Evolution

[Mzungu]

I'd be interested in the distinction btween Theory and theory, MB. Not sure I understand what you mean, yet.

Mark

Just did a quick google, and from Wikipedia:

Pedagogical definition

In pedagogical contexts or in official pronouncements by official organizations of scientists a definition such as the following may be promulgated.

According to the United States National Academy of Sciences,

Some scientific explanations are so well established that no new evidence is likely to alter them. The explanation becomes a scientific theory. In everyday language a theory means a hunch or speculation. Not so in science. In science, the word theory refers to a comprehensive explanation of an important feature of nature supported by facts gathered over time. Theories also allow scientists to make predictions about as yet unobserved phenomena, [7]

According to the American Association for the Advancement of Science,

A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment. Such fact-supported theories are not "guesses" but reliable accounts of the real world. The theory of biological evolution is more than "just a theory." It is as factual an explanation of the universe as the atomic theory of matter or the germ theory of disease. Our understanding of gravity is still a work in progress. But the phenomenon of gravity, like evolution, is an accepted fact.[8]

The primary advantage enjoyed by this definition is that it firmly marks things termed theories as being well supported by evidence. This would be a disadvantage in interpreting real discourse between scientists who often use the word theory to describe untested but intricate hypotheses in addition to repeatedly confirmed models. However, in an educational or mass media setting it is almost certain that everything of the form X theory is an extremely well supported and well tested theory. This causes the theory/non-theory distinction to much more closely follow the distinctions useful for consumers of science (e.g. should I believe something or not?)

That's really all I mean. Just that scientific "theory" is not the same as "theory" in the vernacular sense.

[wesleydnunder]

So as not to detract from other discussions, I'm starting a separate thread for discussions on evolution.

My hypothesis: if those who speak out against evolution were actually informed of what this theory is all about, I don't believe they would speak out against it any longer.

This is one of my goals in life. Literally.

Unfortunately, this is such a hugely misunderstood theory, and there are so many assumptions that lead others to believe that both evolution and religion can't exist at the same time.

I'd like to put together a post later today, but would like to include some explanations and citations that I simply can't put together with my phone.

But by all means, let's begin! This is seriously something I will talk about until someone stops me.

I'd be interested in the distinction btween Theory and theory, MB. Not sure I understand what you mean, yet.

Mark

[wesleydnunder]

I agree that the fossil record is incomplete, nacra. They're finding new ones daily, though. As to the chronology of rock strata, there are tectonic explanations why certain sedimentary rocks can pre-date those below them, as you've already found.

One of the newer fossils discovered in Montana was a type of raptor with feathers. To me, coupled with things like bone densities and skeletal structures, this suggests that birds did indeed evolve from dinosaurs; not all dinosaurs, but certain species.

I've often heard the arguement that there should be a fossil found of something that is half fish and half amphibian, or some such. That's not how the mechanism works. Changes happen slowly for the most part, encompassing millions of years for even the subtlest of modifications; bird beaks changing length as feeding strategy changes, cheetahs getting smaller and faster as gazelles got smaller and faster.

Natural selection is the mechanism of evolution; atmospheric and habitat change, the catalyst. Many act as though evolution is finished. It isn't. All life on the planet, except man, is still operating under the rule of survival of the fittest (non-domestic animals and plants, that is). We humans are devolving. Medical advances have led to our watering down our gene pool, keeping alive people with genetic disorders so they can be passed on in stead of being eliminated. Example: the only way to cure hemophilia to to stop hemophiliacs from reproducing more hemophiliacs.

Right now, in certain parts of Africa, the oxpecker has been almost wiped out by eating poisoned ticks off of cattle that have been dipped for parisite removal by the ranchers. These birds are an extremely important link in the chain for most of the large grazers and browsers in Africa. Recently other species of birds, mynahs among them, have been seen combing the coats of grazing herd animals for ticks. The diappearance of the oxpeckers left a niche open, something is moving in to fill it. This is another form of evolution. In the next few hundred thousand years, it's likely that the necessary body modifications to feet, tails and bills will take place in the niche.

Responsible scientists are not gonna rear up on their hind legs and bleat out that all life originated with "X" because "Y and Z" happened at just the right time. It's unprovable, just as Creationism is unprovable. For me the main difference is that Creationism wraps everything up in a neat little bow with a single statement...God did it, while any thing else will take probably many millenia to even approach the answer, provided there is one. As nacra pointed out, our theories and facts are constantly changing. Look how long it took Pasteur to convince the medical community that germs existed. They made him a pariah first.

Personally, I have many more questions than answers concerning evolution, origin of life on earth and many other things besides. Why DO women have to apply war paint for two hours before leaving the cave?

