aspects of evolution that still need to be explained. I am not convinced thus far. You are probably right that many researchers work under the assumption that it is fact. Unfortunately, this assumption forces them to interpret the evidence a certain way. This goes into another criticism of evolutionary science I think, and I am not really as well versed as I should be to go much further.
No, which is why I don't bother. Creationists purposefully ignore contrary evidence, overstep their area of expertise, fradulently claim skills and knowledge that they do not have, and repeat "arguments" that have already been shown to be false.
As I've said before, I don't debate with creationists. I treat them with the contempt I'd reserve for any religious nutcase who perverts science and attacks education. I ridicule them. I attack them. My purpose is not to enlighten you, but to make you stop talking.
Because it is a fact. That you bring up the tired old argument of "evolution is just chance" is exactly why I don't bother with debate. You repeat this refuted argument as if it's still a matter for debate! It is not.
I have read these attacks against creation 'science'. My argument regarding chance does not ignore the concepts of natural selection, but natural selection does not explain how inorganic materials combined in a series of events to form life. There are other explanations needed, and out there to review. The sources you quote also simplify the real issues, and in no way offer proof that we evolved. They actually do a disservice to science. The fact that researchers hold certain aspects of evolution to be fact is not right, that is my point. I have read and enjoyed many of Stephen J. Gould essays, and the argument quoted here is not necessarily valid just because Mr. Gould wrote it. In my opinion the assumption that life came to be without the guiding hand of a designer is impossible to be convinced of. I am not necessarily talking about natural selection, or adaptation, or aspects of speciation, so much as the part of the theory that says that these mechanisms involve and are reliant on a series of chance occurrences. They are. I have listened to and read a number of arguments for evolution and it still seems to me that so much more needs to be explained. Science has a long way to go. I guess I'm still talking, but I never said I was a creationist. I also never claimed any authority in the subjects that I am talking about. I have more authority then you probably think I do, but nevertheless, I am not claiming in these posts to be an expert. It is important that all lay people be encouraged to think critically about ideas, even if if they are said to be fact.
No kidding, because that's abiogenesis and is not covered by evolution.
You wouldn't understand the non-simplified explanation. What do you want? A free education at a tertiary level until you can understand the science? Be serious. Sometimes you have to accept that you're not going to be given everything on a silver platter. Invest your own time and effort to understand it or shutup.
And this really sums you guys up. You complain about the simplified explanations but you have neither the experience nor the education to understand the non-simplified explanations. When the (late great) biologist Dr Gould tries to explain it in terms that even a layman can understand... you incredibly claim he's wrong!
You can't be convinced. This is why I don't bother with debate. There's no sense debating because you demand the impossible: you want to be given the non-simplistic explanation but you don't want to invest the time and effort to understand it.
Liar.
It is impossible to interpet these two claims of yours as anything other than you are a creationist. Unless you've somehow devised a new form of ID which doesn't involve creation!
This is a definition of the word creationist:
The liar part is unfair I think. I never said that I held to a literal translation of the bible. Although you probably imagine that I am ignoring reality, I am trying to highlight to you how reality, in terms of origin science, might still be quite different then what scientist currently hold to. If you think all the answers have been found then you don't understand the science. I do believe in God though, so I hope you see how impossible it is for me to hold to any theory that undermines this belief. For me there must be other explanations that include God. As you see, it comes down to a question of belief in the end. Mr. Gould was an atheist, so he had to hold to a system that did not involve God, or his view of reality would contain contradictions. I am no different except that I believe in God.
Why is the USA so backward?
You want to know, but you're not going to like the answer: because the USA has freedom. Europe doesn't purge religious freedom outright by law, but there is a lot of subtle relgious bigotry that crushes a lot of this kind of dissent.
A barometer of freedom is a large number of crackpots. The fewer crackpots, the less freedom you have.
