|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 2322 days) Posts: 2870 From: Limburg, The Netherlands Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Icons of Evolution | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Huntard Member (Idle past 2322 days) Posts: 2870 From: Limburg, The Netherlands Joined: |
In the thread Evidence for Intelligent Design-is there any? Beretta wrote in his opening post:
-the continually rehashed icons of evolution that despite being a collection of old worn, some fraudulent, others thoroughly discredited, most out of date somehow never seem to change. One would think with all the vast network of science, something more convincing would come along, but no. I wrote further down the thread I would be interested in discussing this topic in a different thread, since it would be off-topic in that one. Beretta agreed, and so this is my opening post. I'm am currently 26 years old, so not too long ago, I went to highschool, where I of course got taught Bioligy among others. I never heard of these so called Icons of evolution before, in fact the first time I heard of them was when I watched a creationist video. Never before that had I heard of Piltdown man, Nebraska man, Archeoraptor, or any of the others mentioned. So, it seems these "icons" aren't being constantly rehashed. Or was my school just so much better? I don't think discussing all of the icons at the same time is going to give a good topic, so I would suggest picking one or two and then discuss them here, we could always get more in later. So Beretta, or anyone else, if youre up for it, please pick one or two of these "icons" and let's discuss them. Edited by Huntard, : Clicked submit instead of preview button
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AdminNosy Administrator Posts: 4754 From: Vancouver, BC, Canada Joined: |
Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2133 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
I never heard of these so called Icons of evolution before, in fact the first time I heard of them was when I watched a creationist video. Never before that had I heard of Piltdown man, Nebraska man, Archeoraptor, or any of the others mentioned. So, it seems these "icons" aren't being constantly rehashed. The "icons" are being constantly rehashed -- by creationists. While we are waiting for the creationists to show up and tell us how science operates, and what it should do, here are some good links on the "icons" for background information:
Piltdown Man Nebraska Man Archeoraptor Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
gluadys Member (Idle past 4989 days) Posts: 57 From: Canada Joined: |
Actually, the term "Icons of Evolution" was used as a book title by Jonathan Wells and usually refers to the icons he named. None of these are hoaxes or mere media hype like Nebraska man. They are actual cases found in many textbooks and you have probably heard of at least some of them (see list below). Wells contends that these have become iconic models of evolution but that there are problems with all of them.
Here is his list (taken from the Table of Contents of Icons of Evolution): The Miller-Urey ExperimentDarwin's Tree of Life Homology in Vertebrate Limbs Haekel's Embryos Archeopteryx: the Missing Link Peppered Moths Darwin's Finches Four-winged Fruit Flies Fossil Horses and Directed Evolution From Ape to Man: the Ultimate Myth
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Huntard Member (Idle past 2322 days) Posts: 2870 From: Limburg, The Netherlands Joined: |
Hmm I see. Some of those were indeed mentioned in my lessons, though I don;t really see what the problems are with these, they seemed supportive of Evolutionary theory. Any idea what these problems are, or a link to somewhere I can read about them? Don;t have access to the book. Thanks in advance.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Jack Member Posts: 3514 From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch Joined: Member Rating: 8.3 |
That's because there aren't really any problems. Icons of Evolutions, like the rest of Creationist literature, lies somewhere between misunderstanding and inaccuracy, and outright dishonesty.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Huntard Member (Idle past 2322 days) Posts: 2870 From: Limburg, The Netherlands Joined: |
Alright, I'd still like to read up a bit on this myself, so I can arm myself against this, any idea where this could be done. It seems the talkorigins website Coyote refered to is very helpful here, thanks for that.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17827 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
You might find this page at theNCSE, and it's links a useful resource.
I'd also recommend getting a recent textbook - preferably degree-level, not the High School texts Wells focusses on (a very odd choice if he wanted to seriously deal with the evidence for evolution). I found Mark Ridley's Evolution to be quite good, although I'm neither expert enough nor familiar enough with the competition for my opinion to carry much weight - although the fact that I found it to be accessible despite having little formal eduication in biology must count as a point in its favour (I have the 2nd edition, but the 3rd has some significant new material and probably should be preferred). Mayr's What Evolution Is is cheaper but less detailed (because it's much shorter) and not the best choice for dealing with the issues Wells raises as a result.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
gluadys Member (Idle past 4989 days) Posts: 57 From: Canada Joined: |
Well's point is that this is exactly the problem: they seem supportive of evolution. In fact, they are so supportive of evolution that they are found in virtually all basic texts on evolution. That's why he tries to find a way to undermine them.
But as Mr. Jack says, there are no real problems with them. Probably the only major effect has been to retire the pictures of Haekel's embryos. While they are not nearly as misleading as creationists imply, it is true that Haekel enhanced his portrayal of some embryos to make the similarities more obvious. His drawings continued to be used because in general they are very good and because they are in the public domain so they are inexpensive for publishers to use. However, the same point can and is made with actual pictures of embryos and that is the way new textbooks are going. In two other cases the "problem" with the icons is not the actual evidence but an image of it. You have no doubt seen the picture of horse evolution: a reproduction of a mural at (I think) the Smithsonian going from Eohippus to the modern horse. That image implies a straight-line evolution that is inconsistent with the complexity of the actual history of evolutionary development in the Equidae. No biologist would disagree that it is an oversimplified image. But what does that have to do with the actual evidence? Then the big brouhahah on the peppered moths is that the photos illustrating the camouflaging effects of colour on polluted and non-polluted trees were staged and the photographer made the great mistake of taping moths to the trunk of the tree instead of up in the branches which is the preferred resting place of the moths. As if either of these "mistakes" interfered with the main point. The camouflaging effect of the colour acts as an instrument of natural selection. The other "problems" are of the same caliber. There is plenty of discussion of Well's icons on line. I believe talkorigins has a whole article that discusses them all from a scientific perspective. For a creationist perspective just go to Answers in Genesis and do a search on a key word such as Urey-Miller experiment. Edited by gluadys, : Added last paragraph.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Huntard Member (Idle past 2322 days) Posts: 2870 From: Limburg, The Netherlands Joined: |
Ok, after reading up on this stuff a bit, I must say I'm a bit dissapointed. I thought there were some actual problems with these things, but everything I read points to misrepresentation of the facts. Ah well, I'll await an ID proponents view on the matter and then comment further.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Beretta Member (Idle past 5624 days) Posts: 422 From: South Africa Joined: |
Hi Huntard, thanks for starting the thread, just found it now or I would have reacted sooner.
