I agree wholeheartedly that science, just like all other disciplines, is infested with politics. And the battle between scientists and theologians is a battle among politicians. Presently, it is more politically expedient for government politicians to partner with religion polticians. But change in that regard could be just around the corner. (You never know…)
I trust that you understand that when it does shift, that is, when government politicians have abandoned religion politicians in favor of science politicians, nothing will really have improved. Though a battle be won, the teaching of real science in schools, a war might be lost, and a new, equally oppressive bureaucracy, might arise from the heap of its ashes.
Let’s depoliticize the issue a bit, and look at these two in particular:
Nonpolitically speaking, neither of those is supportive of evolution alone, but rather might be supportive of any arbitrary theory that holds that a designer might reasonably create organisms with taxonomic similarities. There is no reason, a priori, to presume that a designer might use some arbitrarily eclectic pallet. Perhaps the designer was doing a sort of “theme album”.
First of all, I think you’re a little confused on the “genetic similarity” issue. If you want to posit that God created organisms so that their genes reflected their apparent lineage rather than their overall similarity, you might as well believe in last Thursdayism.
Secondly, I stress again that simply saying “God did it” is not an explanation- it’s just an attribution. “God did it” is no better than last Thursdayism, because basically you point at the world, you make some sounds with your mouth, and that’s it. If you want to have a real explanation, you need to delineate specific rules which seem to govern how God created.
Well, like I said before (sorry to keep repeating myself) I am pretty new to studying the debate and need to do more research on the matter before I can go on debating this. I’m almost at the point where I’ll just start repeating myself instead of offering any new information. Anyway, besides reading material from the pro-creation side, I’ll also read the pro-evolution web links sent to me by a Ben and JonF.
And if I may suggest a couple of books challenging evolution, first I’d like to suggest,
Creation: Facts of Life by Gary Parker 1994 ISBN 0-89051-200-0
Note, he does bring christianity into the debate, but even though most or all of you are athiests (I’m talking about the evolutionists of course), if you deside to read the book, don’t let that stop you. It’s filled with scientific information.
But, for those of you who don’t want a book science and religion mixed, I suggest reading…
Darwin’s Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge To Evolution by Michael J. Behe 1996 ISBN 0-684-82754-9
It’s been a while since I read it last, but from what I remember, he pretty much keeps religion out of the book.
Anyway, I’m off to do some more studying on the topic. See ya.
Thanks for the recommendation. I’m afraid the best evolution books I can offer are textbooks: Ridley’s Evolution and Lewin’s Genes VI.
**
Actually, I think we’d have to have a hand count to figure out whether there are more atheist, non-Christian theist, or Christian evolutionists on the evolutionist side of this thread.
I’m an atheist. How about the rest of you?
Thanks again, but I’ve learned to be suspicious of creationist books, because the authors are generally very dishonest. Take Darwin on Trial, for example. A lot of creationists get very excited over that book, but as a scientist I can tell you for a fact that the author frequently just makes up facts as he goes along. Darwin’s Black Box has also been criticized on grounds of shady argumentation, not to mention being totally debunked. The Krebs cycle meets Behe’s definition of an “irreducibly complex” system to a T, and we now have an explanation of how it evolved, so it appears to me that Behe’s entire argument has been unequivocally struck down.
But please, don’t take my word for it. If you read all of the FAQs (particularly the must-read FAQs) at http://www.talkorigins.org, you’ll be a lot better off in terms of creation vs. evolution.
Why do you say that? Are you assuming that only an atheist can believe in evolution? That’s definitely not so. And I believe you have no evidence of my religous beliefs (or lack thereof), and I think the same is true of most of the participants in this discussion.
I haven’t read the book, but there’s lots of evidence that he was pretty effective at keeping science out of it too.