If somebody educated said this, I'd be upset. Fortunately the only people who tell me this are the same people who believe Columbus was alone in his conviction that the Earth was round, that thermodynamics disproves evolution, and that Dr Gould was an uneducated fool who didn't know anything about evolution! The barbs don't sting because the venom is so impotent.
But you are not critical. You are merely ignorant. You have raised silly arguments that show an obvious lack of understanding.
And it's not that I hold the writings in high regard. I hold the work in high regard. Why? Because scientists have invested a huge amount of effort into critically examining the evidence and the theory. 1000s of scientists have reviewed evolution, spanning 100 years of work, across at least 4 major disciplines of science (paleontology, cosmology, geology, and biology), and there has been NOT A SINGLE piece of evidence to refute the theory! Let's make this point very clear. NOT A SINGLE speck of evidence.
Oh, I know you don't believe that. You think there is plenty of dispute. You've already used a couple of the bigger chestnuts yourself. What you don't seem to understand is these "disputes" you have are merely ignorance. Claims like "evolution defies thermodynamics" aren't valid points of contention: they merely demonstrate the claimant has no understanding of either evolution or thermodynamics. They are "arguments" that only impress other ignorant people.
Also keep this in mind. There is NOT A SINGLE published paper on creationism in any respectable scientific journal. NOT A SINGLE ONE. Why is this? Is it because the journals are biassed? It's a conspiracy to hide the truth? Hardly. All scientists would take great delight in tearing down evolution. It's like a badge of honour to be the guy who destroyed a theory. Think of Einstein who managed to falsify a 400 year old theory of physics.
I don't. Strawman argument.
And I've made a serious blunder in trying to reason with you. I know from experience this will achieve nothing. You're a creationist. You refuse to accept evidence. You simply deny everything that disagrees with your desired belief: Gould is wrong, science is wrong, scientists are wrong, evidence is wrong. I know you won't bother to read these links just like you didn't read the links before. Not critically. At best you'll load it in a browser, scan for words that support your own beliefs, and ignore the rest. You're such a textbook case of the creationist that it's almost worth taking a photo and using you as a poster-child.
The only positive benefit I see is that even the creationists, such as yourself, are starting to realise that "creationist" is a label they don't want to be associated with.
Phone Companies sign a paper saying phones a useful.
Science wasn't always controled by the church. If you believe that then you are stupid.
You call this reasoning with me? I don't see it. You have resorted to some name calling, and derisive writing, built your own straw man and appeal to popularity based arguments against some of the ideas in my posts, and after all this, all that I can say about you is that you seem to be upset. Why are you upset? Why does it matter to you if I hold to ideas that are contridictory to yours? You have already writen me off as an ignorant, uneducated, imbicile, so I think its time for you to go and do something useful with your time. You are right this is pointless, but the blame isn't solely on me.
"Evolution is a fact"
Obviously not a scientist - nothing is a fact - it's all just a theory.
"with several real-world examples"
Name one!?!
Evolution is science. It says nothing about the existence of God
Except for the fact that the very basis of evolution is contradictory to the teachings of the bible. (Each reproduces after it's own kind)
When I did my Biology degree (10 years ago) one of the first statements made, when teaching Evolution, was that Chimps have DNA that is up to 98% the same as humans.
Amazing! They've been saying this for years. The problem is that the human genome was only mapped a couple of years ago, and I'd bet they haven't mapped the Chimps - so how did/do they know this?
But ultimately the "Science" of Evolution can be described by a single sentence...
"Hey! This kinda looks like that!"
That's because you're ignorant. I gave you the information you needed. You either don't understand it or you choose to deny it is real.
Oh yes, but I told you I was going to do this. I don't debate with creationists. I just insult them. My goal isn't to educate you; it's to make you feel like shit. I did warn you.
I'm definitely not upset. This is perhaps the funniest exchange I've had all week. It's great to bash the creationists. It's like shooting fish in a barrel, though without any guilt. I can only imagine that you think I'm upset because of projection.
