It’s only important in the factual sense (that is to say it is simply factually incorrect to say that mammals predate dinosaurs - at least, given current fossil finds). There is no deep, evolutionary meaning inherent in the observation (though it could possibly be argued by some that the fact that dinos came first is one reason why mammals failed to achieve dominance until the subsequent demise of the dinos; had mammals come first, perhaps they might have become dominant… But that would be pretty much idle speculation, since we cannot test such a “what if” scenario).
I agree that it might tend to fuel Creationist fires, but I think that would be more because creationists generally don’t see the deeper meaning: species are often fuzzy precisely because of their nature. As “snapshots in time” for an ever-changing population, they are not always going to present themselves as discreet entities. Indeed, it is for precisely this reason that creationists cannot define a “kind” such that it represents a natural population; if species (or “kinds”) were truly static entities, there should be well-defined boundaries between them - they should have no trouble defining the concept.
The fact that nature presents us with gradients - whether between “life” and “non-life” (as embodied in the debate as to where viruses often lie), or between very similar populations - is strong evidence for Darwin’s “descent with modification”. Were there no such descent, and all living things were truly unrelated to one another, having been created specially and independently, species and kinds would be readily identifiable.
Having read the book Scientific Creationism by Henry Morris of the Institute for Creation research I am certain that Creationists would not hesitate to misuse differences in species definitions and that it would be effective with a large fraction of the general population which tends to like things either/or. That in fact is the whole process of the cited book. Find a statement, any statement, indicating a difference among scientists and ride hell out of it. If they can misuse the Second Law of Thermodynamics and elementary Probability Theory what counfusion couldn’t they spread about species?
It’s hard to expect a school board member or legislator to be fully cognizant of all the subtleties of a theory when scientists have strong disagreements about the theory’s mechanisms. University Liberal Arts Colleges are already full of postmodern professors who teach that the scientific method is only on among many equally valid and useful methods of knowing about the natural world so why shouldn’t High School science students be exposed to an alternative, taken from ancient wisdom (Ha!), to the theory evolution?
The thing is, species clearly IS an arbitrary and sloppy concept. As Finch says, life as a whole presents us with gradients, not delineated discrete forms, even though extinction and other forces may serve to in some cases push certain breeding groups far enough apart from others to stand out. Once you realize that “species” is just a sloppy shortcut term, rather than expressing anything deep about nature, then evolution actually starts to make a lot more sense. (For instance, it shows you what is wrong with reasoning that at some point, one species would have had to give birth to a different species)
Yes indeed I do. But it isn’t because of our evolved cognative abilities. With our tools of science and technology, we could easily feed the world. “Science may have found a cure for most evils; but it has found no remedy for the worst of them all – the apathy of human beings.” — Helen Keller
A bat may be a “special” creature, but humans are required to define the term, make it into an assertion, comprehend what it means, and argue about it.
I rather liked Feynman’s approach to “faith” in science. He described his attitude as doubt. A low level of doubt about whether the sun would appear the next day but a high level of doubt in the validity of spoon bending. I suppose a lack of doubt could look like faith to the casual observer but the difference is that doubt is provisional whereas it’s considered (apparently) a sign of superior character for faith to persist in the face of opposing evidence.
On a separate note, I find it interesting that a lot of seminal moments in the development of our understanding of the universe have resulting in the gradual removal of Man as the paragon of creation. We are no longer the center of the universe thanks to Copernicus, the same laws apply to heaven and earth alike thanks to Newton, we are not special animals thanks to Darwin. I wouldn’t be suprised if some more of our treasured uniqueness (e.g. being the only “truly” intelligent animal) doesn’t also dissapear as more research is done. But I would predict that the degree of aggressive witnessing will increase as our status as “god’s special children” is eroded.
It’s not apathy; it’s shortsighted self-interest. We’re poor stewards of the earth because we’re like a person who gets a paycheck and spends every penny of it, in fact incurring debts along the way above and beyond what the salary can cover. Eventually, to pay those debts we kill and steal. Now, that’s not entirely unique to human beings - elephants can ravage a forest while feeding - but our evolved congnitive abilities allow us to do it better than most animals. Yay for us! The kicker is that we’re sufficiently aware of the probable negative consequences of this way of life that it bothers and alarms some of us, but not enough to overcome that shortsighted self-interest. This has been going on for quite some time and despite conservation efforts, humans are still sucking the planet dry of resources. Sooner or later, it’s going to catch up to us. Are we supposed to hope that somehow things are going to change this year, that humans are suddenly going to become the noble good stewards of the earth and make a concerted effort at preserving “God’s good creation?” Forgive me if I’m skeptical.
Are you implying that if no humans were around to discuss them that bats wouldn’t be special? Sure, the word itself would have no meaning if humans weren’t around to invent the word. But were bats less special before humans started to examine their echolocation system? If a bat flies in the forest and no human is around to examine it, is the bat special? I’d say it is.
