Slashdot Mirror
Correcting Misperceptions About Evolution
Beagle writes "The science of evolution is often misunderstood by the public and a session at the recent AAAS meeting in Boston covered three frequently misapprehended topics in evolutionary history, the Cambrian explosion, origin of tetrapods, and evolution of human ancestors, as well as the origin of life. The final speaker, Martin Storksdieck of the Institute for Learning Innovation, covered how to communicate the data to a public that 'has such a hard time accepting what science is discovering.' His view: 'while most of the attention has focused on childhood education, we really should be going after the parents. Everyone is a lifelong learner, Storksdieck said, but once people leave school, that learning becomes a voluntary matter that's largely driven by individual taste.'"
Is the origin of life really a part of the theory of evolution ? I thought it was the origin of species. The origin of life, to me, seems more like a discrete (soapy, fatty) chemical process that doesn't have a lot in common with the process of evolution. Why convolute the two ?
Religion is what happens when nature strikes and groupthink goes wrong.
Some people aren't learning.... They simply take whatever their political party happens to push and parrot it. Take intelligent design or global warming for instance.
You would think that he would have learned that 90% of people aren't.
No folly is more costly than the folly of intolerant idealism. - Winston Churchill
(Yeah, yeah, I know... no one RTFAs on /..)
They discuss that, and agree with you. The reason is that in the eyes of the public, the two are regularly conflated, especially by religious hacks trying to dispute evolution. So, they discuss the relationship and lack thereof (they're not completely unrelated, actually), and also discuss why they're talking about both.
The short answer is that they were trying to summarize the current state of scientific knowledge as relates to a particular political and religious debate, and both evolution and the origin of life are part of that debate.
From the summary there's no sign that the article says anything about what I regard as the largest misperception--but that might just be simple par for the /. course. On the other hand, if you take the time to read and consider the article carefully, then anything you post about it will be moot, because the EAS (Effective Attention Span) of /. is around 40 minutes. Ergo...
Ma Nature just doesn't care about the waste. Of course the anthropomorphism just obscures things more, but the basic thing about natural evolution is that anything goes--but almost all of the changes lead directly to death. Ma Nature's approach results in vast numbers of tiny variations of the same basic forms that are all scrabbling for survival in a tiny niche. She isn't betting on the existence of a benevolent mutation. She just doesn't care.
Lately I was thinking that one of the weirdest aspects is that things worked out so that every one of us humans is a unique permutation. It would be 2^46 possibilities if you just started with one set of distinct genes from the chromosomes of a single mother and father, but there are so many variations for each of the genes that the actual number of potential human beings is vastly larger than that. Insofar as our genes contribute anything to the situation, each of us could be uniquely suited for some niche on earth. Talk about over-engineering?
Of course the likelihood that we'd ever find such perfect niches is pretty much negligible--but again Ma Nature doesn't care. If we wipe ourselves out in our frustration, she'll just start over again with the surviving cockroaches. So have a nice day.
Freedom = (Meaningful - Coerced) Choice != (Speech | Beer^2), and sad sock puppets' bad mods avail them naught.
He demanded that I support the relationship of Neanderthals with other homo genus members (not even arguing the sapien angle) with fossil evidence of Neanderthals in Africa and only conceded error so far as to say that Neanderthals are as related to homo sapiens as snakes are related to worms. This is an otherwise intelligent person who believes he understands evolution and science fairly well. Apparently he attended a lecture a few years ago on the Lucy find and somehow mutated that lecture into his current understanding. How can you engage with people like this in a productive way without being insulting? TFA addresses the basic misunderstanding and urges for consistently rejecting these sorts of positions, but is that even my priority at this point? Everything about the thought process he's using to arrive at his conclusions is flawed, but his insistence that he knows what he's talking about makes it impossible to discuss anything he might disagree with meaningfully.
Plus, he's an aspiring breeder.
Seriously. I went to a lecture series on evolution, and was rather disappointed upon leaving.
The speakers spent most of their time discussing why Intelligent Design is wrong, and getting into semi-religion-bashing. I heard nothing about any of the things that the summary to this article mentions, for instance, which was actually something I wanted to know more about. I'm not very familiar with all of the specific evidence myself (I'm not a biologist).
Now look -- as a scientist, I can completely respect and agree with the fact that ID is not science, for a multitude of reasons. But look at it from the point of view of someone "new" to science that was curious -- they showed up to an event, hoping to learn more about what evolution is and understand the "debate", and all they heard was how Creationism is wrong and how we need to fight religious groups and educate the people about the truth. "Educate with what?", that person will ask. "They haven't given any proof yet, and just seem to talk about how much they hate religion when they get together.". THAT is what the average person sees, and it doesn't really make scientists look good, and gives ammunition to the people that spread misinformation about evolution. Will that person ever go back to an evolution talk in order for us to clear up misconceptions? Probably not; forever, that person will now think "Wow, Evolutionists are crazy, I'm not going to that again.".
There's other issues of course, but the public image of an evolution scientist right now needs to be cleaned up before many will even bother to listen.
Three reasons:
- No, not everyone is a lifelong learner. That's the ideal not the reality. Just look at how hard it is for some older people to pick up computers after 40.
- The religion that's indoctrinated them has done so since birth. You're going to ear bash them for an hour or two and expect them to change their lifelong beliefs? You'll only create resentment.
- You have a much better chance at reaching the parents through the children. However if you only reach the children, it simply won't be an issue in 40 years.
Limit going after the parents to insisting that science is taught in science classes and religion is not.
These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
Life must have originated by a generalized and initially weaker version of the evolutionary process.
Essentially, in
a. certain intermediate-free-energy thermodynamic regimes (regimes in which common
elements and molecules can co-exist in all three of solid,liquid, and gaseous phases so that rigid and semi-rigid
structure can be combined with constrained energy flows),
and with
b. the right soup of lots of different common and chemically combinable elements trapped together in a gravity well,
you get the preconditions for randomly occurring structural and process experiments.
Some of these randomly occurring but probable-due-to-the-regime-and-the-ingredients experiments
end up making structural and process fragments that alter/interact with/use their environment in such a way as to
incrementally, or in some cases dramatically, increase the probability of a similar structure or process
fragment recurring nearby in time and space to the first one. This is already a positive feedback loop.
Eventually, by chance, some cluster of these self-probability-improving structure+processes, a cluster
most likely made of smaller self-made-more-probable structure-process fragments, reaches a threshold
at which its robustness leads to a probability of 1 of structure and process like that existing in the general
area.
Pattern self-preserving functionality transcends pattern occurrence improbability.
Call it stochastic evolution transforming into classical evolution.
Call it the origin of life if you like.
Where are we going and why are we in a handbasket?
Getting people to change their opinions, beliefs, or conclusions is just difficult all over. For example, a group of smart -- really smart (I mean two-plus-standard-deviations-out-of-the-global-mean and scientifically-trained smart) -- people recently debated how to define a planet.
They and their fathers had grown up thinking that Pluto was a planet because of mankind's relative inexperience at astronomy. Recently, mankind learned facts that required rethinking of what "planet" meant so that when the term was used, everyone knew what it did and didn't mean.
Remember how easy and sensible that debate was? When it was "over", the definition had as many footnotes as principles.
And those were scientists. Heaven help us when we have to reteach anything to the general public.
"We reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals." --The American President (20.1.2009)
You know which one it is, you've seen it in libraries, books, this thing called the internet, etc. It's even the first hit on GIS if you look for evolution. Why is it so bad? It suggests a linear, goal oriented version of evolution, where newer species replace older species. In it's worst case, this becomes "If folks came from monkeys, why are there still monkeys around?".
The modern view of evolution should be an image more like a tree, with many branches starting at the root. Most species will be extinct by now, but a few them will still be around.
In addition, the only thing random about evolution is mutation, which creates variation within a population.
Finally, as someone else said as well, origin of life != evolution. Nice going for that article.
Try to learn more. When i learned about evolution, i heard nothing about intelligent design (neither pro nor contra).
It isn't the scientists fault that ID reared its head in the USA and they got to 'defend' their theory.
Patents Drive Free Software as Hurricanes Drive Construction Industry
His view:...Storksdieck
Ancestor of a Dinosaur's dick?This has some big consequences.. that recursion would mean that whatever was a common ancestor would need a common ancestor,, all the way down. and perhaps plants and animals are fundamentally different arising from different organisms, and a few trunks might appear for bugs, fungus, and bacteria..
By choosing traits carefully, a phylogeny was developed, which related animals to each-other.. strangely this worked really well.
Anyway, evolution predicts that there is a tree structure, and that endpoints dont cross over.. so mammals dont get 4 chambered lungs like birds, but might still have some egg laying abilities like reptiles. Not should we see the octopus eye structure in humans. or bug armor on birds. Armadillos will have armor from keratin like a rhino horn, or fingernails.
Anyway, once molecular biology and sequencing came out, it solidly backed the theory.. Phylogeny people have been re-mapping the tree, bacteria took some serious adjustment, larger organism less so.
Now there is a push to generate "ancestral genomes" so that we have an idea of what the predecessor organisms were capable of... and where some of the novel enzymes popped into being. So enzymes which appear to be adaptation from our last ice age might be related in some way to survival of the cold, or eating rodents without GI distress. But with some timing, and some idea of the climate, the flora, and fauna some good guesses can be made as to why a subtle change might have happened.
So evolution theory may help in figuring out why humans stopped making vitamin C, and rats never need a vitamin C pill or fruit in their lifetime.
Or it can confirm things that we might already have guessed.. that humans make less stomach acid during pregnancy might be an evolutionary adaption to morning sickness.. because most pregnant women don't seem to have chronic bulimia problems, ie rotten teeth, esophagus ulcers, which would occur at higher acid concentrations. anyway, once they find the control mechanism I'm betting that it'll point to roughly the time when we started bipedalism.
Yes evolution is science, it does matter, knowing the history of automobiles lets us understand why tempered glass isnt appropriate for a windshield. Knowing the path that our ancestors evolved with lets us know what we should watch out for when we start tinkering.
Storm Storm
Genetic variation is an induced property. It is easier to achieve, since less error correction is needed; it makes the species less vulnerable to f.i. viral attacks; and it encourages evolution thanks to much more frequent 'prototyping'. Hence species with slightly different genes for each member are more likely to succeed in the long run.
"but once people leave school, that learning becomes a voluntary matter that's largely driven by individual taste."
What's wrong with having education voluntary and driven by your own taste? Is that what makes us interesting individuals and not some Gattaca?
b) Biological evolution has nothing to do with the origin of the universe.
[*] Notice that some of talkorigin.org's features are not up to date, because it got haxored and the maintainer hasn't had the time to harden the interactive features.
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
I'm still waiting for the fundamentalists realize that the laws of physical dictate evolution as they must follow the same laws that govern the universe. Therefore whatever created the laws of physicals has also created the evolutionary process. God and evolution can co-exist; it's just Genesis's literal interpretation and evolution that are at odds.