Because you won't keep your ignorant and incorrect ideas to yourself. You insist on yelling them from the rooftops. If you just shut your mouth there wouldn't be a problem. It's when you speak authoratively about things you don't understand that people - like myself - feel the need to kick you back into your place.
Here are five links explaining why evolution is a fact.
And just in case you're too lazy to click the links and read the damn text - I know from experience that most of you fundie types are really that lazy - here is a sound-bite that even you can't ignore:
Clear enough? Or perhaps you'd like to claim that the late great Stephen Jay Gould was not a scientist?
I claim you are a liar. Even a first year biology student is taught how the similarity was determined. It's an estimate based on the rate of hybridization. It's simply impossible for you to have a biology degree and not know this.
And before you make the obvious (and incorrect) claim that hybridization isn't an accurate measure, you would do well to educate yourself on the topic. If you or anybody else could disprove hybridization you would be famous overnight.
Niether you nor the creationists know the real intentions of the Middle Eastern sheperd or farmer or group of them that wrote Genesis.
The creationists give a literal meaning, you don't and there lies the problem: what such a book says is fully open to subjective interpreatation (no wonder there are so many Xain sects).
I personaly don;t want to see such a book used as the base of sceintific endeavours of any kind, including biology.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
Good. Then you know what a load of rubish you just wrote.
And, assuming your 100% deterministic universe existed, then I will be the first to sign, since to find the truth about something is nothing shameful.
I would have been also first on line to sign to an statemtn saying thet humans evolved from ape-like creatures. That statement is as potentially "explosive" as the one you cook up here.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
You don't believe in science. You test it, challenge it and create new assumptions that because have been tested help you to better understand the universe where you live. Actually somebody that does not believe at all in science is more useful to its advancement because poses more interesting questions, but there the usability ends.
Compare that to religion in which you just have to accept whatever is thought to you. No wonder that in many religions sheep have a prominent symbolical place.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
Who is being close minded? My basic premise from this series of posts that you are not willing to discuss is that evolution is generally not possible to disprove. It is supported by this whole diatribe of yours. What would convince you that God was involved, if hypothetically he was?
All evidence will be interpreted with the apriori assumption that evolution occurred. You already established it is considered fact by the scientific community. I can't think of any evidence other then an actual signature by God that would change your mind or the mind of any evolutionist. Actually, even if there was an undeniable signature there would be people like yourself that would deny it, and explain it away. The only thing that seems to adjust someone's view on the origins of life is belief in God. Evidence doesn't seem to be involved. This isn't an argument; it's an observation.
I would love to know your educational background. I suppose you won't tell me? Actually, I don't think I would be able to trust you anyway if you decided to tell me.
Just one comment... Since when has consensus ever been a valid method of determining what is factual? All you have to do is take a look at HISTORY to see that groups of people deciding something is so does not necessarily equate with it being so.
Will we ever be able to prove that an intelligent designer was not involved? I doubt it. In the end we are all forced to make a faith decision to determine what we believe. I don't see science ever answering this question for us, well at least in my lifetime, which is all that is really important for decisions regarding faith. After I'm gone, it won't really matter to me what science discovers.
Ho ho ho...
If it wasn't possible to disprove evolution then it wouldn't be a science. I've already given you 5 links explaining this one. You aren't reading them.
For example, if you find a transitional fossil that is half bird and half mammal then you have disproven evolution.
That's right. It's fact, just like the world is round is fact, and the Sun is hot is fact. I know you have trouble with this but it's fact.
Shrug. I think qualifications are overrated, but if you insist, two bachelors (one with honours) from the Australian National University.
Why? Because I disagree with you? Don't you see the problem here is not me, but you?
