If you look at the link for Aristotle you will see that he is listed as being an early biologist. But he is not listed as a precurser to Darwin's theories on evolution. This FAQ will give you a better picture of that.
As for whether or not Archeopteryx is a bird, I find it amusing that the first 2 links explain why some people don't call it a bird, and the third stresses the non-birdlike features. As I said, it is a transitional form.
And if, as you suggest at the end of your post, you want my suggestion for an example to look at, why not use the one that I gave you? The rising of the mammals from the therapsid reptiles? Remember that your original claim was that there was "a complete lack of transitional forms". Do you still maintain that claim?
As for dating, I recommend that if you are truly interested you either follow some of the references in the Isochron FAQ, or else show up on talk.origins and ask politely for more information.
If you want to see multiple dating methods giving the same value, you could do worse than to go to:
Dalrymple, G. Brent, 1986. Radiometric Dating, Geologic Time, And The Age Of The Earth: A Reply To "Scientific" Creationism, U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 86-110. 76 pp.
Moving on to your criticism of scientists, I am the first to admit that scientists are human, and no human endeavor is as idealistic as science is often made out to be. However don't dismiss it so simply as that! The scientific process as a whole is designed in such a way that the truth will out (in time). And as it does, the case for that truth is laid bare for investigation by anyone who is truly interested. So whether or not you trust individual scientists, you can still evaluate the products of science for yourself.
Please do that before dismissing the conclusions of the entire enterprise out of hand.
At least in the literal form, the version with an Earth that is a few thousand years old and with the global Flood abour 4000 years ago.
That is both falsifiable and it was falsified before Darwin. Creationists today don't like admitting that, but it doesn't change the facts.
Another point, today science does not hold much stock with supernatural explanations, true. However modern science evolved from the science of Newton's time which most definitely sought to demonstrate God's hand in creation. And this bias strongly shaped the initial theories of history and geology. The current lack of supernatural explanations is a result of the scientific process, and not just an a priori refusal on the part of scientists to consider supernatural explanations.
Indeed Snelling's article looks reasonable. However search down for Snelling's name here to find a rather detailed rebuttal.
As for Falkner's article, the evidence against a global flood is so overwhelming that traditional geology had abandoned that theory before 1820. The evidence is even stronger now. For one instance I have never seen any creationist explain the ice sheets. Ice sheets lay down annual layers, very similarly to tree rings. You can date ice cores by simple counting. (Although this is tedious and so short-cuts are usually taken.) We have cores from Vostok, Antartica, and Greenland that are both well over 100,000 years and clearly show that no global Flood affected them in that time.
Today "Flood geology" is clearly an attempt to shoehorn the world into a pre-determined religious model. Basic facts are ignored, thrown away, abused, and mutilated. There is no attempt at intellectual honesty, and no attempt to take into account even basic facts.
All of which makes the second paper even more galling. What it does is walk through a series of topics, and try to point out potential problems in the very detailed current scientific theories. This is truly a case of ignoring the beam in your own eye while complaining about the mote in your neighbour's. What is even more ironic is that their job is practically done for them. The normal process of science includes a constant self-examination and highlighting of all potential issues. Those issues are not hidden, but are instead explored in detail. So all the creationist has to do is go to the scientific literature, and look for articles that raise these issues, and make a list. Throw in a few mis-understandings, and some mis-information, and voila! A list of problems in the current scientific world view!
Of course a similar self-criticism is never turned towards the Creationist's own views. And the reason is simple, any sincere Creationist with the self-discipline and honesty required to do that long ago ceased to be a Creationist!
A fundamental question about your criticism of dating, do you accept that the Earth is more than a few thousand years old, but wonder about how we can know any particular age, or do you deny that there is evidence that the world is more than a few thousand years old? If the latter then there is no need for any sophisticated method. Ice sheets lay down layers similar to tree rings. You can literally take a core, and count back. There are cores from the Greenland sheet that go back over 300,000 years. (The value in these cores is in things like pollen, and in the fact that there is "fossil air" trapped in them.) Clearly the Greenland sheet has existed for that time and not been disturbed by untoward events such as a world flood.
Therefore I will assume that you accept that the world is more than a few thousand years old, but you question the exact dating mechanisms.
One of your criticisms, the linearity of decay, is on the face of it ludicrous. The decay rate is an outgrowth of the laws of physics. Unless you believe that they are changing, the linearity of decay is a given.
The next issue has to do with water and fire. The effects of water and fire are not to be discounted. However they also leave obvious traces. We can assume that geologists are sufficiently aware of their samples to identify when these things have had an effect! Trust me, geologists are very aware of a variety of external effects and take them into account.
