Evolution backward reasoning?

[Cardinal]

OK, here's a question that will probably start off some sort of fight. Just what we needed around here, another argument.

In the grand battle between "evolution" and "creation" proponents, I have problems with both sides. But here I want to address one of my problems with the standard evolutionary preaching.

There have been many people who pointed out the fallacy of saying that since two legs was the optimum number, then God must have created us specifically and intially with that number. The point is that this uses backwards reasoning. If we had three arms or something, we would be saying "imagine if we only had two. Think of all the things that we couldn't do! Thank God we have three!"

Ok, but aren't evolutionists doing the same thing?

For all the talk about animals that have evolved elaborate camouflage, supposedly as a product of eons of evolution, there are those that stand out like beacons. Here I'm thinking of salmon who turn bright red just when there are bears around to smack them out of the river and eat them. If they were the color of riverbed, we'd be saying, "Evolution has provided them with protection. I mean, what would happen, if say, they were bright red? They'd be easy prey. Evolution has bred this out of the species."

It seems that every time there seems to be some adaptive characteristic, people say "Look; evolution at work protecting the species." And every time there is something that is a drawback, "Well, it doesn't matter." It all seems a little too easy and almost hypocritical to me.

Imagine if people had exoskeletons. We'd all be saying, "And evolution has of course provided us with protection from our environment. Without our exoskeleton, we'd be prey to all sorts of cuts and injuries that just bounce right off our exoskeleton." But since we don't, we say, well, it doesn't matter.

Isn't this all reasoning after the fact?

[Mojo]

Well......yeah. That's science. You look at the facts and base theories on those facts. I.e. Animal X procreated. Animal Y didn't. Obviously Animal X did something right. You then theorize as to what it was that Animal X did right. Sometimes it may just be luck.

To paraphrase Sherlock Holmes, you don't change the facts to fit theories.

[BigRoryG]

Evolution isn't perfect. It just so happens that even with certain disadvantages, these species have managaed to survive. The salmon you speak of, rather than evolving camouflage, merely eveolved mass reproduction. It's not exactly a concious choice here.
As for the three arms business, it's quite random. If a human had evolved with three arms or an exoskeleton and survived and flourished, then we'd have them wouldn't we? It's all about randomness.


------------------
Sincerely, SDStaff hopeful

[cher3]

You might be interested in some of the books by Stephen Jay Gould. He addresses some of the problems/misconceptions about evolution that you bring up. For example, people often talk about evolution as if it is consciously striving to produce the perfect creature, when, in reality, natural selection often produces outcomes that are just adequate for survival. (Yes, salmon get eaten by bears, but there are a lot more salmon than bears.)

Gould also talks in great detail about the "what if" question in his book "Wonderful Life." It discusses an early period in natural history when there were apparently many more "basic" types of animals than there are today. Many of them disappeared in a catastrophic period of extinction, but he points out that the ones that survived (including the ones that eventually led to all modern animals) were not necessarily superior to the ones that didn't. It was just luck of the draw.

[hansel]

One of the things my philosophy of science professor was careful to stress when we studied evolution is the misconception that all current traits have been selected "for" by the pressures of natural selection. While a bright pink bear would be selected against pretty quickly, there are traits that can be simply along for the ride: they aren't selected for, they're simply not selected against. We're pretty sure by now that our appendices offer no survival advantage (among other mystifying organs); because we've survived via other traits, appendices may have the illusion of conveying some survival advantage.

To think otherwise is a fallacy on the part of some evolutionists, and not a problem with evolutionary theory. It seems perfectly sensible to me that some traits may be neutral.

[UncaStuart]

It seems that every time there seems to be some adaptive characteristic, people say "Look; evolution at work protecting the species."
Natural selection does not "work" at anything, least of all "protecting;" it is the description of an outcome, as mentioned earlier. Natural selection is the fact that one individual of a species survived to reproduce--not the species itself, natural selection is limited to local conditions--and that outcome increases the chances that the offspring will survive to reproduce, within the local conditions. But natural selection cannot "protect" a species by selecting for characteristics that will, say, be useful when the next 10-mile-wide asteroid hits. Natural selection is not predictive. So any use of active verbs to describe evolution and natural selection is inconsistent with the theory and its mechanism, and are at best straw men.