Now we both know this scenerio is unlikely. Do you really believe that this hypothetical situation would disprove evolution? You called it a transitionary fossil, that in itself indicates a shoehorn of the evidence into an evolutionary framework. Anyway, if this evidence did indeed show up it would be fairly easy to reswizzle evolution to fit this new piece of evidence, it would be a major reswizzle, but not impossible. It would just simply change thinking on how birds evolved. There is alot of contrary evidence though to this hypothetical evidence as we both know, so the weight of the argument for a reptile/bird link is still so strong that this new evidence would be ignored as crack pot science, at least until a few fossils were found. I don't see how this would disprove evolution.
Anyway as I have written many times. I am mostly interested in the question of the existence of God as it relates to science and not an argument on evolution vs. creationism. Which is what you seem to want to deal with.
Anyway, that said, I will go back and read more of your links. I have gone through all this about 10 years ago, when I was a 'believer' in evolution, so I guess it won't hurt to reread. I might add some more criticism to some of these. We will see.
Yes, because it would show a transitional path between birds and mammals which we know from the existing evidence is completely impossible. It would completely disprove evolution. Some other theory would be required.
Perhaps, but that's not a problem. Science does that all the time. It happened to physics less than 100 years ago. It's not an admission of failure, nor an indication of deception, but a sign of healthy scientific progress.
Well, as I've said before, that's because you are ignorant. Apparently you think this is an insult but it's not. You can't be expected to know everything. Being ignorant about 99% of the world is perfectly normal. But it's when you make the argument by incredulity - I can't imagine how this would work therefore it is false! - that you make yourself look silly.
Very true. As I think I saw quoted in the editorial of Scientific American recently: "Science is not a body of knowledge, it's a process".
I've never been able to understand why creationists spend so much time mucking arguing with scientists about evolution. It's pointless -- they're all clearly deceived by satan.
It would be so easy and trivial for creationists to demonstrate the superiority and higher validity of faith over empiricism. It's simple -- just get together, form a company and BUILD A JET AIRPLANE.
C'mon, creationists. Build an airliner on faith. Fly it on faith. Get all the faithful together to fly in it at once.
What better possible way could there be to show the world for once and for the superiority of faith over empiricism and reasoning?
I've never really understood this debate about "Creation verses Evolution". I see no reason why both ideas cannot be both correct. Both Creation and Evolution are explanations of why things in the world are the way they are today. However they are explaining completely different concepts. Evolution is merely an attempt to explain a physical chain of events which led to the world as we know it. Creationists do the Creator a great disservice by assuming that (s)he would create a universe that was not internally consistent That the universe would be created without a complete 15 billion year history, in full detail. In fact I believe he would use this history as a tool for the creation. Evolution is not concerned with how this evidence came about. In fact it doesn't matter "when" or "how" creation happened. It's physical history and evidence still looks the same. It is this physical evidence that Evolution tries to explain, not the "truth" that the creationists are referring to. This "Evolution Vs. Creation" is getting old anyway. The creationists need to drop their arguments against evolution and take on cosmology and physics. This is where we are truly getting close to a "truth".
You are obviously an extremely biased (and rude) person so I won't be able to sway you in any way. But I will make a few comments none-the-less.
Firstly. B. Sc Aqu. Sci. (Aqu Biol/Comp Sci). Graduated 1994 - Deakin University (Warrnambool Campus). You can call them if you like.
Can't say they mentioned DNA Hybridization - it was probably discussed in detail in the 2nd year/3rd year BioChem classes that I didn't take. Certainly wasn't mentioned at the time the comparison between Chimp DNA and Human DNA was made.
Still, I would like to read some of the papers which discuss the measured results where they have used this technique on mapped Genomes (eg. Where they know the exact variation between the DNA). So I can educate myself and see how accurate the technique really is.
Perhaps what I should have said was not that Evolution was a theory but a hypotheses (in fact that would be more accurate as I'm still waiting for any form of credible evidence as to the existence of evolution).
[talkorigins.org]
Great article, states (correctly) that a theory is an "Imperfect fact" - which means evolution has to be fact because it's a theory. Doesn't actually provide any actual evidence (See later...)
