|
|
|
|
|
| Proof of Darwin as a regular scientist
Posted: 10/30/2009 1:00:56 PM | In one forum, there was a mention of the "deification" of Charles Darwin.
However, here is an indication that he was a typical scientist in many ways, including the possibility that he could get things wrong, from time to time - geologically speaking, of course.
http://tinyurl.com/yfnzfhb
However, the problem comes from the insistence of referring to evolution as "darwinism" the same as it is referring to DNA science as "Crick and Watsonism." Or gravity as "Einsteinian." It doesn't tell the whole story of evolution and evolutionary thinking.
Referring to Darwinism...is it only a PR ploy by the Creationist/ID side to "demonize" evolution by giving it a face? Or has science education focused too much on Darwin as the "father" of a science that is evolving, much as any other science has? | |
|
| Proof of Darwin as a regular scientist
Posted: 10/30/2009 1:36:21 PM | Well of course Darwin could have gotten things wrong, everyone can.
I'll use Einstein for an example. He showed that space and time are linked together as one, that gravity is not a force but a distortion in spacetime, that light does bend around gravitational wells, and that energy and matter can switch places.
However, he was adamant about a static universe, and hated quantum physics. He spent the last thirty years of his life tryin to disprove it, to no avail. But does that detract from his genius? Does that make his discoveries and thoughts any less magical?
I'd say no. | |
|
| Proof of Darwin as a regular scientist
Posted: 10/30/2009 1:52:06 PM | Actually, I think Charles Darwin was exceptional as a scientist and a human.
He delayed publication of his thesis for 20 years because he knew the pain it would cause his 3 primary mentors, all advocates of the biblical creation .
When A R Wallace sent the note that indicated Wallace also saw evolution, Darwin had Wallace' and his results presented jointly, even though Darwin's had precedence by those 20 years.
Darwin never glossed over the gaps in his theory. When he didn't know, he said so.
"Darwinism" has its usage: evolution as a word has a number of valid applications. Darwinism specifically describes the evolution of biological species through natural selection.
It's true that using his name as shorthand for the full description of his theory can serve to obscure the universality of the theory ie "It's just one man's opinion !" But the weight of the evidence from every quarter of science continues to fall on the side of evolution. The opposition seems destined to the intellectual equivalent of sticking their fingers in their ears and going "NYAH-NYAH-NYAH-Can't hear you!" | |
|
| Proof of Darwin as a regular scientist
Posted: 10/30/2009 3:55:34 PM |
However, here is an indication that he was a typical scientist in many ways, including the possibility that he could get things wrong, from time to time - geologically speaking, of course. I read the article. As others said, Darwin was an exeptional scientist. He took many years before publication, like Newton did. I do disagree with the article in that it claims that Newton was smarter than Darwin. I have seen it quoted that Newton himself said that he believed that he was not smarter than anyone else. Rather he believed that he made his achievement in gravity simply by applying himself to the subject, again and again, over 20 years. In that respect, Darwin was his equal, and so, it could be said that Darwin was equally his equal in brains, since that was the source of his brains.
Neither is Darwin treated differently than Newton. Newton is associated with his theory, just as much as Darwin was. But, it didn't stop Newton being wrong. The same is true of Darwin and his theories.
The issue of "deification" is not so much that we "deify" Darwin as a person, or as a scientist, or as a great luminary, for we do not hold him as a saint, or a prophet. It is rather that other theories require to be proved accurately, and repeatedly, in the present, and it is only to the extent that we can prove them in the present, that we can accept that they are equally true of the past. However, the theory of evolution has enjoyed widespread acceptance based on its ability to explain the past, by means of evidence found in the present, along with explanations of how they got there, without it being proved that such a theory is proved accurately and repeatedly in the present, in exactly the same ways as we say about the past.
However, the problem comes from the insistence of referring to evolution as "darwinism" the same as it is referring to DNA science as "Crick and Watsonism." Or gravity as "Einsteinian." It doesn't tell the whole story of evolution and evolutionary thinking. You are right that referring to Darwinism is a little misleading. We are wise to present the WHOLE of evolutionary thinking, and not just Darwin's contributions.
However, it's not totally misleading. We talk about Newtonian space, about Einsteinian space, about Hamiltonians, and Jacobians as well. We aren't misled about those. We know the proof of how reliable they are. We base their reliability on our scepticism, on the right of every human being to demand that we prove them to us, in the present, beyond doubt. Everyone has that right, you, me, everyone. That's what makes science powerful, the fact that everyone can question it, again and again, and it is up to us to prove it to them until they accept it. If we cannot do that, then maybe we are wrong, and indeed, as with Newton, we have been, and will probably be again.
Referring to Darwinism...is it only a PR ploy by the Creationist/ID side to "demonize" evolution by giving it a face? Or has science education focused too much on Darwin as the "father" of a science that is evolving, much as any other science has? It's both and neither. Yes, it is true to say that many people use all sorts of arguments to discredit evolution. No, it's not true to say that we only teach what Darwin said, as very few are apt to explain exactly what Darwin did say, rather saying only the general train of though that seems to exist in the modern synthesis.
The problem is that we assume that we MUST accept evolution as being true, without being able to be total sceptics of it. As Karl Popper pointed out, a theory is only as good as its verifiability, as our willingness to accept that it could be false. Without that, it's not reliable. That's a weakness that exists in current attitudes to evolution, because too many who believe that it is true, believe that ALL reasonable men must believe in it, and that everyone who doesn't is a religious nut. But nevertheless, not everyone believed in it before Darwin. So it ISN'T obvious and it ISN'T clear.
The theory of evolution is NOT obvious and it is NOT clear. But we believe that it is. That is an inherent conflict. It leads us to believe that anyone who questions it is wrong, and that is really not their fault, but ours, for taking for granted something that was not taken for granted, or proved, for 1800 years. | |
|
| Proof of Darwin as a regular scientist
Posted: 11/1/2009 1:05:36 AM | --The theory of evolution is NOT obvious and it is NOT clear. But we believe that it is.-
I suppose that is true to those who feed on their emotions and base their world view
on supernatural beliefs and wishful thinking. For those of us who are compelled
to base theirs on reason and objective truth, Evolution is neither a scientific theory nor a belief. It is simply an irrefutable fact and logically inescapable conclusion arrived
at by reasonable, intelligent people scrutinizing the reality of the natural world.
That reality is that the world and life is ancient and that life has been evolving
for hundreds of millons of years.The earth is literally a boneyard, a record of eons of life and countless species that have come and gone. Darwin was just one of many
in the early 18th century who realized that the growing scientific evidence pointed to
the evolution of life. Does Darwins Theory of Natural Selection explain everything that life does ,the mystery of evolution, or the genesis of life.? No it doesnt. The more we learn about life at the molecular level the less likely that appears.
Does that mystery and uncertainty validate supernatural mythologies and beliefs.
No it doesnt.
Lets be honest, what this "debate" is really about is the reaction by religious people
to something that threatens the very essence of their belief, and that fills them with fear and despair. They feel that these scientific discoveries invalidate their belief that
human existence has a deeper meaning and purpose, and that their souls will live on after they die. That the discovery of evolution and deep time, in the final analysis
reduce humans to little more than bright animals, and that hope is a pointless
illusion. I can understand that. I would like to believe that my loved ones dead and alive will live on in some fashion, but I cant, Im not wired for belief.
I think that is what this all comes down to, people are either wired for belief in the supernatural and self delusion, or they are not. | |
|
| Proof of Darwin as a regular scientist
Posted: 11/1/2009 1:21:13 AM |
I think that is what this all comes down to, people are either wired for belief in the supernatural and self delusion, or they are not.