[Nickrz]

Such thinking is called teleology.
From Merriam Webster:

Main Entry: tel·e·ol·o·gy
Pronunciation: "te-lE-'ä-l&-jE, "tE-
Function: noun
Etymology: New Latin teleologia, from Greek tele-, telos end, purpose + -logia -logy -- more at WHEEL
Date: 1740
1 a : the study of evidences of design in nature b : a doctrine (as in vitalism) that ends are immanent in nature c : a doctrine explaining phenomena by final causes
2 : the fact or character attributed to nature or natural processes of being directed toward an end or shaped by a purpose
3 : the use of design or purpose as an explanation of natural phenomena
- tel·e·ol·o·gist /-jist/ noun

[bantmof]

Here I'm thinking of salmon who turn bright red just when there are bears around to smack them out of the river and eat them.
Nowhere in evolutionary theory does it say that every trait must be advantageous in every possible circumstance. Evolution also doesn't say that we are optimized for dealing with every possible situation, so it's usually pretty trivial to think of ways some species could be better protected against certain threats. If rabbits weighed 300 lbs they would not become dinner for bobcats! Or, like you said, if humans had exoskeletons we wouldn't get as many cuts. But such "what if" games can be played for _any_ combination of traits. If humans had exoskeletons, then you could find disadvantages to that and say, "we'd be better off without our exoskeletons".

Re: salmon, you're just looking at one small part of the picture. Maybe being red increases the risk to those salmon of being eaten by bears, but among all the threats to salmon, bears are probably not very high on the list. The redness could be selected _for_ if it conveys enough of an advantage in other ways (perhaps being able to easily find mates?), even if it also had disadvantages, and it could also persist just by not being selected _against_.

Isn't this all reasoning after the fact?
Not really. The evidence for evolution is not based on organisms being optimally suited to handle every possible threat.
--
peas on earth

[DSYoungEsq]

WOW! I like that word, Nickrz!! I have to try using it in several sentences... Have you deduced that theory through teleology?Have you thought about applying teleology to the problem?Have you seen that spiffy new teleology program starring the pink salmon and the brown bear?

As for the original question,If they were the color of riverbed, we'd be saying, "Evolution has provided them with protection.shows the standard mis-conception about evolution that leads to many of the attacks against it by 'creationists.' Evolution is the description of a process by which the myriad random genepool modifications that are thought to occur result through 'natural selection' in changes to species. In other words, evolution is a description of the end result, not a force in action. Obviously, for any species, there will be those units that have progeny that survive to procreate, and those that do not. The fact that I have a pink belly may make me easy pickings for a bear (actually a bad assumption, cause most of the time the belly isn't easy to see from above), but if it helps me produce progeny that manage to procreate, then everything is hunky-dory.

The REAL trouble with evolution as a theory of how humans got here is when humans assume somehow that everything about them is 'perfect' having been the ultimate result of evolution. Personally, I have to question that, having had my appendix nearly blow up on me at 2 am one morning. :)

Evolution as a theory fits the available facts reasonably well. The real trouble with it is that we can't ever KNOW what really happened, so why bother worrying?

[Cardinal]

Thanks, guys (generic).

These are reasonable replies, and even better, support my theory! And who doesn't want their theory supported?

So the conclusion around here seems to be that yes, there is a problem with such reasoning, and those that do it have committed the same sin as those who say that we're "perfect" because God made us that way. Evolution is not a force itself, trying to make things happen.

But you have to admit that many, many times it is presented that way, even in textbooks. "Evolution has provided the species with..."

Arrrgghh... As I've said to high school chemistry classes, I may not be a brilliant scientist, but I'm a picky scientist (if indeed I have any real claim to the title at all), and that's half way to being good right there. When textbooks present inaccuracies, it drives me crazy. I don't mind making analogies, etc., but quotes like the one above are just plain wrong.

That reminds me, I have to rant on a moment, it even bugs me when the SAT I has a reading passage which describes an experiment where someone tried to see if having small, non-flying wings gave an insect a possible advantage in dispersing heat, thereby making it possible that proto-wings were selected for because of reasons other than flying. She said it could have, but then the passage says that she had provided proof of a transition between non-flying and flying insects.

She did nothing of the kind! She proved that it wasn't out of the realm of imagination. I realize that SAT reading passages aren't supposed to do anything but provide a context for questions, but it does put in the kids' minds that it was proof. (And how does a heat dispersal organ end up developing the muscles and aerodynamics for flight? And where are the species who never got past the heat dispersal usage stage?)

Oh yeah, while I'm here on a stump, the SAT also asks for decimal answers to be given to three decimal points, even when the question clearly has measured values that are in only two significant figures. WHAT ARE THEY TRYING TO DO TO ME? Here I spend months and months TA-ing a high school chem class and ramming sig. fig.s down their throats, and ETS goes and throws it right out the window. I guess that's what happens when you have math people writing the test, not scientists.

