Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   why is evolutionary theory constantly changing?
tomwillrep
Inactive Member


Message 1 of 23 (43555)
06-21-2003 9:12 PM


as the title says why is evolutionary theory constantly changing?
for example, until very recently, apes were considered our closest ancestors with chimps being off on another branch, but now, just apes are being written off as our closest living ancestors and chimps in their place.
how can this change take place? why can it be said that our closest living relatives are apes for so long and yet then have it said that now chimps are? what has changed to make evolutionists believe this if research has been taking place on both animals for so long - could it be that the argument that we descended from apes is no longer being accepted by many evolution scientists and so chimps are our new "closest living ancestors?"
any views on this would be much appreciated.
thanks

Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by is this thing loaded, posted 06-21-2003 11:19 PM tomwillrep has not replied
 Message 4 by PaulK, posted 06-22-2003 8:23 AM tomwillrep has not replied
 Message 14 by NosyNed, posted 06-24-2003 12:13 PM tomwillrep has not replied
 Message 22 by sidelined, posted 09-24-2003 12:20 AM tomwillrep has not replied

  
is this thing loaded
Inactive Member


Message 2 of 23 (43557)
06-21-2003 11:19 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by tomwillrep
06-21-2003 9:12 PM


question you might want to ask yourself first is why has christian doctrine changed through time... hmmm...
Most obvious answer might be because of new evidence? i dunno this might be crazy but when people find new data often their ideas change. for years people thought that the world was flat. then new data appeared to suggest that the earth was round.
------------------
it would come out insightful or brave or smooth or charming.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by tomwillrep, posted 06-21-2003 9:12 PM tomwillrep has not replied

  
IrishRockhound
Member (Idle past 4436 days)
Posts: 569
From: Ireland
Joined: 05-19-2003


Message 3 of 23 (43559)
06-21-2003 11:37 PM


Be fair now. The Theory of Evolution has not been changing in any fundamental way for years. It still states that simple organisms evolve into more complex ones.
The reason that they changed from apes to chimps is that new evidence suggests that this is the case. If more solid evidence appears to support another idea, then obviously it will change again. Science is never tied to one particular thing, like religion - in the face of new evidence, it discards outdated notions, like for instance, the idea that the world is flat.
Religion, for example Christianity, has a hard time adapting, as we can plainly see from the debates in this forum.
The Rock Hound
------------------
"Science constantly poses questions, where religion can only shout about answers."

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by Percy, posted 06-22-2003 3:48 PM IrishRockhound has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 4 of 23 (43598)
06-22-2003 8:23 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by tomwillrep
06-21-2003 9:12 PM


Can you explain why you think that there has been a change ?
Chimpanzees are apes and have been agreed to be our closest living relatives for as long as I know of.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by tomwillrep, posted 06-21-2003 9:12 PM tomwillrep has not replied

  
tomwillrep
Inactive Member


Message 5 of 23 (43602)
06-22-2003 9:34 AM


"question you might want to ask yourself first is why has christian doctrine changed through time... hmmm..."
would it be possible to give an example of this - i've read most types/variations of bible's and they all stick to the original text-there are organisations and printing companies set up who MUSt stick to the original text thoroughly -if anything is unsure that is made clear at some point in the bible. thanks
one thing is that some people i guess confuse natural selection and evolution - evolution is creatures evolving in shape and form - natural selection does not make mention of any changing in creatures - it says that those "species" which were able to survive in a certain environment survived and the weaker ones/ones less adapted died out.
but i don't know what i'm saying with that - anyway
for evolution changing its ideas - i'm talking about the argument that our closest living ancestors are apes and now they have become chimps - ok so there can be new evidence - but what evidence can there be to suggest we came from apes and chimps are on another "branch" and then suddenly they are similar too - surely that would have been noticed originally......
i guess i'm trying to ask - what was the new "evidence" that makes chimps closer to us than they were before?

