Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,808 Year: 3,065/9,624 Month: 910/1,588 Week: 93/223 Day: 4/17 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The Religious Nature of Evolution, or Lack Thereof
MrHambre
Member (Idle past 1392 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

  
Loudmouth
Inactive Member


Message 182 of 212 (117540)
06-22-2004 2:24 PM
Reply to: Message 177 by DarkStar
06-21-2004 10:28 PM


Re: Adding Fuel To The Fire
quote:
Durant concludes that the secular myths of evolution have had "a damaging effect on scientific research", leading to "distortion, to needless controversy, and to the gross misuse of science".
And you know what, I totally agree with Durant. The popularization of the theory of evolution has distorted it beyond what it was designed to explain, the evolution of organisms. Some of this can be blamed on creationists. Somehow, the following phrase has become quite popular: "if humans evolved from apes why are there still apes." Hence Durant's message of distortion, needless controversy, and gross misuse of science (at a SECULAR level). This is why evolution needs to be taught in science class. Not to indoctrinate, but stop the distortion of not only evolutionary theories, but science theories in general. Given the poor quality of science education here in the states it is no wonder that creationist strawmen have a foothold in secular thought.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 177 by DarkStar, posted 06-21-2004 10:28 PM DarkStar has not replied

  
DarkStar
Inactive Member


Message 183 of 212 (117559)
06-22-2004 4:17 PM
Reply to: Message 181 by MrHambre
06-22-2004 10:29 AM


I Call Them As I See Them
MrHambre writes:
In trying to understand this sort of position, I start by asking whether heliocentrism is a valid scientific theory.
Yes, I believe that it is.
MrHambre writes:
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.
I respectfully disagree. I do not believe the fossil record shows this in any conceivable sense outside of microevolution.
MrHambre writes:
If all life shares ancestry, there should be genetic links among diverse organisms that can help retrace their paths of evolution.
Based upon the assumption of shared ancestry, this would be true. I reject that assumption and the fossil record does not support that assumption.
MrHambre writes:
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.
Based upon evolution scientists own remarks, I beleive it is fair to accuse the scientific community in general of continued bias, a bias that is often based upon nothing more than self preservation brought about by legitimate concerns that greater honesty will result in the same kind of vilification we see heaped upon creation scientists. That fear is powerful and can be used as justification to be less than forthcoming with their progressive understanding of what they discover, knowing that an everincreasing knowledge is not always in line with the theory of evolution.
Cheers

BREATHE DEEP THE GATHERING GLOOM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 181 by MrHambre, posted 06-22-2004 10:29 AM MrHambre has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 184 by NosyNed, posted 06-22-2004 4:37 PM DarkStar has replied
 Message 185 by MrHambre, posted 06-22-2004 4:49 PM DarkStar has replied
 Message 186 by crashfrog, posted 06-22-2004 6:54 PM DarkStar has replied

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


Message 184 of 212 (117568)
06-22-2004 4:37 PM
Reply to: Message 183 by DarkStar
06-22-2004 4:17 PM


What does the fossil record suggest?
I respectfully disagree. I do not believe the fossil record shows this in any conceivable sense outside of microevolution
Just what do you think the fossil records suggests to us?
Is this true? ---
At one time there were no complex, multicellurlar organisms on earth.
At a later time there were animals like fish but no amphibians, reptiles etc.
At a still later time there were amphibians and then reptiles but no mammals or birds
And still later there were mammals and birds and primate within the mammals.
Still later there were humans as well.
Do you agree or disagree? WHat parts do you disagree with and why?

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 187 by DarkStar, posted 06-22-2004 8:37 PM NosyNed has replied

  
MrHambre
Member (Idle past 1392 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

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 186 of 212 (117628)
06-22-2004 6:54 PM
Reply to: Message 183 by DarkStar
06-22-2004 4:17 PM


I respectfully disagree. I do not believe the fossil record shows this in any conceivable sense outside of microevolution.
Hrm, it's a fairly well-known fact about the fossil record that shows little but what you would refer to as macroevolutionary change; that the fossil record is a record mostly of large-scale change and not small-scale species change is what led Gould et al. to develop the hypothesis of Punctuated Equilibrium.
In other words, the fossil record consists largely of transitional forms between higher taxa and not so much between species.
Based upon the assumption of shared ancestry
You seem a little confused, so I'll explain: shared ancestry isn't an assumption, it's a conclusion.
a bias that is often based upon nothing more than self preservation brought about by legitimate concerns that greater honesty will result in the same kind of vilification we see heaped upon creation scientists.
We'd hand creation scientists the Nobel Prize if they could prove their theories. It's not their conclusions we villify; it's their methodology: "we know the conclusion, now, what facts can we find to fit it?"