While this link more or less covers these points I'll summarize as it's a lot to slog through. The fossil record is sorted based on time. Radiological dating coupled with clear evolutionary progress as you look at progressively higher layers proves this. If much of the life on Earth died in a flood then you'd expect to see sorting based on density, size and swimming ability with the metal and stone tools of the time at the bottom and a spectrum of animals ranging from big slow creatures that couldn't make it to higher ground and live longer or swim very well on top of the tools and birds, bats and things that can swim for a long time at the top. Considering that the remains of tools are all well above the likes of T-Rex skeletons this is clearly not the case.
The Grand Canyon is pretty much a poster-child for modern geological theories. It's layering is not consistent with a rapid flood and the canyon its self is best explained by the long slow process of erosion by river. I could probably find some detailed studies if you'd like. the mitochondrial DNA studies performed at Berkeley in 1987 [1] I don't know where you're getting that 6000 years figure. The study you cite puts her as living approximately 200000 years ago and it's a bit more complex than "our common female ancestor". I'm tired and it's three am so here's a link...
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/mitoeve.html
If you have more questions about this part I'll gladly answer them when it's daytime. and the existence of comets Seriously? WTF...
What about comets causes problems for you. Tell me and I'll do my best to clear up any misunderstandings you may have.
Also, I've noticed you seem to have a problem common to many Creationists, you conflate geological evolution, astronomy, abiogenisis and biological evolution. Geological evolution is, as the name suggests about the changing of our planet over time and includes stuff like erosion, desertification and plate tectonics. Astronomy is the study of the stars and can include stuff like the big bang and the formation of our solar system.Abiogenisis is the idea that life originated from non-life due to the chemical conditions present on Earth at the time. Biological evolution is what you seem to want to debate and it's all about the adaptation of animals over subsequent generations due to natural selection. Even if one is disproved it doesn't necessarily invalidate the others because they're all separate theories with their own evidence and implications. The fact that they all tend to support each other where they overlap just adds credence to them all.
Talk more when it's day
-David
I suggest that we make a rule that if you do not believe in evolution you cannot be prescribed any of the newer antibiotics in case you get a bacterial illness since the earlier ones should be just as effective. If creationists are right, they will save some money, and if they are wrong we will exert a gentle evolutionary force toward people with better critical thinking skills.
At the intersection of computation and biology.
So, this Creator,
How did he/she evolve ?
D
http://davesboat.blogspot.com/
First, you really should link to the articles in question, as that would be the polite thing to do: Cann | Gibbons (pdf).
Second, it is obvious that you have chosen a belief system and grasp at any evidence to support it, blatantly disregarding all other evidence. A google of those papers make them look to be two "classics" that creationists refer to again and again. The youngest is over 10 years old. Where are the more recent Science/Nature papers that confirm the conclusions of these papers? They don't exist.
Here is an acid test for good research: Does it stand the test of time? Is the field explosive in the scientific field 10 years later? Some examples of paradigm shifting fields are stem cells, apoptosis, and RNA catalysis. The papers you cite do not measure up to these standards and so are highly suspect. Good science gets confirmed by other scientists and not by conjecture or preachers who thumpin bibles. Where are the papers confirming the 6500 year old mitochondrial clock or have recent advances shown problems with the previous model? Do the research yourself if you are objective like you think you are--or you can remain blinded by your belief system. But if you wish to remain blinded by your belief system, don't burden others with your belief system like you are doing here.
When uninformed people have opinions on science that smell of belief and bias, my suggestion to them is to go spend five to seven years to get a PhD in a field of natural science. Don't cop-out and pick some religious school where you end up with a thesis full of bible quotes. Find a real state-run university without any allegiance to any religion. Do actual research out in the field (dig bones, sequence DNA, dissect plants, count the strata of geological formations, etc.), synthesize the data and write your thesis on what you have discovered. Don't lie and make up data to support your belief system! Even [insert your favorite religious prophet or diety here] wouldn't do that, right? Integrate the comments of your committee and defend your thesis in front of them. Once you have your PhD from the accredited state-run university without any religious affiliation, come back and examine your belief system from the perspective of a trained scientist. Until then, you are simply fooling yourself, discrediting the members of your faith, and annoying the knowledgeable.
Just callin' it like I see it.
Of course I think that evolution is a theory. That's because I'm a scientist, and I know how theories work.
If the theory of evolution couldn't be proven to be true and correct, it wouldn't be a theory. It would just be conjecture, like for example Intelligent Design.
Evolution theory is based on the hypothesis that we have common ancestry, and incremental changes cause branching.. so there isnt cut-and paste at the end points. and there should be evidence consistent with gradual change.
So we have common ancestry.. we have a DNA system which pervades all of life (viruses and prions not considered life in modern texts).
There is a conserved DNA- to -Protein language, with few slight exceptions. solid common ancestry.
Conserved ribosomes are closest in organisms that appear to be related. Synteny(sameness on gene order) is highest in related organisms. so we have incremental changes nailed
Now we haven't found cut and paste yet that will cause some consternation in scientists.. so if we find a feathered crocodile, a mammal with octopus style eyes , a bat with a four chambered lung, or a bird with bug eyes then we have an example of cut-paste.. the platypus is a case of offshooting before mammals lost most reptile traits.. and its a neat case, but isnt a cut-paste example..
Storm
p.s. the clock article is neat but the non-coding areas of MT DNA are under evolutionary pressure, so the math is getting bad inputs.
An interesting anagram of "BANACH TARSKI" is "BANACH TARSKI BANACH TARSKI"
A theory is just a theory. To push it as fact is to play the same game as those religious folks with an agenda who push their beliefs as fact.
BTW, I don't believe science and religion are mutually exclusive. No, I am not a Scientologist.
One big error in the article is that life started on earth and then led directly to modern life forms.
It seems quite feasible, possibly likely, that the first few times life started on earth, in the early solar system, it got extinguished by another big impact causing a global disaster. How far along evolution got between these total extinctions is unknown. All we know of today is the last time life started, and was not extinguished by some global disaster yet.
don't cut it off www.mgmbill.org
I don't see any point in trying to "educate" people about a topic that does not affect them in any way
Most people are not affected by how many planets there are.
Most people don't have any specific need to know anything about atoms or elements.
I don't see any point in trying to "educate" people about world history or national history prior to five years ago.
Like it or not, it is indeed critically important to have a reasonably educated and diversely educated population, educated with a general overview of the world around us and educated with a basic overview of the major areas of history, and educated with a basic overview of the major areas of science. We need a population who have learned general skills in thinking and understanding, and who have a basic grasp of the world around them and a basic grasp of how science works and what it says.
You are making the suggestion that no one ever be taught anything about atoms and elements until they get into college and major in some field like metallurgy.
You getting a professional degree in almost any field of life and earth sciences first requires a basic foundation in evolution. An education in anything from oil exploration to becoming a doctor build upon a knowledge of evolution. It would be like getting a degree in metallurgy without knowing about atoms - it is possible but difficult to teach metallurgy without atoms and it would produce a defective deficient understanding of metallurgy.
The only use I've seen of evolution in relation to the population at large is to convince everybody that all religions are wrong.
That's ridiculous.
I have exactly ONCE come across someone who claimed anything like that, and I personally gave him the smack down on it, and he immediately apologized that he goofed there.
Evolution no more says "that all religions are wrong" than the solar system says "that all religions are wrong".
The ONLY people going on about "evolution disproving God or Religion" or any such TOTAL NONSENSE are the anti-science people. Exactly as the ONLY people claiming earth-orbiting-the-sun was anti-God or anti-religion were the anti-science people imprisoning Galileo.
Oh, and by the way, more than half of all Fortune 500 companies uses Applied Science Evolution somewhere or other in their business.
-
- - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
When you see something fall to the ground, do you attribute it to the "THEORY of gravity", or do you just think "gravity"?
> Only real diffrence is that evolutionary theory suggests that everything is completely random
It is probably better if you actually know something about the topic before you put down your comments in (virtual) print.
Mutation is random, selection is not.
Still a theory. Subject to change. Shit, Einstein would have told you that.
Let me guess -- are you implying, from Gibbons, that 6500 years ago there was a mere one human woman on the entire planet, from whom everyone alive is descended? And I guess we all know her name...
Because the "Mitochondrial Eve" theory does not identify a purported woman, the only one on the planet, from which everyone who has ever lived descended. Rather it identifies the one woman that everyone alive today is descended from, and who was only one of many alive then, but the only one whose descendants who are alive now. And Gibbons' paper said that this person lived 6500, rather than 100,000, years ago (as described in Sykes' "The Seven Daughters of Eve").
But in her day, there was in turn a common ancestor that everyone alive then was descended from, some thousands of years in the past. And so on, nearly ad infinitum. But alas, we will never be able to identify the time of existence of any of those Eves without analyzing DNA samples from people back then.
Of course logically there must have been that one ultimate Mitochondrial Eve, but assuming she was the product of evolution, it requires arbitrarily defining her as "human" and all of her ancestors as not.
The question is not whether evolution is possible (given enough time and luck, anything is possible), but whether it actually happened.
You're trying to put it in terms like the infinitesimal but non-zero "possibility" of an apple suspending itself mid-air by some sheer random alignment of atoms. But scientific theories such as evolution don't deal with possibilities like that. And they're not formulated as descriptions of phenomena which are theoretically possible but have never been observed. Rather they are formulated as explanations of things which have happened. The phenomenon of evolution has been irrefutably observed as happening, and the theory adequately explains how.
I wonder, how many of your professors have presented theories as fact?
That, to me, is a scary thought. If all scientists believed theory to be fact, which would be dogmatic, there would be no more need at attempts in disproving theory. I believe that would make the scientific establishment's principles akin to the Catholic Church.
I previously felt an obligation to inform the misinformed about a variety of topics. I've decided that the average person cannot be informed, they outright reject facts, evidence, and are almost incapable of critical thought. How the hell are you supposed to inform someone who rebuts with "yes, but the bible says..." or they start telling you about how they feel or what they "believe", when you thought you were discussing facts.
I became disenchanted over the last 8 years or so, as we were able to watch videos side-by-side of a politician stating "I stabbed a dog in the heart." and then a second video stating "I've never stabbed a dog." and then some member of the public is questioned about what they saw and they don't even recognize that conflicting statements were made. Then an "expert" begins discussing the two statements and is somehow able to reconcile completely contradictory statements into a seamless truth. It's like we're not observing the same reality. Of course since reality is a mental construct, it's true in some respect that we're not observing the same reality. And if we're not even in the same reality, how the hell can I possibly inform them of the laws and theories that govern the reality I'm in? I live in a world with gravity, evolution, electro-magnetism, chemical reactions, thermodynamics... they live in a world of magic, "truth", and gravity pulls down because that's how it feels today, and universes that pop-up out of nowhere because we live in a world designed like a video game.
And what's so weird is that I'm not even a skeptic. I like to believe I'm pretty open-minded. If any of my knowledge comes into question, I'm ready at the drop of a hat to re-examine things and see where I stand.