I don’t know that you are. I’m skeptical. There is a difference between skeptical and cynical. Your prognistications about what will happen “sooner or later” are pointless. Keller was right. The earth is not destroyed because of evil men, but because of good men who do nothing.
I was addressing the narrow question of whether mutations can create genetic diversity. I still maintain that the answer is as plain as the flowers in your garden, the fruit on your table, and the dog by your door. Already there?? A wolf pack with an occasional chihuahua? A natural population of American Beauty roses?
If you need a natural evolutionary example (aside form the microbes already discussed here at length), I’m sure our friend Darwin’s Finch could offer at leasty one example of specition creating divestity in an isoalted popution.
It was because if evolution was a truth of history, and fish and reptiles and mammals and all the rest evolved over the vast eons of time, then the inescapable conclusion one must reach is that humans also evolved, including their brains, their bodies, their behaviors, etc., and we’re “just another brick in the wall.” Not only that, but it also means that, contrary to Genesis, humans are not the “goal” of creation or evolution or the “culmination” of anything. In other words, acceptance of evolution means acknowledging that the world wasn’t made just for man, and man wasn’t created to rule over it and subdue it. — Cuckoorex
I can’t be skeptical about something specific and be a cynic? Personally, I do not think that it’s evil to be motivated by self-interest; every animal is, to varying degrees. The problem is that it’s shortsighted self-interest. I don’t feel guilty about drinking from my canteen when I’m in the desert, but if I drink it all at once early on in the journey I’m setting myself up for trouble.
It’s pointless to talk about the probable consequences of human behaviors on the environment? Or do you mean that it’s akin to someone saying, “the boat is sinking” but not offering a way to fix the problem? If you offer a lifeboat but no one realizes the boat is sinking, will anyone want to get on?
Sorry, this is turning into too much of a hijack, I realize. I’ve already said what I wanted to say about Creationism; that it has little to do with scientific truth at all, and no amount of scientific evidence is going to be enough because that’s usually not the issue at hand anyway.
Finch, one question, please: Darwin said in his Introduction that he suspected other mechanisms besides natural selection might also be at work in evolution. Can you share briefly, and in layman’s language, which of those, if any, we’ve since discovered?
I assume you refer to the following statement from Darwin:
Sexual selection - selection driven by preferences in choosing mates - was one alternative mechanism advocated by Darwin. Darwin also believed that inheritance of acquired characters played a role in evolution, though not to the extent that Lamarck did.
The former is readily accepted as a secondary mechanism. The latter exists today more as an acknowledgment of epigenetic (i.e., non-genetic) inheritance, rather than strict inheritance of acquired traits.
There is also the idea that some traits may be selectively neutral at a given point in time and given current environmental conditions, and are therefore free to vary more or less randomly. This can occur until one of three things happens: the trait is fixed within the population (the frequency of its alleles = 100%), the trait is removed from the population (f = 0%), or conditions change such the trait becomes subject to selective pressures (be they natural, sexual, or artificial). The random flow of such alleles within a population is known as genetic drift.
Some authors (Jeffrey Schwartz, for example) also advocate the notion that, contrary to the old saying “natura non facit saltum”, nature does, indeed, proceed in leaps at times. Schwartz, for example, argues that alterations within Hox genes can result in dramatic shifts of body plan, and thus variation itself can represent a true creative force within evolution (rather than merely providing for the “stuff” which is subsequently run through a selective filter). This view is not widely accepted, however, as far as I know.
Hah! You losers can’t even agree with each other! That PROVES that evolution is bogus!
And, not to be a killjoy, but looking at the sprawling posture of that dino-eatin’ mammal, where do they get off calling it a mammal? Losing the sprawl was one of the things that separated us from the therapsids and that lack of a parasagittal stance, especially in the forelegs, is a tip that it’s a cynodont.
After looking around a bit, it seems that there is some disagreement (heh) as to where the dino-eater belongs. The critter in question, Repenomamus (R. robustus, to be precise), is variously classified as a mammaliaform, a gobiconodontidholotherian, or as a triconodont mammal. In any case, dino-diners or not, they never really made much of themselves, evolutionarily speaking.
One reason creationists can say, to their satisfaction, that “there are no transitional species” is that they don’t investigate deeply enough to find that evolutionary biologists spend a good portion of their time arguing over where a critter should be placed. That is, the ones who study creatures other people are interested in. Darwin and Gould had time enough to write because, face it, NOBODY cares about finches or snails.
One afternoon at the pet store, looking in the fish tanks…
Me: Is that some kind of a perch?
Wife: No.
Me: Looks like a perch. How do you tell the difference?
Wife: It’s skull bones are different.
Me: Very different?
Wife: No.
