|
|
|
|
|
| What if evolution were not taught?
Posted: 12/7/2007 7:22:50 AM |
However, I just have never heard of a dog giving birth to a new species.
Take two litters, separate them, and keep their respective descendants isolated for 500,000 years. The odds are extremely good that the two groups will no longer be able to interbred with each other or with other dogs. It really is that simple. | |
|
| What if evolution were not taught?
Posted: 12/7/2007 7:40:06 AM | Scorpiomover, I understand where you come from on the respect between the two sides. It would be nice for the two to get along but that will never happen.
The evo side, in science I have found it is a cut throat business and everything is challenged, it isn't until most (99%) questions are answered with a satisfactory explanation on why X is thought of as fact not a theory only then will it be given any sort of respect. That is how science works, questioning anything all the time. Revisiting old facts and making them theories once again due to new information.
Within the science community alone respect is only given to that which has the best explanation. When science (Evo) side looks at the other (create) side that is where the trouble starts. Most of the answers given can not be backed up with enough information and thus tossed aside like anything else that hits the table. This is what science does, if it doesn’t answer enough of the questions to give it some sort of creditably then there is no need to waste time digging deeper.
The Creation side has a problem with the questions it is facing within it self in not wanting to be a blasphemer for questioning it's faith and trying to place its faith's questions in a way to justify its new thoughts it is facing without causing more conflict.
I look at them as a little kid that is afraid to know if Santa is myth for the fear if they don’t go along with it they will not continue to get the gifts in the end as promised.
As for the OP. We can stop teaching both in schools. I don’t see a problem with that. We are talking grade and high schools not college. College is different; they will have to learn many different fields of science for their jobs in the future. What I think would happen is that in the next 10 to 20 years we will be faced with the same argument yet again since more people will be more informed about science than they are now. This is what has happen already. More people want to know more things now. Thus why there are many different science channels and history channels on cable than ever before!
I look at Creationists with their view as a weak attempt in curbing the loss of its members as a whole that is constantly struggling to survive. I think they need to look more on why their own members are leaving vs. trying to attack something that isn’t in their way to begin with. How about looking at them selves on how their higher ups are screwing them over with their selfish actions. Their own member’s actions alone are the causing of the fleeting memberships not science.
Sorry got off the subject some.  | |
|
| What if evolution were not taught?
Posted: 12/7/2007 9:28:18 AM | Longbow, evolution asserts that everything and humans evolved from a common ancestor.
You're descended from your grandma.
Your cousin is descended from your grandma.
Doesn't mean your grandma has to be dead.
The first life form ate exactly what current life forms do-chemical compounds.
Life is defined by the cell. All life ever observed consists of a cell or collection of cells. And cells have no use for steak or borscht or turtle sundaes. All they need is the energy stored in various organic molecules. More recently, some life has figured how to exploit the energy of light, though they're still dependant on the organics for the process. Before them all, sulfur and hot water might have been the fuel but still, just chemicals. | |
|
| What if evolution were not taught?
Posted: 12/7/2007 9:31:01 AM |
Take two litters, separate them, and keep their respective descendants isolated for 500,000 years. The odds are extremely good that the two groups will no longer be able to interbred with each other or with other dogs. It really is that simple. Well, I don't expect to live for 500,000 years. Now, have I heard of such written records in existence. So, your experiment might confirm the veracity of your statement, but there is no current way to prove it. Now, if you you could accelerate such a reaction to only occur in 10 or 20 years time, I'd be willing to wait. It could be done. Put them in a space-ship that is really, really, close to the speed of light, and time slows down. Say about 99.99999998% of the speed of light. Trouble is, someone has to look after the animals, which means that 2 groups of people have to be prepared to separate from everyone else for 500,000 years, because that would be their exerience.
Anyway you can come up with an experiment that gets results in my life-time? I'd accept just one having an extra tail.
Scorpiomover, I understand where you come from on the respect between the two sides. It would be nice for the two to get along but that will never happen. I got this, from some of my friends. We did not see eye to eye at all on many issues. However, we respected each other. Not because we thought the same things, but because we acknowledged that we were both smart, in our own ways. Sort of a Mutual Admiration and Respect Society. MARS, for short.
