Evolution
-
Primula Baggins
- Living in hope
- Posts: 40005
- Joined: Mon Nov 21, 2005 1:43 am
- Location: Sailing the luminiferous aether
- Contact:
Evolution
This topic was split off from a discussion of science education in Bag End.
Last edited by Primula Baggins on Thu Oct 19, 2006 4:10 pm, edited 1 time in total.
“There, peeping among the cloud-wrack above a dark tor high up in the mountains, Sam saw a white star twinkle for a while. The beauty of it smote his heart, as he looked up out of the forsaken land, and hope returned to him. For like a shaft, clear and cold, the thought pierced him that in the end the Shadow was only a small and passing thing: there was light and high beauty for ever beyond its reach.”
― J.R.R. Tolkien, The Return of the King
― J.R.R. Tolkien, The Return of the King
[rant mode](Emphasis mine) What I discovered when I began exploring my own personal doubts about the theory of evolution was that evolutionists WERE JUST AS GUILTY OF THIS APPROACH as creationists. Evolution had, in effect, become a RELIGION, and heaven help you if you DARED start to question it!! [/rant]Lord_Morningstar wrote:Simply, because creationism has zero acceptance in the mainstream scientific community. More specifically, it cannot be explored scientifically – it is not testable, and makes assumptions (ie. the existence of a creator) that can’t be dealt with. Creationism does not follow the scientific method – science demands that you explore the evidence and make a hypothesis that matches it. Creationism starts with a set belief that cannot be varied and tries to find evidence to fit it. Evolution is a good scientific theory, but creationism isn’t. It may be correct, but it isn’t science.Rodia wrote: I've read this discussion and while I have no sensible advice to offer, I have a question. There seems (to me, anyway) to be a general idea in this thread that a school that teaches creationism as an alternative theory to evolutionism must not be teaching science properly. If they are taught alongside, I don't see why this would have to be the case?
I am NOT a creationist. I am a Christian, but when it comes to the origin of life on this planet, I'm a hard-core scientist. PROVE IT TO ME, GUYS! And I had my doubts about evolution, at least the way it was presented to me, and is still currently taught, since Day One.
1) The fossil record does NOT show smooth transitions from one form/type of species to another, but rather long periods of stability, followed by periods of mass extinction, with changes occuring in abrupt jumps.
2) The chances of evolution having happened by random chance mutations, even given a time scale of millions of years, is about the same as if you took the longer version of the Webster English dictionary, threw all the pages up in the air, and they came down in perfect alphabetical order.
3) The study of species currently living on earth clearly show micro-evolution (adaptation of a species to changes in its environment) but as far as I know, has yet to successfully show the changing of one species into another that is not fully fertile when bred back to the parent species. (This is the true test, the official biological definition of 'species') (Plants are an exception to this: they can speciate by doubling their chromosome number, while animals aren't as flexible in this regard.)
And again, I must add, not accepting the theory of evolution does not make one a Creationist. Even scientists are beginning to question it. Why the lack of intermediate forms in the fossil record? How do you explain the evolution of organs like the eye and the ear, organs so delicate and complex that they would be detrimental to the animal's survival in an intermediate, semi- or non-functional state? How can random, gradual changes produce an intricate organ like an eye or an ear where none existed before?
Questions, questions. They fascinate me so much, I may go back to school someday just to catch up on what scientists are currently finding out about stuff like this.
Last edited by Sunsilver on Thu Oct 19, 2006 2:24 pm, edited 1 time in total.
When the night has been too lonely, and the road has been too long,
And you think that love is only for the lucky and the strong,
Just remember in the winter far beneath the bitter snows,
Lies the seed, that with the sun's love, in the spring becomes The Rose.
And you think that love is only for the lucky and the strong,
Just remember in the winter far beneath the bitter snows,
Lies the seed, that with the sun's love, in the spring becomes The Rose.
3) The study of species currently living on earth clearly show micro-evolution (adaptation of a species to changes in its environment) but as far as I know, has yet to successfully show the changing of one species into another that is not fully fertile when bred back to the parent species. (This is the true test, the official biological definition of 'species') (Plants are an exception to this: they can speciate by doubling their chromosome number, while animals aren't as flexible in this regard.)
IIRC, in the old Manwë evolution thread (the biggest Manwë thread ever!!!), it was clained that this has been observed in living animals. I don't know if it's true, and I have many, many doubts myself, but thought I'd throw that out there.
I wanna love somebody but I don't know how
I wanna throw my body in the river and drown
-The Decemberists
I wanna throw my body in the river and drown
-The Decemberists
Any way you could find that reference, Yov? I'd be interested in seeing it.