From Review of Darwin’s Black Box by K. R. Miller (which appears to me to be a rational and logical consideration of Behe’s theories, and is well worth reading in its entirety):
“However serious its scientific flaws, this interesting and colorful book is sure to attract attention. Michael Behe would like us to believe that he has discovered a new biological principle. But the real news in Darwin’s Black Box is that a contemporary scientist has dipped back into the past and wrapped the remains of the Argument from Design in a shiny cloth of biochemistry. In this new clothing, the old idea may surprise a few unsuspecting readers who have not thought long or seriously about the mechanisms of evolution. They may be entertained by Behe’s energy, and sustained by his enthusiasm. But ultimately, the careful reader will recognize this book for what it truly is - an argument against evolution that concedes nearly all the contested ground to Darwin’s edifice, and then ends up teetering on little more than rhetoric and personal skepticism.”
Behe does a good job describing Biochemical systems and making them interesting to the reader.
He is trying to deal with a very real and important question: the origins of biochemical complexity.
He takes somewhat of an “anti-reductionist” stance. That is, you can’t fully explain EVERYTHING in terms of simpler parts.
He seems to be saying that science might not be able to explain everything.
What I DISLIKED about the book:
I’m not sure Behe is being honest when he says he believes in “Evolution by common descent” in the introduction.
There are many places where, when the arguments presented can be put to the test, they fail miserably. For example, his insistence of the absence of literature about molecular evolution. This is easy to test, and see that what he is claiming is clearly wrong. This greatly reduces his integrity
.
The feeling of some sort of “conspiracy” amongst scientists. I am convinced that what motivates many very good and talented scientists is the desire to be RIGHT and to be the first one who got there.
The appeal to ignorance of the reader. Many things are said to support his arguments which are simply not true, but the intended reader would likely have no idea of this."
You really should visit Behe’s Empty Box (even though it and some of the links are a little too strident in some places). And, mostly for fun, visit A Reducibly Complex Mousetrap and ask yourself “If someone erroneously identifies a mousetrap as irreducible, how trustworthy is his identification of other things as irreducible?”
Who said life started on Earth? Perhaps a single cell organism was transported here by somee heavenly body.
I also want to point out that evolution can already be proven.
Man’s best friend is proof enough. A chihuahua must be as different from a wolf as can be. Man did this, I think every one would agree that there were no wild packs of Chihuahua dogs which were tamed. Chihuahua’s were “created” by man through selective breading. Evolution at work.
The common creationist reaction to that is to say that you have only proved “microevolution” because chihuahuas can still mate with wolves (or at least presumably can; I don’t know of any experimental proof <grin>). Then they’ll claim that “macroevolution” is what they’re arguing against, and that has never been demonstrated. Unfortunately, the demonstrations of speciation that have been recorded (and to which I’ve posted some links) aren’t as obvious to the layperson as the morphological difference betwen a wolf and a chihuahua.
There comes a point when it seems you argue with a brick wall. Some people will not see the forest when looking at the tree. When encountering such people, I just exit.
I wondered where this very informed and entertaining group – thank you, BTW, for one of the best threads I’ve read at the forums – might stand on this notion:
The Theory of Evolution and Adam and Eve co-existing.
In short: Either from another planet or of God’s will, Adam and Eve arrived on planet earth in the shape of Homo Sapiens. They shared the world with an indigenous and similar (but still evolving) species that we have come to call Neanderthal’s – the latter species failure to evolve further perhaps being directly related to the arrival of H-S or to some other environmental or genetic disorder. And, of course, it could have been that Adam and Eve were the Neandathal’s.
I’m Darwinist through and through but this is a nagging issue. Amy resolutions at hand ?
I’ll add to the chorus pointing out that this seems to be an assumption on your part, not necessarily backed up by facts. Did you go through all the old threads around here and do a count to find out who holds what views on religion? Because if you didn’t, there’s no way you could have known from this thread alone.
That appears to me to be an unnecessary complication, unless it is proposed just to try to incorporate the Biblical account. IMHO, the Bible and scientific theories are largely independent; the Bible isn’t a scientific treatise and there appears to be no place for science in analyzing the overall message of the Bible. (There is certainly a place for scientific analysis of Biblical artifacts, archeological sites of places mentioned in the Bible, meta-analysis of the writings, …). If you feel (as I and many do) that there is no requirement to reconcile the Biblical account of Genesis with the theory of evolution, I see no reason (based on scientific evidence or lack of a plausible or “proven” scientific explanation for an observed phenomenon) to introduce that complication.