Also says that it's a fact because most Biologist accept it as so. So therefore the existence of God/Christ/Allah/Krishna/Aliens is a fact because most Jews/Christians/Muslems/Haris/Freaks accept is as so.
[austarnet.com.au]
Fact because the geologists/bioligists say that everything is really old. They measured the ages using methods for which there is no base for comparison to prove the results (which is bad science in itself) but they readily accept as fact (not saying they are absolutely wrong but there is room for scepticism).
[actionbioscience.org]
Seems to ignore the fundamental element that makes evolution what it is. The "creation" of new species through these mutations etc. The development of antibiotic resistent strains of bacteria is not evolution, it's (Natural) selection.
Selection is not evolution. Claims that examples of selection prove evolution are similar to claims that JFK being shot are evidence of the extinction of the human race.
If anyone has an example of where the mutation/breeding of any organism to create a new species has occurred I would be interested to read about it (a "mule" is not a new species - it has to be able to reproduce, produce viable offspring and not produce viable offspring with the species it "evolved" from)
[demon.co.uk]
"Life evolves. That is a fact. One of the simplest definitions of evolution is the change in the frequency of genes in a species over time."
The article then goes on to talk about rabbits freezing to death and the dominance of long haired rabbits increasing over time... Natural Selection Theres that phrase again...
At what point do these rabbits grow wings/stand upright/develop gills/cease to be able to breed with ordinary rabbits?
Of course to overcome this problem we rename "Natural Selection" and call it "Micro Evolution". And then you make the argument that because we've given it a name with the word "Evolution" in it, "Macro Evolution" must be going to occur at some point in time. I mean it's obvious isn't it?
[origins.tv]
Is just a definition of the word theory ("Imperfect fact"). Bit of a waste of time really. But I do correct my statement, not a fact, a hypotheses...
Correct.
False.
Well that really says it all.
The evidence isn't going into fall in your lap. Nobody owes you an education.
They don't. If they did, that would be strong evidence against evolution.
Oh, by the way, I found this particularly amusing...
Suddenly becomes
Deakin University doesn't offer this unusual degree. Perhaps they did 10 years ago, but today the closest they offer is Bachelor of Science minoring in Computer Science.
If you look at the coursework for B Sc (Comp Sci) then we can eliminate the biology major, the chemistry major, the earth science major, because these majors don't offer courses in aquatic science.
My best guess is you did the Environmental Science major . This offers at best three biology courses, each course lasting only a single semester within the 3 year degree.
Now if you wanted to do an actual degreee in Biology you'd need to do a Bachelor of Science (Biological Science). This is offered by The Biology and Chemistry Department, not the School of Ecology and Environment.
Now while it's certainly possible that the degrees and departments have shuffled in 10 years, I'm also willing to entertain the possibility that you exaggerated your credentials when you claimed you had a biology degree. I am certainly not belittling your degree - it's hard work and I congratulate you - but I'd like to know whether you truly did a biology degree, or if you did a biology course or two.
You're right, Deakin doesn't offer this degree any more. Shortly after I left the Uni (in fact I think it occurred in 95 after my wife graduated) they changed the Aquatic Science course list to include S318, S337 and S338. And it looks like they are shuffling the courses again.
When I did my degree we had a choice of doing Aqu Biol, Aqu Chem, Aqu Biol/Chem (double minor), Aqu Biol/Comp Sci or Aqu Chem/Comp Sci. If you elected to do a double minor (as I did) you did first year (standard for everyone no matter which path you took) and then the remainder of your units were split 50:50 between the two minors.
The year behind my level they stopped offering the Comp Sci portion because there were only two of us doing it at my level. To accomodate this the Comp Sci was done in conjunction with the Faculty of Business and Management.
I don't remember what the various units were that I did but I do remember Aqu. Ecology, Aqu Zoology, Aquaculture, Fisheries Management and Project (IBT). I haven't looked at my degree/results for almost 10 years. I have no need to.