Believing in supernatural/religion has nothing to do with the hard wiring of a person's brain and everything to do with conditioning. If you take a child from day one and constantly feed them religious belief you greatly increase the chances that child will grow into an adult who believes in God, an afterlife, and things supernatural. If you throw in periodic Religious Inquisitions for a couple of thousand years you will also greatly increase the societal rate of religious belief.
If you add in scientific reasoning you'll see a general decline in the numbers and the ratios of those that believe in the supernatural. Once you entrench the separation of church and state into the Constitutions of democracies you'll be well on your way to eradicating, or at least reducing to nuisance status, a 'social virus' that has dominated 5000 to 6000 years of human history. | |
|
| Proof of Darwin as a regular scientist
Posted: 11/1/2009 7:49:44 AM |
Neither is Darwin treated differently than Newton. Newton is associated with his theory, just as much as Darwin was. But, it didn't stop Newton being wrong. The same is true of Darwin and his theories.
Really? And have you heard people refer to Newtonian physics with the same sneer of contempt that creationists/IDers do with Darwinian theory?
However, the theory of evolution has enjoyed widespread acceptance based on its ability to explain the past, by means of evidence found in the present, along with explanations of how they got there, without it being proved that such a theory is proved accurately and repeatedly in the present, in exactly the same ways as we say about the past.
I think a virologist might disagree with you. Several naturalists as well. Additionally, you want evidence of evolution in action, go to a natural history museum. That's about the only place you're going to see a dinosaur. The only problem creationists and IDers have with evolution is that we have to consider humans on the same plane as the rest of the animal kingdom.
The theory of evolution is NOT obvious and it is NOT clear. But we believe that it is. That is an inherent conflict. It leads us to believe that anyone who questions it is wrong, and that is really not their fault, but ours, for taking for granted something that was not taken for granted, or proved, for 1800 years.
I guess that would depend on your definition of "obvious." To some of us, it's as obvious as breathing. To others, creation by a supernatural bearded guy is obvious. But you assume anyone is taking anything for granted. We have had Darwin's book for a long time now. We've also had considerable amount of work done in that field. We also have cosmology, genetics, physics...those are our current level of understanding. We've had public education systems for years too. Choosing to understand that is the privilege we have. Choosing not to understand it is a simply a choice to remain ignorant. | |
|
| Proof of Darwin as a regular scientist
Posted: 11/1/2009 9:41:31 AM | Giordano Bruno and Galilleo were treated even more poorly than Darwin.
The thread reminds me of another thread - asking who was the father of science and both have me wondering what it is about people that they need to have their 'superheroes' to worship. Who is better? Newton or Darwin? And who even knows of Leibnitz, the first documented example of differential calculus - now universally favored over Newton's fluxation methods? Or Poincare and Lorenz who simultaneously but independently of Einstein developed their own, more mathematical version of relativity?
It also reminds me of how easily threads are drawn into bickering over evolution. Is this what the thread is really about?
Science is about cooperation. People learning from each other. Capitalizing on the intellectual ideas floating around at the time. What are we teaching our kids when we idolize (or demonize) individuals, distort their contributions to science and therefore paint an utterly false picture of how science progresses. Certainly we aren't teaching them the basis of good science, or giving them the tools to become good scientists.
Darwin didn't stand alone in the development of evolution. It was already in the cards. If I understand correctly, his delay to publish wasn't just about upsetting friends. It was about his own uncertainty about his ideas, and a little personal lethargy. Both of which were overcome by letters from his contemporaries outlining similar ideas which he felt would take the credit if he didn't go ahead and publish.
As for what is "obvious and clear". That is the fallacious argument of incredulity rearing its ugly head again. Is relativity 'obvious and clear? - or quantum physics? - or even fixing my bloody car? To some they may be obvious and clear - just like many of the ideas of evolution are to me. To others, they are totally incomprehensible - despite perhaps being the most logical explanations of all that we observe. Gravity worked for Newton, but didn't seem to work in quite the same way for Einstein. Some things I just have to accept - and leave the details to those more knowledgeable than myself. I just don't see why anyone wishes to preach their particular viewpoint to anyone else. That's not scientific and diversity is one of the greatest assets given to human intellect. | |
|
| Proof of Darwin as a regular scientist
Posted: 11/1/2009 10:29:07 AM | RE Msg: 7 by stargazer1000:
Neither is Darwin treated differently than Newton. Newton is associated with his theory, just as much as Darwin was. But, it didn't stop Newton being wrong. The same is true of Darwin and his theories. Really? And have you heard people refer to Newtonian physics with the same sneer of contempt that creationists/IDers do with Darwinian theory?
But not Newton personally, because he was incredibly anal to prove everything far beyond normal expectations of accuracy, and because he was careful to not be authoritarian in his views. We can see this in the Principia Mathematica, our source for Heliocentrism, because he got a friend of his to put in an introduction that described that in order to accept Newton's theories, that one would have to hypothetically assume that Heliocentrism was correct. It was this attitude to science, that Al-Haytham, our source of the scientific method suggested, that one must only consider theories as hypotheses, and to test them for yourself with rigorous analysis, that convinced us that the Earth went around the Sun, and not the other way around.
So no, we don't think of Newton with contempt. But that's because he wasn't pushing his ideas on us, but rather that he explained his views, and let the science do the talking for him. That seems to have been far more successful in changing the views of religious people, than any other. One could wonder why no-one has attempted to take the same approach to Darwin's theories. But then, many scientists before Newton proposed Heliocentrism, but didn't take that approach. Considering that Copernicus published the first Western scientific approach to it, and that was 150 years before Newton's publication, it's not unreasonable to suggest that we should see a book like that come about now. Mind you, Newton was constantly studying scripture, and was deeply religious. So if history repeats itself, and it almost always does, then the person to end up proving the theory of evolution beyond doubt, will probably be another Newton, and therefore probably a religious person.
However, the theory of evolution has enjoyed widespread acceptance based on its ability to explain the past, by means of evidence found in the present, along with explanations of how they got there, without it being proved that such a theory is proved accurately and repeatedly in the present, in exactly the same ways as we say about the past. I think a virologist might disagree with you.
Several naturalists as well. We had a programme here called "Lost Land of the Volcano", where naturalists discovered 40 species in a single small area alone, including one big cat. I'm incredibly interested in how naturalists explain how they didn't know about these species, even though naturalists are supposed to have discovered all the land-based species of that size and larger, and they are species that are too different from others, and too adapted, to be called examples of new evolution.
Additionally, you want evidence of evolution in action, go to a natural history museum. That's about the only place you're going to see a dinosaur. Went when I was a kid. Problem is that they are millions of years old, and not evolution in action.
The only problem creationists and IDers have with evolution is that we have to consider humans on the same plane as the rest of the animal kingdom. Actually, a lot of religious people are totally of that opinion, because many religions dictate that you have to treat animals and plants with the same respect as you would give other human beings. However, I do wonder sometimes why any atheistic evolutionists eat meat at all, because that would be like eating your great-uncle, and I doubt any of them would do that.
The theory of evolution is NOT obvious and it is NOT clear. But we believe that it is. That is an inherent conflict. It leads us to believe that anyone who questions it is wrong, and that is really not their fault, but ours, for taking for granted something that was not taken for granted, or proved, for 1800 years. I guess that would depend on your definition of "obvious." To some of us, it's as obvious as breathing.
To others, creation by a supernatural bearded guy is obvious. Very few religions require that you believe that G-d has a physical form that would allow G-d to have a beard. Many religions actually forbid belief that G-d is a corporeal being, and saying G-d has a beard would be heresy in such religions.