It seems that you are more interested in identifying reasons to NOT accept anything they have to say than in examining the evidence! For instance one question that you refuse to consider is this, if every method of dating is independently bad, then why do they all agree on the relative dates of different layers of rock? Reflect on that and give me a straightforward explanation of this basic fact...
Moving on to your treatment of the transitional FAQ, I have to really wonder. You are reading a long FAQ, with a tremendous number of examples, and the one example that you JUST HAPPEN to pick is the one listed as being particularly bad for gaps. Your original claim was that there were no transitional fossils known. Well why not look at the transition from synapsid reptiles to mammals?
Your original claim is clearly false, even if you just went on a fishing expedition for one of the weaker transitions listed in a large number of transitional sequences.
But even so, the example you picked, Archeopteryx, itself clearly is neither a reptile or a bird. It could be labelled one or the other, sure, but it clearly is a mix. Whether or not it is an ancestor of modern birds (not at all clear), it shows that transitional forms that are midway between what we now think of as very distinct groups did indeed exist!
Science does not assume that non-repeatable phenomena do not exist.
I would have to respectfully disagree. Given the same initial conditions, the same result will occur; this is the bedrock of the scientific method. Correct me if I'm wrong. If an observation is nonrepeatable, you can't really do much science with it.
Glad to maintain your respect.:-)
Your original statement, and my reply, had to do with non-repeatable phenomena. This is a major issue in any historical science. Sure, theoretically, if you set them up the same way, perhaps it would turn out the same way. But we do not have the freedom to do that. We know that the phenomena happened, but we cannot repeat it.
Therefore, non-repeatable phenomena both exist and are part of science.
As for repeatability, even in the strict sense that is not true. For instance in quantum mechanics the same set-up can result in different outcomes. Does that prevent the subject from being dealt with scientifically? Allow me to quote Feynman,
"Philosophers, incidentally, say a great deal about what is absolutely necessary for science, and it is always, so far as one can see, rather naive, and probably wrong...What is the fundamental hypothesis of science, the fundamental philosophy? We stated it in the first chapter: the sole test of the validity of any idea is experiment.
(The Feynman Lectures on Physics, Vol 1, 2-3.)
This is as true in a historical science as in any other. To name but one example, Astronomy all of the time has to deal with fundamentally non-repeatable observations. A supernovae in this galaxy is not something that happens on demand, and we cannot choose when to observe it.
As for the limits of science, they are very strict. Within its limits science has tremendous explanatory power. Outside of its limits there are blank areas that it simply cannot address.
What gives rise to the feeling of being aware? We cannot even address this problem. Science is useless.
When the germanic tribes (the Angles, Saxons, and Jutes) invaded England, did they displace the Celts or merely take over leadership? Science can address this, the two racial groups have recognizable phenotypes. (The germanic tribes displaced the Celts.)
The former question, science will never address. The latter it gives an answer to that there is simply no real point in doubting.
You re-iterate the question whether I am willing to consider evidence that people with religious beliefs might be right. Thereby insinuating that I have shown myself not ready to do so. Well the fact is that I answered that question. If someone comes up with novel evidence for me, I am willing to think about it. When people come up with evidence of a path that I have been down many times before, and which I know both sides of better than they do - no, to that I won't be very open.
As for how I approached religion, that is a different question. I do not see that I have any need to spout my personal experience with religion here. The narrower question that was asked is whether people with those beliefs are right, IOW it is the evidence for the beliefs that is in question. And that is not a question of trying to approach religion like science, that is a question of taking claims that are made and putting them through a BS detector.
As for the charlatans - yes, you are right that they are out there. Most people are aware that such exist. What I wish is that more religious people would be aware that charlatans exist and have their BS detectors open. And in particular investigate both sides of the story before repeating information from a possible charlatan.
Further, the Church teaches that speciation through evolution is not inconsistent with Christian faith, though that evolution was (at least in the case of man) directed by God.
Just a few years ago that was changed to say that evolution had actually happened. The distinction is that before it was OK for a good Catholic to believe in evolution. Today they are supposed to believe in evolution. I call that progress.:-)
That was a challenge to Darwin's theories. And one that Darwin was personally very sympathetic to. But it was not the last.
The last challenge was the observation that if you bred a population in one direction there was a sort of "inertia" where they changed swiftly at first, and then slowed down. At that point they could be bred back to the original phenotype more easily than they could be bred in any other direction.
The answer to the puzzle is the role of genetic diversity. Short-term changes in populations depend upon traits that are already present changing their frequency. Mutation only sets in over the long-haul. So breeding proceeds well while there are traits already present to select, and then it grinds to a halt. At that point you can still easily breed back in the original direction since you still have some individuals with those traits.
You claim that we see no evidence of cross-species evolution. Do you need a list of examples? That will also give you a list of transitional forms as well.