I guess I'm at the point now where I don't care if people like Bush ever acquire something approaching intellect. They can stay stupid for the rest of their stupid lives.
When people tout theory as fact, yes, they are dogmatic in the same way as evangelicals.
His lecture data was completely convincing (I'm a physicist, and can read graphs with the best of them). Furthermore, this guy is not a corporate figurehead; he explicitly states that he is for all the energysavings we can think of, he just hates the current media hysteria around global warming, and the fact that it's supposedly all our fault.
Bart
what about 4) a fanatical devotion to the pope?
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
What if they in return told you to 5-6 years with monks, and pray etc everyday, without thought to science, and make an attempt to get close to God, etc.
PZ Myers put it pretty distinctly:
"'Evolution is a theory about the origin of life' is presented as false. It is not. I know many people like to recite the mantra that "abiogenesis is not evolution," but it's a cop-out. Evolution is about a plurality of natural mechanisms that generate diversity. It includes molecular biases towards certain solutions and chance events that set up potential change as well as selection that refines existing variation. Abiogenesis research proposes similar principles that led to early chemical evolution. Tossing that work into a special-case ghetto that exempts you from explaining it is cheating, and ignores the fact that life is chemistry. That creationists don't understand that either is not a reason for us to avoid it."
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/02/15_misconceptions_about_evolut.php
It is no longer uncommon to be uncommon.
That, and the plants on Earth before the creation of the Sun.
Real Daleks don't climb stairs - they level the building.
Lil' Jon? Is that you?
Ramen to that, brother!
One swallow does not a fellatrix make
That, and the plants on Earth before the creation of the Sun. Light was in existence before the sun.
God spoke to me.
Everyone needs Jesus
Yup just like every fish needs a bicycle.
An Eye for an Eye will make the whole world blind - Gandhi
There are self-replicating objects that do not seem to be alive, but they do grow and expand to fill their niche.
That's the problem with abiogenesis: we need to define what counts as alive before we can say what started life.
Mind you, that's a problem religions avoid quite assiduously too: where does the soul get put in? Too early and the infant dies with a soul (natural termination). Too late and we have premature babies without a soul. So where does "life" begin? Why do humans get one but not Apes? How different from a human does a human have to be before it doesn't get a soul? E.g. did "Lucy" have a soul?
PS your PZ Meyers quote means nothing. It just states a position and doesn't actually bring anything to the table.
Abiogenesis is chemistry, correct. But chemistry doesn't define what "life" or "alive" is. And that definition IS what Abiogenesis is. As I said, we already have self-organised non alive collections that exhibit many of the characteristics of life. We have a line which is "definitely alive" and a line that is "definitely not alive" but these lines DO NOT MEET.
Abiogenesis is how to bridge the gap between to show how "Not alive" and "alive" are part of a spectrum and something "not alive" can gain the characteristics we assign to the "alive" side. If we never find how that happens, maybe THAT is the "irreducible complexity". But the IDers aren't looking for it. They take on faith that anything they don't understand NOW is irreducibly complex. And that isn't how to learn. It's just dogma.
Does PZ Meyers' discourse help in that goal?
That depends on how you translate the Hebrew word transliterated as yom and its other uses throughout at least the Torah, if you're into historical criticism.
how to invest, a novice's guide
I'm just an ordinary electrial engineer. That makes me slightly more educated than the man on the street and far less educated than the average grad student in the life sciences. Short of going back to college a PhD, I read books to educate myself. Asking for good books or other information on evolution hardly counts as "burdening others with your belief system like you are doing here." If I am wrong, it is because I am the victim of bad science, not because I am grasping at any evidence to support my belief system. My belief system does not require me to believe in evolution at all. I am perfectly comfortable with God existing outside the physical universe and playing no part in the natural evolutionary process that produced us. I have read enough to conclude that this is not the case, but maybe the stuff I have read is junk science.
The problem with the books on evolution I have read is that they assume evolution is true, and then fit the pieces into that assumption. This is different from books on the other branches of science, which start with the basic experiments, and then introduce the theory to explain them. For example, any description of relativity begins with important observed facts, like the null result of the Mitchelson-Morley experiment or the reduced rate of decay of particles traveling at relativistic velocities. Only then do they introduce the theory to explain those facts. Every explanation of evolution I have read basically says, "We evolved from lower live forms, and here is how the facts fit into that assumption," which is exactly the opposite approach. This is not an argument against evolution; it is an argument against the way it is presented.
I cited four examples for creation evidence off the top of my head, but I have read hundreds more. A Slashdot thread could never go into the level of detail I am looking for, which is why I want a good book or something. One that builds the theory from the ground up, citing experiments/observations along the way. If such a book doesn't exist, someone should write one. It would be a devastating attack against honest creationists.
One can't help but wonder how much of the (undue) credibility that "evolution deniers" are given is down to this simple difference in semantics...
Perhaps it would help clarify the situation if, instead of referring to the 'Theory of Evolution', everyone could talk about the 'Law of Nature' that is Evolution. It is no longer in doubt, so why don't scientists talk the talk. There are no life forms which cannot evolve, so evolution is intrinsically bound up with life. No life without evolution, no evolution without life.
"Misperceptions"
Give up now, you've already lost.
But plants on Earth were not. At least, not according to Modern Science, with which you appear to wish to reconcile your Bronze Age creation myth.
Real Daleks don't climb stairs - they level the building.
Tip 2 - completely ignore the Old Testament, as it's mythical nonsense.
Tip 3 - stick to the Gospels - Paul was an authoritarian prick and should be discounted by anyone with common sense.
Tip 4 - don't take any of it literally, especially not in translation.
Tip 5 - you can come to the same moral conclusions on strictly utilitarian grounds, so gods aren't strictly necessary.
One swallow does not a fellatrix make
The problem is not evolutionary theory or his understanding of it.
People everywhere need to be educated in the various logical fallacies that they apply in everyday conversations, let alone debating theories and the nature of life.
Wikipedias entries on logical fallacies is a good starting point.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_fallacy
Recognise when people throw up strawmen, apply the fallacy of the consequent, or simply commit ad hominem attacks and you can soon break down their arguement and get to the root cause of their misconceptions.
It's not easy, but it's the only way....other than shouting loudest.
Where can I find this conclusive physical evidence? Evidence that is only compatible with an evolutionary origin of the universe?
It is impossible for such evidence to exist since you can always say "there was invisible factor X that influenced things". Anything can be made more complicated and there is no upper limit for that. This is why we use Ockham's razor, we just prefer simpler theories (i.e. ones that introduce fewer latent factors). A more complex theory might turn out to be correct later but when the only difference is latent factors (i.e. what we cannot measure (yet)) all of them are functionally equivalent to us and we simply use the razor to pick one. While that choice might be wrong we won't have a higher rate of picking the right ones if we pick them randomly or according to personal preference and a simpler theory is more convenient for working with.
Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
/quote> Or, you know, just take God out of the equation and everything fits as well... I don't see any reason at all why we need to make the God assumption in the first place.
Science should be secular for the simple fact that religion has no concrete backing at all. Religions come and go. Some believe in Jesus, some in the Torah, some in Allah, some in Buddha, some in Krishna, some in Xenu, etc etc... There is no reason whatsoever for any decent scientist to favor one superstition over another, and even more importantly, it shouldn't accept _ANY_ superstition at _ALL_, because even if there is a divine entity or magical entity or whatever, nothing proves that we humans know of it and that we interpret it correctly. Just the many many many different interpretations inside each superstition should be a good indicator that those superstitions are not reliable.
History has shown that whenever a scientist surrendered to superstition to explain certain aspects he doesn't understand, it just puts a stop to further development, often leading to centuries of stagnation before someone puts the divine link in doubt and we once again can move forward.
On a side note, Science should be secular but not atheistic, Science should not have a goal other then seeking knowledge.
The real problem in this debate is the same problem that you have in all politics, which is short term vs long term. People live in the short term while humanity evolves in the long term, and people try to push their positions in the short term, often creating problems in the long term. If evolution is wrong, it will be debunked by the scientific community, just like all the other erroneous theories have been debunked in the past. If you believe, and are not just practicing wishful thinking, your best course of action to debunk evolution, is to accept it! Believe me it's every scientist holy grail to debunk a widely (if not generally) accepted theory, because it's when those generally accepted theories are debunked that science moves forward, and that scientists are glorified (read Newton, Einstein, Bohr, Curie, Galileo and even Darwin himself) !
And that is all I have to say about that.
I get the feeling that you are being intentionally dishonest. You use anecdotal evidence to "prove" that evolution is somehow different than other fields in science, but this is not the case at all, as anyone even remotely familiar with science would know.
Whether fact or theory is mentioned first, that does not change the way the facts support the theory. Even if it was true what you claim, that evolution is presented differently from relativity (but not from gravity or electricity), this is merely a red herring, because the facts don't become more or less supporting of the theory in question depending on whether they are mentioned before or after. Again a sign that you are grasping for straws. That you have definitely made up your mind already and are only looking to reinforce your own beliefs.
If this had not been the case, you would have looked up the four false claims you made in your other post, and taken the actual facts into account. You did not, so you are either not willing to actually check the claims that you have found on creationist sites, or you are aware that what you posted had already been refuted, which means that you are being intentionally dishonest.
Well, all your four examples were refuted. My guess is that your "hundreds more" would be as well. We've seen them all before, and they are spreading because people desperately want them to be true. But unfortunately for creationists, they are not. They are factually incorrect, based on quotes out of context, misunderstandings, straw men, etc.If you would like to educate yourself, go through your list of "hundreds more" examples, and look them up in this index of creationist claims.
I was actually the second study that provided the 6000 number. They did this by measuring the mtDNA mutation directly rather than using using assumed migration dates. As another commenter pointed out in this article http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/mitoeve.html, the "mtDNA" evidence is not as damaging to evolution at it appears at first glance.
Ah, this is the kind of stuff I am looking for! The fulfillment of these two predictions is, in fact, powerful testimony to the theory. The original news article states, "The science of evolution is often misunderstood by the public." If evolution were presented in this ground-up, predictions-and-experiments-proving-true approach, it would be more effective against the general public. It seems the failure is one of communication.
The reason that most sources you read assume evolution is true is because half of evolutionary theory is tautological (that is true by definition) and the other half is just a refinement of statistical mechanics. Doubting evolutionary theory is basically equivilant to believing in a flat Earth.
It is very hard for scientists to explain things like evolution when you insist every idea be explained in detail. You use as an example Michelson-Morley and the ether experiment. That experiment is a good example of what you can do when you have a scientific theory. The idea of the ether, was a scientific postulate that had very specific implications. There is some privledge universal frame of reference in which the laws of electromagnetism take the form of Maxwells equations.
The bottom line is if Boltzman had been born 100 years earlier evolution would just be another branch of physics.