[HeadlessCow]

Only scientists use sigfigs. Mathematicians either use the whole answer or arbitrarily set a limit. For example 3/4 = 0.75, not 0.8 as sigfigs would show it as. Which one is more accurate? I personally hate sigfigs because they are a set of mildly complicated rules often misunderstood that often lessen the accuracy of an answer.

[Cardinal]

I understand that mathemeticians might not concentrate on sig. fig.s. But what is this bit about them making the answer less accurate? If you only measured your values to the hundredths value of the number ( the 3 in 23 for instance), then don't use that value in a calculation and claim at the end that you know the calculated answer to the ten thousands part (the 4 in 7,594). To do so is to lie.

[NanoByte]

Not sure how one should get a point across to a HeadlessCow, but in engineering, sigfigs is where it's at. Used right, they keep you advised as to just how much you know, and not more. The complement of this statement is that engineers don't know everything. . .at least not yet.

Ray (ex-EE)

[NanoByte]

As for evolution, it's just a passive sieve wired up to environmental history. If History had wanted salmon that eat bears, it would've. . .well. . .evolved them.

Ray (whatever would bring about my existence. . .say an individualized anthropic principle)

[moriah]

Ack.

My vote is to move this to Great Debate. I'm tired of seeing this topic.

Peace.

[Markxxx]

What people often fail to understand is evolution doesn't do what is best it does what works.

Animals are put her basically to reproduce. Even if it isn't a great feature as long as it continues to work (in other words the species continues to thrive) it won't change.

An example of this is having one common passage for air and food. That isn't the best solution but it works. And if it workd evolution doesn't back up and change.

[E1skeptic]

Try reading this book: The Blind Watchmaker by Richard Dawkins.

[the first supraliminal]

Evolutionary science IS after the fact.

If it wasn't, it could adequately predict what creatures will evolve which characteristics.

If it was a real science, it could show with a predicted error what life can evolve from certain environmental conditions. I.E. from a complete evolutionary theory, we should know what kind of life could exist, if any, within a certain degree of error, exists on Mars, before getting there.

Evolutionary science IS after the fact.



------------------
One beer is less than two beers.

[joemill]

How can you say that evolution is a science. I was always taught that science has to be:

1. Observable
2. Demonstratable
3. Repeatable

None of these apply to the evolutionary theory.

[Undead Dude]

Not all science has the luxury of the concreteness and opportinuty for experiment that the hard sciences (such as physics and chemistry) have. I would say that the three criterion given by joemill might define a "hard science".

About all evolution theories can do in terms of repetition and prediction is to do experiments on creatures like fruit flies. Of course this doesn't really prove evolution, it just lends credibility to some of the natural selection principles.


Here's EB's def of science:
any system of knowledge that is concerned with the physical world and its phenomena and that entails unbiased observations and systematic experimentation. In general, a science involves a pursuit
of knowledge covering general truths or the operations of fundamental laws.

[Markxxx]

We clearly have evolved. That has been observed.

Thru the mutations of bacteria and virus we have demonstrated this. (they are the few livable things that reproduce fast enuff to observe in our life time)

It is repeatable. The ablitly to fly has evolved in Pterodactyls (Sp?), Birds and Mammals. None of which came directly from each other

Science dispute is not with evolution it is with DARWIN'S theory of how it came about.

[jayron 32]

Ok, I will take the offensive here for those of us who understand evolution:

So the conclusion around here seems to be that yes, there is a problem with such reasoning, and
those that do it have committed the same sin as those who say that we're "perfect" because God
made us that way. Evolution is not a force itself, trying to make things happen.

No one has claimed the reasoning you ascribe to evolution. The theory of evolution in descriptive. If we look at any point in the distant past, there are forms of life that are no longer on the planet. There are also forms of life now that did not exist at various points in the distant past. It does not take a very higher level of logic to realize that if things are not now as they used to be, something must have changed. There are lots of plausible explanations for how to explain this change:

1) The fossil evidence of past life was put there by a Supreme Being, and really life doesn't ever change.

2) All scientists are lying because they have something against religion.

3) Some natural process must have caused a change such that life today does not look like it used to.

So we are left really with 3... Things must have changed through a natural process. Now here's your question: Evolution is nothing more than accepting that the planet is not now as it used to be, WRT the life forms on it. Any uncertainty on the causes of this change have NOTHING to do with the fact that in fact, life on this planet has changed.

How can you say that evolution is a science. I was always taught that science has to be:

1. Observable
2. Demonstratable
3. Repeatable

None of these apply to the evolutionary theory.