When it comes to dating, I find your comment about the geologist unbelievable. If you had any interest in dating I am sure that over 2 decades you could have satisfied yourself on the techniques in use.
In any case the resolution to your puzzle is quite simple. There are specific types of fossils that are used as indicators. For instance tribolites. The mark of a good indicator species is that it had to be common, fossilize well, and change rapidly. For each indicator species there are specific finds from which we have independently determined what time-period they existed in. (Usually through radioactive dating of some sort.) Given that we know when the indicator species actually existed, it can in turn be used as an easy dating mechanism for rocks. (It is easier to see a fossil in the field than it is to date rocks with sophisticated equipment!) Then the fossils that you are really interested in, which you don't have a date on, can be dated from the dating for the rocks.
The pattern here is a bootstrap where our conclusions from reliable but difficult dating methods about common species allow those species in turn to be used for a less precise dating of rock layers, which in turn allows us to date fossils.
Don't knock it! The geologists knowledge of indicator species (primarily tribolites) is central to exploration techniques for fossil fuels. (Coal, oil, natural gas.)
Start here and work on. Anyways here is a list of mistakes in your post:
Actually the potential problem with volcanoes is that they emit lots of non-radioactive carbon. Not that they emit radio-active carbon!
Only simplistic presentations suffer this limitation. The key is not constant but determinable based on a variety of factors. In the case of C-14, for instance, the levels of C-14 in the atmosphere vary over time depending upon current solar activity, therefore the equations to solve for the age of a sample using C-14 are substantially complicated. It is still doable but not constant. With other forms of radioactive decay the decay products may come into it, allowing dating without any assumptions about the original age of the sample.
The "speed of light is slowing" theory was first put forth by Barry Setterfield. Any reasonable examination of the evidence shows that it is not really a tenable theory. In fact even the Institute for Creation Research has disclaimed it since 1988.
The magnetic field has long been known to fluctuate, and even reverse. Projecting out a simplistic equation on a complex phenomena is always a bad idea.
The Moon dust argument was a projection based on a single bad estimate from a single measurement with faulty assumptions. There is no contradiction at all between current measurements of the rate of dust accumulation and the current levels of dust on the Moon. Want some details?
As for your references, if this is the kind of misinformation that they have, keep them. And go out and double-check their sources, and look for rebuttals as well. You have to examine both sides of the problem!
As for your being a high-school math and science teacher, I don't doubt that. Need I tell you my opinion of high-school math and science teachers?
If you have read both sides and claim that there are major holes in both, perhaps you would be willing to state a half-dozen major holes in evolution? Note that I said evolution, not abiogenesis (which is a *much* harder problem) - being so well-read you do know the difference?
Please be very specific. After all the devil is in the details and I would not want to wind up pointing out basic things to you that you should have learned decades ago.
So - fire away. Be specific. Be detailed. Pointers to the literature are appreciated. A half-dozen major holes hitherto missed by biology coming up.
The raw stuff of rapid change is existing genetic diversity. Mutation creates genetic diversity, sexual reproduction allows for combining, recombining, and rapid spread of successful traits. But when you try to breed a population faster than mutation will carry them, you are working entirely off of genetic diversity.
What happened was that while they were breeding for traits within the range of genes in the original population, things went well. When they used up that original range, things halted and would stay that way until mutation replenished the genetic diversity.
At that point virtually all of the genetic diversity in the population was for traits that they were trying to breed out of the population but which still existed, and so the direction that it was easiest to breed back to was the original phenotype.
The recognition of the key role that genetic diversity plays central to understanding a lot of things, like why sexual reproduction exists, and is also central to conservation efforts and modern breeding techniques.
Why do you assume that someone who believes in evolution has never examined the evidence given for Creationism? In my case that is a very bad assumption.
Yes, I have been willing to consider evidence that people with relious beliefs might be right. I have, in fact, considered such evidence in the past. All that I could put my hands on at the time. The fact that I did that is part of why I am so strongly convinced that Creationists are wrong, and that prominent Creationists by and large know that they are wrong and are liars!
Before you get too upset, go to Gish et al, and look up the quotes that they like to spout from scientists. Find a half-dozen quotes, and track down the original passages. Read them in the original and ask yourself what kind of person it would take to plough through reams of material from those scientists for snippets that could - out of context - make those scientists look like they were saying the exact opposite of what they are clearly saying.
Now imagine someone who can not only find those quotes, but find them, print them, and ignore the inevitable outrage from the misquoted scientists! Is that the act of a moral, honest, and straightforward person? I thought not!
Science does not assume that non-repeatable phenomena do not exist. Instead it deliberately tries to work with and extrapolate from repeatable phenomena wherever possible. Even in such cases science will try to figure out what happened according to rules that themselves come from repeatable phenomena.
