Evolution

[arnisador]

Have scientific gains been beneficial? A matter of perspective.

That's orthogonal to the point, however, which is that as far as the scientific method is concerned, "[t]he success of these advances is evidence that the scientific method works" as I had posted. You can argue whether or not inventing the atomic bomb was a good/useful/beneficial idea, but it's more evidence that the scientific method is a successful way to accomplish something. It works--put whatever moral value you wish on it.

That same successful method led to evolution, meaning it's likely to be fundamentally correct. Since it's an aspect of nature, does it matter whether we label it Good or Bad?

As to medical treatment of cancer being possibly undesirable, I'll just say again that natural selection is an aspect of nature, so it's neither Good nor Evil. We can oppose it or no. If a lion attacks you and you shoot it dead, are you cheating because Natural Selection would have eliminated you if you hadn't had a gun? Heck, we cheat just by living in houses--the genetically hardier would last the winter better than the sweater-wearing shiverer.

All of this is besides the point, which after all is whether or not Evolution is a (Scientific) Fact, not whether or not it's a Good Fact.

 

[arnisador]

Yes, every person is entitled to his or her beliefs, but those beliefs aren't entitled to be correct.

There is no theory of creation, in the scientific sense. Teaching mythology in a religion class is fine, but this isn't a Social Studies issue. Creation Science is simply a series of attacks on Evolution. An attack against evolution isn't automatically a win for creationism. Intelligent Design is a proposed theory that is lacking evidence to a much, much greater extent than is evolution. Until it leads us back to the designer, its record is woefully incomplete.

It's very possible to criticise evolution. That doesn't move any otehr theory higher in the polls.

As an aside, it is so that carbon dating isn't the type used to establish the earth's age. Carbon dating is for (formerly) living things.

 

[Rich Parsons]

Lunar exploration has cost untold millions of dollars, and given us what, exactly? We have learned a lot about how bodies degrade and bean sprouts grow in zero gravity...find a lot of that here on earth?

D.

Kembudo-Kai Kempoka,

Let us play agame. You name a technology, and I will try to show where it came from space research or development?

I believe that the development and research has improved our standard of living. Now, some are going to ask how does this equate to evolution? I could argue the evolution of thinking and or the growth of the mind.

I just do not wish to trivalize the space research done.

:asian:

 

[Kembudo-Kai Kempoka]

Kembudo-Kai Kempoka,

Let us play agame. You name a technology, and I will try to show where it came from space research or development?

I believe that the development and research has improved our standard of living. Now, some are going to ask how does this equate to evolution? I could argue the evolution of thinking and or the growth of the mind.

I just do not wish to trivalize the space research done.

:asian:

Having grown up behind the Orange Curtain of Orange County, CA, a mecca for space and military tech comapnies in the 70's & 80's throughout the heyday of the space shuttle and Star Wars, I am full aware of the manner in which technologies derived from research and development into the space programs has influenced our daily lives. Ergo, no bet.

Reading this post, and the stanch positions taken by either side, simply reminded me of the idea of a pot calling the kettle black. No one really knows. We can make educated guesses, and some of them even pretty darn good ones that allow us to shot-put explorers to a whole different planet. But, has anybody walked off the distance from here to the sun? 96,000,000 miles? Based on calculating the speed of light, ...etc.

I remember an article in Time Magazine about a guy at UCI who had demonstrated that the speed of light was slopwing down. Got nominated for a Nobel Prize (never followed to see if he won it or not). Used as the constant for measurement, it would appear, if his science is good, that the only constant is the energy of change. Neither good, nor bad, but changing nonetheless.

From what, to what, and under what influences are certainly excellent questions for the explorations of science. Science not based on faith? Sure it is. But we call them Paradigms, and they shift with the forces of change...just as Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, etc., have all shifted under the force of some change or other; neither is practiced today, as in any number of stages in antiquity. Science itself evolves. Is it alive? It certainly has it's own prophets, to whom one is sent to read in the event they doubt it is the correct faith, with the same veracity a disbeliever is admonished by a fundamentalist to read the bible if they want to know the source of truth. And why is it the truth? Because the Bible says it is.

There is a philosophy of science. And, as with all philosophies, there are points at which skilled philosophers of other veins can find inconsistencies within the internal consistency of it's tenets. It may be a more rigorous faith, with more actual yield in productivity. But, IMO, it's still a faith.

D.