The problem with evolution is it's such a vast topic that it's hard to argue about intelligently. It involves the sciences of genetics, animal behaviour, anatomy and physiology, palentology, and climatology. If you want to stretch it to include the origins of the earth and the universe, you could include nuclear physics and astronomy.
But when it comes right down to it, can we REALLY do anything more than make intelligent guesses, backed by whatever experiments can be done in a lab? Working with a time scale of millions of years makes replicating the process of evolution difficult, if not impossible.
The problem with evolution is it's such a vast topic that it's hard to argue about intelligently. It involves the sciences of genetics, animal behaviour, anatomy and physiology, palentology, and climatology. If you want to stretch it to include the origins of the earth and the universe, you could include nuclear physics and astronomy.
But when it comes right down to it, can we REALLY do anything more than make intelligent guesses, backed by whatever experiments can be done in a lab? Working with a time scale of millions of years makes replicating the process of evolution difficult, if not impossible.
When the night has been too lonely, and the road has been too long,
And you think that love is only for the lucky and the strong,
Just remember in the winter far beneath the bitter snows,
Lies the seed, that with the sun's love, in the spring becomes The Rose.
And you think that love is only for the lucky and the strong,
Just remember in the winter far beneath the bitter snows,
Lies the seed, that with the sun's love, in the spring becomes The Rose.
-
Primula Baggins
- Living in hope
- Posts: 40005
- Joined: Mon Nov 21, 2005 1:43 am
- Location: Sailing the luminiferous aether
- Contact:
I agree, Ax. Half a minute.
Edit: Well, it took more than half a minute because I got all fancy and used the new "merge" feature, but here we are.
Edit: Well, it took more than half a minute because I got all fancy and used the new "merge" feature, but here we are.
Last edited by Primula Baggins on Thu Oct 19, 2006 4:14 pm, edited 1 time in total.
“There, peeping among the cloud-wrack above a dark tor high up in the mountains, Sam saw a white star twinkle for a while. The beauty of it smote his heart, as he looked up out of the forsaken land, and hope returned to him. For like a shaft, clear and cold, the thought pierced him that in the end the Shadow was only a small and passing thing: there was light and high beauty for ever beyond its reach.”
― J.R.R. Tolkien, The Return of the King
― J.R.R. Tolkien, The Return of the King
-
Primula Baggins
- Living in hope
- Posts: 40005
- Joined: Mon Nov 21, 2005 1:43 am
- Location: Sailing the luminiferous aether
- Contact:
Shirriff note
I have strong opinions on this issue myself and may post later, but I feel obliged to post just a reminder that we all need to keep the discussion calm and civil, to understand that this issue is deeply emotional for many people, and to remember that this place is about friends getting together to talk, with mutual respect and patience. If this thread becomes a source of division or resentment, it won't continue.
I have strong opinions on this issue myself and may post later, but I feel obliged to post just a reminder that we all need to keep the discussion calm and civil, to understand that this issue is deeply emotional for many people, and to remember that this place is about friends getting together to talk, with mutual respect and patience. If this thread becomes a source of division or resentment, it won't continue.
“There, peeping among the cloud-wrack above a dark tor high up in the mountains, Sam saw a white star twinkle for a while. The beauty of it smote his heart, as he looked up out of the forsaken land, and hope returned to him. For like a shaft, clear and cold, the thought pierced him that in the end the Shadow was only a small and passing thing: there was light and high beauty for ever beyond its reach.”
― J.R.R. Tolkien, The Return of the King
― J.R.R. Tolkien, The Return of the King
Oh.Lord_Morningstar wrote: Simply, because creationism has zero acceptance in the mainstream scientific community. [...]Evolution is a good scientific theory, but creationism isn’t. It may be correct, but it isn’t science.
In reality, if the Bible did not support creationism, no-one would talk about it. Suggesting that creationism should be taught alongside evolution basically allows anything to get taught – if we allowed it, there would be no reason to exclude demon possession as a valid alternative to germ theory or put astrology alongside astronomy.
I never thought of it that way. Makes sense, and explains why I was never told anything about the six days outside of religion class. And is a new discovery for me in the whole matter.
I still think they can work together, and that the unscientific explanations deserve a minimum of respect too, if not necessarily a full class in a non-religious school. I certainly wouldn't like to hear, as an addition to the most probably scientific theory 'Some people believe a higher entity created the world, and some believe aliens did, but that's a load of rubbish because science says God and aliens don't exist'. Until we're 100% sure none of these things happened, I'd like to hear 'It can't be proved by science, so we must dismiss it as improbable, but who knows.'