Examples of events currently believed to have happened that are non-repeatable (at least on a practical scale):
The Big Bang.
The start of life.
The extinction of the dinosaurs.
As for religion, I agree that some religious beliefs are contradicted by scientific findings. However evolution itself does not imply atheism, and there are many people who both are devout Christians and who believe in evolution. This fact puts a damper on those who claim that people believe in evolution only as a way not to believe in God.
On the existence of a debate. All opinions are not created equal. It is not silly of scientists in general to suggest that their epistemological beliefs are of greater value than others when there are several hundred years of evidence suggesting just that. To quote Joseph Campbell from memory:
The priests used to say that faith could move mountains, but nobody believed them. The scientists tell us that science can level mountains and nobody doubts them.
There is no evidence that God didn't put the world together last Tuesday and planted all of these false memories. Nothing can disprove it. Is it very reasonable?
Your version of the creation myth would have the world put together several thousand years ago with implanted memories of a very organized world existing for billions before that. Granted, nothing can disprove this theory. Is it very reasonable?
The facts. If you are willing to wade into the mountains of evidence collected over 150 years by scientists in multiple fields, you would quickly learn that evolution was long ago "proved beyond a shadow of a (reasonable) doubt". Of course if you sit on your arse and never bother trying to learn, you may not realize that there are mountains of evidence out there. But that is your fault, and not the fault of scientists.
There is nothing so irritating as those who refuse to learn who then say, "But there is no evidence!"
Evolution does indeed qualify as a theory, with many concrete tests, and possible ways it could be disproven.
Your exercise is to go to the FAQs that I pointed out and find a dozen concrete tests of evolution. Let me make life easier by doing half of your work for you. Here are a half-dozen concrete scientific challenges to evolution that were actually raised historically, if you want you can look up the resolutions:
We know how spherical bodies cool off from black-body radiation, and we can therefore put an upper limit on the age of the Earth. This limit is too low for evolution to have happened. (Lord Kelvin raised this one.)
Suppose a superior specimen arose in a population. His superior traits would be diluted in his children, diluted further in theirs, and soon would become imperceptible. What role then can natural selection have? (In Darwin's time heritage was considered to be continuous.)
In South America there is an extremely large flower of a type evolution claims is descended from one pollinated by a moth. But the moth to pollinate this would have to have a 14 inch toungue, clearly impossible! (The moth, predicted by Darwin and thought impossible, later turned up.)
Evolution requires animals in the distant past to have spread from one continent to another, for example marsupials moving between South America and Australia in the distant past, making voyages that are ludicrous. How? (This eventually became a problem for geology...)
We see many examples of altruistic behaviour in real life. How is this possible under evolution?
A population of plants was selectively bred for certain traits. For a while it worked well, and then the rate of modification slowed dramatically. From that population they tried breeding in multiple directions, but the easiest was to breed back to the ancestral population! Doesn't this inertia show evolution to be impossible? (This was the last serious scientific challenge.)
All serious scientific challenges in their day. All challenges that Evolution faced and passed over a 50 year period.
How about Creationism? Did you know that British geologists had disproven the Flood to their satisfaction before Darwin? Yup, the mostly Anglican community believed at the start of the 1800's that they had clear evidence for the Flood, but only a few short years later had proven that the marks were made by glaciers and not by water!
As the saying goes, "There is none so blind as he who will not see." Are you enjoying your blindfold?
If you actually knew anything about dating you would know that the criticisms of C-14 dating that Creationists like to spout are very well understood and have long been accounted for within the scientific community. Secondly C-14 dating only works back at most a few tens of thousands of years and could not possibly be used for measuring a date that is a couple of billion years old.
But what does it matter if we are out of range by a factor of a hundred thousand or so? You probably only know the one tidbit about C-14 dating, that it can be wrong, why dig up facts to get in the way of spreading your misconceptions?
Or you could have at least tried to learn something...
Your credibility would be better if you got some facts right. Like the spelling of Neanderthal. Like the spelling of "Chimps". Like the fact that chimpanzees are 98.6% homologous to us.
I also, like the previous poster, do not believe that Neanderthal man has ever been sequenced. As for "Stone Age" man, well that covers a lot of ground. The only "Stone Age" men that I know have been sequenced turned out to be modern humans. Strangely enough they tended to be people who are living places like New Guinea...
Oh, and your description of the difference between micro and macro evolution is ludicrous. You may want to learn something before babbling more.
