quote:
The Discovery Institute’s Viewers Guide to the PBS “Evolution” series claims in several places (for example, on page 11) that the series “ . leave(s) viewers with the misleading impression that the evidence for human evolution is much stronger than it really is.” The Guide attempts to discredit the scientific implications of the human fossil record by quoting (on pages 11, 40, 47, 88, and 111) passages from the 1999 book In Search of Deep Time by Dr. Henry Gee, who is also Senior Editor, Biological Sciences, for the journal Nature. Dr. Gee has sent us the following comments:
"The Discovery Institute has used unauthorized, selective quotations from my book IN SEARCH OF DEEP TIME to support their outdated, mistaken views.
Darwinian evolution by natural selection is taken as a given in IN SEARCH OF DEEP TIME, and this is made clear several times e.g. on p5 (paperback edition) I write that "if it is fair to assume that all life on Earth shares a common evolutionary origin..." and then go on to make clear that this is the assumption I am making throughout the book. For the Discovery Institute to quote from my book without reference to this is mischievous.
That it is impossible to trace direct lineages of ancestry and descent from the fossil record should be self-evident. Ancestors must exist, of course -- but we can never attribute ancestry to any particular fossil we might find. Just try this thought experiment -- let's say you find a fossil of a hominid, an ancient member of the human family. You can recognize various attributes that suggest kinship to humanity, but you would never know whether this particular fossil represented your lineal ancestor - even if that were actually the case. The reason is that fossils are never buried with their birth certificates. Again, this is a logical constraint that must apply even if evolution were true -- which is not in doubt, because if we didn't have ancestors, then we wouldn't be here. Neither does this mean that fossils exhibiting transitional structures do not exist, nor that it is impossible to reconstruct what happened in evolution. Unfortunately, many paleontologists believe that ancestor/descendent lineages can be traced from the fossil record, and my book is intended to debunk this view. However, this disagreement is hardly evidence of some great scientific coverup -- religious fundamentalists such as the DI -- who live by dictatorial fiat -- fail to understand that scientific disagreement is a mark of health rather than decay. However, the point of IN SEARCH OF DEEP TIME, ironically, is that old-style, traditional evolutionary biology -- the type that feels it must tell a story, and is therefore more appealing to news reporters and makers of documentaries -- is unscientific.
I am a religious person and I believe in God. I find the militant atheism of some evolutionary biologists ill-reasoned and childish, and most importantly unscientific -- crucially, faith should not be subject to scientific justification. But the converse also holds true -- science should not need to be validated by the narrow dogma of faith. As such, I regard the opinions of the Discovery Institute as regressive, repressive, divisive, sectarian and probably unrepresentative of views held by people of faith generally. In addition, the use by creationists of selective, unauthorized quotations, possibly with intent to mislead the public undermines their position as self-appointed guardians of public values and morals.
The above views are my own and do not necessarily represent those of my colleagues at NATURE or any opinion or policy of the NATURE PUBLISHING GROUP." Henry Gee
Gee is just stating the obvious. That is that similarity between one creature and a fossil from an earlier epoch does not mean that the early fossil can be described as an actual ancestor of the later creature. It could be of a closely related species or subspecies of the direct ancestor, or of the same species, but an individual that left no descendents, etc.
we have a slight problem with internet access around here at the moment so things are slow to get through if you get so lucky as to get anything...
Are you going to pray for an improvement, or look for an evil materialist solution?
Child, are you talking to me? If so, what are you saying?
Schizophrenia?????? writes:
Actually my main point in this entire debate is “what is the truth?” apart from what we would like to believe is true. Perhaps faith should not be subject to scientific justification but then what point is there in faith if what you believe does not happen to be true? Does the evidence support evolution or intelligent design better?
Well it wouldn't -they are the most brain washed of all, I suspect and Gould and Eldredge must have been trying to explain away something (like a lack of gradualisitic evidence) when they dreamed up their punkeek story.Who desires to believe what is convenient, is what I ask?
Who desires a father figure, we might ask? Who desires reassurance of an eternal existence for himself? Do you think thousands of paleontologists world-wide are telling themselves comfort lies?