Let me disposess you of your notion of what science should or shouldn't be: An experiment needs to be observable, demonstratable, and repeatable. Not all science is experimental. There is a lot of science which is descriptive science: Astrophysics is one example. Merely because we cannot create a star does not invalidate all of our observations of all stars.

------------------
Jason R Remy

"No amount of legislation can solve America's problems."
-- Jimmy Carter (1980)

[joemill]

"We clearly have evolved. That has been observed. Thru the mutations of bacteria and virus we have demonstrated this. (they are the few livable things that reproduce fast enuff to observe in our life time)"

The "mutations" that you describe only make use of existing dna. If a virus, bacteria, bird, dog, or whatever "mutates", it is only an expression of recessive genes coming to surface. While inheritants of those recessive genes may prove to be better equipped in the arena of life and live on to pass their genes to the next generation, they are totally and in all ways the same creature. A mutated dog is always a mutated dog; it never becomes a cat.

More than 90 years of fruit fly experiments, involving 3,000 consecutive generations, give absolutely no basis for believing that any natural or artificial process can cause an increase in complexity and viability. No clear genetic improvement has ever been observed in any form if life, despite the many unnatural efforts to increase mutation rates.
*Strickberger, p. 44; Theodosius Dobzhansky, Evolution, Genetics, and Man

True evolution has not been observed.


"It is repeatable. The ablitly to fly has evolved in Pterodactyls (Sp?), Birds and Mammals. None of which came directly from each other"

Did you see this happen? (Not observed) Can you make another creature develop wings and fly? (Not repeatable)


"Science dispute is not with evolution it is with DARWIN'S theory of how it came about."

This isn't science! This is putting the cart before the horse. Science says, "Here is the evidence, what does it tell us, let's make a hypothesis and prove it. Evotution says: Here's a theory, lets try to find some evidence to prove it.

[jayron 32]

This isn't science! This is putting the cart before the horse. Science says, "Here is the evidence,
what does it tell us, let's make a hypothesis and prove it. Evotution says: Here's a theory, lets try to
find some evidence to prove it.

sorry, but it is you who are mistaken. Science does not occur in simple cause-effect relationships, and neither does it go "here's some random bit of evidence, lets make a hypothesis and test it" That is classroom science, which is a poor example of how science happend. Here's how the theory of evolution evolved:

Scientist #1: " Wow, look at all of these fossils. There's a bunch of bones that I've never seen before."

Scientist #2: "Hey, I've been digging up all of these fossils, but I haven't found a lot of life that's on the planet now."

Scientist #3: "Hm, we have life now that wasn't here in the past, and we have life in the past that no longer exists. Something changed."

Scientists #1, #2, #3: "Well, let's go dig up some more bones and see what else we find."

The name for change is evolution. The fact is that some scientific discoveries occur because someone found some confusing data and then comes up with an explanation (inductive science). Other scientific discoveries occur because someone comes up with a novel explanation, and then hunts up some data (deductive science) to support it. The problem is, that these are both valid methods of discovery, and that NO scientific pursuit is 100% inductive or deductive. All science moves back and forth between gathering evidence and organizing that evidence. Evolution theory is no different in this respect from atomic theory, or heliocentric theory, or any other long standing and generally accepted theory.

------------------
Jason R Remy

"No amount of legislation can solve America's problems."
-- Jimmy Carter (1980)

[joemill]

"If we look at any point in the distant past, there are forms of life that are no longer on the planet. There are also forms of life now that did not exist at various points in the distant past."

The first part of your statement is correct, there are many forms of life that are extinct. I disagree with the second part, however. How do you know that there are forms of life now that did not exist in the past?

" It does not take a very higher level of logic to realize that if things are not now as they used to be, something must have changed. There are lots of plausible explanations for how to explain this change:
1) The fossil evidence of past life was put there by a Supreme Being, and really life doesn't ever change."

I don't believe that the fossil evidence was put there by God when the earth was formed. I believe that the fossil record is actually proof against evolution. The fact that there is a fossil record in the first place should amaze people! It's not easy to make fossils on the scale that's been demonstrated around the world. Fossils have to be buried quickly in order to form. A corpse left unburied will quickly decompose. Perhaps a world-wide flood buried living things under a layer of mud quickly.


"2) All scientists are lying because they have something against religion."

I don't believe that. I do believe that a majority don't want to believe what the evidence is telling them. If they had to prove evolution in a court of law, they would fail miserably.

"3) Some natural process must have caused a change such that life today does not look like it used to.
So we are left really with 3... Things must have changed through a natural process."

I agree with you. I believe that the flood did this, and also left the fossil record.