With evolution the problem is that there is no good alternative to the basic theory. There is no alternative at all. This is because any alternative would have to be consistent with the underlying physics. Physical law as it is today dictates that evolution must be true. You cannot have a distinct theory consistent with physical law which we would not call evolution. Sure the odd detail might change. Before we knew about DNA Lamark's idea had merit for instance.
The reason you don't get what you are asking for is because what you are asking for amount to "why when people talk about orbiting satalites don't they show the Earth is round". It is a good question if you doubt that the Earth is round, but when you have seen pictures of Earth from space it is impossible to take that question seriously.
The book you are asking for does not exist because, unlike special relativity, evolution is just a sub-disciplin of another field of enquiry. If you want to learn about statistical mechanics there are plenty of good books, although none really join the dots between it and evolution. Maybe someone should write that book.
It has the better stories, though. Murder, war, bloodshed, all the good stuff.
Tip 4 - don't take any of it literally, especially not in translation.
There should be another tip that explicitly refers to Revelations.
(And you'll notice that plenty of the commentariat over at his place does as well, though I suspect the difference isn't a deep one.)
While I can see how evolutionary theory provides insight into abiogenesis (Spiegelman's Monster, anyone?), the fact remains that what we know about life on earth would work exactly the same whether a small initial population of prokaryotes arose by an as-yet-unknown abiogenic process, was placed here by aliens, or was zapped into place by His Noodle Appendage. Of course, what we know about tetrapod evolution would be utterly unchanged if we had some kind of omphalos thing happening prior to thir divergence from the rest of the fish.
I suppose I see his point, but I maintain that the proper response is "nothing we know about the emergence of the diversity of life on earth is affected in the least by how life emerged; while it's a fascinating topic, the two questions--the origin of life and the origin of species--are not the same one." No matter whether evolutionary theory can provide insights into abiogenesis, the two are fundamentally different things, and while it may make no sense to wall them off from each other, it is a misconception to assume that the theory of evolution rests or depends on a working theory of abiogenesis--and that's the real assertion being made.
Laws do not persuade just because they threaten. --Seneca
It reminds me of a time when I was in middle school, and my mother had a bit of a faith panic which led to her to try to make up for several years of religious doldrums in the family. One of the first things she did was drag me to an adult Bible class at the local M.S. Lutheran church.
Now, I don't know what a Bible class is supposed to be, but our first lesson set the tone. The pastor in charge made a whistle-stop tour of all the conservative talking points--sex, the Media, welfare, etc.--and finally landed on evolution. He then proceeded to tell us all about his "friend," the biologist. This biologist friend of his had told him a bunch of anecdotes about carbon-14 dating, such as that it had identified some mollusk as being several hundred million years old despite being fresh.
This is of course utter horseshit, as carbon-14 levels taper off into nothingness in a few tens of thousands of years, and the pastor no more had a biologist friend than I have an imaginary one. But it just illustrated to me how cynical YEC's can be when they know they're fighting for Truth. The saying that everybody is entitled to their own opinion, but not to their own facts comes to mind here. It's not that the YEC audience doesn't listen to the facts, it's that, for them, something as abstract as billion year evolutionary time spans doesn't have any concrete facts , and they're as good of a judge as anyone to choose between what this pastor says about science, and what they hear in class.
I prefer Kontact personally. *ducks*
It seems quite feasible, possibly likely, that the first few times life started on earth, in the early solar system, it got extinguished by another big impact causing a global disaster.
:)
Actually this is a fascinating subject.
The evidence shows that life appeared just about at the earliest point it could have, pretty much as soon as the earth cooled from a molten ball to a solid surface. And at that time the earth was still taking the occasional insane extermination-level impact.
Allow me to define "insane extermination-level impact". An impact that covers the earth in vaporized rock, boils the oceans bone dry in a matter of days, and leave the entire surface of the earth hot enough to melt lead. Serious sterilization.
Which left a bit of a puzzle on how the record of life on earth is apparently a continuous fixture, from its very first appearance.
In the last several years there has been quite a bit of biological research/exploration in conjuction with commercial mining. It turns out that mines are loaded with all sorts or never-before-seen kinds of bacteria. Exotic bacteria that live off the chemistry of the minerals themselves, and living and spreading throughout the endless cracks in the rocks. Our deepest mines are well over over two miles deep and drill sampling even deeper, and the rock is loaded with bacteria and water creeping through the cracks. At 2.2 miles down into the crust the temperature rises to over a hundred degrees F, and just keeps climbing the deeper you go.
And someone did a neat computer calculation. They modeled the temperature gradient of the crust as it goes down to the sterilizingly hot molten depths below, and they modeled the incinerating heat of a megaimpact. The heat from above works its way down through the crust incinerating everything as it goes for months and years. But the impact is a heat pulse, and the surface does begin to cool back down over time. The downwards pulse of heat decays.
It turns out that the molten sterilization zone below and the impact sterilization pulse from above never quite meet in the middle. Deep down in the crust there remains a merely "very very hot" zone in between where some extreme heat tolerant bacteria could and would squeak by. Bacteria which would work their way back up to recolonize the surface as soon as it cooled.
A seriously neat little chunk of science
We are descended from heat-extremophile rock-eating bacteria that survived multiple insane incinerating impacts by hiding out in the deep crustal cracks.
-
- - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
Thank you for this informative comment, I really appreciate it.
I was under the impression that the layering was, in fact, consistent with deposit by a flood followed by tidal pumping and liquefication. I will have to look into this in greater detail. The hydroplate theory, in its full detail, actually accounts for most of the points in article you link to, but not all of them. The points it does not explain are the interesting ones, from my point of view.
The 6000 year figure came from the second study. But as your link points out, even if this were true, it would prove nothing. Another person in this thread pointed out that a later study done in 2000 demonstrates a flaw in the Gibbons study and puts the date back at 171,500 +/- 50,000 years.
Comets crash into things quite often, and should be extinct by now if the solar system is millions of years old. The Oort cloud theory suggest that a cloud of matter 50000 AU away is replenishing our supply, but it doesn't provide a plausible mechanism for launching comets out of the cloud and into the inner solar system (at least, from what I have read about it).
This is a valid point, and one I had not considered until now. I suspect creationists confuse them because their explanation, if true, would account for all four. You are right, though. The independence of these theories from an evolutionary / old universe standpoint does make it harder to refute them. Attempts to disprove biological evolution by referring to astronomy are just sloppy.
Final speakers name.
It is a common meme that skeptics are "closed-minded," when the reality, as you have explored, is that it is the closed-minded who will proclaim, "BE OPEN MINDED!" to those who will not accept their chosen beliefs because they are unable to actually support them with little things like, "facts congruent with reality."
The whole point of the creation hypothesis is that the creator inhabits a plane of existence beyond our own, and is not bound by the laws of physics, including cause and effect. Thus, your argument kinda misses the point. Could such an entity exist? Why not? It's perfectly conceivable. Should we believe such an entity exists? By Occam's razor, no, unless there is evidence to the contrary.
It was clear to me when I was in science classes that we were being taught the best understanding of how the universe is, and that our understanding was subject to constant revision. On the other hand, I see people dismissing perpetual motion machines simply because according to the second law of thermodynamics they cannot exist. Scientists (and the rest of us also) should understand that that law is also just a theory, and it maybe needs some revision because it may not be 100% correct in all cases. Therefore, claims about perpetual motion machines and other claims that are "impossible" according to our current understand cannot be dismissed without reviewing the evidence.
The bottom line is that I do agree with you that scientists can become dogmatic in practice. On the other hand, someone who truly groks science knows that all of our current understanding is subject to revision and is open to other possibilities. I, for example, am open to the possibility that evolution does not explain the variety of life. On the other hand, I have yet to see any evidence of any other theory.
What a fool believes, he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.
Comets crash into things quite often, and should be extinct by now if the solar system is millions of years old. The Oort cloud theory suggest that a cloud of matter 50000 AU away is replenishing our supply, but it doesn't provide a plausible mechanism for launching comets out of the cloud and into the inner solar system (at least, from what I have read about it).
Two issues. First off, the Oort cloud occupies the outermost regions of the area defined by the Sun's gravitational field. At that distance, things like other stars and gas and dust clouds the solar system is passing through as it orbits the galactic center can easily perturb the multitude of small bodies within it. That seems very plausible to me. Secondly, current astronomical consensus holds that most short period comets have their origins in the Kuiper belt which is just beyond Neptune's orbit. You can read all about this here:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/hovind/howgood-yea.html#proof3
but I'll quote a short excerpt for immediate convenience:
but modern studies of short-period comets have identified their probable origin in a region of space now named the Kuiper Belt, which resembles a flattened ring just beyond the orbit of Neptune. Computer simulations show that such a source would account beautifully for the low-inclination, short-period, prograde orbits, and other features associated with short-period comets. The Kuiper Belt probably has anywhere from 100 million to several billion comets, which probably formed there when the planets formed. The gradual pull of the giant gas planets over time continually send a few of those comets towards the sun. Thus, the short-period comets are replenished from the Kuiper Belt. The Kuiper Belt is no longer "just" a theoretical construct. As of 1998, more than 60 of the larger objects in the Kuiper Belt have been directly observed! That translates to some 70,000 objects out there whose diameter exceeds a whopping 100 kilometers--not to mention countless numbers of normal-sized comets. Jim Foley was kind enough to pass along an Internet site for those of you who may be interested in these new discoveries. The Kuiper Belt web page (http://www.ifa.hawaii.edu/~jewitt/kb.html) is maintained by David Jewitt, who personally discovered many of these objects.
I suggest this link as a reputable starting point on the science of comets:
http://www.ifa.hawaii.edu/~jewitt/HomeSite/Home.html
Yes, still a theory. On the other hand, we do not constantly use the term theory when discussing theories. It is understood that all the equations and explanations in science are theories. We speak of Maxwell's Equations, even though they are just theories. We speak of quantum physics, even though we all know it is just a theory. Yes, the theory of evolution is subject to change, if anyone comes up with an alternative or deeper theory with some evidence to back it up. Do you know of any such theory?
What a fool believes, he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.
The fundamental principle of the argument still applies, if you need a creator for the universe, who made the creator ?
If the argument "The Creator is simply there" is sufficient, then How is that any different to "the conditions required to create the universe were simply there".
D The whole point of the creation hypothesis is that the creator inhabits a plane of existence beyond our own, and is not bound by the laws of physics, including cause and effect. Thus, your argument kinda misses the point. Could such an entity exist? Why not? It's perfectly conceivable. Should we believe such an entity exists? By Occam's razor, no, unless there is evidence to the contrary.
http://davesboat.blogspot.com/
You obviously haven't read much on the Lunar Cataclysm theory then. Basically, the current orbits that planets inhabit now is not the same orbits they once had. Jupiter and Saturn used to be much closer, and in a kind of orbital harmonic, their combined gravity caused the asteroid belt to break up, spewing rocks not only to the inner planets (causing a massive bombardment on the moon and earth) *but* also spit it out into the deep of space, in huge elongated orbits.