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by PaulK, posted 06-22-2003 2:50 PM tomwillrep has not replied
 Message 8 by Percy, posted 06-22-2003 4:18 PM tomwillrep has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 6 of 23 (43647)
06-22-2003 2:50 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by tomwillrep
06-22-2003 9:34 AM


Natural selection - as formulated by Darwin - was mainly about how changes spread within a species.
Now seeing that chimpanzees ARE apes, what is the basis for your claim that evolutionary theory has changed in this respect ?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by tomwillrep, posted 06-22-2003 9:34 AM tomwillrep has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 7 of 23 (43652)
06-22-2003 3:48 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by IrishRockhound
06-21-2003 11:37 PM


IrishRockHound writes:
Be fair now. The Theory of Evolution has not been changing in any fundamental way for years. It still states that simple organisms evolve into more complex ones.
This is a common misconception. The theory of evolution only holds that populations of organisms of the same species will evolve over time to better adapt to their environment or respond to changes in the environment. A simple adaptation serves as well as a complex one, maybe better.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by IrishRockhound, posted 06-21-2003 11:37 PM IrishRockhound has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by IrishRockhound, posted 06-23-2003 9:05 AM Percy has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 8 of 23 (43653)
06-22-2003 4:18 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by tomwillrep
06-22-2003 9:34 AM


tomwillrep writes:
"question you might want to ask yourself first is why has christian doctrine changed through time... hmmm..."
would it be possible to give an example of this - i've read most types/variations of bible's and they all stick to the original text-there are organisations and printing companies set up who MUSt stick to the original text thoroughly -if anything is unsure that is made clear at some point in the bible. thanks
There is no "original text" of the Bible. The many translations draw upon a multiplicity of ancient Bible texts. If you examine the footnotes that some Bible's have you'll see them mentioned occasionally. For example, the NIV footnote for the phrase "They gather together" in Hosea 9:14 (I opened to this page randomly) says, "Most Hebrew manuscripts; some Hebrew manuscripts and Septuagint They slash themselves." In other words, the many available manuscripts have numerous differences. Plus each translation reflects numerous different interpretations of meaning.
For examples of changes in church doctrine it is easiest to look to the Catholic church. It is no longer necessary to avoid meat on Friday. Masses are now in native languages rather than in Latin. The conviction of Galileo by the inquisition was overturned.
But you can also find changes in doctrine in the evangelical movement. Fundamentalism sprang from a philosophy first espoused by a series of essays called The Fundamentals in the early 20th century. Biblical inerrancy, previously not a widely held tenet, and Creationism sprang from this philosophy.
one thing is that some people i guess confuse natural selection and evolution - evolution is creatures evolving in shape and form - natural selection does not make mention of any changing in creatures - it says that those "species" which were able to survive in a certain environment survived and the weaker ones/ones less adapted died out.
Natural selection is part of the theory of evolution. One simple way of stating the theory is that it is descent with modification filtered by natural selection. In other words, offspring differ from the parents, and natural selection as imposed by the environment decides which offspring survive to produce the next generation.
for evolution changing its ideas - i'm talking about the argument that our closest living ancestors are apes and now they have become chimps - ok so there can be new evidence - but what evidence can there be to suggest we came from apes and chimps are on another "branch" and then suddenly they are similar too - surely that would have been noticed originally......
I think you've picked up a few false impressions. First, orangutans, gorillas, chimpanzees, bonobos and people are all apes. Some classification systems place man in his own category in recognition that this is a sensitive issue, but man is an ape.
Second, it has been recognized for quite some time that chimps are closer to man than any other member of the ape family. There have been recent efforts to measure the degree of difference genetically, meaning how different our DNA is, and the numbers variously come in between 97% and 99% identical.
Third, changes in ideas about the descent of man are very different from changes in the theory of evolution. While we've increased our knowledge of the details enormously since Darwin, our basic expression of the theory hasn't changed at all. It is still descent with modification filtered by natural selection. Human origins, indeed the origins of any species extinct or otherwise, is a puzzle to be ferreted out from the available evidence, and the relevant ideas at any time will reflect what is known at that time. As we uncover more fossils our ideas will certainly change. But our ideas of how species change have not changed very much at all during the last 150 years or so. The last significant change came during the 1920s with the modern synthesis formed from the merging of Darwinian evolution with genetic theory.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by tomwillrep, posted 06-22-2003 9:34 AM tomwillrep has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by John, posted 06-22-2003 6:16 PM Percy has not replied