When I say "intellectually honest" I mean that the person approaches the subject with the knowledge of their own limitations, and therefore seeks to understand their own beliefs, the sources of those beliefs, the beliefs of the opponent, and the sources of those beliefs as well. This kind of person is not likely to accept caricatures of a position (like the ones put forth by Creationists about Punctuated Equilibrium), balderdash arguments (see misunderstandings of the laws of thermodynamics), or outright lies (see Creationist misquotes of prominent scientists).
This is also not the kind of person who is willing to accept simple pictures of science either. Just because Darwin wrote in the 1850's did not mean that everyone since should accept Evolution. Indeed serious scientific challenges to the theory persisted into this century. The last one having to do with agricultural breeding experiments (its resolution was the recognition of why genetic diversity matters).
The kind of person that I am talking about, after truly investigating evolution, can cheerfully point out that fossils are more than just piles of rocks. For instance insects trapped in amber and certain types of shale still contain organic material. But even if you don't want to believe in fossils, it is still easy to come up with a half-dozen lines of evidence towards evolution:
Cladistics
Predictions of animal behaviour (see E.O.Wilson and ant studies)
Observed evolution in current population
Observed speciation events
Current distribution of species in environments that would favor speciation (which is what tipped Darwin off)
The archeological record for the last few tens of thousands of years
And so I repeat my question. Have you investigated evolution? Do you have a clue what you are babbling about?
Slashdot Mirror
If you look at the link for Aristotle you will see that he is listed as being an early biologist. But he is not listed as a precurser to Darwin's theories on evolution. This FAQ will give you a better picture of that.
As for whether or not Archeopteryx is a bird, I find it amusing that the first 2 links explain why some people don't call it a bird, and the third stresses the non-birdlike features. As I said, it is a transitional form.
And if, as you suggest at the end of your post, you want my suggestion for an example to look at, why not use the one that I gave you? The rising of the mammals from the therapsid reptiles? Remember that your original claim was that there was "a complete lack of transitional forms". Do you still maintain that claim?
As for dating, I recommend that if you are truly interested you either follow some of the references in the Isochron FAQ, or else show up on talk.origins and ask politely for more information.
If you want to see multiple dating methods giving the same value, you could do worse than to go to:
Dalrymple, G. Brent, 1986. Radiometric Dating, Geologic Time, And The Age Of The Earth: A Reply To "Scientific" Creationism, U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 86-110. 76 pp.
Moving on to your criticism of scientists, I am the first to admit that scientists are human, and no human endeavor is as idealistic as science is often made out to be. However don't dismiss it so simply as that! The scientific process as a whole is designed in such a way that the truth will out (in time). And as it does, the case for that truth is laid bare for investigation by anyone who is truly interested. So whether or not you trust individual scientists, you can still evaluate the products of science for yourself.
Please do that before dismissing the conclusions of the entire enterprise out of hand.
Sincerely,
Ben Tilly
At least in the literal form, the version with an Earth that is a few thousand years old and with the global Flood abour 4000 years ago.
That is both falsifiable and it was falsified before Darwin. Creationists today don't like admitting that, but it doesn't change the facts.
Another point, today science does not hold much stock with supernatural explanations, true. However modern science evolved from the science of Newton's time which most definitely sought to demonstrate God's hand in creation. And this bias strongly shaped the initial theories of history and geology. The current lack of supernatural explanations is a result of the scientific process, and not just an a priori refusal on the part of scientists to consider supernatural explanations.
Regards,
Ben
Indeed Snelling's article looks reasonable. However search down for Snelling's name here to find a rather detailed rebuttal.
As for Falkner's article, the evidence against a global flood is so overwhelming that traditional geology had abandoned that theory before 1820. The evidence is even stronger now. For one instance I have never seen any creationist explain the ice sheets. Ice sheets lay down annual layers, very similarly to tree rings. You can date ice cores by simple counting. (Although this is tedious and so short-cuts are usually taken.) We have cores from Vostok, Antartica, and Greenland that are both well over 100,000 years and clearly show that no global Flood affected them in that time.
Today "Flood geology" is clearly an attempt to shoehorn the world into a pre-determined religious model. Basic facts are ignored, thrown away, abused, and mutilated. There is no attempt at intellectual honesty, and no attempt to take into account even basic facts.
All of which makes the second paper even more galling. What it does is walk through a series of topics, and try to point out potential problems in the very detailed current scientific theories. This is truly a case of ignoring the beam in your own eye while complaining about the mote in your neighbour's. What is even more ironic is that their job is practically done for them. The normal process of science includes a constant self-examination and highlighting of all potential issues. Those issues are not hidden, but are instead explored in detail. So all the creationist has to do is go to the scientific literature, and look for articles that raise these issues, and make a list. Throw in a few mis-understandings, and some mis-information, and voila! A list of problems in the current scientific world view!