I really don't care if you don't believe me. It's completely irrelevant to the entire thread of this discussion. Attacking the person, or their credentials, is a pretty weak way of supporting your argument. You continually tell me to "educate" myself but the best I have seen from you, with respect to research of any kind, is some links to extremely weak articles (Evolution is a fact because most biologist accept it as so) and of course there's your looking for information on a 10 year old course matter on a current web site.
The evidence isn't going into fall in your lap. Nobody owes you an education
So I should go off and do my own experimentation because actual results are not being made available. Or haven't you found any?
They don't. If they did, that would be strong evidence against evolution.
So the development of new traits/species is evidence against evolution? So it'd only be evidence of evolution if the rabbits suddenly became horses right. Or do they have to develop a certain number of new traits for them to become evidence of evolution?
Or do they stay as rabbits, only ever micro evolving, until one day biologist notice that there are also sheep in the paddock! They must have evolved from the rabbits!
According to your argument (which I have seen you use before) a transitional species is evidence against evolution.
ICHTYOSTEGA AS A TRANSITIONAL FOSSIL
But lets take the good old Rhipidistian and our friend the Coelacanth. Both of these came from the Cretaceous period and both are lobed fish. The Coelacanth was originally thought to be the link between fish and land animals - until they found it alive and well in 1939.
Now in the article above I really like the first sentence. I personally don't subscribe to this view. Think/accept there are transitionals in the fossil record - because the record has been put together using the "Hey this kinda looks like that" technique - so of course you will end up with transitionals. And again, how much change to you accept before something is not a transitional?
Nevertheless, we know that the Crossopterygians became more and more specialized for a deep-sea life because in 1939 a living Crossopterygian, the ceolacanth Lattimeria, was dredged up from a deep sea trench off the coast of Africa
Absolute brilliance. "We know they adapted because we found them, apparently unchanged, in deeper water than we expected. We've found fossils of this species on land before. Because the fossils were on land and these fish were in deep water, they must have evolved."
Ignores basic geology, natural selection and changes in climate.
This article must be wrong in any case because it goes on to discuss the transitional nature of the Rhipidistian fossils etc. Or if it isn't wrong, and the fossils are considered transitional, and evolution does exist, then the Rhipidistian can't be the ancestor of the land animals. So we'd have to simply remove the Rhipidistian from the fossil record and/or look for an alternative. Not that that's ever happened before.
I do believe you. I also agree that attacking the person on the basis of their credentials is worthless, but I also think it's worthless when people start their argument with "I have a Biology Degree". I've got two degrees and I don't remember diddly-squat from either of them. I certainly don't use my degrees to bludgeon people in arguments. If you were a full-time professional biologist then that would be different.
Shrug. What do you want? I could link to the peer-reviewed scientific journals but there's no guarantee you would understand them, even if you did fork out the money to get a copy. The pages that I did link to have statements from Gould and Dawkins: you can obstinantly insist that their claims are "weak" but I think that just means you're holding them to an unreasonably high standard.
Did you perhaps miss the recent Slashdot article on this very topic? I'm finding it hard to understand how you could have read the article and still be claiming that there's no evidence.
Yes, a rabbit giving birth to a horse would be fairly definite evidence against evolution. But I think you're just being intentionally silly. You have a degree in science: do you think you'd have that degree if you'd written stuff this silly during exams?
This is not my argument. If you're going to create a strawman then you should at least dress it up before placing it in the field. There's a huge difference between a transitional species and your "rabbit giving birth to a horse" idiocy.
<TongueInCheek>So you have degrees in geology and metereology as well?</TongueInCheek>
I'll elaborate my argument. Though really it's not my argument but is instead an often repeated argument in layman's science books. The discovery of a rabbit with gills would be evidence against evolution because you'd expect transitional forms between no-gills and gills. Evolution is slow and gradual. Large changes - normal rabbits giving birth to rabbits with gills, normal rabbits suddenly walking upright, normal rabbits giving birth to horses - are all evidence against evolution.
