Are there any "problems" with the ToE that are generally not addressed?

Loudmouth has already replied to this, but I'd like to comment on another aspect.It is very common for the theory of evolution to be confused with reconstructions of life's evolutionary past. Reconstructing life's history from the theory of evolution can be likened to reconstructing the solar system's history from the laws of physics. For exaple, we send out space probes to analyze the composition of asteroids, and this information allows as to modify our ideas of the origins of the asteroid belt. But as we change these ideas, the laws of physics remain unchanged.It is the same for the theory of evolution. As we gather more evidence, our ideas about life's history, for example the evolution of the first land animals, changes. But the theory of evolution remains unchanged. Darwin formulated the theory as variability within a population. natural selection, and descent with modification, and today that is still the theory.There seems to be some misunderstanding within the Creationist community that the theory of evolution somehow requires that evolution must occur, that a species is somehow not permitted to remain the same. This causes them to see the Coelacanth and cry, "This is the same fish as 70 million years ago, evolution has been proven wrong."But evolution says nothing of the kind. Species only change in response to environmental pressures. Stable environments mean stable species, and a mobile animal like a fish can increase the probability of a stable environment through migration into new environments that are identical to the old as old environments change. We even see such behavior on a short term level with migratory animals like birds, seals and reindeer.By the way, the Coelacanth was never thought to be on a direct line of descent to land animals. It is a member of the bony fishes class that includes the lobe-fin fishes, and it is the lobe-fin fishes that have been long thought to include the ancestors of the first land animals. Scientists have never seriously considered the Coelacanth group for this role. However, it often gets mentioned in this context because some Coelacanth fossils we've found date very close to the time of land colonization.What follows is the relevant portions from Message 73 where this topic was discussed a while back.

---

• To be technically accurate, the fish we're talking about is actually the Latimeria chalumnae. The complete classification:

  Kingdom: Anamilia
  Phylum: Chordata
  Class: Osteichthyes (bony fishes)
  Order: Coelacanthini
  Family: Sarcopterygii
  Genus: Latimeria
  Species: chalumnae

• Latimeria chalumnae is the only known extant species representing an order, the Coelacanthini, that was once thought to have become extinct in the Cretaceous because no fossils from more recent periods have ever been found.
  ​
• The modern coelacanth's closest known relatives, species of the genus Macropoma such as Macropoma lewesiensis, went extinct about 70 million years ago in the Cretaceous. No fossil of Latimeria chalumnae has ever been found.
  ​
• It isn't the species coelacanth which has survived for 340 million years, but rather the order Coelacanthini, of which Latimeria chalumnae is the only known living representative. For this reason, use of the popular term "coelacanth" is both misleading and insufficiently accurate for this debate.

---

--PercyThis message has been edited by Percy, 09-04-2004 12:43 PM

"DArwin and others were wrong" Well we've been saying that from the beginning what was the hold up. (One might ask why was he wrong. Were did the "science" break down logically. Why did the method fail. Are there more errors admitance loaming)I know its not the same specis. The operative word here is Coalacanth.
This fish's discovery and publicity is all I'm taliking about.So where are we.
I say the discovery and observation of the real fish was a blow to evolution in its method and premises. In fact I found a good info thing. creationdigest - informations les plus rcentes et jour under cutting edge and living fossils. They discuss our subject although I would add to it.It was an embarrasment when it was discovered. Now they have rearranged themselves to accomadate it. This is irrefutable.
Rob

I accept reconstruction of life's evolutionary past and Toe are different. However the the premises and process are the same and so the error is a education.In the public's eye evolution is presented for the reason of creatures today. Long time needed to go from a slug to a elephant. So along the way everything looked different. So when a creature is found that didn't change when everything else did well it is a break in logic. And creationists with effect can say the fish existence is a hint at the whole error of evolution.Again it is said it was not presented as a intermediate.I'm sure I read that Darwin and company said just this. And it has certainly always been presented with legsalmost on its way to the land. Only photography revealed the "legs" were in fact just for the envirorment they live in.
I would sugget to you folk that you need to question the methods that led to the leggy fish idea in the first place. Just looking at fossils and having a theory prompting a conclusion is an example of this subject not under the strick guidelines of science.
Rob

I'm not sure why Loudmouth conceded this point to you, because I don't think Darwin ever commented on the Coelacanth, and it was never believed that the Coelacanth was on a direct line of descent to land animals (tetrapods). What we're pretty sure of is that some member of the lobe-fin fish group was an ancestor to tetrapods, but it wasn't the Coelacanth. The Coelacanth is probably frequently mentioned in this regard because it is the most famous member of the lobe-fin fishes. However, the Coelacanth is not thought to be the ancester of tetrapods, and it never was thought of in this capacity. Then you'll have to explain how this is so. No scientist was embarrassed or jarred. In fact, it was viewed as an exciting find. And the theory of evolution wasn't affected, because before the discovery of a living Coelacanth in 1938, the theory of evolution was defined as variation within a population, natural selection, and descent with modification, and that has not changed. So if no one in the scientific community ever experienced this discovery as a "blow", and no one was embarrassed, and the theory of evolution has not been changed one bit by the discovery, then what are you talking about? This link appears to contain a fair amount of misinformation. For example, it was never thought that the Coelacanth should share characteristics with amphibians. You didn't mention any specific points from this link, so I'm not going to spend time on it, but if you want to introduce some of what you think are the keys points into this thread we can talk about it.--Percy