Of course a similar self-criticism is never turned towards the Creationist's own views. And the reason is simple, any sincere Creationist with the self-discipline and honesty required to do that long ago ceased to be a Creationist!
Sincerely,
Ben Tilly
A fundamental question about your criticism of dating, do you accept that the Earth is more than a few thousand years old, but wonder about how we can know any particular age, or do you deny that there is evidence that the world is more than a few thousand years old? If the latter then there is no need for any sophisticated method. Ice sheets lay down layers similar to tree rings. You can literally take a core, and count back. There are cores from the Greenland sheet that go back over 300,000 years. (The value in these cores is in things like pollen, and in the fact that there is "fossil air" trapped in them.) Clearly the Greenland sheet has existed for that time and not been disturbed by untoward events such as a world flood.
Therefore I will assume that you accept that the world is more than a few thousand years old, but you question the exact dating mechanisms.
One of your criticisms, the linearity of decay, is on the face of it ludicrous. The decay rate is an outgrowth of the laws of physics. Unless you believe that they are changing, the linearity of decay is a given.
The next issue has to do with water and fire. The effects of water and fire are not to be discounted. However they also leave obvious traces. We can assume that geologists are sufficiently aware of their samples to identify when these things have had an effect! Trust me, geologists are very aware of a variety of external effects and take them into account.
It seems that you are more interested in identifying reasons to NOT accept anything they have to say than in examining the evidence! For instance one question that you refuse to consider is this, if every method of dating is independently bad, then why do they all agree on the relative dates of different layers of rock? Reflect on that and give me a straightforward explanation of this basic fact...
Moving on to your treatment of the transitional FAQ, I have to really wonder. You are reading a long FAQ, with a tremendous number of examples, and the one example that you JUST HAPPEN to pick is the one listed as being particularly bad for gaps. Your original claim was that there were no transitional fossils known. Well why not look at the transition from synapsid reptiles to mammals?
Your original claim is clearly false, even if you just went on a fishing expedition for one of the weaker transitions listed in a large number of transitional sequences.
But even so, the example you picked, Archeopteryx, itself clearly is neither a reptile or a bird. It could be labelled one or the other, sure, but it clearly is a mix. Whether or not it is an ancestor of modern birds (not at all clear), it shows that transitional forms that are midway between what we now think of as very distinct groups did indeed exist!
Sincerely,
Ben Tilly
Glad to maintain your respect.
Your original statement, and my reply, had to do with non-repeatable phenomena. This is a major issue in any historical science. Sure, theoretically, if you set them up the same way, perhaps it would turn out the same way. But we do not have the freedom to do that. We know that the phenomena happened, but we cannot repeat it.
Therefore, non-repeatable phenomena both exist and are part of science.
As for repeatability, even in the strict sense that is not true. For instance in quantum mechanics the same set-up can result in different outcomes. Does that prevent the subject from being dealt with scientifically? Allow me to quote Feynman,
"Philosophers, incidentally, say a great deal about what is absolutely necessary for science, and it is always, so far as one can see, rather naive, and probably wrong...What is the fundamental hypothesis of science, the fundamental philosophy? We stated it in the first chapter: the sole test of the validity of any idea is experiment.
(The Feynman Lectures on Physics, Vol 1, 2-3.)
This is as true in a historical science as in any other. To name but one example, Astronomy all of the time has to deal with fundamentally non-repeatable observations. A supernovae in this galaxy is not something that happens on demand, and we cannot choose when to observe it.
As for the limits of science, they are very strict. Within its limits science has tremendous explanatory power. Outside of its limits there are blank areas that it simply cannot address.
What gives rise to the feeling of being aware? We cannot even address this problem. Science is useless.
When the germanic tribes (the Angles, Saxons, and Jutes) invaded England, did they displace the Celts or merely take over leadership? Science can address this, the two racial groups have recognizable phenotypes. (The germanic tribes displaced the Celts.)
The former question, science will never address. The latter it gives an answer to that there is simply no real point in doubting.
Cheers,
Ben Tilly
You re-iterate the question whether I am willing to consider evidence that people with religious beliefs might be right. Thereby insinuating that I have shown myself not ready to do so. Well the fact is that I answered that question. If someone comes up with novel evidence for me, I am willing to think about it. When people come up with evidence of a path that I have been down many times before, and which I know both sides of better than they do - no, to that I won't be very open.
As for how I approached religion, that is a different question. I do not see that I have any need to spout my personal experience with religion here. The narrower question that was asked is whether people with those beliefs are right, IOW it is the evidence for the beliefs that is in question. And that is not a question of trying to approach religion like science, that is a question of taking claims that are made and putting them through a BS detector.