But you assume anyone is taking anything for granted. We have had Darwin's book for a long time now. We've also had considerable amount of work done in that field. We also have cosmology, genetics, physics...those are our current level of understanding. We've had public education systems for years too. Choosing to understand that is the privilege we have. Choosing not to understand it is a simply a choice to remain ignorant. Yes, we have, and all of that public education in certain countries is now taken for granted, even though much of it is highly questionable, such as the way we are taught that proteins are a food group, even though the body doesn't utilise proteins, but actually breaks them down into amino acids before using them, or that one of the body requires eight essential types of sugars, and not just carbs or sugars or fat in general. However, we would be hard put to find many people that are aware of those facts. As I said, the human mind adapts quickly. Educating the young in a specific way ensures that most of us will accept what we are taught, and rarely even question that, if ever. If you have been educated to accept evolution, then I cannot expect anything different from you.
However, I learned about evolution as soon as I could watch TV, as programmes on it have been plentiful since I was a kid, both in breadth and in depth. My religious beliefs never had a conflict with evolution either, and from what I have been informed on POF, neither has English Catholicism or English Protestantism. So there has never been the kind of conflict here, that your country seems to have, and there has never been any need to reject it on religious views as a consequence. I simply didn't have evolution or anti-evolution forced down my throat. That has given me the opportunity to choose to accept it or not, on its pure merits, and nothing else. I simply remain unconvinced by what is presented to me as proof.
I did hear of ONE person who said that evolution has been used to predict many viral mutations in the present day, and that is the closest I've come to a proof. It's not a complete proof, as it would only show that evolution exists in viruses. But it did persuade me that such evidence might go a long way to prove evolution. So I requested actual contact with those in the subject, and access to that documentation. However, I was informed by the same person who informed me of it, that it is in the commercial arena, and highly protected. So I don't even have access to any proofs that exist right now, that are of a rigorous nature as are all the theories of science that are universally accepted.
If you feel that is due to religious reasons, well, then I guess that you cannot imagine that anyone can be sceptical about what you accept as truth. But is that my problem, or yours? | |
|
| Proof of Darwin as a regular scientist
Posted: 11/1/2009 11:57:51 AM | I guess this is another thread unfortunately falling into the religion rut - shame *shrug*
Gerald Edelman inspired neural Darwinism. Before that, he won a Nobel Prize for research into the immune system. He disproved the popular theory of the time that antibodies were 'designed' and demonstrated that they 'evolved'. The natural selection process favoring their multiplication was their ability to fuse with antigens.
Maybe the reason for all of these incurable diseases is that too many people have stopped believing in evolution. | |
|
| Proof of Darwin as a regular scientist
Posted: 11/1/2009 2:58:47 PM | RE Msg: 10 by quietjohn2:
I guess this is another thread unfortunately falling into the religion rut - shame *shrug* Yes, it is, and for good reason. It was proposed on that basis by stargazer, as a response to certain comments that I and another poster made, about how the theory of evolution was being considered very differently to other scientific theories, and given far more weight than its due. That's because it does one thing that other theories do not. It talks about where man came from, something that many religions do. Apart from that, it's just like any other scientific theory, and everything we know, tells us that it should be treated as such. But it's treated very differently.
Really, if we were being scientific, then we'd hail stochastic processes, and in particular Markov processes, as being the greatest achievement of the last 100 years, because they allow us to predict our past and our future, using the evidence we have right now, with incredible accuracy, in every area of our lives. That almost every paper on evolution uses Markov processes, tells us that without them, evolution would be almost at a standstill. Without evolution, but with Markov processes, we could achieve at least as much as we have today, and probably 1000 times greater, because we are just not taking them seriously, and not applying them anywhere near as much as they could be used. It's almost as if we have a magic formula that can explain everything, and we choose to ignore it, and dig in the ground instead.
Gerald Edelman inspired neural Darwinism. Before that, he won a Nobel Prize for research into the immune system. He disproved the popular theory of the time that antibodies were 'designed' and demonstrated that they 'evolved'. The natural selection process favoring their multiplication was their ability to fuse with antigens. I doubt that. All I can find on Gerald Edelman with respect to the immune system, is that he worked out the chemical design and behaviour of antibodies. If he had conclusively proved that antibodies had "evolved", then I'd expect that this proof would be something that would be plastered everywhere as direct proof of evolution. But so far, I haven't even found any evidence that's even mentioned, or that anybody claimed that antibodies were "designed" and this was disproved. A reference to this would be nice.
I'm also curious about neural Darwinism, because Wikipedia says that this was from his book on the subject, published in 1987, where he explored the plasticity of the neural network in response to the environment. I'm curious, because I was told about the plasticity of the memory, in 1985, a full 2 years before he was published, and by a friend 2 years older, not someone high up in the field. So I've got to wonder how I could know about something 2 full years before it was published. I doubt my friend was psychic. He certainly never claimed to be. What am I missing?
Maybe the reason for all of these incurable diseases is that too many people have stopped believing in evolution. What are you talking about? Medicine isn't like the way some films portray magic, "if you don't believe in us, we'll fade away". Doctors don't disappear just because you stop believing in evolution.
Medical cures don't miraculously stop being found because of non-belief in evolution. All that DOES happen, is that more people are willing to pursue medical advances using methods other than evolution, which are already accepted by the scientific community. There isn't a single right way to do things in science. It's not like if you don't use string theory, that all your studies will be wrong. The same is true of evolutionary theory. But, what it DOES mean, is that IF the scientific community refuse to accept anyone who questions evolution, then they will be discouraged from entering science, and in particular, medicine. But, if evolution is clearly true, then anyone intelligent enough to come up with such a cure, must surely believe in it. So really, if evolution is clearly proved from the evidence, there can be no disadvantage to science from excluding people who don't believe in it, so there can be no decreasing of medical breakthroughs, and no problem with incurable diseases. | |
|
| Proof of Darwin as a regular scientist
Posted: 11/1/2009 4:33:11 PM |
It is rather that other theories require to be proved accurately, and repeatedly, in the present, and it is only to the extent that we can prove them in the present, that we can accept that they are equally true of the past. However, the theory of evolution has enjoyed widespread acceptance based on its ability to explain the past, by means of evidence found in the present, along with explanations of how they got there, without it being proved that such a theory is proved accurately and repeatedly in the present, in exactly the same ways as we say about the past.
I don't know why you think this is true. The theory is repeatedly proved accurate in the present. For instance, the theory predicted that humans would have a non-functioning gene that codes for vitamin C production. There's no reason to think such a thing would exist based on Creationism or ID, for example. But it's there. The theory of evolution predicted that one of the human chromosomes would be the result of the fusion of two previously existing chromosomes. There was no reason based on Creationism or ID to believe that such a thing would exist. A close look at the chromosome shows that it is the result of a fusion of two chromosomes. The theory of evolution predicts, in fact requires, that speciation be possible. ID says nothing either way, and Creationism prohibits it. Sure enough speciation has been directly observed. The theory of evolution makes predictions about what kinds of fossils can, and cannot, be found. Creationism and ID make no such predictions. For example, according to evolution amphibians evolved from fish. We therefore expect to find fossils intermediate between fish and amphibians. We do find them. The Creationist explanation is God created a fish-amphibian creature for mysterious reasons. On the other hand evolution says that mammals did not evolve from birds (or vice versa). If a mammal-bird intermediate was ever found evolution would be falsified. None has ever been found. Creationism has no explanation for why none have been found. | |
|
| Proof of Darwin as a regular scientist
Posted: 11/1/2009 5:34:18 PM | hi... another point of view
Darwinism: What About the Science?
by Timothy Standish
From the November 2009 Signs
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A great selling point of Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution is that it explains lots of things in nature. As the famous geneticist and evolutionist Theodosius Dobzhansky said, “Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution.” In fact, it would be shocking if Darwinism did not explain many things.
Science has one great virtue: all scientific theories are (or should be) subject to empirical data. Science doesn’t depend on holy books or philosophies or someone’s preconceptions. What counts in science is what can be seen, heard, touched, tasted, and smelled. Theories are supported if they can adequately explain new data, and they are disproved when they fail to reasonably explain data. Even if a theory explains many things (and Darwinism certainly does), if it is inconsistent with data, it is typically rejected.