"Quote:
How can you say that evolution is a science. I was always taught that science has to be:
1. Observable
2. Demonstratable
3. Repeatable
None of these apply to the evolutionary theory.
Let me disposess you of your notion of what science should or shouldn't be: An experiment needs to be observable, demonstratable, and repeatable. Not all science is experimental. There is a lot of science which is descriptive science: Astrophysics is one example. Merely because we cannot create a star does not invalidate all of our observations of all stars."

Ah, but astrophysics can be observed.
It can also be demonstrated by various experiments and observations. And, with alot of luck, time, and observation it can be proven repeatable if certain phenomena can be oberved/studied/measured more than once.

[jayron 32]

I don't believe that the fossil evidence was put there by God when the earth was formed. I believe that
the fossil record is actually proof against evolution. The fact that there is a fossil record in the first
place should amaze people! It's not easy to make fossils on the scale that's been demonstrated
around the world. Fossils have to be buried quickly in order to form. A corpse left unburied will quickly
decompose. Perhaps a world-wide flood buried living things under a layer of mud quickly.

Actually, the number of fossils we have of any species compared to the number of that species that actually lived is a ratio that is damn near close to zero: We have like a dozen or so pieces of fossil evidence of, for instance, any one species of dinosaur, but there must have been millions upon millions of that type of dinosaur that lived. If 1 or 2 out of every 10,000,000 happened to die in such a way that they preserved fossil evidence, it is not that amazing.

Also, WRT species now not being around before, its pretty simple: We are obliged to explain things in simplest terms based on the evidence we have. If we have, say, 500 examples in the fossil evidence of say, a horse that is 100,000 years old, and 500 of a horse that is 200,000 years old, and 500 of a horse that is 300,000 years old, and then none of a horse that is 1,000,000 years old, but at the same point we have 500 examples of this animal, let;s call it a "snipe" that is 1,000,000 years old, but there are no snipes alive now, the most sound explanation is that horses didn't exist 100,000 years ago. We have ample proof that 100,000 years ago there were animals being preserved in fossils, and we have records of horses existing for quite a while back, but then we just don't see'em any more. The most simple explanation is that there weren't any horse back then. And if it were only horses and snipes that left this pattern of evidence, I would be inclined to buy the "just haven't discovered it" yet theory. But there are thousands of species that simply fade from the fossil record as you go back in time, and there are thousands of others that simply fade from the record as you move forward in time. There is no evidence that biodiversity is steadily decreasing on the planet, rather it seems to fluctuate up and down over time.


------------------
Jason R Remy

"No amount of legislation can solve America's problems."
-- Jimmy Carter (1980)

[DSYoungEsq]

Evolution is not science. A science is an area of study which attempts to deduce what rules govern how things happen, in order to be able to predict what things will happen in the future. Physics, biology, psychology (ok, just kidding about that one), etc.

Evolution is first of all a theory. It is a theory postulated as to how differing species developed. It is based in part on observing the evidence of presently non-existent species, and in part on observing the behaviour of presently surviving species. If you want to understand the theory, you should start with the works of Charles Darwin, in which the theory that evolution of the species by natural selection is originally (so I was taught) proposed.

I do not know if it has ever been established that natural selection actually can result in the development of a new species. Perhaps someone knows of a controlled experiement resulting in such a change?

There is nothing wrong with attempting to explain data as it appears - the trick is doing so with the correct reason, as all flatearthers know ;)

[bantmof]

No clear genetic improvement has ever been observed in any form if life, despite the many unnatural efforts to increase mutation rates.
That's not true. Both pure speciation into a reproductively isolated species, and instances of improved viability from various environmental stresses have been observed and even caused in the laboratory.

Reference #1: Dobzhansky, T. 1972. Species of Drosophila: new excitement in an old field. Science. 177:664-669.

Reference #2: Weinberg, J. R., V. R. Starczak and P. Jora. 1992. Evidence for rapid speciation following a founder event in the laboratory. Evolution. 46:1214-1220.

There have been many others, but both those observed a biologically new species, reproductively isolated where they didn't used to be. There have been many cases as well where improvements resulting in increased survivability in the face of an artifically induced stimulus have been observed (e.g. Soans, A. B., D. Pimentel and J. S. Soans. 1974. Evolution of reproductive isolation in allopatric and sympatric populations. The American Naturalist. 108:117-124.).

--
peas on earth

[DSYoungEsq]

Ahh, Bantmof, precisely the references I was hoping someone would provide. :)

Folks, let's not go off the deep end here. There simply is no way to prove which occurred: evolution of man through natural selection or divine creation of man. One is left with belief as to which is what occurred.

