Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
Hello Blight, interesting post...
Really?
Okay, so where are these observations of evolution happening?
The theory says that new organs and apparatuses can develop spontaneously through selection of random mutations.
So where's the observation of that happening?
Let's try another tack here...
Darwin was trying to explain a set of observations which were the result of the work of Naturalists systematically studying life around the globe.
First, that there is a concept of species which at that time essentially meant that individuals of a particular species could mate and their progeny had the capability of reproducing.
Second, that there are many species that are similar in form and function.
Third, that these similarities were often geographically local.
Something else that was observed was that function in dramatically different species might be similar.
The geologists were also out and about during this same time period and they did not fail to notice the existence of fossils, the evidence of species, trapped in rock layers. Many of these fossils did not correspond with any existing species.
The theory of evolution addresses the similarities of species, and offers an explanation which is consistent with all these observations and makes two major predictions (at the time) which have been borne out by observation.
Evolution basically states that species characteristics have variability, and that the characteristics of the parents can be passed from one generation to the next, that their traits can be inherited. Darwin reasoned that given enough time, that a gradual change could take place that created a new species.
The two predictions were 1) that a mechanism for inheritance existed and 2) that there was sufficient geological time for this gradual evolution to take place.
Observations of species similarities and differences, spatially, are consistent with this theory. Observations of species similarities and differences, in time, where we have a sample of past life, are consistent with this theory.
The two predictions also are verified 1) by the existence of an inheritance mechanism, genetic material common to all life and capable of encoding the information necessary to express the form and function of an organism. 2) by the knowledge that the earth is something like 4.6 Billion years old and that evidence for life on the planet dates back 4 Billion years. This is sufficient time for the process of evolution to take place.
As a physicist this second prediction is interesting, because the prevailing wisdom in Darwin's time was that the earth was very much younger. Estimates were based on the temperature of the earth, and the rate of cooling, etc. As we know now, radioactive decay of U and Th in the earth's interior are a heat source, and that the phenomena of radioactive decay is an important tool for measuring the age of the earth.
The theory of evolution provides a very simple, and to most, a compelling explanation of life on earth. It provides the foundation of modern biology. It is consistent with all of our observations of life on the planet. Today, evolution is a much more elaborate theory than the one Darwin introduced 150 years ago, but it is essentially the same.
There is no other scientific theory which matches its power to predict and explain life on earth.
|
|
drgonzo
Trad climber
east bay, CA
|
|
Michael Shermer's The Real Evolution Anniversary
Of course, I seriously doubt the fundies, spiritualists, and woo woo trolls will bother with this article, but the rational minds here will enjoy it.
|
|
bc
climber
Prescott, AZ
|
|
Jody, I realize that no amount of evidence for evolution will satisfy you. You're a true fundie, I get that. I offered an article here [url]http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/[/url] which gives an excellent outiline of current thinking on macroevolution, however, I am sure you will not bother to read it. I know you do not like it, but there is ample evidence for macroevolution.
Why is it that the faith heads among us go about waving their hands in the air screaming, "Where's your evidence for evolution?, where's your evidence, huh?" and then when asked to provide any evidence for god, anything at all, we get thrown a useless piece of crap like "God always WAS". To use more of your own words, "You're kidding right?"
Hopeless.
|
|
Paul Martzen
Trad climber
Fresno
|
|
I think the debate between creation and evolution is quite interesting and more subtle than people give it credit. It is interesting on a number of levels of course; psychological as well as philosophical, scientific, rational and emotional.
For me one really interesting question is whether there is a dividing line between living and nonliving. Judging by the comments here it would seem that most people see an obvious division between living and non living.
The creationist has an easy time with this. Everything is dead unless God or other supernatural power imparts life to it. It is dualism, if I have my terms right. There are life forces and there are measurable forces that effect inanimate substance. It works pretty well for the most part doesn't it? Why is there life? God created it. Why are there zebras or worms or lightning? God created them. It answers the question and ends further inquiry, wherein lies the problem.
