The Merits of Evoltion: A Scientific Debate

Great Debates
21

Podkayne, that is only an example of what Parsimony is. As I originally wrote it, I used the theory that ‘The moon is made of green cheese’. I decided to use an already written example to display it, because the theory may be better recognized and understood.

As for the cite, the only one I can remember is a Discovery Channel TV show that was saying the impact was just a small contribution to the extinction. (sorry) As Im sure you all know, Disc channel is very inaccurate sometimes. But, then again, what do you expect from a channel with shows with topics such as UFOs, Bigfoot, lochness, etc.

MEBuckner:
Correct on all points.

As for the age of the universe, just remember that all dating methods are based on theories, which are further based on other assumptions and theories which are further based on assumptions, etc. Im not saying that scientific dating is wrong, just that it adds even more assumptions to the macroevolution theory. Therefore this adds more (possible and probable) error, as well as a lower Parsimony ‘rating’.

For example uranium dating (according to my understanding of it) is that we know the half life of uranium, we know it turns into lead therefore we can estimate how old the sample is based on the uranium/lead ratio. This is only accurate with the following assumptions. 1) The sample had no lead to begin with 2) The sample was not contanimated by lead, uranium or any other substance that would change the accuracy 3) The half life has remained constant (doesnt matter how; cosmic rays, changing speed of light, marvin’s blaster ray gun) Im sure the heory requires many other assumptions as well.

(I know those are anti-evolvo arguments but from a scientific how-good-is-the-theory standpoint, valid.) Im not trying to disprove any theory, just show that with each level there is a higher probability for error/incorrectness.

Let me restate something again. Modern theories are usually based both on assumptions and other theories preceding it. Those theories are usually based on at least a couple assumptions and possibly more theories. etc, etc, ad naseum. This can be visualised as a ‘leaning tower’ with the theory in question at the very top. For example years ago many theories were based on the assumption: There are no organisms so small they cannot be seen. This of course has been proven false any many theories had to be discarded or extreemly revised. (ie rotten meet spontaneously creates maggots given enough time)

Ill check into those links you supplied.

As for your last point, Ive always thought (and still do) that Macroevolution is very flawed and will eventually be replaced or at least very, very modified. Right now, however, it is the best ‘natural’ theory.

-Fox

P.S. MEBuckner, can you please tell me how you format the quote like that? I know HTML but somewhere on the message board it said HTML is turned off. Thanx
“Minds are like parachutes: They only function when open.”
(But shouldnt be so open your brain falls out!) -thanks jshore

“I can’t explain myself,” said Alice, “because I’m not myself, you see.” -Alice’s Adventure Under Ground

22

Isn’t macroevolution just another name for the result of lots of microevolutionary steps? Speciation is not 100% black-and-white and how we classify different species can sometimes be a bit subjective.

As MEBuckner indicated, the evidence for the old age of the Earth/universe comes from many different, and independent, lines of evidence. Taken as a whole, it presents a powerful weight-of-evidence. I’ll just reiterate-the-obvious that 100% proof for a theory is not really possible (which is why it’s called a theory).

Perhaps this debate could focus on what you think are the specific flaws of macroevolution (speciation). Is it mainly that you see a weak foundation with theories based on other theories/assumptions & interpretations of bits of evidence rather than having direct observational evidence? Without direct observation, a weight-of-evidence approach may be the next best thing.

Click the quote button at the bottom of the post you’re responding to. Or type {QUOTE} before the cite and {/QUOTE} after it…but use brackets.

23

to quote, simple type {quote} before the quote, and {/quote} after. Except that you don’t use the shift key, you use this character “[” instead. If I actually typed what you use, then I’d be quoting and you wouldn’t be able to see it.

Or you could click the “quote” button instead of “reply”, that will autoformat the post you want to quote from. You’ll still have to insert “begin quote” and “end quote” notation if you want to break it up into parts.

Now, some substance! I understand and appreciate that you are trying to lay some groundwork first. But I’m very interested to hear why you think “macroevolution” is a flawed theory.

24

I read those links, MEBuckner. Very interesting.