It is theorized but without much supporting evidence at this time, that the "asteroid belt" was, infact, another planet, roughly twice to three times the size of earth, large rocky, which is now the origin of asteroids and comits both. In any case, a handy theory that explains the Oort cloud *and* the Lunar Cataclysm at the same time.
Karma Whoring for Fun and Profit.
Sooo many people oppose the theory of evolution because they don't know what it is. I'm willing to wager that at least 99% of these people are of Judeo-Christian-Islamic faith. These people oppose the theory because they claim the Earth is only ~6000 years old or so. However, the theory of evolution makes no assumptions about how old the Earth is. What these people are ignorant of is that they are confusing the theory of Evolution, which deals purely with biology, with the Big Bang theory, which deals more with physics and astronomy.
So, in short:
Theory of Evolution!=Big Bang Theory
"When uninformed people have opinions on science that smell of belief and bias, my suggestion to them is to go spend five to seven years to get a PhD in a field of natural science."
Your idea would seem a reasonable suggestion. As a Christian, I've been troubled, and even dismayed, by the paucity of actual scientists among writers who question the theory of evolution. I know from first-hand that many Christians are not really interested in the scientific evidence, no matter where it goes. I've often wished that as many Creationist writers were Ph.D's, as are D.D.'s! I think that suspicion is a reasonable response, when most of the writers on a topic aren't actually expert on the topic.
But, there are some obstacles.
One of the greatest is the fact that reputable biology programs will accept, much less graduate, Ph.D. students who express the slightest doubt about evolution. For this reason, it's simply not possible for honest Christians to obtain respectable versions of the credentials you recommend. To be fair, I must acknowledge that it's also virtually impossible for anyone who expresses doubt in the inerrancy of the much bally-hooed "original autographs" of the Bible to gain a D.D. from a respectable conservative seminary. So, both sides play the game.
There are a few true scientists, who are both expert and doubtful about at least some aspects of evolutionary theory. Behe is a notable example. But, if we are too judge from the way his work has been handled, the presence of more Christian Ph.D.s might do little to resolve the debate.
As someone who's read Behe's published "intelligent design" work rather carefully, I can assure you that far more people refer to his work than read it. Many opponents of evolutionary theory have lifted the "intelligent design" moniker from Behe's work, and applied it to concepts that Behe neither supports nor discusses. Likewise, many 7-day Creationists cite him approvingly, apparently unaware that Behe does not believe hold a 7-day creation or young earth view. Alternatively, many advocates of evolution announce that they will vigorously oppose Behe's ideas, but then offer arguments against almost everything EXCEPT against Behe's major points. My son is currently an undergraduate biology major and who is hoping to work as an aquarist for a major facility. He's found it intriguing that all of his professors are vehemently against Behe, but that not one of them has read Behe's work. So far, my son has found that none of them can name or even describe one of Behe's key points. (He doesn't count "Intelligent design", unless they can state it in other words, for the purposes of this test since the phrase has been used to refer to so many things OTHER than what Behe asserts.)
So, all my son's Ph.D. biology professors oppose Behe's ideas with only vague or erroneous concepts of what those ideas might be!
(For what it's worth, Behe takes the view that the theory of evolution encompasses three key concepts: common descent, natural selection, and random mutation. In his view, common descent explains WHAT happened, natural selection explains WHY it happened, and random mutation explains HOW it happened. Behe believes the evidence for common descent is overwhelming. He also believes that both natural selection and random mutation occur but at a rate, and in a manner, sufficient to explain only minor adaptations, such as antibiotic resistance. He believes that the mechanisms of natural selection and random mutation function in a primarily negative manner, and that the evidence that these two mechanisms have resulted in the formation of NEW (rather than minorly modified) somatic features is almost completely lacking.
Because he accepts common descent, his views will make few Creationists happy if they bother to actually read his books. But because he rejects natural selection and random mutation as inadequate to explain the development of major new features in descendant organisms, he's equally unlikely to be acc
How when Darwinism and the origins of life are discussed on /., despite many protestations to the effect that Darwinism is without serious errors or flaws and doesn't actually oppose (true) religion in any way at all [ah, but no true scotsman eats porridge...], the number of a-theistic or anti-god or anti-creator statements always are extremely numerous? In fact, it is difficult for a rational person to cohere the beliefs of a creator/divinity with the beliefs in molecules-to-man cosmic and biological evolution. Steven Jay Gould's attempt is nothing more than embarrassing hand-waving to create two separate non-overlapping magisteria that in fact overlap in empirical predictions quite systematically.
What a fool believes, he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.
Actually, I thought Ms. Garrison summed it up quite nicely.
...retard frog-sqirrel, and then *that* had a retard baby which was a... monkey-fish-frog... And then this monkey-fish-frog had butt sex with that monkey, and that monkey had a mutant retard baby that screwed another monkey... and that made you!
Ms. Garrison: All right, kids, it is now my job to teach you the theory of evolution. Now I, for one, think evolution is a bunch of *bullcrap*! But I've been told I have to teach it to you anyway. It was thought up by Charles Darwin and it goes something like this:
In the beginning, we were all fish. Okay? Swimming around in the water. And then one day a couple of fish had a retard baby, and the retard baby was different, so it got to live. So Retard Fish goes on to make more retard babies, and then one day, a retard baby fish crawled out of the ocean with its mutant fish hands... and it had butt sex with a squirrel or something and made this...
[she points to a prehistoric mammal rodent]
Ms. Garrison:
So there you go! You're the retarded offspring of five monkeys having butt sex with a fish-squirrel! Congratulations!
What's sad is I think this is the perception a lot of people have about evolution. It amazes me how many people (both educated and not) think it's a completely crack-pot theory. I don't expect everyone to believe it, but a basic understanding of it shouldn't be so hard to get.
In an effort to conform with internet communication standards, please note that the above comment is 100% biased opinion
The only place in science for proofs are math and logic.
Theories are the "hows" for the "facts" of the universe. Take gravity as an example. Gravity is a fact (things fall to the Earth, masses attract each other, etc.). The *theory* of gravity is the "this is how it works". In fact, there are multiple theories of gravity *in use this very day*. Both Newton's and Einstein's theories of gravity are used, even though Einstein's is significantly more correct more often. But neither theory has been proven correct because you *can't* prove they are correct. All you can do is show how well they match observation.
As for evolution, we know about the fact of evolution. We've seen it happen in real-time. We've seen it happen in the fossil record. We've instigated and directed it ourselves. That's evolution the fact. Evolution the theory (in fact, just like with gravity, theories) are the details, the "how it happens". Exactly *why* do animals evolve? Just *how* does this happen? These are aspect of the *theory* of evolution which all seek to describe the *fact* of evolution.
It's plainly obvious that Darwin or Lamark or Intelligent design all miss the mark.
There is enough paradigm change evidence to warrant a different theory.
Careful analysis of real data shows that there are other factors that Darwin can't explain.
For example, the decline of the mammoth on a particular island in the Bering Sea http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wrangel_Island, showed that the mammoths 'evolved' to smaller and smaller sizes, until they were dwarf mammoths. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mammoth
So in effect, a force of nature, had influence upon the evolution of mammoths' physical size to compensate for the size of the island (previously connected to the mainland), and evolved to be able to survive, holistically, on the vegetation on that island.
There is other evidence that is currently in dispute, that the Indonesian human remains found on one island are diminutive and current scientific evidence shows that the natural human form was due to dwarfism, due to the limitations of the natural abundance of resources. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo_floresiensis
All this points out that there is more than 'survival of the fittest' or for that matter more than Lamark's concept of environment deciding that shape and form of lifeforms. - ummm... Giraffes have long necks so they can eats the leaves at tops of trees...
So, in my opinion, there is another theory about to surface. Conceptually, it would need to include a force of nature that determines the final (though progressive) outcome of all lifeforms.
Can you imagine? That some currently unknown factor, that I attribute to a specific criteria of 'nature', actually affects the evolution of lifeforms?
So a clear thinker would see that 'nature' (whatever aspect of that), has a direct influence on 'evolution' as we know it.
Don't be apathetic. Procrastinate!
From my perspective, it seems Origin of Life theories are excluded from evolution because they are devastating to materialism. The problems with any naturalistic Origin of Life are very serious. There are so many chicken-or-egg problems as to strain credulity. From cell walls, to genetic codes, to metabolism. The minimal complexity and interworking systems needed for life is just too much for naturalism.
Naturalistic Origin of Life theories come down to a faith commitment to naturalism.
Except for ending slavery, the Nazis, communism, & securing American independence, war has never solved anything.
It isn't different, really. Flipping your argument around, if the Big Bang was the origin of the universe, what was the origin of the Big Bang?
I know, but I hear this one so often it starts to get annoying.
and they say that science isn't a religion. If you spread your belief in a theory, the theory of evolution, and you do so with the zeal of those in other religions, and you think your way is the only right persepective, you got yourself a religion... the religion of science and athiesm has started growing lately, and will probably continue to do so in the future. It's probably just a matter of time before scientist start asking for money to support their religion... Actually, that probably won't happen since they already take money through other methods that steal from the tax payor's coffers... If it looks like a religion, smells like a religion, tastes like a religion, by golly, it might just be a religion.
> The average person has two legs. Some people have fewer than this. A very rare few have more.
I posit that there are quite a few more people with no legs than those with three or more. Therefore the average number of legs per person is less than two. However, the average person does, in fact, have two legs -- barring an overly-broad definition of legs, the existence of other dimensions (where you may actually have fifty seven legs of which you are not currently aware), and the denial of a physical reality.
Here's my point.
It's perfectly OK to say "We don't know", we have some ideas, but nothing solid. We may never know.
That's an answer based on Reason.
That's a better answer than saying "Santa Claus made it", or "The Easter Bunny Made it" or "God Made it"
Those are answers based on imagination. Imagination is a wonderful thing, just so long as we don't start believing our own fairy tales.
>> >>If the argument "The Creator is simply there" is sufficient, then How is that any different to "the conditions required to create the universe were simply there".
>> It isn't different, really. Flipping your argument around, if the Big Bang was the origin of the universe, what was the origin of the Big Bang?
http://davesboat.blogspot.com/
It's not on you to argue against this proposition, rationally or otherwise. The burden of proof is on the cdesign proponentsists to rationally argue for it.
Ooh, moderator points! Five more idjits go to Minus One Hell!
Delendae sunt RIAA, MPAA et Windoze
You should have a look at this list of Young Earth Creationist arguments. As you can see, Mr. Hovind's arguments are based on misinformation, misunderstandings, lies and straw men. Hovind is, in fact, not a "Dr." at all. His title is fake. He is a religious fundamentalist, not a scientist. He has no scientific background or education what so ever. He even lies about having been a science teacher. This is all well-documented. I think you can find it at TalkOrigins.
"One of the greatest is the fact that reputable biology programs will accept, much less graduate, Ph.D. students who express the slightest doubt about evolution. For this reason, it's simply not possible for honest Christians to obtain respectable versions of the credentials you recommend."
