Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 63 (9161 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,581 Year: 2,838/9,624 Month: 683/1,588 Week: 89/229 Day: 61/28 Hour: 0/3


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The Religious Nature of Evolution, or Lack Thereof
MrHambre
Member (Idle past 1383 days)
Posts: 1495
From: Framingham, MA, USA
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 181 of 212 (117468)
06-22-2004 10:29 AM
Reply to: Message 177 by DarkStar
06-21-2004 10:28 PM


Quote Mining Disaster
DarkStar,
I'm not sure what all these quotes necessarily have to do with evolution, common ancestry, or empirical evidential inquiry. I gather that the quotes are meant to suggest that science's methodology is so well established that it's impossible to get scientists to be objective. Certainly I can agree that short-sightedness and vested interests are just as present in science as they are in other areas of our society. However, that's not to say that firmly-entrenched ideas aren't that way for a reason.
In trying to understand this sort of position, I start by asking whether heliocentrism is a valid scientific theory. After all, for millennia people assumed the Sun orbited the Earth. Common sense and observable reality supported geocentrism, which could accurately predict solar and lunar motion. The problem was planetary motion: the apparently retrograde paths that planets took in their orbits around Earth could never be explained through the geocentric model. The heliocentric theory put planetary motion into an explanatory framework that yielded testable predictions.
Empirical evidential inquiry doesn't depend on just observations: the vast majority of the time, all the planets are not observable from Earth. Does this constitute a leap of faith on the part of scientists? Are astronomers allowed to infer based on limited observations? The answer is yes.
The evolution of species is seen at a high level in the fossil record, which records the progression of life-forms from ancient to modern. Even without assumptions of ancestry, the changes in the biosphere are real and verifiable. The evolution of viruses like HIV provide a real-time verification of the mutation-selection engine proposed by Darwin as the foundation for all biological diversity. But do these views really see the same thing?
The genes are the link between the two views. If all life shares ancestry, there should be genetic links among diverse organisms that can help retrace their paths of evolution. Scientists have looked at several molecules (such as hemoglobin) to gauge the degree of divergence among various organisms. These molecular phylogenies have a degree of correlation with the family trees constructed using only morphology that is far too high to be considered coincidental (thanks, mark24). They have also found non-coding areas in the genomes of separate organisms where identical mutations appear in a sequence that is otherwise identical to a functioning gene in a third organism. This type of phenomenon so strongly supports common ancestry that it can't be attributed to mere wishful thinking. It may as well be claimed that using DNA in establishing paternity presupposes a commitment to naturalism or some other such imagined bias.
So is everything in the biological history of Earth understood in detail? Not by a long shot. However, the evolutionary framework has been indispensible in clarifying so many former mysteries (and in the process illuminating just how much we have left to learn) that science's reliance on the theory is understandable. When a better theory comes along, which explains everything Darwin's theory did and more, we will have the same shift in perspective as when geocentrism was abandoned. However, in the absence of any better scientific lens through which to view biology, it's unfair to accuse scientists of being jaundiced or biased for sticking with what works.
regards,
Esteban Hambre

This message is a reply to:
 Message 177 by DarkStar, posted 06-21-2004 10:28 PM DarkStar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 183 by DarkStar, posted 06-22-2004 4:17 PM MrHambre has replied
 Message 190 by DarkStar, posted 06-22-2004 9:04 PM MrHambre has replied

  
MrHambre
Member (Idle past 1383 days)
Posts: 1495
From: Framingham, MA, USA
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 185 of 212 (117576)
06-22-2004 4:49 PM
Reply to: Message 183 by DarkStar
06-22-2004 4:17 PM


Biased Toward Science
quote:
MrHambre: The evolution of species is seen at a high level in the fossil record, which records the progression of life-forms from ancient to modern.
DarkStar:
I respectfully disagree. I do not believe the fossil record shows this in any conceivable sense outside of microevolution.
Excuse me? The change in species, from protobacteria three billion years ago to the profusion of uni- and multi-cellular life we see today, is basically an indisputable fact. Even in the absence of assumptions concerning ancestry, the fossil record does demonstrate this change rather clearly. I'm not sure why you mentioned microevolution in this context.
quote:
MrHambre: If all life shares ancestry, there should be genetic links among diverse organisms that can help retrace their paths of evolution.
DarkStar:
Based upon the assumption of shared ancestry, this would be true. I reject that assumption and the fossil record does not support that assumption.
I'm not talking about the fossil record, I'm talking about the genome. It's significant that genetic links have been found among various types of organisms. Since DNA is the hereditary system, it's fair to infer that these are there because of shared ancestry. I don't think we make an unfair assumption when DNA establishes paternity of a child. Why, then, is it unfair to establish common ancestry among organisms using the exact same techniques?
quote:
DarkStar:
Based upon evolution scientists own remarks, I beleive (sic) it is fair to accuse the scientific community in general of continued bias, etc.
Okay, but tell us why. Like I said, if evolution is the New Geocentrism, then the scientific theory that replaces it will explain everything evolution does and more. That scientific theory has not been proposed. For the accusation of bias to stick, you must demonstrate that scientists are willfully ignoring a better scientific construct.
regards,
Esteban Hambre

This message is a reply to:
 Message 183 by DarkStar, posted 06-22-2004 4:17 PM DarkStar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 189 by DarkStar, posted 06-22-2004 8:56 PM MrHambre has not replied

  
MrHambre
Member (Idle past 1383 days)
Posts: 1495
From: Framingham, MA, USA
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 197 of 212 (118203)
06-24-2004 7:15 AM
Reply to: Message 190 by DarkStar
06-22-2004 9:04 PM


Unanswered Questions
DarkStar,
You still have a substantial amount of unanswered questions that deserve to be addressed.
My position is that scientists, although they can certainly be short-sighted and self-serving, aren't engaging in a religious endeavor because facts have to support their claims. That is, there has to be an evidential basis to their work, and it can't be dismissed as wishful thinking. Several posters have pointed out that the fossil record does show the gradual development of new life forms on Earth over billions of years (regardless of the mechanism of this development), and you have yet to support your objection to this universally accepted scientific fact.
In addition, the accusation of bias has to demonstrate that they are willfully ignoring a valid scientific construct that is an alternative to evolution. If there is only one reasonable choice to be made, someone can't be accused of bias for making it.
regards,
Esteban Hambre

This message is a reply to:
 Message 190 by DarkStar, posted 06-22-2004 9:04 PM DarkStar has not replied

  
MrHambre
Member (Idle past 1383 days)
Posts: 1495
From: Framingham, MA, USA
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 201 of 212 (118777)
06-25-2004 6:27 PM
Reply to: Message 200 by mark24
06-25-2004 2:40 PM


Get Your T-shirts Here
I see a Great Debate in the works: Mark vs. Ark & Dark. This is gonna be kick ass.
Regards,
Esteban "Stark" Hambre

This message is a reply to:
 Message 200 by mark24, posted 06-25-2004 2:40 PM mark24 has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024