As for the charlatans - yes, you are right that they are out there. Most people are aware that such exist. What I wish is that more religious people would be aware that charlatans exist and have their BS detectors open. And in particular investigate both sides of the story before repeating information from a possible charlatan.
Sincerely
Ben
Further, the Church teaches that speciation through evolution is not inconsistent with Christian faith, though that evolution was (at least in the case of man) directed by God.
:-)
Just a few years ago that was changed to say that evolution had actually happened. The distinction is that before it was OK for a good Catholic to believe in evolution. Today they are supposed to believe in evolution. I call that progress.
Cheers,
Ben
That was a challenge to Darwin's theories. And one that Darwin was personally very sympathetic to. But it was not the last.
The last challenge was the observation that if you bred a population in one direction there was a sort of "inertia" where they changed swiftly at first, and then slowed down. At that point they could be bred back to the original phenotype more easily than they could be bred in any other direction.
The answer to the puzzle is the role of genetic diversity. Short-term changes in populations depend upon traits that are already present changing their frequency. Mutation only sets in over the long-haul. So breeding proceeds well while there are traits already present to select, and then it grinds to a halt. At that point you can still easily breed back in the original direction since you still have some individuals with those traits.
Cheers,
Ben Tilly
You claim that we see no evidence of cross-species evolution. Do you need a list of examples? That will also give you a list of transitional forms as well.
When it comes to dating, I find your comment about the geologist unbelievable. If you had any interest in dating I am sure that over 2 decades you could have satisfied yourself on the techniques in use.
In any case the resolution to your puzzle is quite simple. There are specific types of fossils that are used as indicators. For instance tribolites. The mark of a good indicator species is that it had to be common, fossilize well, and change rapidly. For each indicator species there are specific finds from which we have independently determined what time-period they existed in. (Usually through radioactive dating of some sort.) Given that we know when the indicator species actually existed, it can in turn be used as an easy dating mechanism for rocks. (It is easier to see a fossil in the field than it is to date rocks with sophisticated equipment!) Then the fossils that you are really interested in, which you don't have a date on, can be dated from the dating for the rocks.
The pattern here is a bootstrap where our conclusions from reliable but difficult dating methods about common species allow those species in turn to be used for a less precise dating of rock layers, which in turn allows us to date fossils.
Don't knock it! The geologists knowledge of indicator species (primarily tribolites) is central to exploration techniques for fossil fuels. (Coal, oil, natural gas.)
Sincerely,
Ben Tilly
As for your references, if this is the kind of misinformation that they have, keep them. And go out and double-check their sources, and look for rebuttals as well. You have to examine both sides of the problem!
As for your being a high-school math and science teacher, I don't doubt that. Need I tell you my opinion of high-school math and science teachers?
Sincerely,
Ben Tilly
Please quote Aristotle chapter and verse on that!
Nice troll...
Ben
If you did you might know that it is called Newton's Theory of Gravity. And you have the Theory of Quantum Mechanics.
Your ignorance is showing...
Ben Tilly
If you have read both sides and claim that there are major holes in both, perhaps you would be willing to state a half-dozen major holes in evolution? Note that I said evolution, not abiogenesis (which is a *much* harder problem) - being so well-read you do know the difference?
Please be very specific. After all the devil is in the details and I would not want to wind up pointing out basic things to you that you should have learned decades ago.
So - fire away. Be specific. Be detailed. Pointers to the literature are appreciated. A half-dozen major holes hitherto missed by biology coming up.
I am waiting...
Ben Tilly
It seems that people won't bother trying to search them before posting. If they did they might turn up a thing or two...
Sincerely,
Ben Tilly
The raw stuff of rapid change is existing genetic diversity. Mutation creates genetic diversity, sexual reproduction allows for combining, recombining, and rapid spread of successful traits. But when you try to breed a population faster than mutation will carry them, you are working entirely off of genetic diversity.
What happened was that while they were breeding for traits within the range of genes in the original population, things went well. When they used up that original range, things halted and would stay that way until mutation replenished the genetic diversity.
At that point virtually all of the genetic diversity in the population was for traits that they were trying to breed out of the population but which still existed, and so the direction that it was easiest to breed back to was the original phenotype.
The recognition of the key role that genetic diversity plays central to understanding a lot of things, like why sexual reproduction exists, and is also central to conservation efforts and modern breeding techniques.
Cheers,
Ben
Why do you assume that someone who believes in evolution has never examined the evidence given for Creationism? In my case that is a very bad assumption.
Yes, I have been willing to consider evidence that people with relious beliefs might be right. I have, in fact, considered such evidence in the past. All that I could put my hands on at the time. The fact that I did that is part of why I am so strongly convinced that Creationists are wrong, and that prominent Creationists by and large know that they are wrong and are liars!