  
John
Inactive Member


Message 9 of 23 (43666)
06-22-2003 6:16 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by Percy
06-22-2003 4:18 PM


quote:
But you can also find changes in doctrine in the evangelical movement. Fundamentalism sprang from a philosophy first espoused by a series of essays called The Fundamentals in the early 20th century. Biblical inerrancy, previously not a widely held tenet, and Creationism sprang from this philosophy.
One of the more striking doctrinal changes, I think, is that of the Baptists.
Open main menu
------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by Percy, posted 06-22-2003 4:18 PM Percy has not replied

  
Coragyps
Member (Idle past 734 days)
Posts: 5553
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


Message 10 of 23 (43684)
06-22-2003 9:03 PM


would it be possible to give an example of this - i've read most types/variations of bible's and they all stick to the original text-
You might also try this century-old short essay by Mark Twain:
http://cybermr.tripod.com/...ibrary/twain/bibleteaching.html

  
IrishRockhound
Member (Idle past 4436 days)
Posts: 569
From: Ireland
Joined: 05-19-2003


Message 11 of 23 (43736)
06-23-2003 9:05 AM
Reply to: Message 7 by Percy
06-22-2003 3:48 PM


Bad choice of words... good point though - often the simplest adaptations are the most successful.
The Rock Hound

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by Percy, posted 06-22-2003 3:48 PM Percy has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by zephyr, posted 06-23-2003 12:15 PM IrishRockhound has not replied
 Message 15 by nator, posted 06-24-2003 11:35 PM IrishRockhound has not replied

  
zephyr
Member (Idle past 4550 days)
Posts: 821
From: FOB Taji, Iraq
Joined: 04-22-2003


Message 12 of 23 (43753)
06-23-2003 12:15 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by IrishRockhound
06-23-2003 9:05 AM


I'm reminded of Vonnegut's Galapagos, where stranded humans evolve into less intelligent seal-like creatures. The book creates many a scenario where the complexity of the modern human brain mistakenly works toward its owner's demise. Very entertaining.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by IrishRockhound, posted 06-23-2003 9:05 AM IrishRockhound has not replied

  
contracycle
Inactive Member


Message 13 of 23 (43920)
06-24-2003 11:09 AM


May have already done so if we pollute the planet to the point of our own demise.

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 14 of 23 (43932)
06-24-2003 12:13 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by tomwillrep
06-21-2003 9:12 PM


until very recently, apes were considered our closest ancestors
Please define "recently". For at least a number of years (more than 10) I seem to have been reading about chimps being closer to us than any other animal. I think bonobo's have only been uderstood to be separate for a decade or two.
Chimps are apes. So I presume you mean gorillas or something. What is your most recent reference for they being closer to us than Chimps?
The details have only been sorted out (I think) since we could examine the genetics. So the current ideas wouldn't be older than a few decades.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by tomwillrep, posted 06-21-2003 9:12 PM tomwillrep has not replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 15 of 23 (44043)
06-24-2003 11:35 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by IrishRockhound
06-23-2003 9:05 AM


quote:
Bad choice of words... good point though - often the simplest adaptations are the most successful.
For example, horses went from having 14 toes to only 4, and whales lost their legs entirely.
Humans lost most of our body hair, and tails, too.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by IrishRockhound, posted 06-23-2003 9:05 AM IrishRockhound 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