Perhaps they've been brainwashed by an intelligent designer who chose to design so many creatures that can easily be seen as transitions between others?
Beretta, people like me don't believe that we descended from other animals because we have some great desire for it to be that way. On an emotional level, I don't care whether or not the chimps are my close relatives, and I wouldn't lose any sleep if some astonishing new discovery demonstrates that they're not. I'd be intellectually fascinated, of course, to know what the true story is, but that's all.
What we are interested in is the truth, and I know how to read evidence. No-one, excepting those with objections based on superstition and desire, can look at the existing evidence without coming to the conclusion that it's at least 99.9% sure that we descend from common ancestry with the chimps, and that could be said from the evidence in the respective genomes alone.
This doesn't rule out your father figure of a God, as there's nothing that tells us this universe wasn't created by a god or gods, but it does mean that reality clashes with many ancient creation mythologies, and speaking of brainwashing, we witness many people arriving on EvC to argue against evolutionary theory because they have blind faith in one such mythology, almost invariably the one which prevails in their country or culture.
So, enough of the indirectly relevant off-topic stuff. Back to fossils.
Why do you think that the intelligent designer designed amphibian-like fish before doing the full blown amphibians? Or mammal-like reptiles before the mammals? Or, for that matter, hominids with skulls half-way in size between the apes and ours?
Why is it that, every year, I read papers and articles describing new transitionals? Did the designer design to fool us into thinking that evolution is the story?
Maybe these questions are best answered on the new thread that Rick has set up for you.
No I think they've been brainwashed into seeing what they have to see to be a paleontologist -it's very human,you just look hard enough and you too can see what isn't there.
Have you considered the possibility that you want to see them to be brainwashed? Or that you've been brainwashed yourself?
Beretta writes:
The fossils are unfortunately in every bit as bad a state today despite Darwin's hopes.
Isn't lying against your religious beliefs? The only hominid found in Darwin's lifetime, for example, was Neanderthal. Around 99% of the fossils pointed to by experts as transitionals were found after Darwin's death.
Perhaps the comfort isn't in a father figure and eternal life -perhaps the comfort is total materialism, no plan, no big boss, nobody to tell you what's right and wrong, no guilt, choose whatever you prefer...
Don't you consider lying to be wrong?
If you're a biologist, you point to the plaeontologist as having the best evidence for evolution.....etc
Why are you making this up? I think most biologists would say that the best evidence is in the genes and the anatomy of living creatures.
or we could have a common designer accounting for the genetic code present in all creatures.It would be a bit dumb not to design us all based on a pattern otherwise what would we eat?
Beretta, we share a distinct pattern of common viral damage with our nearest animal relatives. That has nothing to do with any designer. You're either ignorant, or your lying to yourself.
So don't worry for now about any ancient mythologies just concentrate on design alone and the chance of what we see falling into place all on its own due to random change in the genome that came from nowhere in particular and got more and more complex purely by chance and selection of the best copying errors.
What do you think of the research results just published by Lenski?
Science cannot tell you who God is, but it can give an indication whether the design hypothesis should be considered as an alternative to material processes as a potential causation of what exists.
The scars we share with the great apes were certainly not designed.
The design hypothesis held sway for centuries, and is now dying out due to a complete absence of evidence. Would you like to defend Michael Behe on my blood clotting thread?
Well quite obviously I believe no such thing and nor is the 'evidence' as tidy as you suggest -in fact far from it.
Follow the literature closely, and you can watch the evidence roll in.
Well good question -and every new find is the one that proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that evolution is true -it's to remind the people that it's not just hot air and wishful thinking. Funny that the people are not convinced.The debate is heating up not slowing down and it's due to the gaps between what is apparently proven and the actual evidence.
Your Admin post doesn't say "don't reply", so I hope this is O.K.
Point taken. But remember, the argument being put forward is that fossils that appear to support evolution are being presented by brainwashed paleontologists (post 100). It is a technical argument and does relate to fossils, so it has to be countered.
The creationist viewpoint relies entirely on this kind of argument. It's impossible to have an evolution/creation debate without it.
So, I'm not complaining at Beretta putting forward his view that the paleontologists are brainwashed, because that is the creationist argument. If they were to agree with the experts on fossils, they would no longer be creationists.