The evo side, in science I have found it is a cut throat business and everything is challenged, it isn't until most (99%) questions are answered with a satisfactory explanation on why X is thought of as fact not a theory only then will it be given any sort of respect. That is how science works, questioning anything all the time. Revisiting old facts and making them theories once again due to new information. Look at http://www.jimloy.com/books/false.htm. This page lists over 20 falsified scientists. Also, look at http://www.chem.umn.edu/class/8066/musier05f/nat10_3.pdf, which lists the case of Jan Hendrik Schön of Bell Laboratories. Peer review is not as reliable as people think. Over 200 years of peer review, is a lot more reliable.
Within the science community alone respect is only given to that which has the best explanation. When science (Evo) side looks at the other (create) side that is where the trouble starts. Most of the answers given can not be backed up with enough information and thus tossed aside like anything else that hits the table. This is what science does, if it doesn’t answer enough of the questions to give it some sort of creditably then there is no need to waste time digging deeper.
The Creation side has a problem with the questions it is facing within it self in not wanting to be a blasphemer for questioning it's faith and trying to place its faith's questions in a way to justify its new thoughts it is facing without causing more conflict.
I look at them as a little kid that is afraid to know if Santa is myth for the fear if they don’t go along with it they will not continue to get the gifts in the end as promised. That is a myth. Some religions examine things analytically. Some religions use violent force to back up their claims. Depends on which religion you are talking about. The main problem that most people have in the West, is that the people who choose to go against religion, are mostly people who belong to religions that use force and not intellect, to back up their claims. Those people who belong to religions which believe in self-scrutiny, have no need to leave it in the first place. It's like a woman saying all men are bad, because she dated a lot of players. It's called "Confirmation Bias" in the Scientific Community. The process of refusing to accept that religions exist, that satisfy logic and reason, called "Cognitive Dissonance". The Scientific Community has restricted itself only to a small subset of things that conform to Sir Francis Bacon's methodology, which is formally known as The Scientific Method.
I've posed many issues on Science, that had nothing to do with Creationism at all, and all I got from most posters, was for the answer to be evaded. Sometimes, never even addressed at all. So, I have lost a lot of respect for Scientists since I joined this site. I didn't lose respect for Science. I have been forced to conclude that being a Scientist makes one sound so truthful, that it has become like saying one wants a Long-Term Relationship. Many people say they want this, but lie for their own ends. I truly believe that most people don't fall into the category of Scientist. Possibly, they are Technologists. But not Scientists. Scientists don't trust what they read. They do their own experiments to confirm it for themselves.
I would happily accept someone who shows me their notebooks on Evolution, and the full range of experimental results. But let's be honest. How many people do you know who do their own experiments for themselves?
I am all for Evolution. I think it would make a lot of life simpler to understand. But I think Science is about truth. Not what makes my life easier.
I look at Creationists with their view as a weak attempt in curbing the loss of its members as a whole that is constantly struggling to survive. I think they need to look more on why their own members are leaving vs. trying to attack something that isn’t in their way to begin with. How about looking at them selves on how their higher ups are screwing them over with their selfish actions. Their own member’s actions alone are the causing of the fleeting memberships not science. Strawman argument. Islam is the fastest growing religion in the World, even in the most educated of people in the West. | |
|
| |
| What if evolution were not taught?
Posted: 12/7/2007 11:35:35 AM |
Anyway you can come up with an experiment that gets results in my life-time? I'd accept just one having an extra tail.
Not with dogs, obviously. But he's a simplified model of speciation that you can program at home.
1. Generate a 100 individuals.
2. Each individual gets a 64 bit number - think of each bit as a gene.
3. Each generation, randomly pair off the population. For each pair, generate two replacements. Each replacement is built by randomly selecting, for each of the 64 bits, which of the parents bit to use.
So far, so good. We have a very simple closed system that models reproduction. We now need to throw in a twist: we say two individuals can only interbreed if the bits agree in at least 50 positions (50 being arbitrarily chosen). We modify the reproduction phase by saying that if two individuals are paired who cannot interbreed, too bad.
This means that the population may steadily decrease over time, so we modify the rules slightly: if the population at the start of phase 3 falls below 67, then 3 children are produced per pair instead of 2. This will keep the population reasonably steady over time.
You can run the simulation as is, and what you will find is that depending on the initial population mix, your population (if it doesnt collapse entirely) coalasces into a finite set of species, each defined by a string of at least 50 bits, with the remainder varying.
Now the most important part: mutations. Instead of always taking the bits from the parents, we introduce randomness. For each position, first randomly determine which parent to take the gene from. 99% of the time take it faithfully, and 1% of the time flip it.