For some questions I don't expect to get answers.

Mark

[ImaGuyGeek]

Nacra99,

Bravo... BRAVO!!!

Very concise. Devoid of emotion and feelings as Science should be and extremely Fact based.

This gets my vote for Lounge\Sub Forum Post of the Week.

[nacra99]

I'm actually on the fence on this, but leaning away from macro-evolution. I am open to the suggestion that someone (maybe God, maybe aliens) put us here than the suggestion that everything somehow macro-evolved.

Couple of things that are bugging me about macroevolution and i hope someone can enlighten this backward, country bumkin, ignorant, uneducated, darwin doubting mind of mine.
I'm a classically trained apologist, so please don't mind that i use a lot of references.

1) There is no Scientific Proof of Macro-evolution, only extrapolations. What i mean by "Scientific Proof" is referring to the scientific method, which involves replicating observations in the lab. From what i have found so far, the closest we ever got is proving variations within a species "Microevolution" i.e breeding snakeskin guppies from wild guppies. But somehow this is extrapolated to assume that if we can get snakeskin guppies, that we can possibly turn guppies into dogs. There is NO record of anyone line breeding a species and transforming it into another species. Certainly with all the experiments that people are doing with ephemeral animals such as fruit flies, someone must have turned one into a cat by now... But no... fruit flies are still fruit flies.
IMHO, extrapolating that guppies will eventually turn into dogs from microevolution is as much FAITH as believing that maybe a god or aliens put us here. Extrapolation based on faith is not "Scientific Method".

Hence I still classify darwinistic evolution as "Theory". Even Einstein had to send his scientists to russia to stare an eclipses in order to OBSERVE the effects of his theory before the scientific community even agreed to consider to make it a "Law". IMHO we have not yet OBSERVED macroevolution.

2) Irreducibly complex systems. Darwinistic evolution is contingent on the premise that everything we see today is created by small incremental changes over a long period of time.
The fact remains that there are many organisms & systems that we observe today that cannot possibly be formed by small incremental changes. One such thing is the human eye or complex cell systems as noted by microbiologists Dr. Michael Behe & Dr. Michael Denton. ( Don't take my word for it, go read their research papers).

Even Darwin himself realized this, and was troubled by this because it pokes holes in his theory:
"I remember well the time when the thought of the eye made me cold all over, but I have got over this stage of the complaint, and now small trifling particulars of structure often make me feel uncomfortable. The sight of a feather in a peacock's tail, whenever I gaze at it, makes me sick!" - Charles Darwin, April 1860

I'll be glad to elaborate on irreducibly complex systems, but this will take a thread in itself.
My question is why don't "scientific minded" schools teach this which is after all microbiology?... oh wait... because it pokes holes in evolutionary theory...duh! In my opinion it is wrong to discount & censor valid science simply because it doesn't jive with personal bias.

3) Morality. If indeed everyone has gotten here through "survival of the fittest", then what's wrong with Hitler eradicating weak genes from the population by rounding up people with down syndrome, physical handicaps and stuff and shooting them in order to improve the human race. In fact, one can make the argument that Hitler was doing the world a favor by eradicating bad genes that could hurt the human race.
Macroevolution underminds basic ethics and intrinsic human value because bad genes are inferior and should be eradicated.

4) Incomplete fossil record. Despite what we see in textbooks nowadays, the fossil record is not as complete as most of us think and is in fact full of gaps. A casual read of many paleontology textbooks will reveal that there is a great dearth of fossil records. I.e if we view evolution as a tree, with a common ancestor at the very top and all the different species at the bottom, then all we are getting from the fossil record are the ends of each branch. The question is where are the supposed millions & perhaps billions of intermediate fossils that we would expect to find if macroevolution were true? Evolutionists try to get around this by proposing the "punctuated equilibrium" theory, but as the name suggests, its a theory.
In fact, based on macro-evolution, the cambrian explosion should have never taken place.

5) Inconsistent Rock Strata & Out of Place Fossils. Most fossils are dated by studying which layer of strata the fossils are found. Here's the problem, despite what they show us in school textbooks, the rock strata is not consistent. For example in several locations, rock samples taken at the top of the grand canyon has been found to be older than the samples extracted from the canyon walls near the bottom. On top of that, fossils have been found out of place in time. Paleontologists have found more "evolutionary advanced" fossils below ones that, by their own tests, should be its predecessor.