I could call this “Reverse Occam’s Razor”; there’s probably a formal Latin term for it, but I don’t know it.
Depending on the details of how the theory is formulated, it might be non-falsifiable and therefore not properly a scientific theory.
Many posters here do not wear their religious affiliations on their sleeves, and do not feel it necessary to introduce articles of their faith into scientific discussions.
Christian does not equal Creationist, despite what your preacher may have told you. Most Christians are quite capable of simultaneously revering God and loving their neighbor while appreciating just how complex this world is. Most people are able to see that a myth illustrates Truths of human nature and our relationship to the Almighty without the added burden of needing to be actual and factual.
This is ascertainment bias. They look more different, but are actually quite similar.
Interestingly, it has been estimated that a great dane and chihuahua are only different in less than 100 genes, or the genes specifically related to outward characteristics (nose length, ear shape, body size, etc). Everything from dingos to beagles are still all one species - Canis familiaris I believe. I think wolves are actually a subspecies, as dog/wolf hybrids are viable (my friend raises wolves and the big thing to do is try and breed to get the purest wolf line).
My boss (a geneticist) was once telling me of an experiment done in the Netherlands where they took a farm and put 80 dogs of all different breeds on it. They waited 10 generations or so, and what was produced was a mutt looking a lot like a wolf.
If you think about it, a person from Asia and a person from Africa are far more genetically heterogenous than a chihuahua and a great dane. We have only been selectively breeding dogs for under 10,000 years, while there has been no significant cross-breeding of humans from Asia and Africa for around 100,000. The fact that dogs look more different is no ground for proof of speciation.
It seems to me that evolution takes a lot more faith to believe in than creation. Of the six types of evolution, only one has actually been observed. I ask you that believe in evolution, when is the last time you saw something transform from one species to another. Scientifically speaking the only part of evolution that IS science by being observed is Micro-evolution. The rest is what we like to call FAITH.
Clearly creationism of any stripe requires more faith, since none of the several forms of creationism have been observed at all. When was the last time you saw God create a new species out of nothing? Plus, all forms of creationism blatantly contradict the available evidence. Not only does your post fail to show that evolution is based on faith, you don’t even seem to attempt to substantiate your claim that it requires more faith than creationism.
When was the last time you saw the curvature of the earth? Never? Then I guess you’re taking all the round earth nonsense on FAITH. The fact is that most of science is not involved in direct observation. Have you ever seen atoms? we infer the existence of atoms, we infer that gravity holds planets in their courses, and we infer that all organisms are descended from a common ancestor.
CollegeStudent, perhaps you could explain protein homology within a creationist context?
Actually, CollegeStudent, it occurs to me that it’s too bad you weren’t around during the “Evidence for Creationism” thread. Since evolution requires more fath than creationism, clearly creationism must be supported by evidence, right? So what is the evidence?
If you like, we can start a new thread on evidence for creationism.
What references do you have for your claim that speciation has not been observed?
I suspect that your claims are based on faith, and you put on a cloak of science to make them sound good. You are obviously not familiar with the scientific theory of evolution, even on a “well-educated layman” level.
Ok, this will be my last post here for a while (honestly, this time I mean it ). I have some questions, but first, I need to reply to this:
I do have a couple of replies to that, but since this thread isn’t about religion, I’ll just say that I said the words, and I quote, “since most or all of you are athiests”, to allow for those of you who are religious and evolutionists. Once again, note the words MOST OR ALL. That’s not the same as saying that all of you are athiests.
Ok, now for five questions. I problably won’t repsond to the answers you give,but I definatly will read them.
Ok, say a swimming species evolves into a walking species.
1)Say the species needs to evolve in order to survive, how would having to wait millions of years do it any good?
2)Say it(the species) doesn’t need to walk, but is evolving anyway. What causes mass evolution? Use and disuse has been discredited, mutation is highly unlikely and highly debatible, and I hope none of you belive in the “Hopefull Monster” theory.