I'd like to see some support for this "fact". I have personal knowledge that it's bullshit, and I'd like to see you support your claim or admit you can't.
I expected this thread to be full of calm, collected reasoning, and was not disappointed!
To believe the Earth is only around 6,000 years old shows such an extreme ignorance of science and lack of respect for the processes of science that to then expect them to somehow accept the science of evolution would be optimistic to the point of folly.
And, while an Earth of only around 6,000 years old would not disprove evolution, it would *definitely* contradict an enormous swath of observation, much of which informs our understanding of evolution. Not the least of which being fossilized remains from hundreds of millions of years ago (something that would presumably be somewhat less abundant on a 6,000 year old planet).
The question was not whether the theory of gravity is a theory, but whether you refer to it as such.
So, when discussing "gravity" do you ALWAYS say "theory of gravity"?
You do not (don't claim you do, please, that would be insulting) so why not? The answer you give for your failure to use "theory" when discussing gravity is the same answer that we would give for our decision not to use "theory" in front of evolution.
"Troll" is not Latin for "I disagree with you".
Support Right To Repair Legislation.
Because we want a good society to live in for ourselves and our children. A large part of living in a sustainable and happy culture is understanding the world around us. That means a good portion of us should be scientists, doctors, and engineers. You have to teach science to kids from an early age if you want to end up lots of scientists, doctors, and engineers. You can't arbitrarily leave out the basis (evolution) for an entire branch of science (biology) just because some people say it doesn't agree with some book written a very long time ago.
Of course in my opinion the BEST way to combat this sort of ignorance is to teach the scientific method to kids in jr high or high school. We spend all of our time in "science" classes teaching the information that we have gotten by using the scientific method. We should teach everyone what the scientific method is and why it works really well as a tool for understanding the universe. After all the scientific method is really the foundation of modernity.
-- QED
The simple reason may be that trusting your gut feeling takes less energy ('hurts less') than using your brain.
I think I can answer what you are asking for.
The main problem social problem with this issue is that most highschools don't cover the evolution, or give minimal dismal coverage, because of intense opposition from parents who themselves never learned the information in highschool.
You seem honestly interested and and honestly questioning and entirely reasonable, but there is a lot of opposition out there that is.... rather less than reasonable.... from people who aggressively do not want to understand. I think some of the other replies to you suffer from long frustration of the endless tide of such people on the subject.
I am going to move quickly through a number of subjects, and will gladly reply in more depth on any points or questions you have. Even moving "quickly", this is a long post.
First a minor point, you mention the Grand Canyon. I assume you were referring to the idea that the Grand Canyon was carved quickly by the Biblical Flood. A very simply refutation is that a torrent of fast water will forcefully carve its way in a straight line. A trickle of water will meander as it slowly erodes. A cursory review of the Grand Canyon immediately shows not mearly a meandering path, but a multitude of tight U-turns. Places where fast water would immediately wash straight over and cut away the middle of the U-turn. It's "obvious" once you notice the issue. The tight curves of the Grand Canyon and the weak thin barrier to cutting across some of the U-turns sets a clear hard maximum for the volume and speed of the flowing water, and thus sets a definite requirement on time.
Fossils. Much of the fossil record is indeed random spotty, however there is a good chunk of the record that is perfect continuous and complete. There are tiny animals in the ocean called Foraminifera. They are generally a tiny fraction of an inch in size, they grow intricate mineral skeletons called 'tests', and they literally number in the trillions. Vast numbers of them die every day and their tests settle to the sea floor in a continuous rain. A vast continuous rain of perfectly layered tiny fossils in the sediment that slowly builds up on the sea floor. In the 1970's deep see oil exploration lead to advanced deep see drilling technology, and that exploration drilling started bringing up sediment drill cores to be analyzed. Cores to be analyzed for oil purposes, but incidentally loaded with an effectively limitless supply of tiny Foraminifera fossils. A perfect continuous record tracing the branching tree of diversification and speciation over many tends of millions of years. Not merely a continuous sequence of transitional species, but a hyper detailed record of entire populations along each speciation split. Scientists are studying exactly how long each speciation split took, and examining in detail how populations behave and change during speciation events, and studying how and why the rate of speciation increases after mass extinction events. A perfect record tracing diverse currently existing species back to their common ancestor.
There is no way "fast flood sediment" could sanely lay down a perfectly continuous layered tree of forms like that. And even if it could, you are still left with the continuous evolutionary tree of transitional forms continuously linking diverse species, but they strangely somehow all lived at the same time. Evolution would still be "true", except somehow all at once instead of over time.
Foraminifera are the same "kind" in the way that mammals are the same "kind". Foraminifera is actually a higher level category of life than mammalia is. Foraminifera have evolved into herbivores and carnivores and omnivores and some have even taken up farming algae protecting them inside their tests and they occupy virtually every wet ecological niche on earth, some even adapted to land life in damp soil (of course the land forms branch out of the ocean and thus out of the sediment fossil record).
Next, DNA. When you are infected by a virus, every once in rare a wh
- - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
Aging and death and sex are all an early part of evolution.
Amoebas and single celled organisms just split. I a very real sense, the first amoeba is still alive today. If a single cell ever gets damaged, it might ask a neighboring cell for help. They could share some genetic data (or whatever else might be needed) and the good cell could help repair the broken one. This is really dangerous for the good cell as it might become damaged in the process.
Linear reproduction does not lend itself to the sharing of information.
So, in order to share information, and hence protect the species as a whole, this willingness to share information MUST BE FORCED.
If every organism was hardwired to die, they would definitely have incentive to share genetic information before their time was up. So in reality the advent of death caused the need for sex.
Without DEATH there would be no need for SEX.
This has always been one of my favorite evolutionary rants.
- I live the greatest adventure anyone could possibly desire. - Tosk the Hunted
Thank you for this intelligent post. I never expected my when I posted my original comment that my views would shift so dramatically in only 8 short hours. So, thanks to you and all the other members of the Slashdot community who took time to post intelligent comments. I really appreciate it.
I can't quite figure out how the word "evangelical" is appropriate here.
'Evangelical' is someone who works to spread some set of ideas.
Richard Dawkins is aggressively Atheist Evangelical. It is not uncommon to see Open Source Evangelism around here, and for people to call it Open Source Evangelism, and even for people to explicitly and proudly refer to themselves as Open Source Evangelizing.
Is a calculus professor a "calculus evangelical" as well?
Probably not, if he were merely teaching. Evangelizing implies "active pursuit" of "prey" to win over. It is not generally considered evangelizing for a teacher to merely sit and teach students who come to him.
-
- - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
Others have already responded to most of your points but I'd just like to talk about the Hydroplate Theory which you mention. I understand that this is the idea of there having been massive underground seas prior to the biblical flood, no? Well there are several significant flaws with this idea. Firstly, the water, being less dense than the rock beneath it would tend to have risen to the surface in bits and bobs long before 'the flood' even if it had somehow managed to get under there in the first place. Beyond that it's really hot underground and so so the water would have come up as steam and cooked everything on the planet, Noah included, boat or no. The final flaw is that it was described as raining for 40 days and nights, not having water seep from the ground. -David
The parent post is currently moderated -1, Troll. That doesn't seem quite fair to me. It is true that the post has drawn several responses, but I don't think it was written with cynical intent. It strikes me as an expression of a genuinely held point of view. The post expresses several self-flattering delusions - the assumptions that opponents are unfamiliar with the bible or the arguments of creationists - but does not seem egregious.
Now if you want to mod him -1, misuse of "forensic", I'm with you all the way.
"The good reader is a rarer swan than the good writer."
IMO, this is how the average dissenter (for lack of a better word) sees the situation:
SCIENTIST: I am a scientist. What I discover, you will learn.
AVERAGE JOE: What if I disagree with your results?
SCIENTIST: You can't disagree meaningfully unless you're also a scientist.
AVERAGE JOE: OK, how do I become a scientist?
SCIENTIST: You must first learn everything I know.
AVERAGE JOE: I don't have time or the money for that.
SCIENTIST: It's the only way.
AVERAGE JOE: If I do, at what point do I get to question the theories I think are BS? Aren't people fired for not being pro-evolution?
SCIENTIST: They aren't scientists!
AVERAGE JOE: So in order to be a scientist, I have to agree with you. But once I agree with you, I'm allowed to disagree with you.
SCIENTIST: That's not what I was trying to convey --
AVERAGE JOE: Forget it. You're just trying to tell me what to think about everything. I'll just wait until someone proves you wrong. You scientists are always correcting yourselves, anyway.
***
I'm not saying that the dissenter is right, but based on my interactions with various people, I think this is a snapshot of the mindset. I also think the above is a snapshot of a certain type of PhD. The pro-science case would certainly be helped if certain arrogant voices didn't pipe up so often.
In the natural sciences, a theory is not a hypothesis waiting in the queue for confirmation.
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
Genesis has two distinct creation stories:
http://www.sullivan-county.com/identity/2cs.htm
Which one should be taken literally?
Yes on the subject, no on the author: this article was written by Steven Jay Gould in "The Flamingo's Smile", if I'm remembering correctly. I don't have a copy at work and I can't remember the name of the guy who wrote the original essay, but Gould said the man thought it'd be the most monumental book of the century, since it would remove all dispute between evolutionists and creationists, and was so depressed when the book was *completely* ignored that he died soon thereafter. It was ignored because, as you say, evolutionists thought it was stupid, creationists thought it was deeply unsettling, and everyone universally came to the conclusion that if you took the book's idea to its logical extreme, the universe might have been created 15 minutes ago and us with our memories pre-created, and nobody would be able to tell. (Which, by the way, isn't actually different than what most young-earth creationists believe.)
Nostalgia's not what it used to be.
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
The thing that annoys me is when articles in the press or TV programmes refer to how parts of animals or plants were 'designed' by evolution. As if Evolution sat back at some point and thought "hmmm... if i want some animals to end up flying, i could use their upper limbs and change them into wings." I think mis-representations like this have a lot to answer for - the whole point of evolution is that design never comes into it, in fact it's a process about as far away from design as it's possible to get. A lot of TV programmes, especially, leave you with the impression that evolution is some amazing, intelligent entity capable of thought, rather than just a name we have applied to a completely natural - and essentially random - process.
Sure why not.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution
A fool throws a stone into a well and a thousand sages can not remove it.
And it isn't leaving it out, It is letting someone have another opinion whether it is rooted in science, theology or completely made up on the spot. The important thing to remember would be evolution when learning about science which very little of that actually works on it, or when practicing science and again very little hinges on evolution. In fact, you can become a scientist, a proficient one at that, and not even address evolution beyond a grade school telling for some fields.
I really don't see why there can't be both. One person suggested the philosophical side of humans demand absolutes but that would be treating science in the same field as religion. I don't think I couldn't agree more. I'm not anti science or pro-religion. I just don't really understand why it must be all or nothing with most people. To listen and read the discussions over it, you would think it was to religions arguing over which one is correct. For some this might be more true then not, but I don't think it really is the case except it is being argued in that manor.