Wow. Im kinda glad im not a scientists. There was a sentance that said something like ‘100 house flies of each sex were collected from a local dump’. Sounds like fun to me…

Anyway, the article has some very compelling evidence although it seems to me that the majority of the cases were either varients or new sub-species, not a new species. Alot of them could not produce fertile offspring among them selves or the parent species. Furthermore there wasnt one new species from genetic mutation listed (although I dont really know why this is relavant…) Also it seems like the definition of ‘species’ is inaccurate if not downright wrong. One of the definitions is based on evolution.

Part of the definition of Macroevolution is that it creates new species. Looks like circular logic to me. Or at least a case of truth by definition.

as phobos said,

True, but dont forget the leaning tower idea. How many of those were truly independent? How many of those were based or calibrated by the other forms of measurement? How many of those had subjective errors introduced? Ie They were tweaked to fit with accepted views of the universe. You cant really claim that never happens anymore, even Einstein tweaked and tweaked his formuli to make it fit with the currently accepted view that the speed of light was not a constant. Finally, though, he relized that the speed of light had to be a constant.

All that is moot, however, I am not claiming any of the dating is wrong, just that the more levels you have, the more chance of inaccuracies there is. The proof from multiple ‘indepentdant’ sources does limit the likelihood of this, however it does introduce circular assumptions, which is very unscientific, and ‘bad’. (This part of my ‘argument’ is more based on epistemology than science) If you dont know what I mean, here is a highly simplified example.

Schoolar A says the moon is made of Green Cheese because Schoolar B does. Schoolar B says the moon is made of Green Cheese because Schoolar A does.

Thanks phobos for the formatting help. (But I dont see a ‘quote’ button anywhere!?!)

-Fox
“Minds are like parachutes: They only function when open.”
(But shouldnt be so open your brain falls out!) -thanks jshore

“I can’t explain myself,” said Alice, “because I’m not myself, you see.” -Alice’s Adventure Under Ground

25

Cool!!! I found the quote button!!! (I was looking for the button after I pressed the ‘post reply’ link.) Does anyone have a link to a list of the ‘commands’ you can use for this message board? I looked but couldnt find it.

Anyway, I think the macroevolution theory is flawed based on what I was taught back in HS by the public school system. I am currently studying it so I can revise my opinion. Ill get back to you when I can.

-Fox
“Minds are like parachutes: They only function when open.”
(But shouldnt be so open your brain falls out!) -thanks jshore

“I can’t explain myself,” said Alice, “because I’m not myself, you see.” -Alice’s Adventure Under Ground

26

:o

I just found the link to the vB code for the messageboard. When I saw the link I though it meant Visual Basic Code for some reason…

-Fox

27

But the multiple dating schemes for the age of the earth are independent. Read the FAQ on radiometric dating at http://www.talkorigins.org for a start. Your argument sounds like “If everyone agrees, they must be all using the same data” which is not the case.

You’ll have to tell us what you were taught in HS if you want to join the discussion. It’s probably better to ignore that and start anew with some of the recommended sources.

28

Foxfyre, I’ve followed this dicussion in the background with interest. It seems to me that if you’re relying on what you were taught in high school, you are relying what is (a) possibly wrong (not all textbooks or teachers are accurate), (b) probably overly simplistic (has to sum up a lot quickly, and present it for teenage minds), © through the hazy gauze of your memories of high school.

On the other side you have arrayed some of the finer scientific minds throughout history, and some pretty dang samrt people on this message board.

I appreciate that you are trying not to make this into a pro/anti evolution discussion, but it’s hard to see how to avoid that… you can’t talk about scientific reasoning in a vacuum, and yet have it relate to evolution, without considering the evolutionary data/evidence.

I mean this in the nicest way – I think you would be better off reading some current books on evolution meant for adults, and only then continuing this dicussion. IMHO, get a copy of any book by Richard Dawkins – try Climbing Mount Improbable. It has quite a bit to say about some of the aspects of evolution that strike many as non- or counter-intuitive. What I see on this thread is that you don’t yet know enough about current evolutionary theory to have a real discussion on it’s merits as a scientific theory.

BTW, thanks for asking about the quotes. I’ve also wondered about that, and also thought that vb stood for Visual Basic.