Before you get too upset, go to Gish et al, and look up the quotes that they like to spout from scientists. Find a half-dozen quotes, and track down the original passages. Read them in the original and ask yourself what kind of person it would take to plough through reams of material from those scientists for snippets that could - out of context - make those scientists look like they were saying the exact opposite of what they are clearly saying.
Now imagine someone who can not only find those quotes, but find them, print them, and ignore the inevitable outrage from the misquoted scientists! Is that the act of a moral, honest, and straightforward person? I thought not!
Sincerely,
Ben Tilly
Examples of events currently believed to have happened that are non-repeatable (at least on a practical scale):
The Big Bang.
The start of life.
The extinction of the dinosaurs.
As for religion, I agree that some religious beliefs are contradicted by scientific findings. However evolution itself does not imply atheism, and there are many people who both are devout Christians and who believe in evolution. This fact puts a damper on those who claim that people believe in evolution only as a way not to believe in God.
On the existence of a debate. All opinions are not created equal. It is not silly of scientists in general to suggest that their epistemological beliefs are of greater value than others when there are several hundred years of evidence suggesting just that. To quote Joseph Campbell from memory:
Reflect on that for a while...
Ben Tilly
There is no evidence that God didn't put the world together last Tuesday and planted all of these false memories. Nothing can disprove it. Is it very reasonable?
Your version of the creation myth would have the world put together several thousand years ago with implanted memories of a very organized world existing for billions before that. Granted, nothing can disprove this theory. Is it very reasonable?
Ben Tilly
The facts. If you are willing to wade into the mountains of evidence collected over 150 years by scientists in multiple fields, you would quickly learn that evolution was long ago "proved beyond a shadow of a (reasonable) doubt". Of course if you sit on your arse and never bother trying to learn, you may not realize that there are mountains of evidence out there. But that is your fault, and not the fault of scientists.
There is nothing so irritating as those who refuse to learn who then say, "But there is no evidence!"
*sigh*
Ben Tilly
Your exercise is to go to the FAQs that I pointed out and find a dozen concrete tests of evolution. Let me make life easier by doing half of your work for you. Here are a half-dozen concrete scientific challenges to evolution that were actually raised historically, if you want you can look up the resolutions:
All serious scientific challenges in their day. All challenges that Evolution faced and passed over a 50 year period.
How about Creationism? Did you know that British geologists had disproven the Flood to their satisfaction before Darwin? Yup, the mostly Anglican community believed at the start of the 1800's that they had clear evidence for the Flood, but only a few short years later had proven that the marks were made by glaciers and not by water!
As the saying goes, "There is none so blind as he who will not see." Are you enjoying your blindfold?
Ben Tilly
The key words are, "complex life". Meaning something more complex than cyano bacteria.
Their evidence is organic materials (specifically lipids) that are not found in "simple life".
Cheers,
Ben
If you actually knew anything about dating you would know that the criticisms of C-14 dating that Creationists like to spout are very well understood and have long been accounted for within the scientific community. Secondly C-14 dating only works back at most a few tens of thousands of years and could not possibly be used for measuring a date that is a couple of billion years old.
But what does it matter if we are out of range by a factor of a hundred thousand or so? You probably only know the one tidbit about C-14 dating, that it can be wrong, why dig up facts to get in the way of spreading your misconceptions?
Or you could have at least tried to learn something...
Regards,
Ben Tilly
The very critter that the "bouncing Bonobo" release was named after! :-)
Ben
Your credibility would be better if you got some facts right. Like the spelling of Neanderthal. Like the spelling of "Chimps". Like the fact that chimpanzees are 98.6% homologous to us.
I also, like the previous poster, do not believe that Neanderthal man has ever been sequenced. As for "Stone Age" man, well that covers a lot of ground. The only "Stone Age" men that I know have been sequenced turned out to be modern humans. Strangely enough they tended to be people who are living places like New Guinea...
Oh, and your description of the difference between micro and macro evolution is ludicrous. You may want to learn something before babbling more.
Sincerely,
Ben Tilly
This is also not the kind of person who is willing to accept simple pictures of science either. Just because Darwin wrote in the 1850's did not mean that everyone since should accept Evolution. Indeed serious scientific challenges to the theory persisted into this century. The last one having to do with agricultural breeding experiments (its resolution was the recognition of why genetic diversity matters).
The kind of person that I am talking about, after truly investigating evolution, can cheerfully point out that fossils are more than just piles of rocks. For instance insects trapped in amber and certain types of shale still contain organic material. But even if you don't want to believe in fossils, it is still easy to come up with a half-dozen lines of evidence towards evolution:
And so I repeat my question. Have you investigated evolution? Do you have a clue what you are babbling about?
Sincerely,
Ben Tilly