 

[Rich Parsons]

Having grown up behind the Orange Curtain of Orange County, CA, a mecca for space and military tech comapnies in the 70's & 80's throughout the heyday of the space shuttle and Star Wars, I am full aware of the manner in which technologies derived from research and development into the space programs has influenced our daily lives. Ergo, no bet.

D.

Anyone else???


Kembudo-Kai Kempoka,

Thank You for your reply.
:asian:

 

[rmcrobertson]

It's really very simple: "creation science," isn't a science, and no amount of claiming will make it one. The problem is: a) it isn't a 'scientific,' theory, because its hypothesis doesn't primarily rest on material evidence or come out of scientific thought; b) its fundamental premise is neither provable nor disprovable in scientific terms; c) no possible evidence can be provided for the proposition of some guiding Creator.

As for the tired argument that biology teachers should have to teach this stuff, fiddlesticks. There are a lot of deeply-held beliefs that we don't teach in science classes, because they simply aren't scientific ideas. By all means, teach them in history or cultural studies or comparative religion classes or even in English--but teach them along with a lot of the other creation myths.

Again, it is erroneous to claim generally that this is some issue of "religion," and religious freedom. The real point is that a minority of Christians--not Catholics, not the National Council of Churches, etc.--want to impose their particular version of Protestantism upon the rest of us. And, they want State sponsorship.

And this reiterated claim that science is a faith, too...only if you concede that we don't really know that the physical universe exists; we take that, I suppose, on, "faith." But paradigms are wholly different from beliefs--paradigms, finally, can be measured against reality.

Then, they change. Beliefs, it would seem, do not--whatever the facts are.

 

[arnisador]

No one really knows.

I believe that science, and philosophy, make progress.

Incidentally, the upcoming transit of Venus reminds me that the AU was calculated from a much earlier transit (late 1700s?) to good accuracy. (There was a story on this in the 5/14/2004 Chronicle of Higher Education.) Which also goes to the point that for all these things, evolution included, tehre is evidence from a wide variety of categories. It doesn't all hinge on one weak link.

the only constant is the energy of change.

I don't think this phrase means anything.

Science not based on faith? Sure it is. But we call them Paradigms, and they shift with the forces of change...

In a sense, certainly...scientivism, in the sense of H.L. Nieburg, for example. But the "faith" isn't based on paradigms (in the sense of Kuhn). That's a sociological phenomenon. The faith on which science rests is the set of axioms and postulates one uses. For example, we take on faith, as being obvious, that A and not-A cannot coexist. One can read certain Oriental philosophers as disagreeing with this. But do away with this basic tenet of logic and you eliminate a lot of physics.

So, yes, science and scientists do take certain things on faith. It's scientists acting as natural philosophers. In that regard I find nothing contradictory about saying "I choose religion, not Western science, as my basic belief." But if one then rejects evolution on that basis while one takes antibiotics/has an appendectomy/etc., then I have to wonder. Evolution goes along with all the standard biological science and allopathic medicine. You can't accept the methods that lead to one but not the methods that lead to the other--they're the same.

 

[Kembudo-Kai Kempoka]

It's really very simple: "creation science," isn't a science, and no amount of claiming will make it one. The problem is: a) it isn't a 'scientific,' theory, because its hypothesis doesn't primarily rest on material evidence or come out of scientific thought; b) its fundamental premise is neither provable nor disprovable in scientific terms; c) no possible evidence can be provided for the proposition of some guiding Creator.

As for the tired argument that biology teachers should have to teach this stuff, fiddlesticks. There are a lot of deeply-held beliefs that we don't teach in science classes, because they simply aren't scientific ideas. By all means, teach them in history or cultural studies or comparative religion classes or even in English--but teach them along with a lot of the other creation myths.

Again, it is erroneous to claim generally that this is some issue of "religion," and religious freedom. The real point is that a minority of Christians--not Catholics, not the National Council of Churches, etc.--want to impose their particular version of Protestantism upon the rest of us. And, they want State sponsorship.

And this reiterated claim that science is a faith, too...only if you concede that we don't really know that the physical universe exists; we take that, I suppose, on, "faith." But paradigms are wholly different from beliefs--paradigms, finally, can be measured against reality.

Then, they change. Beliefs, it would seem, do not--whatever the facts are.