As for evolution being a backward science, the way to deal with that is simple: it isn't a science, it is a theory describing how known evidence occurred. That is part of the science of biology, the study of living things. There is nothing inherently wrong about deducing what has happened after the fact; indeed, as pointed out, we do it quite often (e.g. astronomy/cosmology). The trick is figuring out if we got it right. ;)

[joemill]

Quote:
"There have been many others, but both those observed a biologically new species, reproductively isolated where they didn't used to be."

I know that feelings are very strong on both sides of this issue; and I'd like to keep the discussion light and friendly. I don't mean to be a smart-alec, but the question has to be asked: what are these new species? (turning a fly that's black into a fly that's brown doesn't count)

[joemill]

Quote:
"Folks, let's not go off the deep end here. There simply is no way to prove which occurred: evolution of man through natural selection or divine creation of man. One is left with belief as to which is what occurred."

Excellent point. You have to have just as much faith to beleive in evolution as you do in devine creation.

[David B]

Joemill agreed with DSYoung and said:You have to have just as much faith to beleive in evolution as you do in devine creation.You can say that as much as you want. You can even believe it to be true. Unfortunately, you're just plain 100% wrong. The scientific evidence supports evolution. No scientific evidence supports creationism. The only thing that supports creationism is a religious book -- one that needs faith to believe in.

[AuraSeer]

If there's one thread that belongs in GD, it's this one. Where's Nick when you need him?

[bantmof]

There simply is no way to prove which occurred: evolution of man through natural selection or divine creation of man.
Well, except that there is quite a lot of evidence for the evolution of man, and none whatsoever that man was divinely created.
Excellent point. You have to have just as much faith to beleive in evolution as you do in devine creation.[/quote
No - the evolution of a biologically new species has been observed in the laboratory (see the references I supplied in an earlier post), and there is quite a lot of other indirect evidence for it as well. It does not require much "faith" at all. Literal creationism require pure faith, as there is no evidence for it, a considerable amount of evidence against it, and it, and many competing religions with mutually incompatible origin theories. Saying they are the same does not make them the same. Once is science, albeit an imperfect one at best, and the other is religion.
[quote]but the question has to be asked: what are these new species?
One of them is alive and well in california, as I understand it. Reading the referenced papers might be insightful.
--
peas on earth

[Mr.Zambezi]

Remember, for a species to be successfull it has only to survive long enough to reproduce.

A human wouldn't have to live to be 80 to be considered successfull. 13 or 14 would be plenty.

[Markxxx]

The HIV virus has evolved to the point where it is no longer the same virus as the original. In fact that what makes it so difficult to defeat.

There are different types of HIV and there will be more.

Fossil evidence shows birds, mammals and pterydactals all developed the ability to fly seperatly from each other. So it is observable and repeatable.

Remeber evolution doesn't benefit individuals it benefits systems. If 99 of 100 individuals in a system were killed and one thrived consistently evolution would continue. (tho' that isn't a likely case) Evolution does what works not what is best. Again look at the human body and see all the ways we could've better been put together. But we work and are quite sucessful at reproducing. Thus evolution will continue to let us thrive even if certain elements of our construction are poor.

Also many religions (including Catholics) accept evolution. BUT they see God as they person who is guiding it.

People fail to understand things don't evolve into other things they become better things. For instance an Ape will NEVER evolve into an Human. Why? Because they do just fine as apes. In fact studies have shown if anything they are becoming better at being apes. Evolution states simply if something works it will thrive. If it doesn't it's yesterday's news.

But then also realize we humans have learned how to tamper with evolution. For instance during the 40's my mother was the head nurse in a pediatric ward. Back then if a baby had a deformity they would let it die. Now of course they save it. Thus the baby has a chance to pass on genes that caused that deformity.

[SoxFan59]

A famous political commentator in the late 19th century stated that evolutionary theory was disproved by the line of American presidents, beginning with George Washington and ending with Ulysses Grant. I don't think subsequent history would make him change his mind.

NOTE: ITS A JOKE!

------------------
SoxFan59
"Its fiction, but all the facts are true!"

[DOCTOR FAT]

Two thoughts.
1. Both theories are correct if you ascribe to the "Instant-Distant" theory. God did make the earth and universe 10,000 years ago, but he made it look a lot older.
2. Maybe we are looking at this evolution thing from the wrong end. Thoreau said "Simplify, simplify" (why did he say this twice?), so the simplest forms of life are the most developed...they have rid themselves of this earthly shell, exist in all the cracks and crevices of the universe, are single celled, have no worries except multiplying and dividing. And they are really warm and fuzzy. I vote for bacteria being the highest form. Going down the evolutionary ladder, we hit cockroaches and mosquitoes. Finally, the least adaptive, man.