Two areas of science are commonly presented as unambiguously supporting Darwin’s theory of evolution: the fossil record and genetic similarity among organisms. So do the data from these two areas adequately support the theory of evolution, or do they call it into question?
The fossil record
In his book The Origin of Species, Darwin noted a problem for his theory of evolution. For it to be true, the geologic record should contain many intermediate fossils between creatures as distinct as humans and snails—but it does not. Recognizing this problem, Darwin asked, “Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory.”
Darwin hoped that as time went on, intermediate fossils would be found that supported his theory. However, after more than 150 years of diligent search, geologists have not found significantly more intermediate fossils. A few possible missing links have been identified, but Darwin’s theory demands abundant missing links, and the lack of them raises serious questions about Darwinism.
The fossil record presents another significant challenge to Darwinism. Deep in the geologic column, more and more fossils are being found that look remarkably similar to modern organisms. A dramatic example is the recent discovery of octopus fossils that look like modern octopuses. One of the discoverers noted that “these things are 95 million years old, yet one of the fossils is almost indistinguishable from living species.”
Evolutionary theory suggests that ancient octopuses should have looked primitive and evolved over long periods of time into the octopuses we see today. Maybe, because octopus fossils are very rare, the primitive ones existed even earlier than 95 million years ago, and we can say that a poor fossil record from ancient times explains why the octopus missing links have not been found. But this still means that the time for evolution of modern looking octopuses is reduced by 95 million years. How many million years can be taken away before there isn’t enough time?
Yet another problem for Darwinian logic is that complex organisms appear all at once in the geologic column without much apparent time to evolve. The most dramatic example is found in Cambrian rocks, which form the lowest geological layer where abundant animal fossils are found. These rocks contain the remains of numerous weird-looking animals. Some resemble those living today, some do not, but all of them are complex. We can assume that they had genetic and biochemical systems similar to modern organisms. But where did these come from?
For the evolutionary theory to be true, these organisms would have had to descend from earlier organisms. The problem is that fossils prior to the Cambrian period are rare, and those that do exist don’t look like they were the ancestors of most Cambrian fossils. So the diverse organisms in Cambrian rocks appear to have evolved from nothing!
Thus, while the evolutionary theory can explain some of the evidence in the fossil record, other data do not fit the theory.
Genetics
We find a similar situation in the field of genomics, which is the study of the genetic information in the DNA of organisms.
Most organisms have an inventory of about twenty to twenty-five thousand different genes, or parts, that they can use to build themselves. These genes can be compared to the parts available at a building supply store. Imagine the many different things that can be built using bricks, wood, electrical wiring, nails, etc. One builder might build a hospital, another a shopping mall, and another a single family home. In each case, pretty much the same parts could be used. There’s no need for the paint in a mall to be different from that in a hospital or a home.
The same principle seems to apply to genes, which explains why most organisms have an amazing number of genes in common. Some genes are unique to certain organisms, but the overlap in the general kinds of genes is remarkable. For example, most of the genes found in humans are also found in organisms as diverse as fish, birds, and frogs. A fair proportion of human genes are even found in corn and rice!
The Darwinian explanation for why organisms have all these genes in common is that they inherited them from a common ancestor. So humans, according to Darwin’s theory, might have a common ancestor with a chimpanzee a few million years ago, while humans and chimps have a common ancestor with sea urchins that lived a billion years ago.
The problem for Darwinism is that if humans and sea urchins share genes that both inherited from a common ancestor that lived a billion years ago, those genes had to be present a billion years ago. This means that the genes had to have evolved even before that. The problem mentioned earlier with the octopus fossils emerges again, only this time it is a billion years that are removed. How many years can go before evolution of the large number of genes shared among organisms becomes untenable? And how did organisms survive before essential genes evolved?
Let’s look at a specific example. A weird fish called a chimera, or ghost shark, swims over a mile deep in the ocean. These strange fish are very different from humans, but Darwinists believe they share an ancient common ancestor with us. Recently the chimera genome was sequenced, revealing, to everyone’s surprise, that they have color vision that works on the same principles as our human color vision.
According to Darwinian thinking, this means that our common ancestor with chimeras must also have had color vision, and thus our color vision must have evolved prior to the several hundred million years since humans and chimeras went their separate ways, not during those years. Again, this limits the time for evolution of human and chimera color vision.
Sometimes genes show up in organisms that are so different they can’t be reasonably explained by common ancestry. Darwinists accommodate this in two ways. The first is called “convergent evolution,” in which the same thing is thought to have evolved separately in different groups of organisms.
Another rationalization is called “lateral gene transfer,” in which genes from one organism are transferred to another. This means that Darwinism explains things when they are the same because of common ancestry, and it explains similar things when they can’t share a common ancestry.
This seems like too much explaining— or maybe none at all—and, without getting into the technicalities of both explanations, they seem more plausible the less one knows about how genes operate and how evolution is supposed to work.
Lateral gene transfer—the idea of genes being swapped between very different organisms—presents another set of problems. It means that over time genes will get so shuffled up among organisms that there is not a clear ancestor-descendant relationship anymore. This turns out to be the case in bacteria and certain other more complex organisms, where different genes suggest different ancestor-descendant relationships. As a consequence of this, the traditional view of a single Darwinian branching tree of life is being abandoned for a kind of tangled bush of life.
If common ancestry explains things and lateral gene transfer explains things, and if Darwinism predicts either a tree of life or a tangled bush, one has to wonder what exactly Darwinism explains. It accommodates things when they are the same and when they are different, making Darwinism irrefutable with data. The belief is so flexible, adherents simply shoehorn all data into it. But this is not science, as it is no longer subject to data.
Thus, while modern scientific data is routinely squeezed into Darwin’s theory of evolution, the amazing molecular machinery found inside cells and the intricate organisms preserved in the fossil record seem to stand in tension with it, even when Darwinian logic is used.
And when Darwinism is extended from simply changing one organism into another to explaining the origin of life, it seems to impute occult properties to matter that matter does not have. In some ways, it is less like science and more like animistic religions that attribute supernatural powers to rocks, fetishes, and other objects.
Special creation
Of course, other theories about origins, such as special creation, are subject to the same criticism. The past is never as unambiguous as the present, and sometimes the present isn’t very clear either. Until scientists can travel back in time to see what actually happened, our ideas about the past will never be bias-free, and maybe not even then.
The theory that God created living things clearly has a religious aspect to it. And, like Darwinism, creationism requires special accommodation of some data. Evil systems that look designed, such as the poison glands and fangs of an adder, require explanation within the context of a sinful world if God’s goodness, along with His creatorship, are to be maintained. But this diverges into the realm of theology, and the reality remains that nature is replete with elegant systems that under any other circumstances would be interpreted as designed, whether they result in good or evil.
One hundred and fifty years of scientific study since Darwin published his Origin of Species has provided a more detailed understanding of the incredible worlds of biology and geology. For those willing to consider this empirical data unconfined by Darwinism, the biblical claim that God created nature seems reasonable, while many predictions arising from Darwinism remain problematic and more of a metaphysical project than a scientific theory. | |
|
| Proof of Darwin as a regular scientist
Posted: 11/1/2009 5:53:45 PM | Re: Stargazer
However, here is an indication that he was a typical scientist in many ways, including the possibility that he could get things wrong, from time to time...
Once again, as many aspects of things Stargazer has to say, I have to agree with, 100% A typical scientist is only human, and Darwin defiantly saw something that went against the grain. It went against the natural order of belief, and he stood alone when many probably called him a nut job, or more of a radical thinker than a scientist.
Referring to Darwinism...is it only a PR ploy by the Creationist/ID side to "demonize" evolution by giving it a face?
Hmmm... think about that next time you use the words "just a cartoon artist" | |
|
| Proof of Darwin as a regular scientist
Posted: 11/1/2009 5:53:54 PM |
Darwin hoped that as time went on, intermediate fossils would be found that supported his theory. However, after more than 150 years of diligent search, geologists have not found significantly more intermediate fossils. A few possible missing links have been identified, but Darwin’s theory demands abundant missing links, and the lack of them raises serious questions about Darwinism.
Not surprisingly the Creationists are lying again.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/archaeopteryx.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/horses/
http://www.talkorigins.org/features/whales/
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/vision.html
There is no lack of "missing" links. | |
|
| Proof of Darwin as a regular scientist
Posted: 11/1/2009 6:13:38 PM |
Hmmm... think about that next time you use the words "just a cartoon artist"
The difference being is that Darwin was already a scientist. Let's not get into "growing earth" theory again, shall we? | |
|
| Proof of Darwin as a regular scientist
Posted: 11/1/2009 6:38:22 PM | RE Msg: 12 by CountIbli:
I don't know why you think this is true. The theory is repeatedly proved accurate in the present. For instance, the theory predicted that humans would have a non-functioning gene that codes for vitamin C production. I looked it up, when I first heard of it. It's very interesting, because vitamin C synthesis occurs in several stages, each with their own gene. The genes have to be biologically corrupted in some way, to stop them being used in us. They are. What we would expect, is that the synthesis was stopped at the start stage, or that whatever stage that it is stopped at, that all the stages of synthesis are carried out until that point. What we've found is that the genes are all perfect until the very last stage, which suggests that we should be making all the vitamin C products up to then. Only we're not. We're not even starting the vitamin C synthesis process, not even the first step.
For that to be possible, it means that the genes are not used at all. It might be because the genes simply aren't used. But then, we'd expect that by probability, that the genes would all corrode over time, and not just the last one, and the rest staying intact. It might be that the genes are unable to be activated. But then that means that somehow, our genetic coding mechanisms can look at the first part of the process, figure out where it is going, and see that the end result is quite impossible. But that's quite a complicated process, something that has incredibly low probability when it comes to evolutionary processes. Those species that no longer needed to make vitamin C, and simply developed a corruption in the first stage, would be the quickest to adapt, and they would be the dominant species and not us.
There's no reason to think such a thing would exist based on Creationism or ID, for example. But it's there. Actually, there is another way to look at it. Suppose that we use our brains, and don't just assume that all creationists or IDers are morons and got it wrong. Suppose they're right. Then what reason would there be to have genes that could manufacture vitamin C in our bodies? Well, we know that vitamin C can be found in food, but that it isn't always available in large quantities. We know that it has a massive positive effect on humans, to the tune of doubling the capability of the Royal Navy overnight. What if G-d wanted to design humans with the capability of making vitamin C, at some point? What if G-d did, and then switched it off, but left it available for later use? Then if the body is the one to determine if it becomes available for use again, then you want to switch on or off the first step. But, if you want another force to determine if it becomes available for use again, then you want the body to keep testing the whole process every now and then, like when your computer does a poll on the network every 10 minutes. To do that, whoever is switching it off, switches off the last stage, so that the testing process can see that it is almost functional, and might become functional soon.
Of course, that's only one possible hypothesis. There could be others.
The theory of evolution predicted that one of the human chromosomes would be the result of the fusion of two previously existing chromosomes. That makes no sense in evolutionary terms, because although most of the genes in chromosome 2 correspond to 2 existing chromosomes in hominids, they are the only species to have this joined chromosome, and so would not be able to inherit it.
There was no reason based on Creationism or ID to believe that such a thing would exist. Actually, there is a very good reason for it: say you wanted to design a species with most of the same qualities as some other species, but wanted to mark it as being an identity that developed independently. That would be a great way to do it, without mucking up the design.
Take an example in computing. Computer applications typically come in suites, with folders consisting of several programs. Each program consists of multiple files that are compiled separately, then linked together by something called a linker. If you wanted to take an existing application, and then make a new version, but make it clear that the new program is different from the old ones, but without messing around too much with the existing code, because that almost always causes errors in the new version, one way would be to pick 2 programs, and then use a linker to link them together, because to do that, would mean you would need access to the original source code, and it would represent a signature on the program, that would be invisible to a user, but would make it clear to any programmer that it wasn't a copy of the original. Be a fantastic way to prove in a court case that the code was yours.
It would also mean that existing utilities that use function calls from the original suite, would not all work, and that would require any utilities using the new version, to re-point any calls to the old programs, to point to the new programs. It also requires that those designing new applications built on them re-test their routines, to make sure they work. That's very useful when there are very small changes in the existing program, that don't seem to make much of a difference, but would make subtle changes in the way the code works, that would have fundamental changes to how these functions work.
It's actually something that really annoys me when I come across such changes in IT, because Microsoft are apt to do it all the time, but in a slightly different way. When Microsoft produce a new version of a product, like when DAO moved to ADO, they rename many of the functions, and slightly change the way some others work. 90% of it is the same. But the differences exist, and they are enough that you pretty much have to re-write all your code, and re-test all of it as well. Fantastic method of marketing to brand almost exactly the same product as a whole new one, because it looks like a whole new product, even though it's not at all.
A close look at the chromosome shows that it is the result of a fusion of two chromosomes.
The theory of evolution predicts, in fact requires, that speciation be possible. ID says nothing either way, and Creationism prohibits it. I don't know that creationism automatically prohibits it, because the terms creationism and ID are relatively new inventions, mainly to describe a rather small group of people, mostly Americans, who seem to be wholly opposed to evolution, although much of that opposition appears to be historically in opposition to it on the basis that it is a philosophy of liberals, and that liberal philosophies in America seemed to be very in vogue right about the same time that many people were getting very heavily into drink, drugs, and casual sex.
Sure enough speciation has been directly observed. The whole argument against the theory of evolution, is that speciation has NOT been observed. Seriously, if you've managed to prove that a whole new animal species has evolved, say a mammal with 2 tails, then publish it! You'd be the most famous person in evolution since Darwin, and it would put the subject to rest completely. Seriously.
The theory of evolution makes predictions about what kinds of fossils can, and cannot, be found. Creationism and ID make no such predictions. For example, according to evolution amphibians evolved from fish. We therefore expect to find fossils intermediate between fish and amphibians. We do find them. Transitional fossils have been found, and as Darwin pointed out, the lack of them constituted an objection to Darwin's theory. However, they only constituted an objection, and not a direct falsification of the theory, as the theory was still accepted before any transitional fossils were found. According to Karl Popper, the test of verifiability is if you can falsify a theory. If you can prove it false with the lack of something, then the opposite of that lack, its existence, gives it equal weight to prove it true. So, to the extent that you refused to believe in evolution when you hadn't heard of transitional fossils, to that extent, transitional fossils make your case.
The Creationist explanation is God created a fish-amphibian creature for mysterious reasons. The creationist explanation is that G-d created frogs, tadpoles, cats, dogs, and of course the dodo, for reasons as mysterious as each other, and for reasons just as mysterious as fish-amphibian creatures. There are lots of things that we don't know why they were created. We don't know why the figures on Easter Island were made. We don't know why stonehenge are built. We can propose reasons. But ultimately, we don't know, and they are mysterious as why G-d created fish-amphibians. But, if you want a possible explanation for any of the above, I'm sure that we can think of a reason. After all, they're just extinct species. Plenty of species have gone extinct in our own lifetime. We know of 3 species of bats that went extinct in the last 30 years, and that's just bats, let alone the other animals and plants. It just remains to examine the remains and figure out a reason why they might have been useful in their time.
On the other hand evolution says that mammals did not evolve from birds (or vice versa). If a mammal-bird intermediate was ever found evolution would be falsified. None has ever been found. That doesn't really prove it's wrong, because we don't know that one didn't exist, only that we didn't find it. It's about as significant as saying that a mammal-bird intermediate exists, but none has ever been found either. I'm sure that you wouldn't accept that as anything significant to suggest that evolution was false.
Creationism has no explanation for why none have been found. Creationism, as you described it, is that G-d made all the species. It just means G-d had no reason for making a mammal-bird intermediate, or a good reason for not making one. Even if one is found, all it means is that G-d had a good reason for making one.
Really, I get that you believe in your arguments. But I'm still not convinced. But transitional fossils do make a good possible argument. Just not a completely solid proof. However, it is something that I'll give more thought. | |
|
| Proof of Darwin as a regular scientist
Posted: 11/1/2009 9:52:41 PM | Okay, seriously! Can we get over the croco-duck BS? Kirk Cameron isn't an evolutionary biologist.
Let's be clear...every animal alive today is a transitional "fossil" in the making
Also every fossil is a transitional fossil
Clapping your hands over your ears, screaming "I can't hear you, LA-LA-LA-LA" isn't going to change facts. Moving on. | |
|
| Proof of Darwin as a regular scientist
Posted: 11/2/2009 2:30:52 AM | Scorpio - http://www.faqs.org/health/bios/5/Gerald-M-Edelman.html
Edelman and his associate, Joseph Gally proposed a radical theory that would later be confirmed as essentially correct. It depended on the vast diversity that can come from chance in a system as complex as the living organism. Each time a cell divided, they theorized, tiny errors in the transcription--or reading of the code--could occur, yielding slightly different proteins upon each misreading. Edelman and Gally proposed that the human body turns the advantage of this variability in immunoglobulins to its own ends. Many strains of antigens when introduced into the body modify the shape of the various immunoglobulins in order to prevent the recurrence of disease. This was all done in the 60s so probably isn't too prominent in web searches.
As for people rabidly waving proof about evolution around. I don't think many scientists care too much about preaching evolution to people who don't really want to hear about it. And of those who are, there is just so much diversity in the evidence for evolution that it's impossible for an individual to even be aware of it all, even if they wanted to communicate it. I'm sure most scientists see evolution as pretty fundamental knowledge, just as Columbus and his contemporaries were able to travel as they did because they knew the earth as a globe. They wanted to get on with their jobs rather than convince the skeptics that the earth wasn't flat.
Neuronal plasticity was well established by the 1970s and was suggested almost as soon as neurons were recognized in the 19th century. Edelman's contribution was more related to how signals were transmitted through the brain (or a network of neurons) and the mechanisms by which neuronal circuitry was modified. The link above also describes Edelman's ideas about neuronal function. | |
|
| Proof of Darwin as a regular scientist
Posted: 11/2/2009 9:00:42 AM | RE Msg: 18 by stargazer1000:
Let's be clear...every animal alive today is a transitional "fossil" in the making
Also every fossil is a transitional fossil The argument for transitional fossils as proof of evolution, is that they were predicted before there were any found, and then only later on were they found, confirming a falsifiable prediction of the theory of evolution. But if there were plenty of "transitional" fossils in Darwin's time, then there was no way to falsify the prediction, and so if has no power of verifiability at all, which makes the whole argument that transitional fossils prove evolution, worthless.
Please, stop trying to destroy the arguments that support your own views.
RE Msg: 19 by quietjohn2:
Edelman and his associate, Joseph Gally proposed a radical theory that would later be confirmed as essentially correct. It depended on the vast diversity that can come from chance in a system as complex as the living organism. Each time a cell divided, they theorized, tiny errors in the transcription--or reading of the code--could occur, yielding slightly different proteins upon each misreading. Edelman and Gally proposed that the human body turns the advantage of this variability in immunoglobulins to its own ends. Many strains of antigens when introduced into the body modify the shape of the various immunoglobulins in order to prevent the recurrence of disease. Thanks for the info.
1) Correct me if I am wrong. But what that basically says is that the somatic cells can develop errors when they replicate. Normally, most of these errors are eliminated. But, in the case of immunoglobulins, when they replicate, they are allowed to interact with specific types of substances known as antigens, and it is THOSE errors that are not eliminated. However, this only applies to immunogloblins, and certainly not necessarily to all cells, and definitely not to gametes.
What that means, is that the body has an in-built mechanism for ensuring learning immunity to new diseases, by using the process of replication in combination with antigens to form cells specifically designed to fight specific diseases corresponding to the antigens present in the blood.
However, that process has to be very carefully controlled. As far as I understand, cancers are basically cells with errors creeping into the transcription, that cause them to multiply uncontrollably. When cancers are caused by an infection, that is because the infection interacts with the transcription process of the cell, causing cancerous errors that would not have resulted otherwise. So the transcription process still needs to be checked very carefully, to ensure that only the antigens are allowed to cause transcription errors, and even then, to remove errors that are caused by the antigens, but would cause cancer anyway.
2) The process doesn't prove evolution. I'd rather not bother with the length explanation of why, as I believe it's unnecessary, and because it could open up a huge can of worms for evolutionists, and I'm not really into trying to prove evolution wrong. Live and let live, that's my motto.
As for people rabidly waving proof about evolution around. I don't think many scientists care too much about preaching evolution to people who don't really want to hear about it. Neither do most religious people. All they want is for them to be free to practise their religion, and not have their kids educated in such a way as to claim that evolution disproves their religion, or the need for it, and be able to advance science themselves, without being restricted to accept theories they currently don't believe are proved.
And of those who are, there is just so much diversity in the evidence for evolution that it's impossible for an individual to even be aware of it all, even if they wanted to communicate it. Fortunately, we have computers in this modern age. We have mutliple database systems that can cope with terabytes of data in a single database. Even with 1 Tb, that would let us store a megabyte of data for a single fossil, which is lots more than necessary, and still cover a billion fossils, and that could fit on one computer alone. Really, there isn't any necessity anymore to worry about if one person can hold it all, because even just to process the tax for the 300 million people in the US, that's way more than anyone could cope with. We use computers to track taxes. We can use computers to track fossils. We don't even need to worry about typing the data in, because we have plenty of data-entry operators to do that for us. So it's not really a problem at all.
They wanted to get on with their jobs rather than convince the skeptics that the earth wasn't flat. Then keep them out of the argument. After all, it's not like anyone seriously believed the Earth was flat in Xian Europe in the Middle Ages. That theory was debunked over 60 years ago. If some want to keep believing in similar false claims about religious people, then keep them well away from all the sane people.
Neuronal plasticity was well established by the 1970s and was suggested almost as soon as neurons were recognized in the 19th century. Edelman's contribution was more related to how signals were transmitted through the brain (or a network of neurons) and the mechanisms by which neuronal circuitry was modified. The link above also describes Edelman's ideas about neuronal function. What I find amazing about his theory is this:
In this way, Edelman sees all the systems of the body being guided in one unified process, a process thatdepends on organization but that accommodates the world's natural randomness. This is very clear, in that we can no longer state that anyone is wrong or delusional, simply because they disagree with us about something, because our brains only formulate our views based on our unified body, and they formulate their views based on their unified bodies. They are looking at an entirely different universe (system) than us, and we cannot really say which is right. | |
|
| Proof of Darwin as a regular scientist
Posted: 11/2/2009 9:46:48 AM |
Actually, there is another way to look at it. Suppose that we use our brains, and don't just assume that all creationists or IDers are morons and got it wrong. Suppose they're right. Then what reason would there be to have genes that could manufacture vitamin C in our bodies?
I'm sure there are lots of possible post-hoc rationalizations. But at the end of the day Creationism makes no prediction. The Creationist can always say "God did it" or "God didn't do it."
I don't know that creationism automatically prohibits it, because the terms creationism and ID are relatively new inventions, mainly to describe a rather small group of people, mostly Americans, who seem to be wholly opposed to evolution
By Creationist I mean someone who believe in the literal interpretation of Genesis as the explanation for the origin of the universe and everything in it. Closely related is the Muslim Creationist who believes the same except in relation to the Quran. It's generally difficult to get a Creationist to admit to what he means by "kinds" (as in each being reproduces according to its own kind). Usually they say it's equivalent to a species. Very rarely have I heard Creationists admit that speciation occurs and so "kind" becomes equivalent to genus for them. This is one of the many reasons why Creationism is not scientific (i.e. it makes no testable predictions).
The whole argument against the theory of evolution, is that speciation has NOT been observed. Seriously, if you've managed to prove that a whole new animal species has evolved, say a mammal with 2 tails, then publish it! You'd be the most famous person in evolution since Darwin, and it would put the subject to rest completely. Seriously.
The observation of speciation is old news (since at least 1905).
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html
The "whole argument" against the theory of evolution boils down to ignorance and lies.
The creationist explanation is that G-d created frogs, tadpoles, cats, dogs, and of course the dodo, for reasons as mysterious as each other, and for reasons just as mysterious as fish-amphibian creatures.
Which is no explanation at all. If fish-amphibians existed it's because God wanted them to, for whaever reason. If they never existed then it's because God didn't want them to exist, for whatever reason. Creationism makes no prediction either way, unlike evolution.
That doesn't really prove it's wrong, because we don't know that one didn't exist, only that we didn't find it. It's about as significant as saying that a mammal-bird intermediate exists, but none has ever been found either. I'm sure that you wouldn't accept that as anything significant to suggest that evolution was false.
Here's the interesting thing. If mammal-birds existed it's because God wanted them to, for whaever reason. If they never existed then it's because God didn't want them to exist, for whatever reason. Creationism makes no prediction either way, unlike evolution. If we ever did find a mammal-bird evolution would be falsified.
Really, I get that you believe in your arguments. But I'm still not convinced.
To be honest I don't expect you to be convinced. Your objection to evolution is based on religion and not science. Whatever scientific evidence is brought to bear you can always respond with "God did it" or move the goalposts. Lots of religious people have no religious objection to evolution, so they are convinced by the evidence. Whether you choose to believe in evolution or not has no bearing on my life. The problem arises when Creationists try to get their religious beliefs taught in public schools. | |
|
| Proof of Darwin as a regular scientist
Posted: 11/2/2009 9:47:31 AM |
Let's be clear...every animal alive today is a transitional "fossil" in the making
Also every fossil is a transitional fossil The argument for transitional fossils as proof of evolution, is that they were predicted before there were any found, and then only later on were they found, confirming a falsifiable prediction of the theory of evolution. But if there were plenty of "transitional" fossils in Darwin's time, then there was no way to falsify the prediction, and so if has no power of verifiability at all, which makes the whole argument that transitional fossils prove evolution, worthless. Please, stop trying to destroy the arguments that support your own views.
Um...no??
Okay, so just so I'm clear...the discovery of "transitional" fossils is actually not proof of evolution, even though it is a prediction of Darwin's theory of evolution? Did I miss something here?
Wow! With all that twisting and turning, your back must be in GREAT shape! | |
|
| Proof of Darwin as a regular scientist
Posted: 11/2/2009 10:04:41 AM |
Neither do most religious people. All they want is for them to be free to practise their religion, and not have their kids educated in such a way as to claim that evolution disproves their religion, or the need for it, and be able to advance science themselves, without being restricted to accept theories they currently don't believe are proved.
And those of us who want our children taught about evolution and science don't want them to have baseless and evidence-less "alternatives" like ID shoved down their throats, nor do we want the classroom to be used as an extension of the pulpit. | |
|
| Proof of Darwin as a regular scientist
Posted: 11/2/2009 1:07:35 PM | RE Msg: 21 by CountIbli:
Actually, there is another way to look at it. Suppose that we use our brains, and don't just assume that all creationists or IDers are morons and got it wrong. Suppose they're right. Then what reason would there be to have genes that could manufacture vitamin C in our bodies? I'm sure there are lots of possible post-hoc rationalizations. But at the end of the day Creationism makes no prediction. The Creationist can always say "God did it" or "God didn't do it."
For instance, the theory predicted that humans would have a non-functioning gene that codes for vitamin C production. There's no reason to think such a thing would exist based on Creationism or ID, for example. Did you NOT write this? Did you NOT contend that the genes for vitamin C imply the theory of evolution was right, and creationism was wrong? Or are you now contending that was not exactly right to contend these points?
I don't know that creationism automatically prohibits it, because the terms creationism and ID are relatively new inventions, mainly to describe a rather small group of people, mostly Americans, who seem to be wholly opposed to evolution By Creationist I mean someone who believe in the literal interpretation of Genesis as the explanation for the origin of the universe and everything in it.
The main reason for the lack of literal interpretation amongst so many experts in the Bible, is that quite simply most literalists don't read the Bible. They read a translation, and you cannot understand any book literally based on its translation, because a translation IS an interpretation. Quite simply, no 2 languages share exactly the same grammar and vocabulary. If they would do, they'd be the same language. So fundamentally, ALL translations are non-literal interpretations. The only people who are capable of interpreting the Bible literally, are those who speak Hebrew and have done so since birth, Jews, and they don't claim to interpret the Bible completely literally either.
It's generally difficult to get a Creationist to admit to what he means by "kinds" (as in each being reproduces according to its own kind). Usually they say it's equivalent to a species. Very rarely have I heard Creationists admit that speciation occurs and so "kind" becomes equivalent to genus for them. This is one of the many reasons why Creationism is not scientific (i.e. it makes no testable predictions). It doesn't make any difference to claim so, because you're not starting from a logical perspective. In order to argue that literal interpretation is not scientific, you have to first accept it is valid. To do that, you have to first accept that it's possible to interpret the Bible literally in English, even though it's impossible, because the Bible wasn't written in English.
But then, if there is an argument against literal interpretation, you have to accept that if you read the Bible in English, then you're probably getting it wrong as well.
The observation of speciation is old news (since at least 1905).
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html There has never been any argument that artificial speciation is possible. That was known by religious people before your grandfather was born, and even before Darwin's grandfather was born. The argument is whether speciation occurs naturally in nature.
The "whole argument" against the theory of evolution boils down to ignorance and lies. Yes, it is. To quote Studio 60:
Harriet Hayes: I don't even know what the sides are in the culture wars.
Matt Albie: Well, your side hates my side because you think we think you're stupid and my side hates your side because we think you're stupid. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0882620/quotes
The creationist explanation is that G-d created frogs, tadpoles, cats, dogs, and of course the dodo, for reasons as mysterious as each other, and for reasons just as mysterious as fish-amphibian creatures. Which is no explanation at all. If fish-amphibians existed it's because God wanted them to, for whaever reason. If they never existed then it's because God didn't want them to exist, for whatever reason. Creationism makes no prediction either way, unlike evolution.
That doesn't really prove it's wrong, because we don't know that one didn't exist, only that we didn't find it. It's about as significant as saying that a mammal-bird intermediate exists, but none has ever been found either. I'm sure that you wouldn't accept that as anything significant to suggest that evolution was false. Here's the interesting thing. If mammal-birds existed it's because God wanted them to, for whaever reason. If they never existed then it's because God didn't want them to exist, for whatever reason. Creationism makes no prediction either way, unlike evolution. If we ever did find a mammal-bird evolution would be falsified.
To be honest I don't expect you to be convinced. Your objection to evolution is based on religion and not science. Whatever scientific evidence is brought to bear you can always respond with "God did it" or move the goalposts. Lots of religious people have no religious objection to evolution, so they are convinced by the evidence.