Very well said, and without the usual underlying anger I've come to expect in your posts. As for the universe thing, my limited understanding of quantum theory has lead me to reading suggesting that the physical universe does not, in fact, exist as we percieve it to be. Rather, that particles of matter are constantly winking in and out of physical existence millions of times per second, restoring themselve to the most orderly spot we know not how. An argument for Creation? Pah!. Just a neat idea that allows me to concede that we take the physical world on faith.

 

[arnisador]

I gotta be honest--I'm suspicious of many of the interpretations of quantum physics. The numerical predictions seem to work out fairly well, but I'm still not sure I want to believe that God (!) plays dice with the universe. Still, the stochasticity explains a lot!

 

[qizmoduis]

1) Datings of the fossils. There is controversy in the scientific community over the accuracy of radiocarbon dating, specificaly as the samples get older... it can be estimated on younger samples of an error rate somewhere in the 50 year range, but they believe that as the sample ages that range MAY expand. But if we are going to assume that the dating process is reletivly accurate, some of the "less evolved" hominids are actually "newer" fossils than some of the old ones, which would suggest that we were either "devolving" at that point or they are not part of the same evolutionary chain and should not be used as "missing links" therein.

Radiocarbon (C-14) dating isn't used to determine fossil ages. It isn't accurate beyond about 50000 years. See http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dating.html for information about how ages are actually determined.

Your second sentence shows a lack of understanding of what evolution actually is. You assume that a species will disappear immediately upon spawning an "improved" version. IOW, that homo sapiens neanderthalis disappeared immediately upon the appearance of homo sapiens sapiens (modern humans). This doesn't happen in nature. Often, a new species will appear in a small area due to localized environmental pressures. The parent population will continue unchanged, perfectly adapted to its environment while the new species exists, adapted to its environment. Sometimes, the new species will spread out, taking over the environment of it's parent, sometimes not. There's no such thing as "more evolved" or "less evolved". There's simply more successful or less successful.

2) The methods used by many of the Scientists to find and identify the links in the chain of Hominid evolution are based on partial bone/skull fragments to indentify a unique or new Hominid "species". However, when researchers such as Oxnard attempted to disprove the theory his opponents claimed his research was inaccurate because he used "partial bone/skull fragments" Scientifically, can you have it one way and not the other, and still be... uh... whats the word... impartial? No... Well, I think you understand what I mean...

Can you point me to some links that might overcome those arguments for starters?

Your arguing for science to be monolithic in nature. This isn't the case. Science progresses through research, studies, experiments, and great big honking arguments over long periods of time. Shady results are shaken and sifted out by the process as experiments are retried and results are duplicated. That's the way science works. Oddly enough, it works. Notice the results of science all around.

Oh, and for some links and discussions, see www.talkorigins.org

 

[rmcrobertson]

Axly, fella, I was pretty annoyed at something else when I wrote the last post. So much for that special insight into people we've never met, based solely on their writing...and perhaps it might be best to skip such comments based on intentional fallacies, lest one start writing things like, "Nice post, but with that deep pomposity I've come to expect in your writing," (based on expressions like, "Pah!" which one usually associates with minor sorcerers in, "Conan," novels) eh?

 

[someguy]

Radiocarbon (C-14) dating isn't used to determine fossil ages. It isn't accurate beyond about 50000 years. See http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dating.html for information about how ages are actually determined.

This really isn't my area but I believe that how long the accuracy of it can go back to is debated somewhat. There are other isotopes that can be used I think uranium can be used to date some things predominately fish. A professor of mine for a geology class said that she was surprised that she doesn't glow from all of the fish fossils she has dealt with.
Now prove to me that those fossils aren't just made with the proper ratio of carbon 12 13 and 14 to appear to be hundreds of thousands of years old. You can't really prove it. To do this you must assume some things. But of course then again I can say prove this post existed 5 seconds ago. Maybe everything was created .00000001 seconds ago including you with your memory. A bit insane of a thought but so be it.

 

[qizmoduis]

This really isn't my area but I believe that how long the accuracy of it can go back to is debated somewhat. There are other isotopes that can be used I think uranium can be used to date some things predominately fish. A professor of mine for a geology class said that she was surprised that she doesn't glow from all of the fish fossils she has dealt with.
Now prove to me that those fossils aren't just made with the proper ratio of carbon 12 13 and 14 to appear to be hundreds of thousands of years old. You can't really prove it. To do this you must assume some things. But of course then again I can say prove this post existed 5 seconds ago. Maybe everything was created .00000001 seconds ago including you with your memory. A bit insane of a thought but so be it.