[Cardinal]

Oh, my beautiful thread!! The horror! The horror!

This has quickly become just what I said, a big argument. I should have known.. Hey, wait, I did know. But what can you do.

What is this bit about man being the least adaptive? I hope this is a joke, in the spirit of the smart-alek tone the rest of the post seems to have. Take a one-cell-er and put it in space and see how well *it* solves the problem of supplying its biological needs. Man is the only animal capable of reasoning out his needs and meeting them in new ways that he invents. At least this is true for the most part (no vitriolic posts about the intelligence of chimps, etc.).

This all reminds me of "Darwin's Black Box," in which Michael Behe trys to argue that no one has proposed any mechanisms for the evolution of actually biological molecular processes, and finally leaks his view that God has been alongside, continually nudging evolution along when it needed a new ability (light sensing organs of some sort, for instance). Interesting thought.

I think my original point has been made, though, that anthropomorphizing evolution is a mistake. God is seen as a person with intentions, but evolution in any sort of classical sense should not.

[Undead Dude]

Remember, for a species to be successfull it has only to survive long enough to reproduce.

A human wouldn't have to live to be 80 to be considered successfull. 13 or 14 would be plenty. -- Mr.Zambezi

Two things:
First, that's not really true. A species needs to live long enough to ensure the survival and reproductive viability of its progeny. Just popping out a baby and keeling over wouldn't do it.

Lifespans as high as 80 were rare until recent years. Our advanced knowledge of health goes above and beyond the expectations of our genes.

[bantmof]

God did make the earth and universe 10,000 years ago, but he made it look a lot older.
I've heard this idea before... of course, there's no evidence for it, but neither is it really falsifyable.

But what I wonder is: why would a god do something like that? I mean, there is this _vast_, overwhelming body of evidence that the earth and the universe are both very, very old, and there are many independent ways to reach that conclusion. Sure, an omnipotent creator could fool us by making it _look_ like it's very old by basically "planting evidence". But if that's true, it seems like he is trying to intentionally mislead us. Why?

--
peas on earth

[Doug Yanega]

Joemill wrote:

"I know that feelings are very strong on both sides of this issue; and I'd like to keep the discussion light and friendly. I don't mean to be a smart-alec, but the question has to be asked: what are these new species? (turning a fly that's black into a fly that's brown doesn't count)"

First off, you may be trying to be light and friendly, but you are also firmly convinced that you are right, and - at this point - all you do is provoke people by (1) refusing to even *consider* that you have misunderstood evolution all along (2) insisting on "proof" which cannot be supplied, and which no evolutionary biologist has ever claimed is part of the picture (3) making it clear that NO proof, even if it meets your criteria, will change your mind.
A new species is a new species, and how different it LOOKS is utterly meaningless. You apparently won't be happy until, as you quipped, a cat gives birth to a dog; if so, no matter HOW many new species you can be shown, you'll probably never, ever be satisfied. It is a very rare thing for a new species to be dramatically different from its ancestor. The fossil record (and present life on the planet) is jam-packed with transitional forms, and just because you don't know about them doesn't mean they aren't there. Try looking up "Basilosaurus eos" some time, for one of the closest examples to what you're after (it's a fossil whale that had small, functional hind legs).
Others here also commented that evolutionary biology is not predictive. That is not true. If I spray a marsh with DDT, I can predict that some of the insects in the area will evolve to be DDT-resistant, through natural selection. This is also repeatable. If I spray a field of plants with teratogens, I can predict that I will get new species via polyploidy every once in a while. This is in fact a tool for plant breeders, which yields new flower varieties (I know of some Begonias that are new species of this sort). Predictable, repeatable. Show me an introduced exotic plant or pest, and any good biologist can predict which organisms are most likely to evolve to feed on it or parasitize it. The phrase "Nature abhors a vacuum" is an observation about the predictability of evolution.
Of course, according to "The Matrix", we're all experiencing virtual reality inside a computer program run by aliens, so all this argument is pointless - evolution works however the alien programmers decide it will. Neither you nor I nor anyone can disprove this, either. In all respects, this is just as good a hypothesis as the existence of God, since it has JUST as much evidence to support it, and is JUST as open to being tested.