Too many of us are curious about things. God gave us inquisitive minds, or maybe evolution did, but we want to see patterns, we want to see connections. If God created zebras, when did he create them, how did he create them? What was the process? If you ask those sorts of questions you sort of come back around to evolution or something similar. If we pay attention we can see that things are continually changing, but often in subtle ways that we don't notice. That is sort of the definition of evolution, slow, gradual change.
Evolution thinkers have some similar problems that I seldom see acknowledged. We also seem to accept that there is a distinct dividing line between living and nonliving which was somehow crossed in the distant past, by the magical action of time, energy and chance. Now maybe we don't think of it as being magical, cause we have faith that eventually we will understand that dividing line and how it can be crossed. But can you really fault creationists for viewing this as equivalent to their belief in the action of God?
Personally, I don't think there is a real dividing line between living and nonliving. Way back in an Organic Gardening class at Fresno State I was made aware that plants are not the bottom of the food chain, but that the base of the life pyramid goes much deeper. It occurred to me that it probably goes down forever. I was probably high at the time, but it still makes sense even now.
It seems to me that evolution in many ways is rather obvious to everybody. Things change around us. We change. Our children are not the same as us? Judging by fossils there used to be creatures that are no longer here. There are creatures around now that did not used to be here?
If we find that interesting as many of us do, we want to explore that and think about it and investigate it further. If someone says to me, "God did that". It stops my impulse to explore in that direction. It makes me think I should go read my bible and quite being a troublemaker. "God created that, so don't ask any more questions, just go do your chores!"
On the other hand I have become very sympathetic to creationists on a couple of points. If you think that life is magical and wonderful and everything good comes from God, it must be very depressing to be told that, "No, everything is only randomness or based on inanimate physics. There is no God guiding it. Life is a fluke arising from death and returning to death. Life has no meaning." Now many will disagree that evolution says these things, but I think it is easy to get the impression that it does, or that our explanations of evolution give this impression.
If I believe that life comes from God, then I have to reject a theory, no matter the seeming evidence, that life comes from dead stuff. If you believe in gravity, but I tell you that I was floating around in my room yesterday, you won't care how many measurements I produce or how much video there is of me floating around. You will assume that I faked it because gravity takes precedence over other stuff.
I don't question evolution myself, but I do question our explanations of it. I suspect that the evolution of our explanations will lead closer to creationism that we think possible, at least it has for me. Probably won't satisfy creationists though.
Paul
|
|
andanother
climber
|
|
“there is FAR more evidence that is consistent with Creation than there is for evolution“
That’s not true. There’s not a single shred of evidence to support creation, and there never will be. There is an ABUNDANCE of evidence to disprove it, though. Is that what you meant?
“God always WAS.“
That’s not true either. Gods were invented by humans, and humans haven’t been on the planet for very long. Dinosaurs, etc... didn’t have a need for gods, and didn’t have the intelligence to have the concept of “god”. So at that time, god WASN’T.
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
Andy
You don't have one single shred of evidence to support your nonsensical post above.
You're nothing but a gross mental speculator just as the rest of the folks saying there is no GOD.
|
|
Landgolier
climber
the flatness
|
|
Ahem. Let me see if I can do the basic argument in under 50 words.
T or F:
1. Certain traits vary within the population of a life form.
2. At least some of these variations confer a survival advantage on those that posses them, making them more likely to have offspring.
3. The traits that vary are passed on to offspring.
If you answered true to all three, guess what? You believe in evolution! No need to argue about god or creation or whether the world is 6000 years old or why there are no dinosaurs in the bible or any of that.
Thank you, please drive through.
PS -- The standard creationist answer to this is that it explains changes in species over time, but not the evolution of new species. Nice try, but unless you want to claim that God nudges things back to the mean every time something is about to evolve enough to be considered a new species, the possibility of wide genomic variation is simply a mathematical fact. Of course if you think the world is only 6000 years old there's a bit of a problem, but I have to think that the writers of the old testament would have made some mention of the GIANT FREAKING LIZARDS RUNNING AROUND EVERYWHERE AND EATING PEOPLE AND STOMPING ON THEIR HUTS; flora and fauna that we recognize today certainly get ample mention in the text. Besides, any number of natural phenomena obviously indicate that the universe is over 6,000 years old, not the least of which is Yosemite Valley. There is still recourse to the argument that the world was created old, with dinosaur bones in the ground and pre-aged radiocarbon in the remains of early primate life and all of that, but if you can swallow that one you might as well believe that creation happened 10 seconds ago and God popped you into being with a head full of memories of the past.
