What do Jews think of evolution?

[pldennison]

. So supposing a creature had to evolve an eye, for example. Out of the billions of mutations that could have created some appendage, only one will create a functioning eye. Evolution requires that this one be the one that actually happened. And this must be duplicated for many other evolutionary developments as well.

This is absolutely incorrect.

First of all, why are you so certain that there is only one type of functioning eye? There are several different types of eyes present in several different kinds of creatures. Some merely inform the brain of the creature whether light is present. Some add information on direction and intensity. Still others add color information, and other still carry the kind of complex information available from the human eye. It’s all a function of the kinds of cells used, how much curvature is present on the surface where those cells reside, etc.

Second of all, if life is good at anything, it’s good at adaptation. In an environment where your food sources are likely to be coincident with light sources, the ability to detect the presence or absence of light at all is an enormous advantage. A creature with a mutation conferring such an advantage is likely to reproduce more often, opening the door for further mutations and more and more refined eyes.

Similarly, a piece of anatomy which begins as a means of temperature regulation can become a piece of anatomy which functions as a wing, as some entomologists are led to believe happened with many insect species.

Richard Dawkins covers this topic at length in his book, Climbing Mt. Improbable. The whole book is devoted to the problem you mention: getting from no eyes to fully functioning eyes in a single step. The solution is that you don’t have to do it in a single step. It’s a good read, if you’re interested. Dawkins tends not to take on the pandering tone that Stephen Jay Gould often does.

[IzzyR]

pldennison:

I am not trying to disprove the theory of evolution. To do so would require a lot more expertise than I have, and a lot more research than I have done or intend to do, in the relevent fields. My point was not that evolution is impossible, but merely that the scientific underpinnings of the theory are not on “extremely solid ground” or “as thoroughly corroborated as any biological concept”, as was suggested by Hardcore. Instead it is filled with unexplained gaps which are plugged with unknowable speculation.

As such, I don’t think your response is relevent.

Evolution as a theory may be the best science can do, given the inherent limitations of the subject matter. But all this means is that sometimes science alone may not have all the answers.

[pldennison]

Can you be more specific about these unexplained gaps and unknowable speculations?

You posited a problem with the science behind evolution, and I provided a response to that problem, a response which has a factual, observable scientific basis. (Hell, my own eyes work very differently from my cat’s eyes, a fact which itself renders your assertion concerning how many ways there are to evolve an eye false.) In fact, you yourself said it was a “significant difference” between evolution and the playing card analogy. How can a substantive answer addressing a “significant difference” be irrelevant? The fact that my answer made your problem much less problematic doesn’t make it “irrelevant.”

If you’re going to admit that the disciplines encompassed by evolutionary theory require more research and specialization than you’re willing to commit to, is it wise to critique the scientific underpinnings or validity?

[jakanapes]

Begin Soapbox.

IzzyR

My point was not that evolution is impossible, but merely that the scientific underpinnings of the theory are not on “extremely solid ground” or “as thoroughly corroborated as any biological concept”, as was suggested by Hardcore.

Please, visit http://www.talkorigins.org at the very least before
continuing. Such is the case that most all of modern biology is underpinned by the genetic differentiation and natural selection. Hardcore was not mistaken about the underpinnings of the theory. It will do you no service to bash current understanding of how life functions with metaphors and generalizations. If, or when, on the other hand you have a theory that interperates the data better than that of evolution (in whatever form) then by all means I will be more than interested in hearing it.

One of my MAJOR problems with the garden variety of creationist is the he/she spends huge efforts in attacking what they perceive to be “evolution” without anything but a meager attempt to show what aspect of the natural world their theory will explain. Other than, of course, “God did it”. Now before anyone starts. I am not excluding the possibility of God any more than evolution has ANYTHING to do with abiogenesis.(A point that too often gets lost in these discussions) But to sit back at every turn and say “God did it” won’t get us very far at all.

End soapbox.

[IzzyR]

pldennison,

The fact that human eyes work differently than a cat’s does not mean that there are completely different types of eyes. I don’t supposes that you believe that eyes evolved separately in humans (or their ancestor) and in cats (or their ancestor). The same mechanism is employed in both, allowing for differences in, you say, kinds of cells, degrees of curvature, and the like. Your argument would be more impressive if you could show completely different structures which might have evolved that would work in totally different ways, only one of which had to actually evolve in order for us to see.

The theories that you quoted from Richard Dawkins seem to me to be themselves speculation. For this reason I considered them to be relevent if the debate was over the possibility of evolution, but not here, where the issue is the compellingness of the theory.