[joemill]

"Joemill wrote:
"I know that feelings are very strong on both sides of this issue; and I'd like to keep the discussion light and friendly. I don't mean to be a smart-alec, but the question has to be asked: what are these new species? (turning a fly that's black into a fly that's brown doesn't count)"
First off, you may be trying to be light and friendly, but you are also firmly convinced that you are right, and - at this point - all you do is provoke people by (1) refusing to even *consider* that you have misunderstood evolution all along (2) insisting on "proof" which cannot be supplied, and which no evolutionary biologist has ever claimed is part of the picture (3) making it clear that NO proof, even if it meets your criteria, will change your mind."


*sigh*
I don't mean to "provoke" people in the sense that you imply; I'm simply trying to get you to think.

To answer #1: I think I pretty much understand what evolution theory entails.

#2: "Proof that cannot be supplied" I will grant you that you cannot "prove" evolution *or* creation; but you can look at the scientific evidence to see which one it does not support.

#3: You may be right here; because even if scientists combine basic elements: hydrogen, oxygen, carbon, and so on and actually *create* a form of life from basic elements, I still wouldn't believe in evolution. Why? It still took *intelligence* to create it. I haven't seen a scientist yet who is able to create life intentionally from basic elements, but we're asked to believe it all happened by accident.
The simplest conceivable form of life should have at least 600 different protein molecules. The mathematical probability that *only ONE* molecule could form by chance by the arrangement of amino acids in the proper sequence is far less than 1 in 10 (raised to the power of 450). (The magnitude of that number can be appreciated by realizing that the visible universe is about 10 (raised to the power of 28) inches in diameter.
Evolutionary theory is the only "science" where the law of entropy doesn't apply. Think about that.......

[tomndebb]

:::sigh:::

And why would you make the claim that the law of entropy is not applied in evaluating evolution? (Although I suspect that I've already seen the incorrect answer several dozen times.)

------------------
Tom~

[joemill]

Well, since you asked. We're asked to believe that the whole universe began with a big bang. (first thing I do when *I* want to make something is blow it up) We're to believe that from that total disorder, order came about. Usually things go from order to disorder, not disorder to order. The only way I know to get order from disorder is to apply an *intelligent* force to it. A stack of lumber stays a stack of lumber (or becomes less orderly) and doesn't become a house until a carpenter (intelligence) builds (force) with it.
The Bible says that the world was perfect when God was done with it and it has been going downhill ever since; evolution says that the start was chaos and it has been getting better and more complex ever since. Which one better fits the law of entropy?

[bantmof]

Evolutionary theory is the only "science" where the law of entropy doesn't apply. Think about that.......
Wrong. False. Flat out incorrect. Completely mistaken.

This betrays a collosal ignorance of what entropy is and what the laws of thermodynamics actually DO say. They are very specific, and it's clear you don't understand them one whit.

You know, this tired old misconception gets _really_ old after a while.

Get yourself an introductory physics text. Read it. Learn.

--
peas on earth

[David B]

Joemill said:Usually things go from order to disorder, not disorder to order. The only way I know to get order from disorder is to apply an *intelligent* force to it. A stack of lumber stays a stack of lumber (or becomes less orderly) and doesn't become a house until a carpenter (intelligence) builds (force) with it.Hmmm. And how did that lumber come about? It started as a little seed. But then, somehow, all these disordered molecules ended up in this ordered piece of lumber. Does that mean an intelligent force told all those molecules where to go?

And how about crystalline structures? A diamond is surely more ordered than a bunch of carbon atoms flying around. Yet somehow they all came together to form that diamond. A miracle!

You are laboring under major misconceptions about physics. I suggest you do some reading on the subject before you act like you know what you're talking about.

------------------
"It is wrong always, everywhere, and for anyone, to believe anything upon insufficient evidence."
-- William Kingdon Clifford

[Undead Dude]

We're to believe that from that total disorder, order came about. Usually things go from order to disorder, not disorder to order. -- joemill
Sorry, but you are off here. The state at the big bang was the state of maximum order in the universe. It seems that you might be falling to the common illusion that the big bang was an explosion (as in explosives). Well, it wasn't. The big bang didn't "blow up" the universe. Rather the universe "fell apart" from that extreme state of order.

[pldennison]

The only way I know to get order from disorder is to
apply an *intelligent* force to it.

Or a constant input of energy. Like, say, the sun. Or maybe you can come up with a different way in which a carrot is created from a seed, water, manure, dirt and light.

[Nickrz]

Just once I would like to see thread on evolution that did not degenerate into a debate on the scientific validity of the theory. Of course, that will never happen because there are just too many people who, for reasons of their own, refuse to see the evidence all around them. Such is life.

I will devolve this topic to Great Debates.
(Better late than never, eh David?)