PPS -- Besides the opening moves of a colonial revolt in the Americas, what else happened in 1776 that would shape the world and our perception of it for centuries?
|
|
andanother
climber
|
|
WBraun, I disagree.
You know the "If a tree falls in the forest...." cliche? Well it applies here, too.
God is real in that "he" exists in the minds of humans. God is a concept that people follow. But before humans existed, all of the species on the planet did not possess the ability to think about god. They ate, slept, and reproduced. That is all. So it's pretty safe to say that god did not exist then.
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
Stupidest logic I've ever heard Andy.
Better stick to the material world and you won't look so bad.
|
|
andanother
climber
|
|
Will do.
Hey, aren't you the guy that follows that crazy Dungeons and Dragons meets scientology religion? I think I remember you talking about it a few years back. Something about how the Moon isn't real and that it gets swallowed by a giant snake during the eclipse?
You may want to follow your own advice there, pal.
edit: Found it!
From this thread:
http://www.supertopo.com/climbing/thread.html?topic_id=246813&msg=298518#msg298518
WBraun wrote:
"The Vedic account of our planetary system is already researched, concluded, and perfect. The Vedas state that the moon is 800,000 miles farther from the earth than the sun. Therefore, even if we accept the modern calculation of 93 million miles as the distance from the earth to the sun, how could the "astronauts" have traveled to the moon--a distance of almost 94 million miles--in only 91 hours (the alleged elapsed time of the Apollo 11 moon trip)?
If anywhere they went to Rahu ...... look it up you'll see."
"Rahu, makes the eclipse. Check it out you'll see.
Candraloka, the moon is not the one the modern scientists, physicists think they went to. There is a hidden planet to the human eye called Rahu. "
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
More stupid speculation.
Proves you are just a mental speculator.
What do you really know besides just guessing ......
|
|
Lynne Leichtfuss
Social climber
valley center, ca
|
|
WBraun, thank you for postulating so many philosophies and ideals re: things that are important to many of us who enjoy free debate and exchange of ideas.
I myself happen to agree with many of the thoughts and philosophies you express and thank you for putting them out in the forum. I hope to address many of these issues as life gives me pause....hopefully soon. LRL
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
didn't say that Jody,
what I said is a bit more subtle than that...
if you have a hypothesis in a theory than you can predict the outcome of an experiment or observation designed to test that hypothesis.
If the hypothesis fails to predict the outcome of the test, than it is false, and it may indicate that the theory is false.
If the hypothesis is consistent with the outcome of the test, that is that. We say "consistent" because of the finite ability to quantify the the prediction and the observation.
Creationism leads to hypotheses which can be checked, and have been shown to be incorrect, for instance, the age of the earth is 4.6 billion years. Another is the explanation of various geological features which are hypothesized to have resulted in the "great flood" and fail to correspond to known geological processes. Another is the explanation of the existence of extinct life as indicated in the fossil record. As I understand it, creationist hypotheses fail nearly every rigorous test they are put to, leading to a modification of the creation "theory" which essentially retreats to an untestable corner, that is essentially "the will of God/gods." Since part of the theory is that we cannot understand "the will of God/gods" we cannot formulate tests of this hypothesis. In science such theories are discarded as untestable, they are useless, for science, because of their inability to predict the outcome of experiment/observation.
On the other hand, evolution is predictive, and has been subject to a series of tests over the past 150 years which have both modified our description of evolution (refining the theory) and has been shown to be consistent with the experiments/observations used to test its predictions.
|
|
Mighty Hiker
Social climber
Vancouver, B.C.