Most of the flips will disappear within a generation or two, but a few will become majority by pure chance. If you let this experiment run, then what you will find is that the species slowly evolve over time. What this means is that the string that defines the species and ensures breeding eventually changes to a different string.
So for the dog experiment, take an initial set all having 50 bits in common and the rest random. Run it through a million generations. You are likely to have a population with a very different set of common genes. Run it another 20 million times and the odds are excellant that no member of the resulting population can breed with any member of the original population. | |
|
| What if evolution were not taught?
Posted: 12/7/2007 2:53:51 PM | The dog experiment has been done with a variety of organisms with much faster generation times, as I have pointed out before. Denying that it's evolution because the result isn't what someone wishes to call a species is first of all a "No true Scotsman" fallacy, secondly has no bearing on the validity of the theory [speciation is a result of evolution, not a requirement], and thirdly (when creationism is brought into the question) presents a "God of the gaps".
Superbugs don't just "exist". They arise as a result of selective pressures. That is, they evolve from among the pool of typical disease organisms as a result of the use of antibiotics [a selective pressure]. This is true of various disease organisms, including viruses. While viruses aren't life, they are subject to natural selection and do evolve. Influenza is subject to variation because it is reproduced in many other life forms. It is subject to selection due to immunity. Understanding how and why resistant diseases arise requires an understanding of evolution, and is vital to the practice and research of medicine.
Speaking from the perspective of a scientist and an agnostic, I can categorically state that I have no hate or resentment for religion, and I DO have respect for reasoned discussion. What I have zero respect for, is people who claim to be scientific, logical, or rational, and then promptly disprove it with their claims. How can they deserve respect when they effectively contradict themselves [creation scientist, anyone?]? Science cannot refute or support anything supernatural. Ever. They don't share the common ground to allow it. What science can do is disprove much of the support many religions. Every time a religion lays claim to "evidence", it opens itself to such refutation. When religions claim the support of science, they also undermine science, because refutation is inevitable. A religion supported by "science" will ultimately create the impression that science is just another unreliable religion. Scientists already have their hands full dealing with an already ignorant population that embraces creationism and conspiracy theories, so any scientist worthy of the title has a duty to set right such false claims. | |
|
| What if evolution were not taught?
Posted: 12/7/2007 3:00:06 PM | | Agreed with the above. Anyone who believes stuff can just magically pop into existance is ignorant, in my opinion. | |
|
| What if evolution were not taught?
Posted: 12/7/2007 3:39:30 PM | RE: msg 31
Sounds like the Game of Life programs that used to be around in the 80s. Fun, which led to Chaos Theory, which I covered. Some problems with Chaos Theory, are that:
1) It's completely unpredictable. You can easily get non-continuous changes. In other words, one genetic change can produce a vastly different animal. Not much room for transitional species.
2) The variations are just as likely to die out, if not more so.
3) Nature has been studied with regards to Chaos Theory, and it has been shown that Chaotic Structures in nature appear to have structural similarities that go far beyond what Chaotic patterns predict.
It's a subject I quite liked. However, the unpredictability is quite difficult to marry with nature.
I like computer programs. However, from becoming familiar with flight simulations in the 80s, I know that computer simulations have to be made to match the situation exactly. That would mean building an exact model of the egg, and the womb, and all of the chemical reactions, down to the sub-quantum level. If we have all that data, and a computer that can handle such processes easily, it would be really cool. But do we?
RE: msg 33
Science cannot refute or support anything supernatural. Find a natural example of the complex plane. If you cannot, try and solve any of the equations in physics or atomic chemistry, sticking only to the real plane.
Scientists already have their hands full dealing with an already ignorant population that embraces creationism and conspiracy theories, so any scientist worthy of the title has a duty to set right such false claims. You can't invent a supernatural responsibility. Doctors only have a responsibility because they are a legal definition, and in order to become a doctor, you have to accept that responsibility. The same goes for Lawyers, Judges, and Police. In order for a Scientist to even have such a responsibility, you have to first require a legal definition of a Scientist. Otherwise, you are requiring that responsibility of all people, Scientist or not.
I would have thought that a Scientist's first aim is truth, not telling other people what to think. | |
|
| What if evolution were not taught?
Posted: 12/7/2007 4:28:35 PM |
Find a natural example of the complex plane.
I don't see what equations have to due with the supernatural. Perhaps you could elaborate? Perhaps we have different concepts of supernatural? When I use the word, I refer to ghosts, goblins, fairies, and gods.