3)Ok, so the species is evovling. As it is growing legs, it is most likely loosing things like fins and whatever else it uses to swim. After a while, wouldn’t that make it a sitting duck for preditors? After a while, it hasn’t fully evolved into a walking creature, so it can’t walk, but it’s lost most of its swimming ability. And how would it get its food? Wouldn’t natural selection weed it out?
4)Wouldn’t having 1/4, 1/3, or 1/2 legs would be useless to the species? Wouldn’t natural selection be a hinderance to partial limbs instead of a help?
5)Ok, the evolution is compleate (Ok, so evolution means an unending change, I mean compleate for the pourposes of this discussion), how does the speicies know how to use their legs? Or is it belived that knowledge of how to use new body parts evolves with the new parts themselves?
True. It’s also not the same as saying “a few of you are atheists” or “none of you are atheists” or “I have no idea how many of you are atheists” or just not bringing up the subject at all. You assumed that more than 50% and maybe even 100% of the posters supporting evolution are atheists; that’s an unwarranted and insulting assumption. Religous views should not be relevant since, as you said, this is not a thread about religion; they cannot be avoided completely, since creationism is based on religion. Note that I have made no assumptions about your religion, even though I have a few clues.
Evolution doesn’t proceed at whatever pace it does because it’s advantageous for it to proceed at that pace. It just goes at whatever pace is dictated by environmental pressures and the limitations on the speed of changes. Sometimes the environmental pressures are so severe that the species can’t evolve fast enough, and the entire species dies out. It would have been advantageous for the passenger pigeon to evolve lightweight bulletproof feathers <grin>. It would have been advantageous for many species of dinosaurs to evolve the ability to live in the post-asteroidal-impact world. It might be advantagous for your hypothetical species to evolve walking limbs instantaneously; but the world doesn’t work like that.
All species are always evolving. If there’s no advantage to your hypothetical species to develop walking, evolution will proceed in some other direction instead.
I don’t know what you mean by “mass evolution”; it’s not a standard term, and I could interpret it in several ways. If you mean development of new species, or greatly different new shapes or abilities, then there’s some disagreement still as to exactly how this happens. The best answer appears to be that it’s an accumulation of small changes.
Don’t forget that individual organisms don’t evolve. The characteristics of populations of individuals evolve.
Also remember that evolution, while not exclusively a random process, is not a directed process. Fish don’t decide that they want to walk and set out to evolve that ability.
Why shouldn’t its fins, which are already mobile, develop into walking limbs? Losing one body part and replacing it with a totally new but similar body part seems extremely unlikely. It could happen, evolution isn’t directed, but it’s unlikely.
“Few people realize that the fish-amphibian transition was not a transition from water to land. It was a transition from fins to feet that took place in the water. The very first amphibians seem to have developed legs and feet to scud around on the bottom in the water, as some modern fish do, not to walk on land (see Edwards, 1989). This aquatic-feet stage meant the fins didn’t have to change very quickly, the weight-bearing limb musculature didn’t have to be very well developed, and the axial musculature didn’t have to change at all. Recently found fragmented fossils from the middle Upper Devonian, and new discoveries of late Upper Devonian feet (see below), support this idea of an “aquatic feet” stage. Eventually, of course, amphibians did move onto the land. This involved attaching the pelvis more firmly to the spine, and separating the shoulder from the skull. Lungs were not a problem, since lungs are an ancient fish trait and were present already.”
Just about universally, things that are useless don’t evolve. 1/2 of a leg, if it serves no other function, is useless. Therefore such things don’t appear through evolution. See the response above.
How much do you know about exactly how to use your legs? What nerves/muscles should you activate, in what order, to take a step?
The ability to use a modified body part evolves along with the part. What is required to use a body part varies depending on the body part. But the ability to use it evolves along with the part itself. Note that fish already “knew” how to use their fins, and the transition from fins to legs was more of a matter of degree than a matter of kind.
So Jon, what you are saying is that obvious problems with an individual’s idea of “how evolution works” are most likely in the individual’s misconceptions? And that the reading of even a few popular books on how evolution really works (so far as we have figured it out) might clear up the more blatant errors?
). I have some questions, but first, I need to reply to this: