Creation Versus Evolution

[XXDXNXAXX]

Of course i understand that the finer details may need to be recalculated with what we understand today about ethology and behaviourism, but it still remains that the basic elements of the peppered moth story are correct. As Majerus states 'The population of dark moths rose and fell in parallel to industrial pollution, and the percentage of dark moths in the population was clearly highest in regions of the countryside that were most polluted.'

 

[almond13]

I think this is the reason most Forteans seem to be Evolutionists by default. We're sort of at least half-hoping that something better eventually comes along.

Evolution has become an ersatz religion where to be a full member, let alone a priest, you have to swear eternal allegiance to "strict Darwinist evolution."

Guess what, I don't believe in "strict Darwinist evolution" for the same reason I don't believe in "strict Edisonian electronics."

Science is SUPPOSED to PROGRESS over 150 years.

I couldn’t agree more.
I would also like to add to this thread that it is almost impossible to get a balanced view or article on the subject. Everyone seems to be in one camp or the other.
There was a poll by the BBC a short time ago and I wrote an Email to them about the huge bias that it contained. They have since removed it from their web site and replaced it with a page that makes it clear that they do know what they are talking about? Strangely enough the poll came out about 50/50 as they do in the US.
People are not as naïve as the science community would have us believe and no one objects to them having a pet theory that they call evolution and no one objects to them saying that it’s a truth that they all believe. What they do object to is the scientists demanding that we all share their views. Expecting us all to become good little scientific humanists with all that this entails. This is in fact what they expect and any decent is treated with contempt. Things are worse in America where the polarisation is absolute and even people like Loyd Pye are called creationists; a ridiculous situation.

Ian Simmons article stated out looking promising, but retreated into scientism, as is the way. The part that intrigued me was: “In fact ID is able to accommodate evolution to a degree - it has no problems with all organisms having a common ancestor…” “In fact” the common ancestor is the thing that evolutionists will not touch with a barge pole. It seems that – and I’ve done some checking – if you return to the common ancestor - which must have been a singe-celled entity of some kind, with basic ability like reproducing and eating – there is no known mechanism whereby it can transfer extra/mutated genetic material to the succeeding generations in order to become the biosphere we see today. Because of this theory/fact, evolutionists will tell you that this is irrelevant and that evolution is in operation anyway. Not the sort of thing to tell the kids in class?

I did not intend to go on like this, but it needs to be said that science is or should be a tool and not a philosophy, which at some point we all take on as our common religion. Science is not the guardian of my reality and worldview and never will be.

 

[feen5]

I have never heard of scientists pushing their views as philosophy could you please point out some examples of this for me. As far as i'm concerned science has only ever increased my wonder of the natural world and the universe in general. Just because a theory of evolution isn't complete it does not make any or the information so far gained wrong. And once again i would refer everyone to the article in FT 211 regarding the explanation of the use of the word theory in the phrase theory of evolution. I'm fed up listening to ID'ers bringing up examples from nature that they say disprove evolution only to see that they are talking rubbish. As far as i'm concerned everyone is entitled to their opinion and i'm also not saying that there isn't room for a diety in the running or at least the starting of the universe but when people who have devoted their entire lives, sometimes at the risk of their lives (Galileo anyone), have their lifes work ran into the ground just because they don't include a god in the equation then a stand has to be made. Not only are ID'ers spitting in the face of scientific knowledge, testing, theory and practise but they are also questioning my intelligence to make up my mind about evolution. At least scientists offer explantions or steps towards the next discovery. Fundies and ID'ers offer nothing but scientific and human ignorance.

 

[rynner2]

“In fact” the common ancestor is the thing that evolutionists will not touch with a barge pole. It seems that – and I’ve done some checking – if you return to the common ancestor - which must have been a singe-celled entity of some kind, with basic ability like reproducing and eating – there is no known mechanism whereby it can transfer extra/mutated genetic material to the succeeding generations in order to become the biosphere we see today. Because of this theory/fact, evolutionists will tell you that this is irrelevant and that evolution is in operation anyway.

Any references for these assertions?

As to no known mechanism, there are several well-known mechansisms for cells to evolve. Perhaps the most basic is symbiosis, whereby one cell is taken into another, but instead of being digested, remains living inside its host, and exchanging nutrients. This is how the most complex living cells are thought to have evolved.

No doubt a decent bologist could explain this more thoroughly, and come up with other 'mechanisms'.

 

[almond13]

.

there are several well-known mechansisms for cells to evolve. Perhaps the most basic is symbiosis,

Well it’s original. I’ve never heard of symbiosis being used to defend gene transfer before.
We are speaking about the common ancestor of all life with only basic genetic information – to replicate and feed. Where has the ability to merge with other identical cells come from? This is the point of the thread

 

[rynner2]

.We are speaking about the common ancestor of all life with only basic genetic information – to replicate and feed. Where has the ability to merge with other identical cells come from?

Even assuming all the earliest cells were identical to start with, they will begin to differ when they stray into different environments (hot/cold, fresh water/salt water, acid/alkali, etc), when natural selection will work to eliminate the least succesful mutations, and promote the survivors.

In the course of time the descendents of all these varieties will come together again, and symbiosis and other interactions may occur.

The world is huge (compared to the scale of single-cell organisms), and geology allows us plenty of time, so any combination of circumstances we can think of (and many more we haven't yet thought of!) will have occurred time and again.


The problem with creationist thinking (IMHO!) is a lack of imagination, in the sense of being unable to visualise the vast arena (both geographically and temporarily) that evolution has to operate in.

(And the arena may be even more vast if we consider the various 'Life From Space' options.)

 

[almond13]

I see that we are back to calling names and I have been branded a creationist, which is exactly what I said would happen in my first thread. I am interested in anomalies and I disagree with much that is said by creationists. However they do their homework occasionally and some of what they say is genuinely good – I am thinking about Woodmorappe (geology) for example who is definitely a creationist, but very good.
I can also mention again Loyd Pye who is not and Fred Hoyle who was not. So you see that being sceptical about evolution is not necessarily a religious thing and saying it is, is a tactic for clouding the water and dodging the issue. Another name to add to the list is William Corliss who is also not a creationist but is an anomalist even though he works for NASA.

To return to topic: All that can be hoped for in our first cell and the succeeding generations is duplication of existing genetic material. Not being a biologist I have to rely on those that are and one such biologist who has studied this problem is S Ohno. Also Fred Hoyle wrote the book dealing with these matters. He was not a biologist either, but then he was not a creationist.

First, duplication of genes does
not produce any markedly new functions and indeed may cause the genome
to be unable to change: "It is possible that tandem duplication of one or several genes could produce a marked increase in the amount of genetic material over only a few thousand generations, but it is doubtful that any marked functional diversity could arise in this way. Indeed, quite the reverse. In writing about
the lungfish. S. Ohno remarks: `By establishing such a system [tandem
duplication] the organism effectively forfeited an opportunity for further
evolution. In a manner of speaking, the genome became frozen, while
containing enormous genetic redundancy.
( This would not be helpful for our lone first cell)
"Evolution by Gene Duplication", 1970, in Hoyle F. & Wickramasinghe C.,"Evolution from Space", 1983, p105).
In particular, Hoyle points out, gene duplications do not provide the "sequence of 'quantum jumps' which are needed to account for the observed changes "in the forms of plants and animals": "At all events, tandem duplication does not solve the evolutionary dilemma. It might give a rapid increase in the quantity of genetic material, but it only does so by being highly repetitive, and this will not give a sequence of 'quantum jumps' in the forms of plants and animals, such as is needed to provide for the divergent evolutionary branches shown in Figures 6.6 to 6.10. Repetitions will give some changes, of course, by altering the quantities of certain proteins, but, as Ohno remarks in the above quotation, the changes are much more likely to be stultifying than to lead to adventurous new possibilities." Hoyle F & Wickramasinge C 1983.

Even assuming all the earliest cells were identical to start with, they will begin to differ when they stray into different environments (hot/cold, fresh water/salt water, acid/alkali, etc), when natural selection will work to eliminate the least successful mutations, and promote the survivors.

No they won’t. They cannot differ unless they have additional genetic material and this is what this thread is all about; where did it come from?

(And the arena may be even more vast if we consider the various 'Life From Space' options.)

This was not an option until recently and was put forward in the above-mentioned book by Hoyle. It seems that now he’s dead its open house on his ideas, even though he was shouted down when he first made his theory known.

"When a thing is new, people say: 'It is not true.' Later, when its
truth becomes obvious, they say: 'It is not important.' Finally, when
its importance cannot be denied, they say: 'Anyway, it is not new.'"
- William James, 1896

 

[eburacum]

The genetic origins of diversity is a fascinating topic, and one invaluable biological concept should be considered here; horizontal gene transfer.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horizontal_gene_transfer

If there had never been any lateral gene transfer, all these individual gene trees would have the same topology (the same branching order), and the ancestral genes at the root of each tree would have all been present in the last universal common ancestor, a single ancient cell. But extensive transfer means that neither is the case: gene trees will differ (although many will have regions of similar topology) and there would never have been a single cell that could be called the last universal common ancestor.
"As Woese has written, 'the ancestor cannot have been a particular organism, a single organismal lineage. It was communal, a loosely knit, diverse conglomeration of primitive cells that evolved as a unit, and it eventually developed to a stage where it broke into several distinct communities, which in their turn became the three primary lines of descent (bacteria, archaea and eukaryotes)' In other words, early cells, each having relatively few genes, differed in many ways. By swapping genes freely, they shared various of their talents with their contemporaries. Eventually this collection of eclectic and changeable cells coalesced into the three basic domains known today. These domains become recognisable because much (though by no means all) of the gene transfer that occurs these days goes on within domains.

In other words, evolution occured on the level of the gene for a very long time, and to a certain extent this continues today. Genes were swapped between organisms with a remarkable degree of freedom in the prokaryotic world.

 

[Anonymous]

They cannot differ unless they have additional genetic material and this is what this thread is all about; where did it come from?

I asked that on Yahoo answers.

The answers I got broke down into this;

Cells are lumps of jelly which have a nucleus in the centre

The nucleus tells the cell what to do (eat, split into two etc).

The nucleus has instructions in it which are called DNA.

DNA is short for some kind of nucleic acid.

So that is what a cell is. How does it get new instructions?

The instructions are in the form of nucleic acids right? Acids are liquids right?

Liquids can be affected by other liquids or by solids or by gases in their immediate environment right?

We learned about how to mix things or compound things in Chemistry in school.

What this means is that Rynner was right when he said that cells can be affected by their environment.

If the cells instructions are affected in some small way and then the cell splits or whatever, then it has a change in instruction.

Over time a new set of instructions may emerge, the instruction to merge even if merging only happened when one cell drifted into another cells jelly by accident before, now it may be something that is taken advantage of when it happens.

Symbiosis.

 

[almond13]

Genetic material is highly complex and for it to spontaneously generate on one occasion is a miracle – and it had to start somewhere. To have it happen on a daily basis as you seem to suggest is simply ridiculous. The scientific get-out-of -jail is “given enough millions of years” and I for one find this unsatisfactory.
Now there is a way out of this and again it was suggested by Hoyle and rejected by the scientific consensus: This is that a virus can pass on its genes to an infected host. This is a source of extra genetic material that is not cloud cuckoo land. The move towards space is definitely an improvement and the virus theory of Hoyle says that the virus comes from space – comets specifically.

This will not be taken on board by science for at least a hundred years though.

Now that you have read the evidence for, why don’t you read the evidence against, a balanced approach? Try thinking for yourself and not relying on science.

 

[eburacum]

I think that if you read the link I supplied abiout Horizontal Gene Transfer you will find that the virus theory of gene transfer from one organism to another is becoming nmore and more accepted. On the other hand the concept of viral transfer from comets is looking less and less likely-

Hoyle's theory of panspermia is tied in mathematically with his steady state theory, in many ways. Hoyle though the Universe was essentially infinite in age. Given such a long period to operate in panspermia of some sort would be alost inevitable.

However the Universe now seems to have an age of 13.7 billion years, with a good degree of confidence; that is not enough time for panspermia to operate. A comet with a virus in it would not have enough time wander from star to star in a significant number of cases, if the universe is only 13.7 billion years old.

 

[feen5]

Now that you have read the evidence for, why don’t you read the evidence against, a balanced approach? Try thinking for yourself and not relying on science.

Why do people assume that just because we believe in evolution that we havn't read the evidence against it, has it occured to you that we have but don't find it convincing?
When it comes to evolution there seems to be two important points that critics point against it, one being that they insist it is still only theory which only goes to show a general ignorance of scientific theory which i would find unacceptable. I once again refer to the article in FT211 where Ian Simmons gives a much better explanation of theory than i could (just as a matter of interest how many on this thread actually read the FT? its just a question im not saying that you have no right to contribute if you don't read FT).
The second being that a lot of Id'ers, creationists or whatever the anti-evolutionists want to call themselves believe that chance runs evolution and that the chances of some things are just to great. I will refer to Fred Hoyle who said that the chance evolution of life was like a tornado running through a scrap yard and leaving behind a complete 747. But this is just plain (excuse the pun) wrong. Chance has nothing to do with natural selection. Its one of the biggest misapprehensions of natural selection.

 

[Anonymous]

Genetic material is highly complex and for it to spontaneously generate on one occasion is a miracle – and it had to start somewhere.

Ah - you want to know how the first ever living cell on this planet appeared?

Well as we were not there when it did we will not know - and can only postulate and hypothosise.

My hypothothis is this - the cell evolved from something else.

What did it evolve from? How did it appear?

My hypothosis is that judging from its physical structure and the way it all works that the first thing to appear would have been a very simple nucleus held together by either a very fragile shell made up of extraneous (at that time extraneous) material or pushed together by outside forces such as currents or pressure from another source.

Now then, how did the very simple nucleus come to be?

I suggest that the various components of the nucleic acids were pushed together and interacted to form a new compound - DNA, and thus our simple nucleus.

How did the nucleic acid components come to be?

I suggest that nucleic acid is made up of many acids and other compounds which are made up of (ultimately) the elements we learned about in the periodic table at school.

Where did the elements come from?

That is physics...and different from bio-chemisty. Maybe Rynner could help with the physics...

Now that you have read the evidence for, why don’t you read the evidence against, a balanced approach? Try thinking for yourself and not relying on science.

What evidence?

The most heavily edited and re written, misquoted book the world has ever seen?

A book which is based on an amalgamation of many other stories and is in fact probably a bastardisation of half of an original religious book?

Why is that evidence?

Science has not explained something to you so that means it must be God?

That is not evidence IMO, but an excuse for lazy thinking.

 

[almond13]

The evidence against

In October 1980, the world's leading evolutionists met in Chicago in a special Evolution Conference.
"The central question of the Chicago conferences was whether the mechanisms underlying microevolution can be extrapolated to explain the phenomena of macroevolution."—*Roger Lewin, "Evolutionary Theory Under Fire," in Science, November 21, 1980.

"Microevolution" is change within a species, but this is ADAPTATION AND NOT EVOLUTION, as most experts will admit. "Macroevolution" is change between species, and must always lie at the heart of evolutionary theory. Without macroevolution, evolution does not occur.

At the 1980 Chicago meeting: “In October 1980, . . a conference was held in Chicago on one of the hottest issues in evolutionary studies. The respected magazine, Science, organ of the American Association of the Advancement of Science, called it `a historic conference' which `challenges the four-decade long dominance of the Modern Synthesis.' `We all went home with our heads spinning,' said one participant. `Clashes of personality and academic sniping created palpable tension in an atmosphere that was fraught with genuine intellectual ferment,'

Science reported."—*G.R. Taylor, Great Evolution Mystery (1983), p. 55.

Open attacks were hurled at evolutionary theory, and men desperate for solutions sought for answers.
"Feuds concerning the theory of evolution exploded . . Entrenched positions, for and against, were established in high places, and insults lobbed like mortar bombs from either side."—*Francis Hitching, The Neck of the Giraffe (1982), p. 12.

Yes, arguments took place, even some shouting. The conclusion of the majority was that there is no evidence of evolution, and we have no way of demonstrating that it is occurring now or has ever occurred.
"At the risk of doing violence to the positions of some of the people at the meeting, the answer can be given as a clear No."—*Roger Lewin, The Neck of the Giraffe (1982), p. 12.

*Newsweek for November 3, 1980, carried an article on the Chicago meeting. You may wish to read it for yourself. The large majority of evolutionists at the conference agreed that the neo-Darwinian mechanism of mutation and natural selection could no longer be regarded by professionals as scientifically valid or tenable. Neither the origin nor the diversity of living creatures could be explained by evolutionary theory.

A year later, *Robert Jastrow, a leading scientist wrote:
"To their chagrin [scientists] have no clear-cut answer, because chemists have never succeeded in reproducing nature's experiments on the creation of life out of nonliving matter. Scientists do not know how that happened . . Scientists have no proof that life was not the result of an act of creation."—*Robert Jastrow, The Enchanted Loom: Mind in the Universe (1981), p. 19.


Of the scientists attending that meeting, some in desperation decided that the only solution was to join Gould and Stanley in viewing hopeful monsters as the means by which species change occurred! To coin a phrase that might be worthy of Shakespeare: "Ah, desperation, thou hast made men mad."

The 1980 meeting was held in Chicago's Field Museum and was attended by 160 of the world's top paleontologists, anatomists, evolutionary geneticists, and developmental biologists.
"[Evolution] is undergoing its broadest and deepest revolution in nearly 50 years . . Exactly how evolution happened is now a matter of great controversy among biologists . . No clear resolution of the controversies was in sight [at the meeting]."—*Boyce Rensberger, "Macroevolution Theory Stirs Hottest Debate Since Darwin," in The Riverside (California) Enterprise, p. E9; *Roger Lewin, "Evolutionary Theory under Fire," Science, November 21, 1980, pp. 883-887.

As I uderstand it, very few of those attending these meetings were creationists.

 

[misterwibble]

So, a debate from nearly thirty years ago.

Although it's worth bearing in mind that the debate was about how evolution happens, not whether evolution happens.

Also, evolution is about living creatures, Abiogenesis, the origin of life, is a separate subject.

Panspermia and viruses (virii?) in comets.
Firstly, where did the viruses come from? How did they originate? Panspermia is very much a Deus ex Machina, and does nothing to solve the question of the origin of life, just pushes it a bit further back.
A virus cannot replicate itself, it requires a host cell to reproduce, by utilising their DNA replication mechanisms. A virus cannot evolve without more complex cells being present. Secondly , yes there is a large amount of organic matter in interplanetary and interstallar space. However as well as food, living creatures require energy, and there's precious little of that out beyond Mars. A creature capable of surviving on frozen water and methane ice out in the Oort cloud will have problems adapting to the searing temperatures on earth where water is a liquid.

Now on to how could a simple cell evolve.
Ever heard of mutation?
The early Earth would have been more radioactive, there was no ozone to shield UV from the sun. All of these are potential sources of mutations. Add in all sorts of chemicals and DNA mutations are inevitable. Nearly all will be harmful or even lethal, a very few will be benign, and a tiny fraction will be benificial.
A Genome is not a fixed entity.

 

[almond13]

Hi there Mr. Misterwibble

Thanks for the post and I’ll take it point by point but with the last first as I think it’s the most interesting:

“Excellent strategies for winning a discussion are to make everything personal, to tell your opponents what they actually believe, and to be as provocative as possible. And discussions are only about winning”.

I started this thread by agreeing with the previous poster who said:


“Evolution has become an ersatz religion where to be a full member, let alone a priest, you have to swear eternal allegiance to "strict Darwinist evolution”.

Guess what, I don't believe in "strict Darwinist evolution" for the same reason I don't believe in "strict Edisonian electronics."

Science is SUPPOSED to PROGRESS over 150 years.”

I answered –
“I couldn’t agree more.
I would also like to add to this thread that it is almost impossible to get a balanced view or article on the subject. Everyone seems to be in one camp or the other”.
It seems that I was right?

From this point on I was attacked and called a creationist and because of this I tried to give what I thought were replies to this accusation. These were examples of people who are not happy with evolution while at the same time, are not creationists. But still the same thing was used and I gave more examples, hence “the thirty year old debate” that was meant to show that even those involved at first hand, have the same disagreements. I would think that anything personal was directed at me as I went to some length to say that I am not a creationist and that my interest is in anomalies.

The part about my “telling people what to think” is rich – how can saying “think for yourself “ be telling someone how to think?
“Top scientist gives up on creationists” see previous posts – this is telling people what to think and exactly the kind of arrogance that I object to.
As for “winning” whatever, winning what? against who? the whole scientific community? – I wish.

You said:
“Abiogenesis, the origin of life, is a separate subject”.

I didn’t mention abiogenisis because the issue was about the evolution of the first living cell; not where the first cell came from. You surely cannot say that evolution starts at any given point? In the scenario the cell is there and must evolve to become the biosphere that we see today.

You said
”Firstly, where did the viruses come from? How did they originate? Panspermia”

Where they came from is irrelevant to a thread that was about the first cell. If you want to start a new heading we can discuss it.


You said
“the debate was about how evolution happens, not whether evolution happens”.

“Newsweek for November 3, 1980 The large majority of evolutionists at the conference agreed that the neo-Darwinian mechanism of mutation and natural selection could no longer be regarded by professionals as scientifically valid or tenable”.

I think it was about the theory and whether it’s any use? See quote-

"The central question of the Chicago conferences was whether the mechanisms underlying microevolution can be extrapolated to explain the phenomena of macroevolution."—*Roger Lewin, "Evolutionary Theory Under Fire," in Science, November 21, 1980.

You said
”Ever heard of mutation? “

See the quote that starts “First, duplication of genes does” I didn’t realise that the quote area was limited and much of it is missing; for this I apologise.
A biologist named S Ohno is quoted and I think the point is that mutation in such a simple organism would certainly be detrimental. It goes on to say that all forms of gene altering mechanisms seem to be inadequate for our fist living entity. There is a discussion on TO that covers this (but I can’t find it) and considers the subject that evolution by virus is possible. If mutation did take place and I agree that it must have, then it is likely that it would wipe out all of the organisms (This is on the basis of your increased radiation and toxic theory) and the first organism would have to form all over again and we all agree that this is unlikely as it’s not observed today. I think that Louis Pasteur sorted that one.

Am I winning?

 

[Pietro_Mercurios]

...

A biologist named S Ohno is quoted and I think the point is that mutation in such a simple organism would certainly be detrimental. It goes on to say that all forms of gene altering mechanisms seem to be inadequate for our fist living entity. There is a discussion on TO that covers this (but I can’t find it) and considers the subject that evolution by virus is possible. If mutation did take place and I agree that it must have, then it is likely that it would wipe out all of the organisms (This is on the basis of your increased radiation and toxic theory) and the first organism would have to form all over again and we all agree that this is unlikely as it’s not observed today. I think that Louis Pasteur sorted that one.

Am I winning?

Life has existed on Earth, according to best estimates based on the fossil record, for at least around three and a half billion years. That's around a quarter to a third of the age of the Universe, by present day estimates.

Plenty of time for a few false starts and potentially trillions of mutations, how many lucky permutations are possible with hydrocarbon bonds? Somebody has to win the lottery.

As to humans being lucky enough to spot the spontaneous generation of a simple living organism from more basic elements, like amino acids and etc., well we've only been around as practical scientists, with the kind capabilities which could spot such a thing happening, for about the equivalent of one to the thirty two of a second of the age of the Earth.

Which is quite a short time, really.

 

[misterwibble]

“Excellent strategies for winning a discussion are to make everything personal, to tell your opponents what they actually believe, and to be as provocative as possible. And discussions are only about winning”.

Erm, that's my sig.

Something I thought was vaguely amusing, not a specific point for this discussion.


Anyhoo.

If mutation did take place and I agree that it must have, then it is likely that it would wipe out all of the organisms

That's a rephrasing of what I said earlier:

Add in all sorts of chemicals and DNA mutations are inevitable. Nearly all will be harmful or even lethal, a very few will be benign, and a tiny fraction will be benificial.

Evolution of and by viruses is possible, in fact inevitable. Spanish flu. anyone? And a virus will provide a powerful selection pressure. My point however is that a virus cannot reproduce without a host cell. If it can't reproduce it can't pass on mutations, and therefore cannot evolve.

Evolutionary scientists do not swear allegiance to Strict Darwinian Evolution. "Strict Darwinian Evolution" was abandoned as a viable theory decades ago, the science has moved on.

Winning?

Let's say 'Love'

 

[almond13]

OK love

 

[Afagddu]

Neo Darwinism

Just to point out that Darwin had no idea about genetics so did not know how evolution by natural selection occurred - i.e., he didn't know how characteristics could be passed from one generation to the other. Thusly, I think people tend to call the current theory Neo Darwinism.

But just for the record, Darwin was absolutely right. Even if you believe in Gods, evolution by natural selection works and it would be impossible for it not to. There may be 'other' mechanisms going on, but there is no need for them to explain evolution, so why have them (occams razor and all that).

Oh, and don't argue with me about this - I'm afraid I'm right! Really, don't bother, you'll end up looking silly!

 

[rynner2]

Re: Neo Darwinism

But just for the record, Darwin was absolutely right. Even if you believe in Gods, evolution by natural selection works and it would be impossible for it not to. There may be 'other' mechanisms going on, but there is no need for them to explain evolution, so why have them (occams razor and all that).

Oh, and don't argue with me about this - I'm afraid I'm right! Really, don't bother, you'll end up looking silly!

Exactly so!

(Ironically, some critics of Darwinism accuse it of being a mere tautology
- which in effect concedes the point that it is right!)

 

[almond13]

Even if you believe in Gods, evolution by natural selection works and it would be impossible for it not to.

Ironically, some critics of Darwinism accuse it of being a mere tautology
- which in effect concedes the point that it is right

Tautology – truisms – impossible not to be right

"I can't see any farther. Giants are standing on my shoulders!"
- unknown

I’m out of here

 

[Rubyait]

Why doesn't America believe in evolution?

Human beings, as we know them, developed from earlier species of animals: true or false? This simple question is splitting America apart, with a growing proportion thinking that we did not descend from an ancestral ape. A survey of 32 European countries, the US and Japan has revealed that only Turkey is less willing than the US to accept evolution as fact.

Religious fundamentalism, bitter partisan politics and poor science education have all contributed to this denial of evolution in the US, says Jon Miller of Michigan State University in East Lansing, who conducted the survey with his colleagues. "The US is the only country in which [the teaching of evolution] has been politicised," he says. "Republicans have clearly adopted this as one of their wedge issues. In most of the world, this is a non-issue."

Miller's report makes for grim reading for adherents of evolutionary theory. Even though the average American has more years of education than when Miller began his surveys 20 years ago, the percentage of people in the country who accept the idea of evolution has declined from 45 in 1985 to 40 in 2005 (Science, vol 313, p 765). That's despite a series of widely publicised advances in genetics, including genetic sequencing, which shows strong overlap of the human genome with those of chimpanzees and mice. "We don't seem to be going in the right direction," Miller says.

There is some cause for hope. Team member Eugenie Scott of the National Center for Science Education in Oakland, California, finds solace in the finding that the percentage of adults overtly rejecting evolution has dropped from 48 to 39 in the same time. Meanwhile the fraction of Americans unsure about evolution has soared, from 7 per cent in 1985 to 21 per cent last year. "That is a group of people that can be reached," says Scott.

The main opposition to evolution comes from fundamentalist Christians, who are much more abundant in the US than in Europe. While Catholics, European Protestants and so-called mainstream US Protestants consider the biblical account of creation as a metaphor, fundamentalists take the Bible literally, leading them to believe that the Earth and humans were created only 6000 years ago.

Ironically, the separation of church and state laid down in the US constitution contributes to the tension. In Catholic schools, both evolution and the strict biblical version of human beginnings can be taught. A court ban on teaching creationism in public schools, however, means pupils can only be taught evolution, which angers fundamentalists, and triggers local battles over evolution.

These battles can take place because the US lacks a national curriculum of the sort common in European countries. However, the Bush administration's No Child Left Behind act is instituting standards for science teaching, and the battles of what they should be has now spread to the state level.

Miller thinks more genetics should be on the syllabus to reinforce the idea of evolution. American adults may be harder to reach: nearly two-thirds don't agree that more than half of human genes are common to chimpanzees. How would these people respond when told that humans and chimps share 99 per cent of their genes?

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn9 ... ution.html

 

[rynner2]

US Department of Education 'overlooks' evolution
12:28 24 August 2006
NewScientist.com news service
Celeste Biever


Evolutionary biology is mysteriously missing from the list of undergraduate subjects eligible for a US federal grant.

The department of education claims the omission is simply a mistake and insists that US students taking evolutionary biology majors are eligible for the grants. However, the incident has left pro-evolution campaigners wondering whether evolutionary biology was deliberately eliminated from the list by people who find Darwinian evolution impossible to reconcile with their own religious beliefs.

“I have reason to believe there is a serious problem here,” physicist Lawrence Krauss of Case Western Reserve University in Cleveland, Ohio, told New Scientist.

Krauss wrote a story in the New York Times on 15 August warning of the dangers that anti-evolutionist school board members pose to science education. The day after his story was published, a “Washington DC source”, who Krauss declined to name, alerted him to the department of education’s omission.

Krauss emailed the US Department of Education (DoE) the next day and alerted The Chronicle of Higher Education, which brought the incident to public attention on 22 August.

Peculiar omission
The grants in question are known as National Science and Mathematics Access to Retain Talent or SMART grants and are available to undergraduates at US universities studying mathematics, science technology, engineering and “critical” foreign languages. The DoE is offering them for the first time this year in order to encourage students “to pursue college majors in high demand in the global economy”.

A pdf document on the DoE's website lists the hundreds of eligible majors, which include a variety of subjects from Artificial Intelligence and Robotics to Conservation Biology to Organic Chemistry. But, as this article is published, evolutionary biology is conspicuously absent.

The nature of the omission is peculiar. Each subject is designated by a number and the list is arranged in numerical order. Yet there is a conspicuous white space flanked by the numbers 26.1302 and 26.1304, at the point where you would expect evolutionary biology, which is number 26.1303, to go (see graphic, right).

“On its own, it’s not really a smoking gun,” says Glenn Branch of the National Center for Science Education in Berkeley, California. “But in the context of actions that other people in the federal government have taken, it is suspicious.”

Branch is referring to claims in February 2006 that a NASA public relations officer muzzled climate scientists who did not conform to the Bush administration's view.

No explanation
The DoE says the omission is a mistake that it will correct but offers no explanation for why it occurred. “Evolutionary biology is one of a number of majors under the "Ecology, Evolution, Systematics and Population Biology" category of majors eligible to receive SMART grants,” says spokesperson Katherine McLane in a public statement.

“There is no explanation for it being left off of the list – it has always been an eligible major. The department is making the necessary correction which will be in place before final guidance on AC/SMART grants is issued.”

Two other subjects – Heating Ventilation and Air Conditioning Technology and Exercise Physiology – are also missing from the list. If the omissions were deliberate, it is unclear why these would also have been left out. Unlike evolutionary biology, these subjects are not typically offensive to anti-evolutionists, says Branch.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn9 ... ref=dn9833

 

[Anonymous]

Oooh...was it god's will? :lol:

 

[almond13]

They said, for example, that if you analyse the DNA, the genetic blueprint, of plants and animals you find how closely or distantly they are related. That studying DNA sequences enables you to draw up the precise family tree of all living things and show how they are related by common ancestry.
This is a very important claim and central to the theory. If true, it would mean that animals neo-Darwinists say are closely related, such as two reptiles, would have greater similarity in their DNA than animals that are not so closely related, such as a reptile and a bird.
Fifteen years ago molecular biologists working under Dr Morris Goodman at Michigan University decided to test this hypothesis. They took the alpha haemoglobin DNA of two reptiles -- a snake and a crocodile -- which are said by Darwinists to be closely related, and the haemoglobin DNA of a bird, in this case a farmyard chicken.
They found that the two animals who had _least_ DNA sequences in common were the two reptiles, the snake and the crocodile. They had only around 5% of DNA sequences in common -- only one twentieth of their haemoglobin DNA. The two creatures whose DNA was closest were the crocodile and the chicken, where there were 17.5% of sequences in common -- nearly one fifth. The actual DNA similarities were the _reverse_ of that predicted by neo-Darwinism. 5
Even more baffling is the fact that radically different genetic coding can give rise to animals that look outwardly very similar and exhibit similar behaviour, while creatures that look and behave completely differently can have much in common genetically. There are, for instance, more than 3,000 species of frogs, all of which look superficially the same. But there is a greater variation of DNA between them than there is between the bat and the blue whale.
http://www.alternativescience.com/darwinism.htm

 

[Anonymous]

Re: pseudoscience and the like: "...Reading something they can understand, that seems to make sense, that presents itself as technically competent, non-scientists are easily gulled by fake science." --Henry H. Bauer

 

[almond13]

Hi Daffi
You are using “The Emperors New Clothes” ploy. I think you are saying that I don’t understand because I don’t have a degree in science.
Can you explain how I managed to help a family member through their psychology degree, for example? I am after all an ex-lecturer and I know how such things work. I was under the delusion that it would give a much-needed boost to their self-esteem and confidence. I was, sadly, wrong and what it did was totally unexpected and equally disappointing.
.
There was a study done – Australian I think – that showed that higher education makes people more gullible. I’m sure that you know more about this than I. I’m also sure that you have read such things as http://www.deliberatedumbingdown.com/ there is a Google video by same, I think. Link on request.

Surely, the question is; is the article wrong and of course you have a reference to substantiate the claim? I actually spent a year looking at evolution and searching for any shred of evidence that it is a genuine science. I found none, and if you search with an open mind you will find the same. Or, do they keep the good stuff for initiates with degrees, like a secret society?

I am sitting looking at a book on the shelf above by Mr. Bauer called “Beyond Velikovsky”. He makes his living debunking?

There are two ways to slide easily through life: to believe everything or to doubt everything; both ways save us from thinking. ALFRED KORZYBSKI:

In your capacity as a psychologist you must be aware that many of your clients are sick because of the crazy world we live in. What you are doing is to patch them up and return them to the problem, for which there is, no answer.
But, saying things like this is stating the obvious; so beloved of science.

 

[Anonymous]

Actually, I wasn't having a dig, nor saying that you don't understand science because you don't have a scientific degree. If you recall, I posted (above) a mediation, when the argument was a raging.

In this post, I was putting in a little reminder that there is a difference between using a modicum of science to support an idea (ie. pseudoscience, such as Intelligent Design) and actually using science...or I should say, the scientific method and following where this leads. For example, with ID, while it spouts sciencebabble, it would not follow through any evidence to a conclusion other than that supporting ID.

I am happy you were able to help a family member through a degree course; you are clearly interested in science, read a lot and have a helping nature. I think you would enjoy (if you have the time - I don't know your life arrangments) doing a science degree part time.

I have read on gullibility studies, but as I recall, they were 'done' on students - who may, or may not, have been taking the piss; or complying to what they thought the questionnaire demanded (social desirability etc). Although, I have been the author of a number of silly 'rumours' at Uni and was shocked at what people would believe: my evolving, dangerous, man hating, badger stories still make me chuckle.

For reference, I should point out that Velikovsky was clearly a highly literate and intelligent man; however, his analysis was based on theology and philology (to name but a few) and not on any science - his theories have all been disproved. Criticisms of his work (as science) are right, based on the knowledge of the time, and currently (the hot venus theory was not correct - it did not emerge from Jupiter etc) - however, criticisms of his work as literature, or an interesting idea? another story.

 

[nissemus]

Here's a rebuttal of Milton's argument:

Milton tells us that animals, according to neo-Darwinists, are closely related, like two reptiles, when they have greater similarity in their DNA than animals that are not so closely related, such as a reptile and a bird.

Milton then refutes this by telling us that the alpha haemoglobin DNA of two reptiles—a snake and a crocodile—which are said by Darwinists to be closely related, differs more than the alpha haemoglobin DNA of a bird—a farmyard chicken—does from the reptiles. The two reptiles had least in common, and the crocodile and the chicken actually had most in common. For Milton this is proof that evolutionary theory is wrong, but it is actually a valuable experimental finding that shows to us that birds were descended not from any body of generalized reptiles but specifically from the same creature that also yielded our crocodiles. This finding actually verifies the indistinct fossil record which shows us the dinosaurs were descended from early crocodilians and the birds are the only variant of the dinosaur branch that have lived until today. Snakes were a quite separate branch of the reptile family.

Source

Milton's website also repeats the totally untrue story that the editor of Nature called for Rupert Sheldrake's book A New Science of Life to burned. What actually happened was that he wrote a review with the headline "A Book for Burning?" which argued that the book shouldn't be burned, even though it was rubbish.