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Jul 5, 2008 - 02:54pm PT
|
"Ed even said that if you can't "disprove" it, it must be true."
I look forward to Ed's rebuttal to that. [Edit: I see he put one in while I was writing this.]
Spiritual and religious beliefs may be true, however unlikely it seems - but there's no way to prove or disprove them. They don't make predictions that are falsifiable, that is predictions that can be shown to be true or untrue.
Saying that "God will strike you down with a lightning bolt at 4:19 PST, unless you repent" is falsifiable - assuming "repent" can be defined. Saying that "I believe in god. You can't prove there isn't a god, therefore there is one." may be true - but in the absence of belief, or divine intervention, there's no objective test to measure it against.
Oil and water. Science has theories (beliefs, if you like) which make predictions about the world that can be proven or disproven. Religious belief doesn't.
Which is why 99% of the religious debate on SuperTopo is a waste of time. You either believe, or you don't.
It is probably easier for humans to believe in an arbitrary and often ridiculous collection of religious dogmas, which in turn are mostly a syncretic mass of beliefs and tribal legends from the Fertile Crescent, approximately 2,000 - 1,000 BCE, with later overlays, than it is to really appreciate 4.56 billion years. Particularly given that the religions do offer useful ideas as to how humans can live together and behave. Still, given the evils that all religions promote, if we said that teaching children about religion was child abuse, and prohibited anyone under age 18 from exposure to or involvement in religion, I wonder what would happen?
|
|
Jaybro
Social climber
wuz real!
|
|
"Humans and apes have common ancestors. "
Not "we came from apes."
If you're going to refute a point of view, get it straight in your own mind before you embarrass yourself in public, again.
No evidence of speciation? What about isolated populations that can no longer mate and produce offspring? Do they no longer count?
Creationism is a whim, a suggestion, a fairy tale, it does not pass the rigor to be a theory.
|
|
L
climber
Soy latte center of the Known Universe
|
|
Jody,
I'm not really an expert on this...but isn't it a fact that our DNA is something like 98% the same as apes?
Could one of you guys clarify that please? I read it a while ago...I think in that science article about the chimp who uses American Sign Language to have everyday conversations with people...just like a child would.
Edit: Found one of the articles I'd read:
In 2003, researchers at Wayne State University in Detroit again ignited the debate when they found that 99.4% of the most critical DNA sites are identical in human and chimp genes, prompting the lead researcher, Morris Goodman, to declare that chimps and humans should be brought together under the same umbrella genus, Homo.
"There have been discussions about whether chimpanzees should be afforded more protection and this might make things a bit clearer in peoples' minds about whether they should have rights of some kind. In terms of life on Earth, chimps and humans are really not that different to each other," said Andrew Rambaut, an evolutionary biologist at Oxford University. Practically, he adds, reclassification could raise the chimp's profile and potentially improve their conservation.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2006/jan/24/research.highereducation
|
|
Mighty Hiker
Social climber
Vancouver, B.C.
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Jul 5, 2008 - 03:49pm PT
|
You guys are all wreaking hayhem on my thread. I just wanted to recognize a brilliant and interesting man, and his ideas. Not to debate whether his theory is true, and all that other stuff. No way that can be solved here, as we've demonstrated so many times before.
|
|
Ouch!
climber
|
|
To me, the biggest question in creationism is why God kills kittens because of what Locker does in his spare time.
|
|
Mighty Hiker
Social climber
Vancouver, B.C.
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Jul 5, 2008 - 03:59pm PT
|
"Hayhem" is a term that recently appeared in the English language, as it continues to evolve. Jody created it. I think if has something to do with agricultural crime - genetically modified crops, rustling corn, hopefully not unnatural acts with the livestock. A neologism that seems useful in a variety of situations.
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
Darwin is not brilliant because he missed the most important fundamental knowledge, the existence of the soul.
When the knowledge of the soul is missing, knowledge becomes defective.
This is the defect of modern science. They have no knowledge of the soul and therefore speculated and theorize everything from the gross physical mundane platform.
The end result is they mislead everyone.
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!