You can't invent a supernatural responsibility
Say what?
In order for a Scientist to even have such a responsibility
I disagree. A scientist is someone who practices science. Their reputation and that of all other scientists and their work suffers when it's allowed to be hijacked by those who don't understand it. It's akin to the the concept of freedom, or the right of my fist ending where the right of your nose begins. Having rights does not entail standing there and taking it when someone refuses to respect those rights. If you do, you will de facto lose them. When pseudoscientists, most especially creationists, claim the support of "science", they create a false impression of what science is in the public eye. That's the idea. It's how they get new recruits. Look at any thread involving creationism versus evolution: the same arguments are repeated over and over in favor of creationism, "science says...", "science proves...", and EVERY one of those statements has been soundly refuted long ago. However, the general public doesn't see the details, they don't look for the details, they skim the surface, get a nice [and false] impression, and come away as a new parrot with a false view of science.
I would have thought that a Scientist's first aim is truth
Which is EXACTLY my point. Pseudoscience and creationism as "science" are lies. | |
|
| What if evolution were not taught?
Posted: 12/7/2007 4:58:19 PM | When evolution is shunned at all, the stigma trickles down to all grades, including the earliest. The longer you wait to teach adherence to skepticism and appreciation for the real human capacity to trust in science, which is by definition the only way to find truth about nature, the more you risk the student adopting poor judgments in discernment.
When you get conflicting messages about how to know if someone's lying to you, you will have a harder time learning when someone is lying to you. If you're not taught to be skeptical - to not trust a darned thing, even your own eyes (double-check with independent tests), and instead are taught that sometimes you can't know how something happened, then you are taught that you can't trust your innate belief that things should make sense.
Even though there is no logical reason to suspect that the diversity of life created itself by obeying the laws of physics, in the absence of the te4aching of evolution we'd all think "I've never seen speciation, so I give up and fill in my gap of understanding with magic." IOW, we'd all be deluded.
Scorpie: whales regularly grow atavistic (vestigial) hind-limbs with pelvises that only function in terrestrial ambulation - land walking. Whales are species that came from one that walked on land. That's speciation you can see. The Theory of Evolution says that no dog, nor any other mammal, will ever give birth to a new species. That may be why evolutionists disregard your criticism of the ToE: you aren't criticising the ToE, you're criticising your own strawman version of it. That tactic only belies your agenda to discredit the study of evolution before learning it. | |
|
| What if evolution were not taught?
Posted: 12/7/2007 5:05:47 PM |
I don't see what equations have to due with the supernatural. Perhaps you could elaborate? Perhaps we have different concepts of supernatural? When I use the word, I refer to ghosts, goblins, fairies, and gods. Natural does not mean what you want it to. You cannot pick and choose its definition. Natural is the natural world, the 3 dimensions, the real plane, what you can see, hear, feel and touch. The complex plane is supernatural. But Scientists acknowledge it exists, and have done so for over 100 years. So Science supports the supernatural. It doesn't matter how it was proved.
It only matters if your definition of Science, is that it is natural if Scientists have proved it right. In that case, however, the supernatural becomes "that which Science will prove in the future". That is not how most people think of the supernatural. So it is false.
I disagree. A scientist is someone who practices science. Their reputation and that of all other scientists and their work suffers when it's allowed to be hijacked by those who don't understand it. It's akin to the the concept of freedom, or the right of my fist ending where the right of your nose begins. Having rights does not entail standing there and taking it when someone refuses to respect those rights. If you do, you will de facto lose them. When pseudoscientists, most especially creationists, claim the support of "science", they create a false impression of what science is in the public eye. That's the idea. It's how they get new recruits. Look at any thread involving creationism versus evolution: the same arguments are repeated over and over in favor of creationism, "science says...", "science proves...", and EVERY one of those statements has been soundly refuted long ago. However, the general public doesn't see the details, they don't look for the details, they skim the surface, get a nice [and false] impression, and come away as a new parrot with a false view of science. This already happened. Read up on Jan Hendrik Schön. His is not an isolated incident. There are so many of these cases that it is clear that Science is no longer the bastion of truth that it once was. You can't read a new Scientific breakthrough today, without finding confirmation bias or cognitive dissonance in 30-50% of them, and then you have to add on the falsified results. By the time you are left, the only things you can rely on, are the experiments that had 100+ years of peer review.
As a result, modern scientists have no reputation, except in the eyes of people who read the inquirer, or who blindly accept whatever scientists publish, without at least a cursory effort to confirm the truth.