29

Now that I know how to quote…

In other words, if there is a discrepancy between your HS knowledge and modern macroevolution theory, I would hazard that your HS knowledge is wrong before macroevolution. :slight_smile:

30

Well, all that definition is really saying is that species are reproductively isolated from one another, which is about as standard and non-controversial a definition of species as you are likely to find. Naturally, the author of the definition defined it in terms of evolution; evolutionary biologists define everything in terms of evolution. That a biologist would use evolution in a definition like this is no more suprising than that a chemist would “assume” the existence of atoms in giving the definition of a chemical compound. This isn’t because they are using circular logic; it’s because evolution is now completely accepted as the foundation of all biology. Whatever you may have been taught in high school, professional biologists basically had this debate beginning about 140 years ago; it did take them a while, but they raised all the intelligent objections, and eventually answered them to their satisfaction.

Also, it’s mostly not so much like the “Leaning Tower of Pisa” as it is like a truss. Different lines of inquiry wind up reinforcing findings from unrelated fields. Thus, different sciences from geology to astrophysics to radiochemistry agree on an old Earth in an old Universe. And for that matter, evolutionary biology itself is a separate line of evidence for an old Earth.

31

I realize you were only offering an example, but your example contained misinformation, and I felt an obligation to correct it. Just because this isn’t a thread about dinosaur extinction doesn’t mean people will not read your post and take you at your word. Perhaps for your purposes the green cheese example would have been better–it may have been simpler, and you wouldn’t have been opening a whole new can of worms. If you want the thread to stay focused on the OP, you have a little responsibility not to cloud it up with side issues, too. :slight_smile:

It would have been nice if you’d mentioned your uncertainty about the accuracy of the information from the start, rather than presenting it all as fact. Again, I realize it was just an example, but a poorly-chosen example can be harmful to your argument. If you can’t back your facts up, but you think they’ll add to the discussion, it’s okay to state them tentatively, adding “IIRC” (If I Recall Correctly) or some other cautionary note. I think readers will appreciate the spirit in which they are offered.

Just some friendly advice.

32

muttrox, you are right, I need to learn much more about this topic.

Thank you, everyone, for you time and effort helping me. Im sorry this thread turned out a total disaster, but it was my first OP. I will (eventually, maybe) start another thread about the nature of reality after ive had time to investigate that further.

I am bowing out for now, if the thread continues and I think I can actually contribute meaningfully, I will.

“Until the next dimension”

-Fox

FoxFyre commits HariKari in a blaze of thermonuclear glory

33

Huh! Who’d a thunk it?

A guy comes in with a suspicion of evolution. The regs calmly point him to resources on evolution. The OP investigates the resources…and finds that perhaps there’s more to it than he thought.

Congratulations, Foxfyre. You’ve just made the record books as the first person in the history of the internet to change their minds when presented with new evidence.

Kudos to you, sir.

34

I have to second Lemur866. For truly disastrous evolution threads, check out some of the drive-by fundie postings on the topic.

As a fellow newbie to SDMB and evolutionary studies, allow me to recommend the wonderful book The Beak Of The Finch by Jonathan Weiner. It’s about a 20 year long evolutionary study of the finches of the Galapagos Islands (Darwin’s Finches). It’s given me a much better understanding and insight into the processes of natural & sexual selection, variation, competetive divergance, etc. It contains examples of a number of scientific experiments testing the processes of evolution (even one where computer modelled predictions verified observed data). It’s written for the layperson and illustrates complex concepts clearly and succinctly. Highly recommended. Others here have mentioned this book before but since I can remember neither the threads nor the individuals, let me just extend a big general thank you to whoever (you know who you are).

Also, since TBotF only touches on genetics in it’s final few chapters, can anyone recommend a good book that delves slightly deeper into the subject. I see Dawkins mentioned fairly often, is there any particular title I should start with? Keep in mind I’m a non-scientist whose last exposure to the subject was Mr. McKenzie’s high school biology class (the man reeked of beer and formaldehyde).

Cheers,
Hodge

35

Wow. I agree. Foxfyre, you’ve made a name for yourself here, as a reasonable person. Tough to do. Congrats! Hope to see you again on some other thread.

Hodge, Richard Dawkin’s book are intended for the reasonably bright layman. I think Climbing Mount Improbable is a good place to start for arguments about what modern evolutionary theory is, and why we’re so dang sure it’s right, and why the competing theories have big problems, and why some of the stuff that seems the most counter-intuitive about evolution isn’t so at all once you really understand it. He’s a very good writer, and on the rare occasions you don’t agree with him, he’s still a great read.