But of course, I don't have a PhD in Biology so I'm sure you'll discredit me :-P
So you've read the blind watchmaker and still think that transitional traits are evidence that evolution does not exist. Punctualism does not argue that transitionals don't exist, it argues that the rate of evolution is not constant. So a rabbit with small, largely useless wings would NOT be evidence that evolution does not exist. In actual fact it looks like you do not understand the differences between gradualism and punctualism, the basics of each and their relationship.
And biomorph is a wonderful toy. Did Dawkins get a hand full of random bytes, stick them in a file and wait for Biomorph to appear? Hmmm, no he created it and the mechanism by which the application "evolves" it's pretty pictures.
Amongst others.
When you present a strawman once I can accept it's just a mistake. When I tell you flat-out that you're misrepresenting me, and when I give you a clear explanation of my position, and then you purposefully repeat the same strawman, well then I just think you're an arsehole.
What, evolution exists because the Steves say it's so.
You're back to gradualism again. How can you progress from a lizard to a bird with out a half bird/half lizard?
What the?
Are you picturing a Centaur/Minotaur type of animal? Front half lizard, back half a bird?
And if gills in a rabbit are evidence against evolution (presumably because gills came before lungs - never mind the fact that gills may give the rabbits an advantage - say there might be a dam in the paddock) what is a plesiosaur?. Are we to believe co-evolution developed the amphibian, with only fins (so it could barely leave the water, if at all). Then lungs developed, and it stopped exiting the water. From there it probably developed a neck.
Yes! Argument Ad Stevium. It's all the rage in materialism religious circles.
Well to be honest right now I'm picturing a troll; back half a human but front half an ass.
Another strawman, this time trying to pretend that evolution is directed. You really are awful at this.
You've reverted to the insults again. And you didn't answer the question.
But you're the one saying that if a rabbit developed gills it would disprove evolution.
Why?
What is it about gills (or wings or standing upright) that would make it disprove evolution? And you seem to have honed in the the seeming punctuism of my statement.
How about, when do the rabbits develop traits that make them more (or less - essentially other) than rabbits?
When has ANY organism been observed developing from one species to another? And don't give me that "we've only been watching a couple of hundred years" crap. We've been able to observer millions of species with varying levels of detail, we've been deliberately messing with the genes of all manner of organisms using some of the most advanced genetic techniques known. And drosophola is still drosophola. Single celled amoeba are still single celled amoeba.
Where are the examples?
I never stopped the insults. And I did answer the question; you just didn't understand the answer.
You're really trying hard to create a strawman. You've gone from "rabbits with gills" to just "gills". Ask yourself; if your argument against evolution is so robust then why do you need a strawman at all?
Why do expect me to educate you? Has your life been so silver-spoon that you can't even read without assistance? Type "observed speciation" into Google and do your own background research.
We can discount any "Species difference because of observed morphological difference" rubbish. That's the exact reason there were originally two species of Coelacanth when they were rediscovered.
Here's a link for you to read. Feel free to point out the obvious flaws in the arguments.
Because they're obvious there's no value in pointing them out; we both already know where the flaws are.
BTW: you could do better than to quote Milton. He's a crank and dismissed as such. See:
Really... Milton! Why don't you quote some Gish next?
Too lazy to read it eh?
Gallileo was dismissed as a crank too. Not saying that Gallileo and Milton are comparable but dismissing someone as a crank because four (or more) pro-evolution web pages have said so, without looking at what he has to say.
Everything he says on the page I gave the link to is perfectly valid.
Cranks are dismissed as cranks, too.
Read the pages. They give plenty of reasons why Milton's work is worthless.
First you said it has obvious flaws. Now it's perfectly valid. Make up your mind.