Just, you know. As a courtesy. Because, belief in creationism is not as simple as rejecting evolutionism, and also, who knows. My belief in God has never once made me reject science. (My laziness in school on the other hand...but that's another story.)
-
Primula Baggins
- Living in hope
- Posts: 40005
- Joined: Mon Nov 21, 2005 1:43 am
- Location: Sailing the luminiferous aether
- Contact:
Well, here's where it helps that science and religion are addressing completely different areas of reality. Science will never say, "We have proved that there is no God," because the existence of God is not subject to empirical (=based on physical evidence) proof, which is all that science concerns itself with.
This is why many scientists are religious people as well. Science and religion don't rule each other out; they are just talking about different things, and what each understands about the universe is arrived at in completely different ways.
This is also why scientists overwhelmingly reject creationist arguments. It's nothing to do with indoctrination or belief; it's to do with basing your theories on empirical evidence, rather than divine revelation. And the empirical evidence for evolution is extremely sound. People wiith a vested interest in pushing creationism or intelligent design point to this or that inconsistency, but their objections simply don't hold water. If they did, a significant number of scientists would be arguing for creationism, and they are not.
(I am a Christian, married to a molecular geneticist who is also a Christian. Accepting evolution as true, as we both certainly do, does not change that for either of us.)
This is why many scientists are religious people as well. Science and religion don't rule each other out; they are just talking about different things, and what each understands about the universe is arrived at in completely different ways.
This is also why scientists overwhelmingly reject creationist arguments. It's nothing to do with indoctrination or belief; it's to do with basing your theories on empirical evidence, rather than divine revelation. And the empirical evidence for evolution is extremely sound. People wiith a vested interest in pushing creationism or intelligent design point to this or that inconsistency, but their objections simply don't hold water. If they did, a significant number of scientists would be arguing for creationism, and they are not.
(I am a Christian, married to a molecular geneticist who is also a Christian. Accepting evolution as true, as we both certainly do, does not change that for either of us.)
“There, peeping among the cloud-wrack above a dark tor high up in the mountains, Sam saw a white star twinkle for a while. The beauty of it smote his heart, as he looked up out of the forsaken land, and hope returned to him. For like a shaft, clear and cold, the thought pierced him that in the end the Shadow was only a small and passing thing: there was light and high beauty for ever beyond its reach.”
― J.R.R. Tolkien, The Return of the King
― J.R.R. Tolkien, The Return of the King
Separate magisteria: that's what they are. Science says NOTHING about the existence or non-existence of God.
Evolution is certainly a "fact". I mean, evolution has certainly happened and is certainly happening now. The niggling details of lines of descent, the various twigs on the shrub of Life may be open to change/discussion due to new evidence, but the empirical evidence for Evolution as theorized by Darwin and others is as rock solid as any science on any subject. It is NOT a matter of "faith", nor is it anything approaching religion: no scientist worth her salt rejects questioning and demands unthinking acceptance. Science puts the evidence before you, and you decide what you think is reasonable. But the word "evidence" has a particular meaning to science, as do the words "theory" and "hypothesis". I hope everyone remembers that. (Thanks, Lord_M, as always the voice of reason.)
What it gets down to, generally, is that the term "abiogenesis" comes into the thread. I accept and I think that life on earth is likely a result of Abiogenesis, and have no intellectual or spiritual or emotional objections to the idea. I "accept it" as the likely answer, I do not "have faith" that it is: it just seems the most likely, the most probable.
Arguing from incredulity is fruitless and is not, in fact, argument but a series of unprovable assertions. We went through this on Manwë a thousand times and those who argue from incredulity never understood what the problem was. I daresay they never will.
Evolution is certainly a "fact". I mean, evolution has certainly happened and is certainly happening now. The niggling details of lines of descent, the various twigs on the shrub of Life may be open to change/discussion due to new evidence, but the empirical evidence for Evolution as theorized by Darwin and others is as rock solid as any science on any subject. It is NOT a matter of "faith", nor is it anything approaching religion: no scientist worth her salt rejects questioning and demands unthinking acceptance. Science puts the evidence before you, and you decide what you think is reasonable. But the word "evidence" has a particular meaning to science, as do the words "theory" and "hypothesis". I hope everyone remembers that. (Thanks, Lord_M, as always the voice of reason.)
What it gets down to, generally, is that the term "abiogenesis" comes into the thread. I accept and I think that life on earth is likely a result of Abiogenesis, and have no intellectual or spiritual or emotional objections to the idea. I "accept it" as the likely answer, I do not "have faith" that it is: it just seems the most likely, the most probable.