Science is being hikacked. But not by Creationists. Maybe by a small number. But I've met enough evangelists. They don't rely on Science. They haven't had for decades. They rely on emotional arguments, first and foremost, because if you can win someone over on emotions, you have them, hook, line and sinker. Players know this. It's why they are so successful, even though you can their lies. Cults know this. It's why they are so successful, even though you can their lies.
However, what I am amazed by, is your need to "protect" your truths. Truth has always been self-evident. As I explained above, when truth has been ignored, it was emotions, or violence, that was appealed to. When that didn't work, the truth stood out a mile. I've had enough arguments with family members to know this.
Pseudo-scientists, and Creationists, don't give the public a false impression. The only reason that people have been turning to Homeopathy, is because Internal Medicine and Pain Management have been failing patients in droves. They openly admit in so many cases, that they just don't know what is going on in a patient, and really have no clue, that patients in constant agony, have turned to Acupuncture and the like, just to see if it might help. Because anything was better than being on 10 pills a day with massive side effects, that only lessened the pain, but still left it substantially there. Such attempts were long shots when Science had told them it had failed. What surprised these people, was that such medicine worked where Science failed, and had not a shred of hope. It worked again and again and again. Such events have occurred so frequently in the UK that people no longer trust doctors. They will go to doctors first, because they have already paid for them in National Insurance Contributions. But they no longer hold out hope for effective treatment, beyond stitch jobs, broken bones, and the like.
This is all because Western Medicine has failed the British public. No other reason.
British Philosophers have equally failed those who seek enlightenment in the UK. We Brits learn stuff on our own. We don't tell you what we've read. We just go and read it. We still have people who know what they are talking about in our country. Just they are no longer the establishment.
What you fail to realise is that the general public believes in Evolution already. Those of the general public in the US and Canada who do not, belong to groups who will never be convinced of "your truth", no matter what you say. Making them believe it, will only be done by violence, force and indoctrination. The very things that Scientists who are anti-Creationism are complaining about Creationists.
However, these is a small group, who sit on the fence, and wish to learn more. All we get is this vitriol. Can you blame us for not trusting people who just say "We know it's true. Get over it."?
That is your problem. There are only 3 groups:
1) The people who agree with you.
2) The people who will never agree with you.
3) The people who might agree with you, if you presented a logical, unemotional point of view, in a calm, and positive manner.
#1 are yes men.
#2 are just not listening.
#3 are the people you want to talk to, and you're putting them off. | |
|
| What if evolution were not taught?
Posted: 12/7/2007 5:06:37 PM |
Respect means that someone is worth the effort, not something. To respect someone's ideas, doesn't mean you have to agree with even one idea that person has. It means that you believe that the person thought about their ideas, and wasn't just repeating something parrot-fashion that they were taught in school. It means that you consider their train of thought to be just as valuable as the end result, maybe even more so.
Herein lies the problem with Creationism. Whenever you hear their arguments for Creation or against Evolution you start to notice patterns. They all say the same things that were debunked 30 years ago. I still see a steady stream of Creationists parroting the Moon Dust argument, the No Transitional Fossils argument, the Carbon Dating Showed a Living Clam to be 1 Billion Years Old argument, etc. You know they are parroting something their preacher told them because these are not arguments you would come up with from an investigation of facts.
What if evolution is false and creationism is true? Would evolution deserve respect then? Does an idea deserve respect simply because it's an idea?
If evolution was proved false then no, I would not respect it. If evolution were proved false and fanatics demanded that it be taught in school anyway, then I would not respect them.
More to the point, respecting someone else's ideas that you disagree with, means that you have the humility that you could be wrong. If before you debate an issue, you must assume that you are right, then you never confirm you are right. You will stick to what you believe in, regardless of the truth. So, the only way that you even come to the truth, is to accept that you could be wrong.
At this point it's important that we distinguish between the fact of evolution and the theory of evolution. I think a lot of confusion arises because they're both called evolution. The theory of evolution is an attempt to explain the fact of evolution, much like Einstein's Theory of General Relativity attempts to explain the fact of gravity. The theory of evolution could be entirely wrong. Creationists don't argue against the theory of evolution, they argue against the fact of evolution. It's akin to saying there is no gravity, just intelligent falling.
However, On Topic here, my point is simple. It is my opinion that if Evolution was not universally taught, the anti-religious people would scream blue murder that kids would be indoctrinated into believing in Creationism, simply because they are not taught that "Evolution is right, and Creationism is wrong".