You're right that there are too many to discuss them all at once so how's about we start with the Urey Miller experiment. In this icon which is still generally mentioned in bio texts, a simulated hydrogen rich atmosphere of methane, ammonia and water vapour was used and a few amino acids were produced along with other substances completely toxic to life.The amino acids that can be produced in this kind of experiment tend to be left and right handed in more or less equal quantities but living things only use left handed amino-acids. There would be nothing to stop the right handed ones from linking up with the left handed ones so no life there. It was later found by geochemists that the mixture used was not what was indicated to be available in the early rocks so new experiments were done for a more realistic simulation. No amino acids were formed under these conditions. The problem with this 'icon' is that despite the fact that it is now generally agreed that oxygen was present in the early atmosphere and that would be toxic to organic synthesis even if the amino acids could have formed spontaneously. I think the point of the criticism of this icon is that it is presented still as a breakthrough experiment for the origin of life and the downside of subsequent experiments is not mentioned which is not honest. The story line goes that amino acids were produced in these early experiments and amino acids join to form proteins (as if that is what would have happened) and proteins are the main building blocks of living organisms.Since the downside is that realistic simulations produced no amino acids, either the downside of the later experiments should be fairly mentioned or it should be taken out of the books. It is this kind of thing that intelligent design proponents and creationists want mentioned in the classroom so that a false positive is not taken as fact by people who do not know the follow up.It gives the impression that the random fortuitous generation of life from non-living chemicals is really more than just a vague possibility. Of course the people that support these kinds of presentations do not want the downside mentioned because they have no doubt whatsoever that life began somehow like that with no intelligent input and doubters are not welcome at the party.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
onifre Member (Idle past 2978 days) Posts: 4854 From: Dark Side of the Moon Joined: |
The problem with this 'icon' is that despite the fact that it is now generally agreed that oxygen was present in the early atmosphere Im sorry but you'll have to provide evidence for early Earth having oxygen. However, heres evidence for the complete opposite of that from Columbia U.,Page not found | Department of Earth and Environmental Sciences Here's another,The atmosphere - origin and structure Here's a quote from it,
quote: *Can you provide evidence against any of this to prove that oxygen was present? "All great truths begin as blasphemies" "I smoke pot. If this bothers anyone, I suggest you look around at the world in which we live and shut your mouth."--Bill Hicks "I never knew there was another option other than to question everything"--Noam Chomsky
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Chiroptera Inactive Member |
Here is some information on the Urey-Miller experiment written explicitly as a reply to Icons.
You're right that there are too many to discuss them all at once so how's about we start with the Urey Miller experiment. First of all, you have to understand the purpose of the experiment. The purpose of the experiment was to determine whether or not relatively complex organic compounds could form under relatively simple conditions, focusing on the conditions that existed early in Earth's history. One argument against abiogenesis was that complex organic molecules can't form under natural conditions; they can only be formed by already existing life, or under artificial conditions. So the Urey-Miller experiment was meant to see what conditions the formation of organic molecules requires. And the Urey-Miller experiment was a great success! Under very simple conditions, complex organic molecules like amino acids could form. -
It was later found by geochemists that the mixture used was not what was indicated to be available in the early rocks so new experiments were done for a more realistic simulation. No amino acids were formed under these conditions. This is false. The experiment was replicated under a wide variety of different conditions reflecting possible conditions of the early Earth, and in each of them amino acids and other organic molecules formed. In some cases the amounts produced were less than in the Urey-Miller experiment, but they were there. -
The problem with this 'icon' is that despite the fact that it is now generally agreed that oxygen was present in the early atmosphere.... This in not generally agreed to at all. At least it wasn't present in amounts that would have a significant effect on the early organic chemistry. The presence or absence of oxygen would be indicated by the chemical traces in early sediments; the evidence that there was no oxygen is overwhelming and clear. Speaking personally, I find few things more awesome than contemplating this vast and majestic process of evolution, the ebb and flow of successive biotas through geological time. Creationists and others who cannot for ideological or religious reasons accept the fact of evolution miss out a great deal, and are left with a claustrophobic little universe in which nothing happens and nothing changes. -- M. Alan Kazlev
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 311 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
This is false. The experiment was replicated under a wide variety of different conditions reflecting possible conditions of the early Earth, and in each of them amino acids and other organic molecules formed. In some cases the amounts produced were less than in the Urey-Miller experiment, but they were there. Does anyone have a list? Thanks.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Jack Member Posts: 3514 From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch Joined: Member Rating: 8.3 |
This is false. The experiment was replicated under a wide variety of different conditions reflecting possible conditions of the early Earth, and in each of them amino acids and other organic molecules formed. In some cases the amounts produced were less than in the Urey-Miller experiment, but they were there. This is not entirely true, when Miller repeated the experiment in '83 using the combination of gases now believed to be present in the atmosphere of the early Earth he found no evidence of amino acid production. It was only when Bada added iron and carbonate minerals that amino acids were formed. ref
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024