Well, again, I need to point out that C-14 dating isn't used for fossil dating. And you don't really want to get into the doctrinal wars that still continue between the Church of Last Thursdayism and the Church of Last Tuesdayism. The Great Invisible Pink Unicorn (pbuhhh) will shake her invisible horn at you in consternation!

Seriously though, Occam's razor suggests that the unsupported positing of an insubstantial, undetectable entity that goes around creating fossils is not necessary.

 

[Cryozombie]

Your second sentence shows a lack of understanding of what evolution actually is. You assume that a species will disappear immediately upon spawning an "improved" version. IOW, that homo sapiens neanderthalis disappeared immediately upon the appearance of homo sapiens sapiens (modern humans). This doesn't happen in nature. Often, a new species will appear in a small area due to localized environmental pressures. The parent population will continue unchanged, perfectly adapted to its environment while the new species exists, adapted to its environment. Sometimes, the new species will spread out, taking over the environment of it's parent, sometimes not. There's no such thing as "more evolved" or "less evolved". There's simply more successful or less successful.

I understand this, however... we are talking about periods of 500,000 years or more in some cases, if the new species was a "localized" phenomina, it would seem that if they were going to thrive that long in the face of a "more successful" species, that more of them would have survived, or even evolved again...

Also

Lets look at it this way... 50,000,000 years from now, an achreologist discovers the wright brothers plane. Then a B52, Then a modern Biplane, (because they do still exist in limited numbers now) than a Stealth Bomber.

Dating shows them to be "dated" in that order... But the design of the Biplane is more "primitive" than the B52... Can you honestly say he could beyond a shadow of a doubt prove that the biplane came first? He could speculate that since the B52 and Stealth Bomber both had single wing designs and the Wright brothers plane had 2 wings, that the Biplane MUST have been the next developed... but could he PROVE that? He could apply logic to suggest it...

And then what if another archeologist saw how much more modern the insturments in the Biplane were compared to the B-52... well, based on that it wouldnt be too big a leap of logic to assume, despite the 2 fixed wings, that it was a later "evolution" of the aircraft...

And suddenly you have two schools of thought... neither of whom can PROVE they are right or wrong, arguing about it till the end of time.

Ive read a lot of the arguments on Talkorigns, even their anti-creationist things. I have also seen a lot of evolution sites that talk about the radiocarbondating of the fossils, so either their information is bad, or it is used... Ill dig up some links for you.

 

[Andi]

This really isn't my area but I believe that how long the accuracy of it can go back to is debated somewhat. There are other isotopes that can be used I think uranium can be used to date some things predominately fish. A professor of mine for a geology class said that she was surprised that she doesn't glow from all of the fish fossils she has dealt with.

There's not really any debate that I'm aware of. You're right that different isotopes have different age ranges that it can cover, so for example you could use Uranium or Carbon to date something a lot more easily than a more unstable one like, I dunno, Astatine. But half lives are taken as constants, so while elements might not degrade like clockwork at the atomic level, the bulk rate of decomposition is consistent over time.

Uranium is certainly used for dating, but to say it's predominantly for fish is unrealistic. It may well work with some fish (I don't know much about dating fish...(!)) but as far as I'm aware it's far more commonly used on rocks. As for your geology teacher, I'm certain she said that with her tongue in her cheek. Otherwise we'd have loads of green builders glowing from all the uranium in bricks.

What do advocates of these young earth theories say about the geophys results?

 

[Cryozombie]

Hardly more than a year ago, Alan Walker, of Johns Hopkins University, and Richard Leakey, son of Louis and Mary Leakey and Director of the National Museums of Kenya, announced the discovery of the fossilized remains of a 12-year-old male on the western shore of Lake Turkana in Kenya. 6 Its height was 5'6", and Walker and Leakey estimated that if he had lived to adulthood, he would have been six feet tall, Walker declared that its postcranial skeleton was so similar to that of modern man he doubted whether an average pathologist could tell the difference. Furthermore, he said that when they placed the jaw on the skull, it looked similar to Neanderthal Man. In spite of the fact that Neanderthal Man is classified as fully human Homo sapiens, and that the postcranial skeleton of this 12-year-old male was essentially identical to that of modern man. Walker and Leakey classified him as Homo erectus, a sub-human species, rather than Homo sapiens. No doubt one of the major reasons for this is the fact that the fossil was dated at 1.6 million years, supposedly 1.5 million years older than Homo sapiens.

Is what this says grossly inacurate? and if not, wouldnt it indicate Evolutionary science "making up" the evidence they want?

The reason I ask, is because it reads to me "We found a near human skeleton that dates to before many of our evolutionary links, therefore it cannot be human."

 

[someguy]

Oops My mistake I didn't mean to say predominately fish. I don't know where that came from. Yes Dr. Wegweiser did say that tounge and cheek. Thanks for correcting that.
As to the debate about it some say that you can't use the results near the end of the range for some reason or another from what a differnt professor of mine said. I don't mean to say that the debate is really all of that big. I dunno much about it because as I said this really isn't my area.

 

[rmcrobertson]

Or, this mythical future scienties could apply what they know about aeronautical design, metallurgy, engine design, avionics, and a buncha other fields, and make some reasoned, informed, fact-based pretty good guesses about whether a biplane or a B-52 came first.

I don't quite see how it helps the creationists and young earth guys to feature a couple of archaeologists arguing about the precise sequence of human evolution, given the denial that human evolution happened at all. I should also very much like to know PRECISELY where the quote came from, since it has many of the earmarks of pseudoscientific claptrap from organizations like the ICS.

Again: scientists can be wrong, and the good ones cheerfully admit it. Science has always involved re-examining premises and theories. Funny how that never seems to happen with fundamentalists...except when the Jimmy Swaggerts of the world get caught in motels with lots of girls.

 

[Kembudo-Kai Kempoka]

Axly, fella, I was pretty annoyed at something else when I wrote the last post. So much for that special insight into people we've never met, based solely on their writing...and perhaps it might be best to skip such comments based on intentional fallacies, lest one start writing things like, "Nice post, but with that deep pomposity I've come to expect in your writing," (based on expressions like, "Pah!" which one usually associates with minor sorcerers in, "Conan," novels) eh?

I'm using my magic sorcerer scrying glasses to mind-read that you may have some aggression issues...Pardon me while I use my pomposity to note: It's too bad such a brilliant mind is seated in such a seemingly angry man.

I still love your posts, Bubba, even if you can't see past the compliments becuase of a...um...you know...thing..in your eye. (there was something deep in there to say, but I got distracted...Conan comic fell of the bookshelf, and landed open. Coincidence?). You clearly have an excellent grasp of logic and critical thinking -- a rarity in this era -- which is a true joy to see play accross the screen at silly people making silly assertions. Subjectively, I just can't seem to say anything without arousing something unpleasant in your written demeanor...even when I agree with you on a post. Such is life: I will never get to know Robert, because he will always-only-never engage in an interplay of ideas or dialogue without hatin' on me.

Infinitely superior to all I survey, (and working on my Jr. Sorcerers' Girl Scout Honor Badge, yet feeling somehow blue & dejected)

Dave

"When logic has played itself out to it's end without satisfactory resolution, the only tool left is sarcasm." -- Gregory C. Gibson.

 

[heretic888]

Lotta good points that some people have made. A lil' something I'd like to add...

One of the most amazingly humorous aspect of discussions like these is that the proponents of Creationism, Intelligent Design, and so forth have a tendency to try and get everyone else to believe that the validity of the Theory of Evolution is actually hotly debated in scientific circles.

This might be a shock to some of you, but scientists aren't actually debating whether evolution happens or not. No more than they are debating as to whether cells exist or not. The Theory of Evolution and the Cell Theory have pretty much equal empirical support, all things considered.

My college biology professor put it like this a few years back:

- Student: "So, did they ever figure out that evolution thing?? Do we know if people came from monkeys or whatnot??"
- Prof: *chuckles* "Yes, we 'figured it out'. Evolution is, for the most part, pretty much settled. The only people still debating the theory are in religious circles --- not scientific ones."

She made a pretty good, and this tells us leagues about the Evolution vs Creation debates as a whole --- scientists don't actually debate this stuff. Conservative religous leaders do. Surprise, surprise.

And, of course, what is the typical religious response to science's apparent apathy towards these discussion: that there is some kind of "godless atheistic conspiracy" among scientists to disprove God --- which, I gotta say t'punk, isn't exactly leagues away from some of the stuff you've been alluding to.

But, hey, for all you guys know I could be part of that atheistic cabal to, bent on destroying your precious religion. Conspiracy!!