If I'm not mistaken, the point of school is to educate people. If people aren't taught evolution then they are that much more ignorant for it. Should we really let religion dictate what we teach our children? | |
|
| What if evolution were not taught?
Posted: 12/7/2007 5:08:16 PM |
I like computer programs. However, from becoming familiar with flight simulations in the 80s, I know that computer simulations have to be made to match the situation exactly. That would mean building an exact model of the egg, and the womb, and all of the chemical reactions, down to the sub-quantum level. If we have all that data, and a computer that can handle such processes easily, it would be really cool. But do we?
Correct - it's only a model of what it models, and it's important to understand that. This touches on your post in the other thread on 'self-taught evolution.' I consider myself self-taught because of tinkering with dynamic examples like that helped me understand how things like speciation can occur; do-it-yourself models can illustrate that the mechanics of evolution can work as advertised.
1) It's completely unpredictable. You can easily get non-continuous changes. In other words, one genetic change can produce a vastly different animal. Not much room for transitional species.
That's worth commenting on - the quirk is actually desirable from an evolutionists point of view. I had heard of the problems of transitional species and non-functional intermediate forms (ie having half an eye). There are explanations out there, but it seemed to me that it shouldn't even be an issue because of the way the mathematics plays out. By devising such a simulation, I was able to convince myself that my intuition was correct - you can have new species pop up in the fossil record without intermediate forms. It's not proof, mind you, but the existence of a reasonable model is good enough for my own purposes. | |
|
| What if evolution were not taught?
Posted: 12/7/2007 5:16:02 PM |
Correct - it's only a model of what it models, and it's important to understand that. This touches on your post in the other thread on 'self-taught evolution.' I consider myself self-taught because of tinkering with dynamic examples like that helped me understand how things like speciation can occur; do-it-yourself models can illustrate that the mechanics of evolution can work as advertised. Good point. I can now see what you mean. I think that this would be a good way to demonstrate Evolution as a concept.
That's worth commenting on - the quirk is actually desirable from an evolutionists point of view. I had heard of the problems of transitional species and non-functional intermediate forms (ie having half an eye).There are explanations out there, but it seemed to me that it shouldn't even be an issue because of the way the mathematics plays out. See, now that example of a fossil having half-an-eye, and a non-functional one at that, would make more sense to me. I can see how Evolution might take a bad step just as much as a good one. If more bad steps were shown, it would make more sense.
By devising such a simulation, I was able to convince myself that my intuition was correct - you can have new species pop up in the fossil record without intermediate forms. It's not proof, mind you, but the existence of a reasonable model is good enough for my own purposes. This also is significant. If 2 species could be shown to occur in fossil form, with all but 3-10 genes the same, this could make a lot of sense.
I find your proposals enlightening, thought-provoking and credible.  | |
|
| What if evolution were not taught?
Posted: 12/7/2007 5:26:39 PM |
I can let go of an apple any time I like and it always falls to the ground, provided there is nothing between it and the ground except for air. However, I just have never heard of a dog giving birth to a new species.
Do you consider dogs and wolves to be the same species?
Actually, waiting for a dog to give birth to a new species might be unreasonable, given the time frames. However, we can breed thousands of generations of plants and flies in less than a human lifespan. As it happens scientists have done just that. You know what they've found in all these breeding experiments? That speciation does in fact occur. In plants it's actually been observed in a single generation.
You can do your own little experiment in evolution too (like your apple experiment). It won't even require you to breed flies. I want you to look at your mother. Then look at yourself. You'll probably notice something astounding. You are not a twin of your mother. Somehow you managed not to be a replica of her. I don't know the Creationist explanation for this, which denies evolution and proclaims that kinds will give birth to the same kind. Evolution explains this as you getting some genes from your mother, some from your father, and possibly some mutations to boot. When you were born those genes passed on to you became ever so slightly more common in the gene pool. Evolution is the change in gene (or more specifically allele) frequencies in a given population over time. Every time a person is born that is not the twin of his/her mother there is another data point in favor of evolution. | |
|
| What if evolution were not taught?
Posted: 12/7/2007 5:30:22 PM |
See, now that example of a fossil having half-an-eye, and a non-functional one at that, would make more sense to me. I can see how Evolution might take a bad step just as much as a good one. If more bad steps were shown, it would make more sense.