Arguing from incredulity is fruitless and is not, in fact, argument but a series of unprovable assertions. We went through this on Manwë a thousand times and those who argue from incredulity never understood what the problem was. I daresay they never will.
Dig deeper.
Okay, I think that this is probably old Manwë stompin' grounds for some of you, and so some of the questions I'm about to ask are probably old hat. Forgive me for taking a minute of your time to catch myself up on the lingo!
1. What do you mean by "abiogenesis", vison? Dictionary.com defines it as "the now discredited theory that living organisms can arise spontaneously from inanimate matter; spontaneous generation." Is spontaneous generation the theory that you feel is most likely, most probable?
2. I'm not familiar with the meaning of the phrase "arguing from incredulity". I know what incredulous means, and Dictionary.com defined "incredulity" in a manner similar to my understanding... "the state or quality of being incredulous; disbelief." Vison, could you please describe what this phrase means to you?
3. Is evolution still taught as the "theory" of evolution? I agree that the word "theory" has an absolute meaning to a scientist, and as a scientist, I will read the word as a scientist does. On the other hand, it's been a long time since I was in school.
Is it still presented, in school, as a theory, or is it taught as a fact?
1. What do you mean by "abiogenesis", vison? Dictionary.com defines it as "the now discredited theory that living organisms can arise spontaneously from inanimate matter; spontaneous generation." Is spontaneous generation the theory that you feel is most likely, most probable?
2. I'm not familiar with the meaning of the phrase "arguing from incredulity". I know what incredulous means, and Dictionary.com defined "incredulity" in a manner similar to my understanding... "the state or quality of being incredulous; disbelief." Vison, could you please describe what this phrase means to you?
3. Is evolution still taught as the "theory" of evolution? I agree that the word "theory" has an absolute meaning to a scientist, and as a scientist, I will read the word as a scientist does. On the other hand, it's been a long time since I was in school.
Is it still presented, in school, as a theory, or is it taught as a fact?The idea in this context applies to the hypothesis (NOT THEORY!!!!) of the first single-celled organism arising from "primordial goo" - ie. life from non-life - and that that single cell is the ancestor of all.Anthriel wrote: 1. What do you mean by "abiogenesis", vison? Dictionary.com defines it as "the now discredited theory that living organisms can arise spontaneously from inanimate matter; spontaneous generation." Is spontaneous generation the theory that you feel is most likely, most probable?
This is the extremely common argument from people saying they don't believe it because it seems so overwhelmingly unlikely to them.2. I'm not familiar with the meaning of the phrase "arguing from incredulity". I know what incredulous means, and Dictionary.com defined "incredulity" in a manner similar to my understanding... "the state or quality of being incredulous; disbelief." Vison, could you please describe what this phrase means to you?
I'm sure it is taught as theory since from the science pov that's what it is. But many (eg. me) have complained that the "it's a scientific theory" is not clarified and emphasized properly, giving many the impression that this is getting taught as indisputable fact.3. Is evolution still taught as the "theory" of evolution? I agree that the word "theory" has an absolute meaning to a scientist, and as a scientist, I will read the word as a scientist does. On the other hand, it's been a long time since I was in school.
And yes, this is old Manwë stompin' ground. Veeery old. But I'm still here!!
Last edited by yovargas on Thu Oct 19, 2006 8:45 pm, edited 2 times in total.
I wanna love somebody but I don't know how
I wanna throw my body in the river and drown
-The Decemberists
I wanna throw my body in the river and drown
-The Decemberists
-
Primula Baggins
- Living in hope
- Posts: 40005
- Joined: Mon Nov 21, 2005 1:43 am
- Location: Sailing the luminiferous aether
- Contact:
I think of spontaneous generation as a separate thing, Anthy—the old theory that maggots arose spontaneously in rotten meat, which of course was proved wrong long ago.
I think vison must mean life originating from non-life, the essential first step in evolution. But I'm sure she'll explain.
I think vison must mean life originating from non-life, the essential first step in evolution. But I'm sure she'll explain.
“There, peeping among the cloud-wrack above a dark tor high up in the mountains, Sam saw a white star twinkle for a while. The beauty of it smote his heart, as he looked up out of the forsaken land, and hope returned to him. For like a shaft, clear and cold, the thought pierced him that in the end the Shadow was only a small and passing thing: there was light and high beauty for ever beyond its reach.”
― J.R.R. Tolkien, The Return of the King
― J.R.R. Tolkien, The Return of the King
That's what that phrase means to me, too, Prim, and I was pretty sure that wasn't exactly what vison meant; but that's what dictionary.com defined it as, so I thought I'd ask. Science does have its own definitions of things, and understanding exactly what someone means is important!