But he has to accept that it is therefore either he or the world-wide scientific consensus which is suffering from brainwashing or delusion, and that I'll suggest the point.
I think Beretta might agree with me that his way of thinking requires a lot of topic license, and I'm a bit similar (I like bringing in ERVS to any argument at the moment!).
I agree that Beretta is not knowingly lying, but he brought up the old "non-theists believe what they believe so they can be free of God's moral laws" argument, which isn't a very good idea around me (see thread on superstition/behaviour) etc.
I think I was correct (although off topic) to explain that "evolutionists" do not believe we descended from other animals because we love the idea of having ape cousins. The belief is, as you know very well, evidence based.
Personally, I'd rather be closely related to elephants, as they're much nicer creatures, and, IMO, more intelligent than chimps.
But, as creationists illustrate, the reality that science reveals will not necessarily be that of our desires.
Yes it is and it should be against the scientific method as well -fortunately that is irrelevant here, it just suits you to imagine that I would have to be lying to mention the things I do.
Well, we could exchange views on who we think is brainwashed, lying or deluded, of course, and never agree. Perhaps looking at some evidence will help. You ask:
Beretta writes:
bluegenes writes:
Beretta, we share a distinct pattern of common viral damage with our nearest animal relatives.
I'd like to see how this conclusion was reached -any references?
Yes. I was referring to endogenous retroviruses. These can be described as sort of scars due to viral invasions in our genomes. They stick around for a long time, and those that happened before our split from the chimps can be seen in both species.
First, have a look at the brief video, which gives a general view similar to mine, and is easy to understand. But after, much better for you, I've put in a link to a paper about research on an area of the subject which is nothing to do with people debating creation/evolution, but gives you an idea of the kind of research going on that might indirectly effect future EvC debates.
A paper on the Demographic Histories of ERV-K in Humans, Chimpanzees and Rhesus Monkeys.
If you find this stuff as interesting as I do, then you might like to search around for some more papers on the subject. The best way to learn stuff is by looking at the research ourselves. The authors of these papers aren't trying to prove evolutionary theory to be correct.
As it's new stuff, I'd recommend reading the most recent material.
You'll soon know more than I do!
Beretta writes:
bluegenes writes:
What do you think of the research results just published by Lenski?
If I recall correctly, the reference you gave me didn't say much or explain anything of note, perhaps if you give me another reference so that I can look into it properly?
I didn't give you a reference (maybe you're thinking of someone else on the thread). I thought you'd know what I mean because it's a hot topic in evo/creo circles. This is about historical contingency observed in a 20 year experiment.
Lenski:
Historical contingency and the evolution of a key innovation in an experimental population of Escherichia coli
If you're interested in evolution from any point of view you'll be interested in this.
And intelligent and honest people are unconvinced -to make time to argue about an issue doesn't necessarily mean that you're right but it's unlikely to mean that you're intentionally dishonest. I know lots of decent people on both sides of this issue - I don't mistake their faith in evolution for dishonesty; blindness perhaps, inability to see outside the box possibly...
Possibly.....so let's look at as much evidence as possible. That's the honest thing to do, IMO.
Beretta writes:
bluegenes writes:
The design hypothesis held sway for centuries, and is now dying out due to a complete absence of evidence.
No, naturalistic evolution is dying after an illegitimate innings, due to the gap between the facts and the conclusions - paradigm shift coming, ship's going down - wake up or drown!
I'm a superb swimmer, but a baby couldn't drown in the evidence for I.D. anyway.
{Apologies to RAZD and others for a slight deviation from the topic, but I think Beretta will find the links stimulating}
And on that note, why aren't fish today growing little legs, trying to adapt to land?
That's a very naive view of evolution, merely because of the word "trying". But it gives me the chance to show off one of my favourite species. This little fellow is not trying to be anything other than himself.
When is a fin an arm, and when is an arm a hand? Or when is a wing a flipper, as the penguin might ask, as the chimp asks whether his forelegs are legs or arms.
Really cute -I like that fish -but when I look at it, I instinctively know it is a fully functional creation.