Here's a neat simulation that spoof's Paley's Watch argument.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mcAq9bmCeR0 | |
|
| What if evolution were not taught?
Posted: 12/7/2007 6:04:28 PM | Great video! And links to further videos!
It's a lot to digest, tho, and the initial explanation went by fairly quickly - I'm inclined to believe it, but I have to think through the selection mechanism. | |
|
| What if evolution were not taught?
Posted: 12/7/2007 8:29:31 PM | This also is significant. If 2 species could be shown to occur in fossil form, with all but 3-10 genes the same, this could make a lot of sense.
You know what? I already illustrated this, though I don't recall which thread now. This situation is NO different from living cryptic species. They may or may not be differentiated morphologically, but they do differ genetically. Richard Highton is particularly well-known for his recognition of salamander species based largely upon their genetic differences. A great example is Plethodon electromorphus. Note the species name. Of course, creationists would introduce a "no true Scotsman" fallacy here.
For specific examples, examine speciation in Rhyacotriton. Not so long ago, this was considered a single widespread species. Four species are now recognized, with slight differences in appearance, and mainly isolated to different mountain ranges by warm river valleys. Fossils, if they existed, would be difficult, if not impossible to tell apart, and would be considered a single species. Their restriction to cold mountain streams probably precludes fossils ever being created, much less found. Even among the now recognized forms, two are highly variable in appearance and genes. I am inclined to agree with Highton that these actually represent two and four (or five) species each. Again, you'd never know by examining the skeletons.
Similarly, Dicamptodon was split along the Pacific coast. The southern population differs genetically and in appearance from northern populations, and the same geographical split occurs in many other species pairs. In the Pacific giant salamanders, living populations interbreed in a narrow strip along the coast. In the space of a few kilometers, they go from pure morphological and genetic D.ensatus to pure D.tenebrosus. This is parapatric speciation at work - there is measurable selection. To the north, pure northern giants. To the south, pure California giants. The hybrids are not back-crossing their genes into either population outside the contact zone. Natural selection, between distinct species, which are geographically and morphologically identifiable...but not in the fossil record. Similar examples are numerous. Rhyacotriton variegatus [northern] contact R.kezeri along the Little Nestucca River, and are most similar in appearance here...but they don't interbreed at all. Likewise, R.variegatus [central] seems to contact R.cascadae [southern] along the upper Willamette River without interbreeding. This contact zone was only recently discovered, so further data are unavailable. Point being, the "fossil form" argument doesn't need to rely on fossils, and is easily and commonly demonstrated. I'm only picking a handful of related examples from a small geographical region. I could pull 50 more out of my ass without leaving class Amphibia. When we say evidence is "abundant", we have cause.
See, now that example of a fossil having half-an-eye, and a non-functional one at that, would make more sense to me. I can see how Evolution might take a bad step just as much as a good one. If more bad steps were shown, it would make more sense.
The more obvious problem first: a "bad step" isn't likely to last long. If fossils of common species are effectively rare, how likely are examples of "bad steps"? Success leads to numbers. Roll a die once, you haven't much chance of getting a "6". Roll it 6000 times, you will probably do better. Furthermore, how would you know if that one example was a "bad step"? It died and was fossilized just like the good ones. I would actually expect organisms at a selective disadvantage to NOT be fossilized. Fossils happen by chance of environment. Death by selective disadvantage tends to rule out environmental chance.
The other problem is the "half-eye" issue. A half-eye works. Not if you cut it in half, obviously, but organs form according to their components, not their fractions. An eye without a focusing apparatus, lens, or color sense can still detect light. Flat worms can sense light and are among the simplest of bilateral organisms. Light positive, light negative - turn away from light to stay safe under a damp rock. Arrange that light sense on a cupped surface, and the directional sense becomes more precise. If the skin above it happens to be convex, it begins to focus and provide an image. Not only does the eye offer directional sense, it now provides more information about the surroundings. With muscles [hair follicles and tiny arteries have muscles] to tense and relax the lense, the focus is adjustable. If some cells are responsive only to particular wavelengths, color vision is gained [hatchling turtles find water by following blue light reflected from the sky; bees seek certain ultraviolet patterns]; if the eyes are positioned so their fields of view overlap, stereo vision is gained. Half an eye works, you just have to recognize what the "halves" really are.
To borrow a phrase...
Natural does not mean what you want it to. You cannot pick and choose its definition.