Whether you choose to believe in evolution or not has no bearing on my life. The problem arises when Creationists try to get their religious beliefs taught in public schools. Really, the main reason why Creationists are trying to get their views taught in public schools is when evolution is being taught as well. Such a response makes a lot of sense, because we find many evolutionists argue that evolution proves that religion and theism are both unnecessary and wrong, and so they are reacting to a threat to their very livelihoods, as if people are trying to tell them how to think and act, denying them the fundamentals of American freedom that defines why Americans believe America has a right to exist in the first place.
But it makes little sense to suggest there is a conflict, because you can find Catholic and Protestant leaders openly declaring that evolution was not in conflict with Xianity, almost as soon as Darwin published. Darwin went so far as to write "It seems to me absurd to doubt that a man may be an ardent Theist & an evolutionist."
Therein lies a huge problem, that there are plenty of evolutionists using evolution falsely to push anti-religious and anti-theistic views onto impressionable young people from religious families. That is bound to make a huge problem, because it using science as a tool of propaganda, in ways that are unsupportable by that science. You are bound to have huge numbers reacting against that. It is unfortunate that they have not just turned on those who are using propaganda. But with the amount of such propaganda that exists and is taken for granted, that cuts across so many disciplines of science, I guess it would be like living in Britain right now, and NOT blaming the major political parties for the MP expenses scandal, The vast, vast majority have got fed up with all of them. The same is true here, and they've got fed up with the whole system.
RE Msg: 22 by stargazer1000:
Um...no?? OK. Then please, KEEP trying to destroy the arguments that support your own views.
Okay, so just so I'm clear...the discovery of "transitional" fossils is actually not proof of evolution, even though it is a prediction of Darwin's theory of evolution? Did I miss something here? No. You've suggested that it's neither a prediction nor a proof. Neither is a prediction a proof. The level of verifiability of a theory by a prediction is directly related to the level of falsifiability of a theory by that prediction. To put it simply, if I told you that transitional fossils were completely wrong, and you gave up on evolution, and argued for the next year that all these evolutionists are delusional, and then I told you the truth, then it would be a significant proof of the theory of evolution. But we all know that's never gonna happen. So it means nothing at all to proving the theory, only that you'd like to use it to make everyone believe in evolution. But why? 99% of Americans will NOT be affected by evolution in any way at all. They're not scientists, and 90% of science isn't about evolution, But, it would help to push YOUR ideas on everyone who doesn't agree with you, and that is oppression, something we must stop at all costs.
Wow! With all that twisting and turning, your back must be in GREAT shape! You are thinking of my mind. But yes, I am glad that you have said my mind is in great shape. The primary thing that stopped me from being racist, was my ability to look at things from other people's angles, and thus from the angle of those being racially discriminated against. Thankfully, I've still got that skill.
RE Msg: 23 by stargazer1000:
Neither do most religious people. All they want is for them to be free to practise their religion, and not have their kids educated in such a way as to claim that evolution disproves their religion, or the need for it, and be able to advance science themselves, without being restricted to accept theories they currently don't believe are proved. And those of us who want our children taught about evolution and science don't want them to have baseless and evidence-less "alternatives" like ID shoved down their throats, nor do we want the classroom to be used as an extension of the pulpit.
OR, better still, stop deifying Darwin, and just read what the man actually wrote:
It seems to me absurd to doubt that a man may be an ardent Theist & an evolutionist. | |
|
| Proof of Darwin as a regular scientist
Posted: 11/2/2009 2:05:01 PM |
OK. Then please, KEEP trying to destroy the arguments that support your own views.
Or...you should actually say something that makes sense. Ever hear of "pretzel logic?" Here's a fine example...
No. You've suggested that it's neither a prediction nor a proof. Neither is a prediction a proof. The level of verifiability of a theory by a prediction is directly related to the level of falsifiability of a theory by that prediction. To put it simply, if I told you that transitional fossils were completely wrong, and you gave up on evolution, and argued for the next year that all these evolutionists are delusional, and then I told you the truth, then it would be a significant proof of the theory of evolution. But we all know that's never gonna happen. So it means nothing at all to proving the theory, only that you'd like to use it to make everyone believe in evolution. But why? 99% of Americans will NOT be affected by evolution in any way at all. They're not scientists, and 90% of science isn't about evolution, But, it would help to push YOUR ideas on everyone who doesn't agree with you, and that is oppression, something we must stop at all costs.
Do you have the slightest clue on what scientists do for a living? Seriously? Do you grasp the basic concepts of verification and falsifiable? Actually, a lot of us have already argued about the falsifiability of scientific theory, including evolution, in that science must by its very process, never be assumed to be the ultimate in "true."
In essence, that something is accepted does not make it right. But that does not mean that it's wrong, either.
You say you refuse to offer an "alternative" to evolution. That, in essence, is the antithesis of falsifiability since it offers nothing that can be either considered plausible or implausible. Actually, ID and creationism does at least offer something that can be considered either. One could say it has the strength of its convictions, even if they are IMO inherently flawed models for how life has developed on this planet.
So here we have thousands and thousands of bones from thousands of thousands of species that have walked, crawled or slithered over the surface of Earth. They are known to have been found in a range of deposition levels suggesting a timeline for their existence. Now, to verify, the scientist will conduct various test, and compare the development of the bones to conclude they represent a progressive development for species. Yes, we could talk "transitional" here but let's not muddy the waters. His conclusions can be true, in which case we go to confirmation and examination by other scientists. Some of whom may not actually agree with the scientist's theories or work. It is "peer reviewed," we could say. They may also find his work incorrect. It is, in essence, false.
Either that, or the conclusions can be such that they render anything before it completely wrong or, at the very least, woefully inadequate, i.e. Newton vs. Einstein gravity.
Okay, you with me so far?
Now, the creationist can say "No, I contend (Insert "creative" force here) created these creatures." Okay, now that is a definitive statement and it can be tackled from that basis. It can be examined and it can be either shown to be true or false, based on current levels of scientific understanding. Now, keep in mind, we have not said anything about the "truth" of God, His existence, non-existence, etc. We are only talking about whether or not we can prove through reasoned, scientific methodology whether or not God has had a hand in our development.
Welcome to the ID debate, in a nutshell. We can talk about the methodology (essentially, 'this is wrong with evolution so it proves ID' or "God of the Gaps" which is intellectually laughable), but I'm already going much longer than I like. So let's not.
Now, YOU on the other hand, offer nothing definitive. Just simply that "we don't have enough information." Well, okay. More information is always a good thing in trying to prove or disprove a theory. However, that is also a is simply a "safety" position. Essentially, it offers nothing to the discussion. To try and critique the problems with science and evolutionary theory from that standpoint is intellectually dishonest at best and cowardly at worst.
And they'll have that, when they stop trying to force their visions of how they want to re-invent the world to suit their own desires, down impressionable young people. All they have to do is to universally declare evolution has no conflict with all religions, and that religions in general are perfectly reasonable views and something that must be respected by all sane human beings. Do that, and act like it, and you won't have a problem.
Um, first of all, you're words indicate I have some say over how others act and think? How does evolution or any scientific effort "reinvent" the world to suit anyone's desires. Science can have consequences, yes. But that speaks to the human condition. The underlying principles of nature are science's purview.
Some people are as ardent in their atheism as you are in your theism. But that's people for you. Me, I'm largely agnostic. I don't know how to define God. Without a proper definition, hard to characterize what God is and how to go about proving or falsifying God.
OR, better still, stop deifying Darwin, and just read what the man actually wrote: It seems to me absurd to doubt that a man may be an ardent Theist & an evolutionist.
First of all, who's deifying him? I think my point is that he shouldn't and isn't "deified" and could be wrong. Second, he's right. It's perfectly natural to expect someone to see "God" in evolution. Just as it's perfectly natural to expect one to be an ardent atheist evolutionist.
To take Darwin's word as gospel would be deifying him. | |
|
|
|
Home
login 