See "Code of the Lifemaker", an SF book by James P. Hogan. You can read it for free here. Just read the prologue - it makes the point very, very well the difference between the origin of life and its subsequent evolution.
PHEM - party like it's 1997-2003!
Well, if that's what PZ Myers had to say, why on earth do you bother to read him or her? That is an absurd contention.
Evolution, meaning the process by which one species arises from another, is a theory in the technical sense. That means that it is a widely understood mechanism supported by empirical observations that makes useful empirical predictions. It is possible to actually observe evolution in progress in organisms that reproduce quickly, like bacteria.
Proposed scientific mechanisms for the origin of life are conjectures. There is no firm evidence to favour one over another and nobody has ever succeeded in creating life by one of the conjectured mechanisms. People cannot even agree whether life began as DNA, RNA, clay, or entered the solar system from space. It is true that people tend to imagine mechanisms, such as clay catalysts, that "have an evolutionary flavour" or are analogous to evolution in that they propose some sort of progression in complexity, from simple non-life through more complicated non-life to - ta da! - life. But so what? If we can't support any of the conjectures with evidence, it doesn't matter how "evolutionary" they are. The correct mechanism could be one we have not imagined.
I am not claiming that there is anything mystical about the problem, or even that we have not already stumbled across the correct conjecture. It's just that whatever happened, happened a long time ago and has left little evidence behind.
"The good reader is a rarer swan than the good writer."
Obviously God, due to his being omniscient and all that, remembered to bring a flashlight. And batteries, lots of batteries.
Only three things are certain; death, taxes, and apocryphal quotations - Ben Franklin.
Now my version.
Say you've got a male frog. This frog sucks at swimming cause he's got short weak legs with no webbing between the toes. All the females around notice that he sucks at swimming and decide not to mate with him because they don't want their offspring to suck at swimming. instead they go for the frog that is great at swimming. So frog (b) who is great at swimming has longer, stronger legs... with some webbing between the toes. All his offspring inherit these traits. One of his offspring has even better webbing due to a a small mutation in his genes that makes the webbing start farther out on his toes.
This new offspring has even better luck with the ladies... 50% of his offspring inherit the new better webbing gene 50% don't. the ones who inherited it have great luck with the ladies, the other 505 can't compete as well and lose out. SO all the best competitors have more children and they ALL inherit the better webbing gene.
Eventually there is almost no individuals left in the frog population but the best competitors who have the good webbing gene which lets them swim faster and more efficiently, getting more food, escaping more predators and therefore having more children. There are still a few frogs each generation who have the old minor webbing gene but they never do very well and don't have many children and often are killed early or just can't compete for food and die. Eventually after many many generations there are no frogs born with the old gene.
Voila evolution & natural selection... much simplified.
A fool throws a stone into a well and a thousand sages can not remove it.
The distinction is used because there is indeed variation. Making something preexisting bigger or smaller is not the big deal. Bringing out preexisting, unexpressed genes isn't a big deal.
Unique body plans which require new useful working equipment and information is the big deal. So the argument is that there isn't a basis for the extrapolation. Not "it works over the short-term not the long-term." That's not the argument.
Except for ending slavery, the Nazis, communism, & securing American independence, war has never solved anything.
If you want to have a logical, rational discussion about evolution, quit insulting Christians to start and finish your comments. God may or may not have used evolution to create humans. He doesn't give us a detailed account of what process He used.
Funny how the supposed thinking, scientific community act like the "religious nuts" that they deride. In science, you let the information speak for itself. If there are holes in the data, you admit it! Then leave it alone until you find more information to fill those gaps. What we supposedly *know* in science changes every day as new information comes to light. You defeat your own arguments by acting as if what we know today cannot possibly be changed. Not to mention you shut down the very essence of scientific discovery...skepticism.
If God chose to use evolution...so be it. If he decided to create the world 6,000 years (as we know them today) ago and build it in an instant complete with a history for us to discover...so be it. That is His decision, not mine.
Yes, I am a Christian. So? Do I believe in evolution? Some. Despite the current evidence, I still have not seen enough to say that is how humans were certainly created. However, it is is the process of how we were created, does that shatter my Christian beliefs? No. Why should it? God did not say it was a sin to discover more about the universe He created.
For those of you who do not believe that there is a God and a hereafter, why do you care about evolution? In less than a blink of an cosmic eye, you will be dust and all your works will evaporate any way.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
"Fact" versus "Theory" is just an endless word-game. The definitions are not precise enough to settle sticky debates. The important point is that the evidence for evo is very strong and the evidence for intelligent design is very weak. Binary classifications just get in the way of what's really the issue. Enough word-games.
Table-ized A.I.
But what evidence does anyone have to establish that such a thing as a soul exists? I believe that ultimately, the notion that souls exist are due only to some sort of selfish arrogance or magical thinking that somehow we (and possibly other animals) have an existence that transcends the plane of corporeal existence. If the evidence amounts to unsubstantiated, anecdotal "ghost stories" and the belief that we're so special that somehow there must be more to our fleeting existence, I can only say "dream on".
The more cold reality of the situation is that organisms are biochemical machines. We're very complex, fantastic machines. We have such a capacity to assimilate our own experiences and knowledge of the abstract that we set ourselves as the bar that any other machine or creature must be able to clear in order to be considered to possess higher intelligence. But in the end, it's a matter of degree. Is it so hard to fathom that there could be organisms or even computers somewhere that might be so far superior to our level intelligence that we would compare to them as amoeba compare to us. Researchers are able to identify more and more of our cognitive limitations. What are consciousness and self-awareness if not merely cognitive abilities? What sort of things might we be missing out on as a result of our limitations? Does it ultimately matter if we just shut-down and cease to function at some point like any other machine or organism when they are either damaged beyond repair or just wear-out from use?
I don't think it diminishes my existence in the least to view myself as a machine that came into existence, function largely as intended (at least from what I understand my purpose to be), and will eventually have some critical component fail and relegate me to the biological scrap heap for salvage. If anything, that view makes me even more determined to pursue a higher quality of experience and such, since I'm fairly certain I need to make the most of my existence here and now, as opposed to sacrificing such things and merely building to something nebulous that may or may not allow my existence to continue beyond the collapse of my current state. I chose to cherish the bird in hand.
It will never be anything but a theory. All of science is fundamentally tentative.
Never the less, it is observed that the genetic makeup of populations changes over time. This is the core of evolution. The fossil and molecular records (the twin-nested hierarchy) allow us to infer that these changes have been going on for billions of years, and also inform us that all life shares a common ancestor.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
-- Thomas Jefferson
You can't take the sky from me...
Even the simplest laws of physics - gravity, force etc.. - had to be written by someone.
Why?
Last post!
(snip)
The problem with the books on evolution I have read is that they assume evolution is true, and then fit the pieces into that assumption. This is different from books on the other branches of science, which start with the basic experiments, and then introduce the theory to explain them.
No, this is exactly how science works. You do the ground work. The research. You figure out the basics, and then you build upon that. When a geologist does his research he builds upon existing and peer-reviewed research that has been shown to be supported by all known facts. Evolution is exactly the same as any other scientific field. The difference is in your head. It is wishful thinking on your part.
I think the old saying about teaching pigs to sing applies here. Creationists are typically exceptionally credulous and gullible. They've been taught that if you read something in a particular book, it must be true. They generally will say if they're a fool as a result of believing such things on faith, that it's not their fault, that someone else lied-to and betrayed them. They are NOT personally accountable for their lives, they trust that church leadership and scripture translators are acting in their own best interests and utilize recursive arguments that use the scriptures to describe a divine being that keeps the scriptures pure and infallible.
You obviously understand, as do I, that science makes no such promises. Every statement of theory that a scientist makes publicly is subject to scrutiny, there are no gods, there is no gospel. There is also no room for willful ignorance; every individual is held accountable for understanding and being critical of theories, and nobody is let off the hook for being ignorant and/or believing what was printed in a research paper or book without further scrutiny. There is simply no, "I am a victim, I was misled (by someone else)," in science; there is only, "If you believed that 'junk science' at face value & didn't scrutinize it sufficiently, it turned out to be wrong, AND you happened to base your beliefs on the subject matter on it & wound-up looking foolish, you fail at the scientific process." The only victims in the scientific world are those of their own stupidity if they fail in their due diligence of analysis.
What worries me the most is that the "God is behind it" argument can be used to explain anything, while it doesn't really help us live our lives.
Instead of trying to prove or disprove God, people should concentrate on trying to understand what we have around us so that we can better interact with it, and that's what I think Science tries to.
By contrast, Intelligent Design, Creationism and such just concentrate on disproving what Science comes up with so to prove that "God is behind it".
If there was ever a God, He certainly should expect us to walk on our own feet someday instead of keeping asking for His Holy help.
This NCSE session sounds like a good step onto that direction as an enlightenment of how life is supposed to work when exposed to environmental challenges.
http://dilbert.com/2010-12-13
No don't start the literal bible argument.
Who wrote the bible? People. Who used transcribed the bible before the printing press? People. Who translated the bible? People. Who's created the languages the bible is written in? People. Who interprets the bible? People.
Now are all the people involved in this process infallible and have they all perfectly maintained the message of god, an omnipotent and omniscient being.
Yes it might say that the days are literal but perhaps nuances have been lost or added through its tranlation. And what exactly is day? Is it one revolution of the earth. Is it 24 hours? then how longs an hour? I think you get the drift.
Remember this is an omnipotent being people. He can do anything he wants. Period. No limitations. If he wants to turn you into a pink and purple platypus with a polka dots, no prob.
I believe your basic problem is that you're assuming that because there are gaps in our understanding that god must fill those gaps. Even if your points were true, which I'm not going to address as other's have done so adequately, that's still no reason to throw your hands up and say god did it. 3000 years ago people thought thunderbolts were thrown by Zeus, but we keep looking and we found a naturalistic answer that is so much more satisfying than a superstitious non answer. Naturalism works because we can use the understanding gained to create technologies that actually improves our lives. Scratching our heads saying "well gee, I guess god must have done it" never got anyone anywhere.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
Similarly, reputable astronomy programs will not accept, much less graduate, Ph.D. students who express the slightest doubt about heliocentrism.
Sorry, I was being absurd. You might have missed the emoticon at the end of that first line?
-Cheers
Please note that it was not 'fanatics' who created nuclear weapons. It was 'rationalists'. As to the relative danger of either group, well, without rationalists creating the nuclear bombs in the first place, you'd not have to worry about 'fanatics' detonating them. I would note, however, that the ONLY people to have ever used nuclear weapons "in the field" were in the US government, and that they had no religious imperative for their use. Also note that those who have murdered the largest numbers of people in history - Mao, Stalin, Hitler, Alexander the Great, Ghengis Khan - all were either non-religious or anti-religious. So the scoreboard shows that you have more to fear from non-religious types than religious ones, statistically speaking. In fact, of the 20 worst losses of human life in history, only ONE had anything to do with religion, and I believe it is either 19th or 20th on the list.
http://xkcd.com/386/
As a Christian, I've been troubled, and even dismayed, by the paucity of actual scientists among writers who question the theory of evolution.