You are using a mathematical concept, translating it back to the real world, then interpolating the reverse and re-translating. Supernatural does not mean what you want it to, and the complex plane is NOT supernatural.
So Science supports the supernatural. It doesn't matter how it was proved.
Only if you "pick and choose its definition", and freely substitute "science" for "math". The flaws of self-taught science are showing. Sorry, I DO respect your input on some things, but I see gaps in areas I am exceedingly familiar with.
*edit* note left as is, although partly redundant now.
*note* We most definitely have different concepts of supernatural. I would have to look into yours, but the concept I am familiar with is not "un-natural", but "beyond natural". Science cannot address "beyond natural" because nothing in that category has testable or observable characteristics. When something gains testable or observable characteristics, it can no longer be counted as supernatural. If it's supernatural [by this definition], it cannot be scrutinized. If it can be scrutinized, it's no longer supernatural. Science can never address the supernatural, but some concepts can change categories so that they can be evaluated. | |
|
| What if evolution were not taught?
Posted: 12/7/2007 8:58:58 PM | I am waiting for the question that addresses the issues of creation and evolution, in a way that I may instruct.
Many don't have the answers.
Many don't have the questions.
If you limit your studies to a particular field you have Limited Knowledge. | |
|
| What if evolution were not taught?
Posted: 12/7/2007 9:45:50 PM | Re msg 44:
1) Your examples look interesting. While I am sure that you could pull loads of examples out of your behind, it doesn't help me. What does is what you wrote, as I will sit down and have a look at them. I may or may not see the same as you. But I'll look.
2) I quite agree that a "bad step" is more unlikely. But out of the overwhelming evidence which you make clear that exists, I would expect one or two. That is all I need to see that such bad steps occur. Just one or two firm experimental data that could confirm that random genetic changes are random.
3) I also agree that half an eye would still be a working eye. What I meant as a bad step, are genetic defects, such as those humans who lack properly working sweat glands. Now, I accept that such genetic mutations do occur. But in humans, natural selection doesn't seem to happen the same way, because such humans do get married and have children. I'm kind of thinking that random mutations would exist, but I would expect to see quite a few, and that those mutations have mutations, till they "settle down" into a new, more formalised genetic pattern. That sort of thing. Basically a full layout that fits a model I can relate to. At the moment, it's "well, it's there". Might help you. Doesn't help me to understand it.
I would just like to see some fossil records, or maybe some animals, with similar genetic mutations, with a slow weeding out of the mutations, with some inclusion of some new ones.
I'm not being too exact here, though. It's not completely clear in my head. So please don't pick on this.
4) If we define "supernatural" to mean "beyond natural", then I am vague as to what that means. If it means something that Science cannot yet explain, that doesn't help me at all. I wasn't able to explain why arguments never seemed to end positively when I was 25, and now I can explain it. But they were that way regardless. I just lacked knowledge. Supernatural would then mean: Natural things that I cannot explain. If you asked Spock to ask the Enterprise's computer to explain a supernatural event, the answer would just be: "insufficient data". The term Supernatural implies to me that there is something about supernatural events that differs from natural events, when in fact, they are no different, and the only difference lies in my knowledge. The word would imply subjectivity. But I was taught that Science is objective. Hence, I could not with a good conscience use the terms Science and Supernatural in the same sentence, and could not in good conscience define myself as a Scientist and still use the word Supernatural. It would imply that Science itself is subjective, and that would imply that it is biased, in my humble opinion.
As I said, I think of Science as a search for the truth. The truth, not my truth. I don't see any benefit in using such a word. You use it all you want. But I will have no choice but to address the issue of using such a word, every time I respond to a post that uses it, if only in order to clarify the issue. | |
|
| What if evolution were not taught?
Posted: 12/7/2007 10:30:48 PM | Wow, I really think that not teaching evolution would be catastrophic to the biological sciences...it is such a fundamental basis for so many of the theories and concepts in biology that without evolution the science would be impossibly fractured. So many of the basic concepts in biology are based on evolution, and it would be impossible to teach and even harder to understand them in the absence of evolutionary theory.
I realize that everyone is entitled to their own opinion, however even the catholic church has publicly stated that there is room for evolution within the creationist paradigm. Why can evolutionary theory not be presented as just that, a theory? I have listened to the argument for creationism numerous times, and every time it strengthens my rock solid belief in evolution. If creationists are so secure in their beliefs, then why are they opposed to the academic presentation of a contrasting theory?
Hmm..... | |
|
|
|
Home
login 