6) Strange Reasoning. I have a copy of my college biology book which no doubt thousands and thousands of students have used. Glenco Biology.
On page 306, it says."Often, the layers of rock can be dated by the types of fossils they contain..."
Turn the page over on 307, "Scientists have determined the relative times of appearance and disappearance of many kinds of organisms from the location of their fossils within the sedimentary rock layers"

Don't trust Glenco, How about World Book Encyclopedia Vol 15.
Page 85 "Paleontology (the study of fossils) is important in the study of geology. The age of rocks may be determined by the fossils found in them."

then page 364 "Scientists determine when fossils were formed by finding out the age of the rocks in which they lie."

What!!??? That's fuzzy reasoning.

7) Life from Non - Life. (See guygeek's post #9 above). Someone explain that to me... i just don't understand how this can happen. Perhaps is my ignorant, backward, uneducated, darwin bashing brain.

That's enough for now... i still have more questions if requested.
I don't mean to get this technical, but on the surface, evolution IMHO is a wonderful idea which honestly, i can like. But when we go below the surface and get technical, then IMHO, darwinistic evolution is just full of holes.

[Darbex]

I believe they are speaking of macro-evolution vs. micro-evolution. Macro essentially says that we all came from the same organism. Micro says that the different organisms are constantly evolving, i.e. Tropheus variants

Thanks Charles that is precisely what I mean when I say little e or big e

[ImaGuyGeek]

There is also what I believe to be "The Big Question"

If all life evolved from a single cell organism, where did the first single cell organism come from?

This is the best question of all because it will resort to the fabrication of all sorts of nonsense. I have heard and read everything from the "Lightning Strike" Theory where lightning struck the exact right patch of primordial soup and life sprung from that puddle of mud to the "Alien Theory". Yes, there are some scientists out there who actually have said it is possible that the first single cell organism came from Space Men.

At the end of the day, no scientist can tell you or prove to you that Evolution of all living things came from single cell organisms because none of them can answer the question of where that first organism came from. And don't you dare try to raise the issue of "Intellegent Design" as a possibility for the origin of the first single cell organism because that is the ONLY theory that is not an acceptable possibility. Even Space Men don't count as Intelligent Design in these zealots minds.

[Mzungu]

For the record. Most would not have the average American know this but Darwin the father of the THEORY of Evolution never claimed that "man descended from apes." It was about natural selection and that an organisim that adapts to it's enviorment will pass it's genes on.

Ah! Thanks, Charles. You bring up one of the points that I was planning to address. Many think that evolution posits that humans "evolved" from apes. That's not true. Evolution explains that apes and Homo sapiens evolved from the same common ancestor. Back when humans did not yet exist, there also were no apes.

[marauder_77868]

E-volution and e-volution?

I believe they are speaking of macro-evolution vs. micro-evolution. Macro essentially says that we all came from the same organism. Micro says that the different organisms are constantly evolving, i.e. Tropheus variants

[ImaGuyGeek]

For the record. Most would not have the average American know this but Darwin the father of the THEORY of Evolution never claimed that "man descended from apes." It was about natural selection and that an organisim that adapts to it's enviorment will pass it's genes on.

[Mzungu]

Can you explain a little more what you mean by dividing evolution into two groups - E-volution and e-volution? I'm not sure I understand - do you mean there are 2 different kinds?

[ImaGuyGeek]

This is the best documentary I have seen on the subject

http://www.google.com/products/catalog?hl=en&rlz=1G1GGLQ_ENUS253&q=expelled+no+intelligence+allowed&um=1&ie=UTF-8&cid=6882481587244691416&ei=4p7pS-K3KoLmlweYrYHxAw&sa=X&oi=product_catalog_result&ct=result&resnum=3&ved=0CDYQ8wIwAg#ps-sellers

[Darbex]

I am with you MB. I believe that evolution can religion can coexist. I have learned that evolution with a small e is possible and happens all the time. Evolution with a capital E as the end all be all of our existence to me is not. I need to see if I can find my books on this subject too there are some very good conclusions by scientists who follow creationism and evolution as a complex system that works together. This may trip people out but I also believe that there is room for the existence of alien life forms under Christianity.

[nikkijean1]

good idea, i am interested to see what you find, i will be waiting for your post!

[Mzungu]

So as not to detract from other discussions, I'm starting a separate thread for discussions on evolution.

My hypothesis: if those who speak out against evolution were actually informed of what this theory is all about, I don't believe they would speak out against it any longer.

This is one of my goals in life. Literally.

Unfortunately, this is such a hugely misunderstood theory, and there are so many assumptions that lead others to believe that both evolution and religion can't exist at the same time.

I'd like to put together a post later today, but would like to include some explanations and citations that I simply can't put together with my phone.

But by all means, let's begin! This is seriously something I will talk about until someone stops me.