To jakanapes,

I think your soapbox might be more urgently needed elsewhere. I reiterate that I am not attempting to disprove or “bash” evolution. I merely explained why I am personally skeptical of the entire field. If you are not “interested in hearing it”, it’s a free world.

No person can completely research every field in which he has an opinion. I am sure you yourself must draw this line with many topics as well. So I leave this debate to the experts, of which you may consider yourself one.

[pldennison]

Your argument would be more impressive if you could show completely different structures which might have evolved that would work in totally different ways, only one of which had to actually evolve in order for us to see.

I did. Or I referred to the ones outlined in Dawkins’ book, in any case. The structures which serve the purpose of eyes in different organisms are, indeed, completely different, and arose at completely different times and under completely different circumstances.

The theories that you quoted from Richard Dawkins seem to me to be themselves speculation. For this reason I considered them to be relevent if the debate was over the possibility of evolution, but not here, where the issue is the compellingness of the theory.

Far from being speculation, they’re well-documented both in biology and the fossil record. I’m neither a biologist nor an evolutionary theorist, so I can’t necessarily explain them as well as he can. If you don’t want to read it, that’s your prerogative, but then don’t pretend you know more about the foundation for the theory than you really do. It’s a little mendacious.

[IzzyR]

don’t pretend you know more about the foundation for the theory than you really do. It’s a little mendacious.

Oh, I see. I reiterate over and over that I am not an expert, am not trying to prove anything, and am merely explaining the rationale for my own personal views, and I am being mendacious.

Funny thing is that I checked out the talkorigins website that your buddy jakanapes recommended, and found that it was full of ad hominem attacks against various creationists, accusing them too of dishonesty. So I guess that’s the standard technique. Keep up the good work.

[pldennison]

Oh, I see. I reiterate over and over that I am not an expert, am not trying to prove anything, and am merely explaining the rationale for my own personal views, and I am being mendacious.

No, when you raise an objection to the science behind evolution which you consider “significant,” then dismiss a detailed answer addressing your objection as “irrelevant,” you are being mendacious. If it makes you feel better to have your objections unaddressed rather than addressed so you can ascribe greater significance to them, more power to you, but don’t as if nobody tried.

The thing is that I checked out the talkorigins website that your buddy jakanapes recommended,

I’ve never heard of jakanapes before this thread, so he’s hardly “my buddy.” If you have a problem with him, take it up with him, but we aren’t somehow conspiring to attack your worldview. :rolleyes:

and found that it was full of ad hominem attacks against various creationists, accusing them too of dishonesty. So I guess that’s the standard technique. Keep up the good work.

Ignoring for the moment the verifiable fact that “various creationists,” including the Institute for Creation Science, have a well-established record of committing deliberate falsehoods, at least I don’t ask questions then stick my fingers in my ears when I don’t like the answers.

[obfusciatrist]

IzzyR,

I have a couple of questions. I ask them only to scope out your feelings on these issues. I may disagree with you, but I think we can get along despite that. My questions pretty much create dichotomies, but feel free to give a third response if you wish.

1. Do you accept that there is a process which, over time, has introduced changes in form to life on this planet? Or do you think that the form of a plant or animal is immutable and prescribed by God?

2. If you accept that change occurs, then obviously you find evolution to be an insufficient explanation for that change. Do you feel that there is some “scientifically explanable” (using the scientific method) mechanism for such change or that the course of change over time is being directly controlled by God?

3. If you do not accept that forms have changed over time, do you accept the possibility of extinction? Do you accept that there is a fossil record showing life forms that no longer exist on this planet? This may sound like a silly question, but I have met people that do not believe dinosaurs existed; and acceptance of extinction was a major step towards the development of a theory of evolution.

4. If you don’t accept evolution on a geologic scale, have you reconciled this with smaller example of mutability from daily life (animal husbandry producing new breeds of livestock; horticulturalists producing a new kind of orchid; biotechnology developing an insulin-producing bacteria).

Again, IzzyR (and anyone else that wants to answer these questions) I am not looking to argue with your answers to these questions (unless you want to) but I am very interested in learning precisely what you believe/think about these issues.

Just as scientists do not all agree on the mechanisms of evolution while still universally accepting the fact of evolution, not everybody who denies evolution does so for the same reason.

[jakanapes]

I think your soapbox might be more urgently needed elsewhere. I reiterate that I am not attempting to disprove or “bash” evolution. I merely explained why I am personally skeptical of the entire field. If you are not “interested in hearing it”, it’s a free world.