That's what happens when a theory is as well supported by evidence as evolution is. Are you also dismayed by the paucity of physicists who question thermodynamics? Or that of astronomers who question the heliocentric theory?
It would be a waste of time for every researcher in the biological sciences to be familiar with Behe's work. I'm sure you have no idea how specialized science is, and the immense amount of information you have to absorb just to come up with a novel idea to test. There's just no time in the day to test every one of our assumptions.
And yes, we do have assumptions and we rely on them to make sense of our data. When our data doesn't make sense that's when we question our assumptions. So go on and find a way to quantify complexity, and demonstrate that some threshold level of complexity is "irreducible" and we'll start listening.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
No problem. Will answer when I get back from lunch. Busy day....
Thx for responding love non-trolls....
"All great things are simple & expressed in a single word: freedom, justice, honor, duty, mercy, hope." --Churchill
Two separate species that are still connected through a continuous population of living intermediate forms around the ring. One merely needs to imagine killing off some animals in the middle of the population, breaking ring in two, and you triggered an instant and obvious full speciation event. It makes evolution almost undeniably obvious.
God did it.
Never underestimate the ability of a religious person to deny the obvious.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
You're giving these people too much credit. It is true most people don't know what the theory of evolution is. It is also true that while a lot of people claim to be of a given Judeo-christian-islamic faith, most of those people don't know what the doctrine of their church is and have not read the central religious works of their faith, or even the history of their own religion.
Really the situation is that most people are ignorant in many ways and don't know what the theory of evolution is or how it relates to the religion with which they identify. They just react badly when confronted with their own ignorance and rather than learning they get angry and try to stop others from learning and making them look even more ignorant by comparison.
Ok, so now we're assuming that George Carlin assumes that:
Intelligence is a symmetric normal distribution and the audience is also aware of that fact
Thus making it possible for him to use sloppy language that happens to be more poetic. As in, he really did mean two different definitions of average when making the joke, but did it anyway because that way he won't sound like he's just regurgitating the old, "50% of all doctors graduated in the bottom half of their class" line.
I dunno, I guess I never got the appeal. Carlin's edginess always felt a bit "manufactured" to me. He always seems to pick on safe targets.
Can you be Even More Awesome?!
When I read the title I thought, "it's too late for me, I've already migrated to Thunderbird".
I understand the universe to be made of matter and energy and the laws that govern them. I believe in cause and effect. I do not think matter and energy just "came to be" one day... I think they always existed, and are part of God. I believe that matter and energy came together using the laws of the universe to form life (perhaps with the addition of other forces we don't fully understand). God encompasses this entire framework. I don't believe it happened in a split second, but I also don't believe it would have happened without Him (aka, without matter, energy, laws, etc). I believe it happened how it was supposed to, in the perfect manner, in perhaps the ONLY manner, and I don't pretend to hold exclusive knowledge to that process.
My own quote: "We are nothing, but our will to survive." I look at the world, and through all the chaos and beauty, the perfection and the unexplained, the similarity coupled perfectly with diversity, I see one common theme, one common direction everything moves in - survival. We are simply a combination of energy and matter, with our will to survive. Those three things make us what we are, and I see no contradiction in that between science and God (or, as some like to call Him, Energy, or Nature, or Buda, or Alah, or the Universe... anything that encompasses all that is).
Some might say "you're reducing him to components, to a purposeless, thoughtless entity". Really? I have will, and purpose, and thought, yet I am not all that is... I can only assume that if God is everything I am and more, than he too has will, purpose, thought... He just does way more with it than I could ever accomplish.
People like to think of themselves as God... the be-all, end-all. But I can't see how any rational person can think that way when they look outside, look at the earth, the universe, and realize that as one individual, how insignificant we are in this grand display of ingenuity. We can't even come close to replicating ourselves from scratch... how could we posture to be greater than all that exists?
People who follow science and consider it incompatible with religion, as well as people who are religious and consider it incompatible with science, simply have a view of life that's too limited. The two aren't antithetical; in fact, I think they are perfectly complementary. Just because there are vast numbers of people who understand things in a limited or incorrect sense and thus give off a misrepresented view of that school of thought does not mean that the school of thought itself is invalid. No, I don't take everything in the Bible literally, yes I think there could be errors, misinterpretations, etc... but I also think that on a basic level there are some truths and principals within the Bible that have not only contributed enormously to the successful progression of humanity, but are fundamental to our understanding of life and the universe.
In other words: in everything that is scientific truth, there I also find God.
Thanks for your thanks :) When things go well it really makes up for the frustration, misery, and insanity trying to deal with certain other people on the subject. After repeated ugly experiences it can become difficult not to slip into hostile mode the moment a stranger says anything challenging evolution.
views would shift so dramatically in only 8 short hours
Reminds me of something I wrote to someone else recently. Evolution discussions pretty well exclusively go one of two ways. If someone has a genuine question and is seeking information, progress tends to be incredibly fast and pretty well complete.
If someone is not honestly seeking answers, if they want it to be false, any progress at all is generally impossible.
-
- - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
The RNA world hypothesis is an intriguing explanation for the origin of self-replicating RNAs that could have then spawned early life forms containing DNA. Check The RNA World, edited by Cech, Atkins, and Gesteland, published by Cold Spring Harbor Lab Press. There are 3 editions to choose from. It gets into the nitty-gritty of the hypothesis. I think an intrepid slashdotter could handle it and might get a good deal of pleasure in this book.
"The usual approach of science of constructing a mathematical model cannot answer the questions of why there should be a universe for the model to describe. Why does the universe go to all the bother of existing?"
"My goal is simple. It is a complete understanding of the universe, why it is as it is and why it exists at all."
"Even if there is only one possible unified theory, it is just a set of rules and equations. What is it that breathes fire into the equations and makes a universe for them to describe?"
"God not only plays dice, He also sometimes throws the dice where they cannot be seen."
"If we find the answer [the unified theory], it would be the ultimate triumph of human reason -- for we would know the mind of God."
The above quotes are from Stephen Hawking.
To an average joe like me, Hawking makes perfect sense. I sense that extremists from both sides of this debate find some of these statements blasphemous.
I'm an atheist who had the unpleasant misfortunate of growing up in a small super-Christian town outside of Houston, Texas.
In my experience, most people (both children and adults) who are dead-set against evolution don't understand the theory at all. They think it is saying that a monkey can magically and spontaneously turn into a human being. And they scoff at such a notion (as anyone would) and get deeply offended by it (as almost all people would, since almost all people think human beings are inherently superior to all other animals).
All the scientific community needs to do to educate the religious public (and reduce its defensiveness) is to stop portraying evolution as an example of "apes turning into people over time" and instead portray it as "environment killing off individuals who aren't built for survival". That's much less offensive to the average person's sensibilities, and it allows them to open their mind to the concept without automatically rejecting it up front.
Once a person can understand what evolution is, and see countless of examples of it at work in the world, then their mind can begin to open to seeing that humans aren't immune to it, and that it must be true for all living things.
Moderator hint: a comment is neither "Flamebait" nor "Troll" if it is true.
By gum, you're absolutely right that the authoritarian nightmares of the twentieth century were mostly non-religious. (Not uniformly, though; the Taliban may have been small, but boy, were they scary.) The key difference isn't between religious and non-religious systems, I think, but between different ways of knowing. There's an interesting letter from Richard Dawkins to his daughter, which lays out a foundation for this idea, in that reasoning from evidence is depicted as a good way to know something, while authority, tradition and revelation were bad ways. Authoritarian murderers relied on the strength of their authority--when the people in North Korea were so indoctrinated that they'd rather eat their family members than rebel against the government, that's authority. When Stalin made his wacky decrees because they came to him in a brain cloud, that's revelation. Those aren't good reasons to rely on anything.
Stalin, Mao and their link are no more morally equivalent to your average liberal-democratic secular humanist than a member of the medieval Inquisition is morally equivalent to your average nominally religious member of a Western democracy. The former members of each pair have more in common with each other than either does with the latter set, and it's completely missing the mark to point at secularism as the cause. While religion is the most obvious embodiment of ways of knowing that lead to authoritarianism, it's hardly the only road that leads there.
Laws do not persuade just because they threaten. --Seneca
Ah, but religious mass murderers have had thousands of years to work on it, whereas most of the atheist mass murderers were around in the last hundred years or so. They've just been trying to catch up in a shorter period of time ;)
Between the falling angel and the rising ape
You're describing Stephen Jay Gould's non-overlapping magisteria. Although it sounds really darn cool (ten syllables, dude!), it's a bit of a pipe dream. If you want to complain about people not keeping their magisteria distinct, please start with the creationists. People who claim that there's no conflict between science and religion are either unforgivably ignorant of the long history religion has of making testable claims about the material world, or are trying to make excuses for what quite frankly looks like a pretty useless way of knowing things.
Laws do not persuade just because they threaten. --Seneca
Have you ever read about the Fundamentalist Latter Day Saints? De facto enslavement of women, right in the United States (and a bit of Canada). The cult's been mostly disbanded after its leader, Warren Jeffs, was arrested, but it's not just the wacky foreigners that do it.
Laws do not persuade just because they threaten. --Seneca
On the other hand, any gene conserved enough to appear all over a lineage will bear mutations which, when fed to a phylogenetics algorithm, replicate the same tree you get from any other gene to within a very, very high degree of similarity. Go find a set of genes and sequence them; it's a perfectly feasible experiment. (It's been done with plenty of extant genes.)
Have you actually looked into this yourself, or are you just making stuff up? Please point to research published, for instance, in PLoS Biology by someone attached to a social science department. Heck, since you've asserted that most researchers in evolutionary biology work in social science departments, find five articles. It shouldn't be hard. (I'm leaning more towards the idea that you're just making stuff up.)
Laws do not persuade just because they threaten. --Seneca
Laws do not persuade just because they threaten. --Seneca
Best to cite TFM correctly:
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/summary/279/5347/28
The 200000 number comes from assuming constant evolutionary clock-rate, the whole thrust of the article is pointing out that this is not necessarily supported from the author's analysis!
Laws do not persuade just because they threaten. --Seneca
I asked for evidence of it happening, not a regurgitated and still unsupported opinion.
Restating your ignorance regarding the PhD process and assumptions you make based on how it occurs is not proof, it's a restatement of an ignorant opinion.
Alexander the Great and Ghengis Khan were not within the last 100 years or so. Nice try, but you're going to have to try again.
http://xkcd.com/386/
I think the Nazis were scary, as was the Spanish Inquisition, even though I don't personally live in fear of either of them. How was my meaning not obvious?
Laws do not persuade just because they threaten. --Seneca