As an aside, I still marvel at Pasteur's experiments. Pasteur ROCKED! (Okay, so I'm a microbiology geek... so shoot me...)
Love it. LOVE it. Love that the difference in those two words is known to you, and that you would carefully make the distinction between them.
Love it.
Yes I do.
As an aside, I still marvel at Pasteur's experiments. Pasteur ROCKED! (Okay, so I'm a microbiology geek... so shoot me...)
yov wrote:to the hypothesis (NOT THEORY!!!!)
Love it. LOVE it. Love that the difference in those two words is known to you, and that you would carefully make the distinction between them.
Love it.
Yes I do.
Yes, that's what vison means. It is the term I was taught, and for all I know it may not be current or correct.
It's like this: Life began somewhere at some time. Right?
It either arose from non-life or it was created.
There is no in-between. One or the other of those statements is "true". One is "potentially" provable, the other isn't. (Let me alter that: it is possible that science might one day succeed in "making" life from non-life, duplicating in a lab what I think was our beginning, showing that it is not only perfectly possible but very probable. And that beginning does not necessarily have to have happened on Earth or in our Solar system, it is possible that life came here from elsewhere although I don't much buy into that.)
I do not think life was created by any being. Because, in my linear, logical way I would say, "OK. God created it all, he made everything, living and non-living, but who created God? Where did God come from?" There is no getting away from that as far as I'm concerned. I do know that various religions will answer that "God was, is and always shall be", but that doesn't satisfy me.
More to the point, I am not interested in the existence or non-existence of a deity, except for arguing on a message board. God cannot be proven, but must be accepted on faith. I don't have that faith.
My position is clear, at least to me: no God is necessary.
It's like this: Life began somewhere at some time. Right?
It either arose from non-life or it was created.
There is no in-between. One or the other of those statements is "true". One is "potentially" provable, the other isn't. (Let me alter that: it is possible that science might one day succeed in "making" life from non-life, duplicating in a lab what I think was our beginning, showing that it is not only perfectly possible but very probable. And that beginning does not necessarily have to have happened on Earth or in our Solar system, it is possible that life came here from elsewhere although I don't much buy into that.)
I do not think life was created by any being. Because, in my linear, logical way I would say, "OK. God created it all, he made everything, living and non-living, but who created God? Where did God come from?" There is no getting away from that as far as I'm concerned. I do know that various religions will answer that "God was, is and always shall be", but that doesn't satisfy me.
More to the point, I am not interested in the existence or non-existence of a deity, except for arguing on a message board. God cannot be proven, but must be accepted on faith. I don't have that faith.
My position is clear, at least to me: no God is necessary.
Dig deeper.
Religion doesn't seek truth, it seeks to understand something "higher," or "greater," than ourselves.
Science doesn't seek truth, merely to understand the universe around us.
There is a truth about where all of the stuff around us comes from... and it is both something that is greater than us... and something we can only hope to vaguely understand.
It's a shame that Science and Religion are so incompatable as we understand them today... because we need both to actually get anywhere.
Science doesn't seek truth, merely to understand the universe around us.
There is a truth about where all of the stuff around us comes from... and it is both something that is greater than us... and something we can only hope to vaguely understand.
It's a shame that Science and Religion are so incompatable as we understand them today... because we need both to actually get anywhere.
For the TROUBLED may you find PEACE
For the DESPAIRING may you find HOPE
For the LONELY may you find LOVE
For the SKEPTICAL may you find FAITH
-Frances C. Arrillaga 1941-1995
For the DESPAIRING may you find HOPE
For the LONELY may you find LOVE
For the SKEPTICAL may you find FAITH
-Frances C. Arrillaga 1941-1995
-
Primula Baggins
- Living in hope
- Posts: 40005
- Joined: Mon Nov 21, 2005 1:43 am
- Location: Sailing the luminiferous aether
- Contact:
Anthy wrote:As an aside, I still marvel at Pasteur's experiments. Pasteur ROCKED! (Okay, so I'm a microbiology geek... so shoot me...)
Hey, I'm not a microbiologist and I geek out over Pasteur's experiments disproving spontaneous generation—so elegant!
Wikipedia link with description and photo:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pasteur
“There, peeping among the cloud-wrack above a dark tor high up in the mountains, Sam saw a white star twinkle for a while. The beauty of it smote his heart, as he looked up out of the forsaken land, and hope returned to him. For like a shaft, clear and cold, the thought pierced him that in the end the Shadow was only a small and passing thing: there was light and high beauty for ever beyond its reach.”
― J.R.R. Tolkien, The Return of the King
― J.R.R. Tolkien, The Return of the King