Instinctively, certainly. It would be counter-intuitive to suggest otherwise. But the instincts of the cute little Hand-fish in relation to its complete and complex environment will only tell us things that are very parochial. And the same thing goes for the instincts of its large brained land dwelling relatives.
Well we can live with no eyes as well -I am referring to things like metabolism,excretion,respiration -those sorts of functions-can't have any one without all the others in place and functional. Pretty complex interactions to put together piece by mutational piece.
Certainly. Pretty complex interactions to be put together piece by mutational piece. And, what exactly are you trying to say? If you want to make an adult argument about complexity, you can easily do that on the thread that I've put up about blood clotting.
It is a favourite of Intelligent Design advocates like yourself.
You mean you killed their faith, not annihilated it, right?
No. I meant that there are many interpretations of Christianity, and there are many Christians who believe that we descend from other animals, and have no problems with the realities exposed by science.
But we're off topic here, and I think a thread on ERVs, chromosome 2, and other genetic evidence for common descent is needed.
We have just as much variation in horse breeds today as we do in dog breeds. Miniatures to Clydesdales. They vary widely. The question is not the skeletal variations, the question is genetic reproduction. Is it truly macroevolution or is it just a different type of horse.
We also have donkeys and zebras. While horses and donkeys can produce mules, the mules are only very rarely fertile, meaning that horses and donkeys would effectively be different species in the wild, and would not exchange genetic information.
So, we are witnessing the end of an equine speciation event when we look at those two groups.
We can see groups of mammals at various stages of divergence, as we would expect in an evolutionary world.
There is not even a non-equivocating definition of what a species is.
"Clearly defined" might be better than "non-equivocating". Of course there isn't. That's because of divergence. In many closely related but distinctive groups, there's not a point where we can say for sure that they would not interbreed in the wild.
So scientist have many horse species, when in reality they may be just different "breeds" of horses all coming from one horse ancestor. Just like the dogs/wolves/foxes??.....???
Foxes? I think they're a clearly separate species, not a "breed" of wolf. Same with jackals.
Therefore there is no falsification of the theory, because the definition of the theory allows equivocation. I personnaly reject theories that are based on faulty logical reasoning. But heh, that's just my way of reasoning.
I don't know where the creationists myth that the theory of evolution cannot be falsified comes from. All you would need is something like elephant fossils in the Precambrian, and the theory is buggered, because it cannot explain that. Theories are explanations of the observations and evidence, and it is easy to think of things that would blow the ToE sky high!
But none have been discovered yet, which is odd, unless......
I hope you're not confusing an emotional attachment to superstition with "logical reasoning".
Zorses an Zeedonks are well within the creationists framework. They have a common ancestor from the "horse kind".
Then why not all mammals from a common ancestor of the mammal kind? And as there are fossils with both mammal and reptile features, why not...err.... all quadrupeds from a quadruped kind. And so on.
There are 13 different definitions/explanations of what a species is.
I tried to explain to you the underlying reason why it's difficult to define when two groups have become separate species (further up the thread) using the horse/donkey example, and explaining that because mules are nearly always sterile, it's virtually impossible that the two "species" could exchange genetic information in the wild, but they're only just at that point of complete speciation.
It's because what you call "macroevolution" is a constant, ongoing process that there will always be problems in defining species by reproductive isolation.
Let's get topical, and bring RAZD's dogs into the subject. One group of modern wild mammals that we could compare them to is the big "roarer" cats. Lions, tigers and leopards can produce offspring with each other in captivity, but with high rates of infertility, and they are not known to reproduce in the wild. That indicates that they are further from a common ancestor than the dogs because they have greater reproductive isolation, but it's by no means complete.
There are different species or sub-species of all three "types" of cat to complicate things, as well. If none are known to reproduce in the wild, that means they are all diverging genetically, but no-one can quantify a degree of genetic difference that defines species.
Your complaint at ambiguity is because the ambiguity is real. But your attempt to use it as an argument against "macroevolution" is just amusing and perhaps slightly pathetic, because the ambiguity is caused by the constant and ongoing process of speciation/macroevolution.
You are pointing out a human phenomenon (our problem in classifying things) that is the product of us trying to get a fix on an ever transitional, evolutionary, biological world.
™ Version 4.2