What error are you talking about? If you mean that before 1938 no scientist expected to find living examples of the Coelacanth, then if this is an error it is an exceptionally minor one. The lungfish is a relatively recent discovery, too, back in the first half of the 18th century, and it is thought a far closer relative to the ancestor of tetrapods than the Coelacanth. I understand that laypeople will often be unaware that evolution doesn't require change, or that some groups can remain relatively unchanged for millions and millions of years, but we're talking about a group that often can't even find Poland on an unmarked map. You can call this a failure of education, but not of science. If you mean they said the Coelacanth was on the direct ancestral line of tetrapods, then I doubt it. Why don't you try to find the reference. Not sure what you're talking about here. The Coelacanth has never been presented in this way by scientists. And what photography are you talking about, since we're talking about a transition that took place over a couple hundred million years ago. I don't think the leggy fish idea has been called into question in scientific circles. If it has, you'll have to fill me in.--Percy

I'd like to hear others views on my answer to the quoted question.
I am going to catagorically say: Yes, there is validity to the idea that there are specific problems with X for values of X that include, ToE, physics, chemistry, geology, any science you wish to name.I say this because science as I see it deals with problems. Solving one problem brings up newer problems. Religionist want an absolute knowledge without any problems. Believe this and go to heaven, don't believe this and go to hell, no questions asked. But science is about addressing problems and trying to solve them in provable repeatable ways. The problems get tougher as we learn more. What creationists won't accept is that this a a good thing, this is the way science is supposed to work. Science doens't claim a revealed truth. A scientiest can't pray over the ToE and then get a feeling that they take as the divine truth and sally forth with the answer. So there are always problems but that in no way invalidates science.lfen

I think calling them "problems" just fuels the creationist camp to attack them. It could be said that Newtonian Physics has "problems", but i'm yet to see any creationist attacking Newtonian Physics. Was Newtons theory on gravity wrong? It worked perfectly well in Newtons time. They had absolutely no way of knowing that when you approach the speed of light his theory broke down, their world was completely un-relativistic. All that happened was that his physics was a special case of a bigger picture. We now know that relativity better fits the data.In the same way with other theories, it's entirely possible (and even highly likely) that we don't have the full picture yet. The theories may fit the data very well now, but tomorrow someone will push the bounds of our knowledge and we'll see a little more of the bigger picture. It will be found that the theory doesn't work quite so well in these new areas, but that doesn't mean the theory fails in the areas already explored. All that happens is that the theory needs to be altered to include the old theory but also explain the new evidence.If this is a problem then science in general is one big problem. The scientific method excels at creating problems. I'd say this is it's best feature

Exactly! That was the point I wast trying to make. The fundamental religious mind set wants absolute certainty. It appears to me they have great problems understanding science because they want it to be a religion that delivers absolute pronouncements and then they can go back to sleep in a dream of certainty.So they think citing problems destroys science. The don't see how very different the Bible and science are. Problems are what science is all about. Scientists would be out of work if there were no problems! IIRC at the end of the 19th century scientist felt that physics was about complete and little could be done, of course shortly thereafter all hell broke lose, to import a metaphor from religion.Not all, but most of the creationist I've seen show up here just don't have a background to understand science and may never understand it. They have been to some creationist web sites and got some trumped up arguments and show up here thinking that those arguments demolish a position when they often are non sequiturs or have been disproven years earlier.I'm glad there are people with more patience than I have who try to educate them.lfen

I understand what you mean. It isn't easy trying to explain things to people that are thinking in a completely different way to you or expecting something completely different to what is there in reality. Take a look at the following link http://www.christianexodus.com/index.php?name=PNphpBB2&fi... . Its a forum topic on a christian website where one poor christian is trying to explain to the rest that evolution isn't from the devil sent to decieve us, but actually has a lot of evidence. He doesn't seem to be getting very far. I bet it would take quite a bit of patience to be in their group!(As an off topic point that website in general is very interesting, and also a little scary. It involves a group of christians wanting to make a mass exodus to South Carolina, get voted into the state government there, and then start making the state laws conform to the bible. I was thinking of starting a new thread get peoples reactions to that idea.)

The libertarian party was wanting to do something similiar in Vermont at one time weren't they?What amazes me is this is the continuation of the original british religous colonist to America. They founded colonies based on their religious beliefs and a firm intolerance of other beliefs. It's amazing that the deists such as Thomas Paine, Jefferson etc. managed to get a non christian constitution with the separation of church and state firmly established. Various christian sects have been put out about this ever since!lfen

I will avoid that other forum. The level of ignorance there is too daunting.lfen

No, I'm not wrong. You must be confusing the coelocanth with some other lobe-finned fish (Eusthenopteron, perhaps). The coelocanth is typically only mentioned because it is a SURVIVING lobe-finned fish.Moreover in recent years further discovery and analysis of early tetrapods has indicated that legs evolved in water, not for moving on land as was once thought.

I think there is a grain of truth in what Robert says, but he is overating the importance of it.It was originally speculated that Coelacanths (the living ones, don't know about the fossil species) walked along the seabed rather than swam in open water. As they live in fairly deep water nobody had ever seen them in their natural habitat until fairly recently - and when they were filmed they were free-swimming.As has been pointed out previously, the current living populations are not the same beasties as those in the fossil record, so I don't see why this is any kind of problem for the TOE.Just for grins, you can try this Coelacanth quiz. from PBS/Nova. The answer to question 3 is false

what the coelcanth is an exellent example of, is the fact that missing links of even major proportions obviously exist without challenging the concept of continuity of the biological spectrum.fossils of the coelecanth have been "missing links" for 65 million years, a span of time much greater than many literalists complain about in other fossil records.enjoy.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

That's an excellent point (which had never dawned on me before )