First of all you misread my post I said I am interested in hearing your interpretation of the data.

For this reason I considered them to be relevent if the debate was over the possibility of evolution, but not here, where the issue is the compellingness of the theory.

What theory do you find more compelling?

Funny thing is that I checked out the talkorigins website that your buddy jakanapes recommended, and found that it was full of ad hominem attacks against various creationists, accusing them too of dishonesty. So I guess that’s the standard technique. Keep up the good work.

Well, I won’t say that all of the pro-evolutionists not subject to that kind of thing but I honestly have not found that to be the case. To tell you the truth I have not found a lot of creationist arguments on the site that are overly ad hominem (I guess the editors cut that stuff out of the archives though I am sure that it’s a big part of the NG on both sides of the issue)Yes, when a creationist such as Jeffery Cox takes quotes from evolutionary biologist out of context to seemingly bolster his argument, that is dishonesty. That’s politics, not science.
So, without ad hominem, or post hoc ergo propter hoc, or futue te ipsum et caballum tuum, or any other of those latinate fallacies what aspects of evolution do you find uncompelling?

2nd law of Thermodynamics precludes the possiblity of evolution?

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/thermo.html

No observed speciation or macro-evolution?

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html

Or the “similar design for similar use” argument

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/molgen/

I know for a fact that those have no mudslinging in there and are some of the most common attacks on evolution that I see from creationists. I am not saying that you subscribe to any of these theories, I’m just offering “propganda-free” sources of information on them. If you require others I will be happy to do what I can to help.

I am not an expert in any of the fields that constitute this branch of science. However, when I have specific difficulties with some aspects of the theory I research what I can and understand it to the best of my ability.

Same with other branches of science.

To pldennison:

Your arguments are insightful and post well put together, I can think of worse categories to be lumped in that “buddies” with you.

[manhattan]

*Originally posted by IzzyR *
merely explaining the rationale for my own personal views…

Ya know, we’ve got forums for that. This isn’t one of them. Cite or take it to Great Debates.

That said, pldennison, I’d ask you to stay away from the word “mendacious” Absent specific evidence. It’s not as far out there as any of 50 synonyms or near-synonyms you could have used, but still. Thanks.

[hardcore]

IzzyR,

In the interest of respecting the GQ forum, I will not elucidate the errors in your statements. Since it would appear you are not seeking answers to specific questions, but might enjoy an actual debate on this topic, I suggest you create a thread in GD or join one already in progress. I will be glad to expound upon these issues in that context.

[IzzyR]

obfusciatrist:

1. Do you accept that there is a process which, over time, has introduced changes in form to life on this planet?

Yes.

2. If you accept that change occurs, then obviously you find evolution to be an insufficient explanation for that change.

Not so. I think the degree of change that has occurred in within the scope of the evolutionary process. One example that is (unfortunately) common nowadays is the evolution of antibiotics-resistant strains of germs. The question is one of whether evolution can account for the world as we see it having been created out of nothing.

3. Do you accept that there is a fossil record showing life forms that no longer exist on this planet?

Yes

manhattan:

Ya know, we’ve got forums for that. This isn’t one of them. Cite or take it to Great Debates.

If you would take note of the OP, this thread was not about debates about evolution. I am not prepared to do this, not having the time to do enough research on this complex subject. The OP concerned the issue of whether there are “fundamentalist jews” who oppose evolution. My response was a relevent answer to this question. It is unfortunate that it disintergrated into this debate.

[hardcore]

Your response was a flawed answer to the question, as you postulated that fundamentalist Jews doubted evolution because the science was shaky while admitting you knew little about the topic. When I (and others) pointed out the majority of scientists agree about the validity of evolution, you simply dismiss it by claiming a grand conspiracy of bias.

Again, any further discussion would be better served in Great Debates, since we are long past answering any open questions.

[pldennison]

The question is one of whether evolution can account for the world as we see it having been created out of nothing.

No. One is a question of biology and speciation, the other is a question of cosmology. Evolution can only provide information concerning what happens to living things on this planet once they exist. It cannot comment on where the planet came from. Dismissing evolution on cosmological grounds is like disliking the Cleveland Browns because Kenny Lofton only stole 25 bases in 1999.

[JoltSucker]

This has devolved from the purpose of the OP, which is there a Jewish equivalent to a creationism-believing fundamentalist, to a Great Debate pissing match. Either get back to the OP, or take your pointless argument over to Great Debates (no doubt, it’s already going on).