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 188 by DarkStar, posted 06-22-2004 8:43 PM crashfrog has replied

  
DarkStar
Inactive Member


Message 187 of 212 (117661)
06-22-2004 8:37 PM
Reply to: Message 184 by NosyNed
06-22-2004 4:37 PM


Re: What does the fossil record suggest?
nosyned writes:
Just what do you think the fossil records suggests to us?
That a vast number of fossils exist, with the obvious exception being any evidence of macroevolution which would require a vast number of transitionals to also be present in the fossil record. They are not there. While there are claims of some fossils being transitionals, opposing views debunk this notion. Therefore, no transitionals, no evidence of macroevolution ever having occurred. If vast numbers of transitionals were found, inspiring a true concensus on the reality of transitionals, or if macroevolution was ever observed, I would be willing to alter my opinion. Until that time, macroevolution remains an unsubstantiated myth perpetuated by wishful thinking.

BREATHE DEEP THE GATHERING GLOOM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 184 by NosyNed, posted 06-22-2004 4:37 PM NosyNed has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 191 by edge, posted 06-22-2004 9:52 PM DarkStar has not replied
 Message 192 by crashfrog, posted 06-22-2004 11:18 PM DarkStar has not replied
 Message 194 by pink sasquatch, posted 06-23-2004 2:57 AM DarkStar has not replied
 Message 195 by NosyNed, posted 06-23-2004 4:42 AM DarkStar has not replied
 Message 196 by mark24, posted 06-23-2004 5:02 AM DarkStar has not replied

  
DarkStar
Inactive Member


Message 188 of 212 (117663)
06-22-2004 8:43 PM
Reply to: Message 186 by crashfrog
06-22-2004 6:54 PM


cr writes:
shared ancestry isn't an assumption, it's a conclusion.
Ok, it'a a conclusion. An erroneous conclusion, but a conclusion nonetheless.

BREATHE DEEP THE GATHERING GLOOM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 186 by crashfrog, posted 06-22-2004 6:54 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 193 by crashfrog, posted 06-22-2004 11:19 PM DarkStar has not replied

  
DarkStar
Inactive Member


Message 189 of 212 (117665)
06-22-2004 8:56 PM
Reply to: Message 185 by MrHambre
06-22-2004 4:49 PM


Re: Biased Toward Science
MrHambre writes:
For the accusation of bias to stick, you must demonstrate that scientists are willfully ignoring a better scientific construct.
Not true. A bias can remain for any number of reasons. Ideological, personal, professional, etc.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 185 by MrHambre, posted 06-22-2004 4:49 PM MrHambre has not replied

  
DarkStar
Inactive Member


Message 190 of 212 (117666)
06-22-2004 9:04 PM
Reply to: Message 181 by MrHambre
06-22-2004 10:29 AM


Sidenote
MrHambre writes:
I'm not sure what all these quotes necessarily have to do with evolution, common ancestry, or empirical evidential inquiry.
I believe the topic here is "The Religious Nature of Evolution, or Lack Thereof".

BREATHE DEEP THE GATHERING GLOOM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 181 by MrHambre, posted 06-22-2004 10:29 AM MrHambre has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 197 by MrHambre, posted 06-24-2004 7:15 AM DarkStar has not replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1705 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 191 of 212 (117675)
06-22-2004 9:52 PM
Reply to: Message 187 by DarkStar
06-22-2004 8:37 PM


Re: What does the fossil record suggest?
quote:
Ned: Just what do you think the fossil records suggests to us?
DS: That a vast number of fossils exist, ...
Wow, that's almost as much information as JP gives us when he says that 'billion of animals died and were buried...' Is this all that you think the fossil record says? Surely, you can't expect us to take you seriously.
quote:
....with the obvious exception being any evidence of macroevolution which would require a vast number of transitionals to also be present in the fossil record. They are not there. While there are claims of some fossils being transitionals, opposing views debunk this notion.
Actually, they only disagree. And they have not been successful at defending their viewpoint.
quote:
Therefore, no transitionals, ...
Nope. Does not logically follow.
quote:
...no evidence of macroevolution ever having occurred.
Well, taking into account your understanding of the fossil record, true. Sad, but true.
quote:
If vast numbers of transitionals were found, inspiring a true concensus on the reality of transitionals, or if macroevolution was ever observed, I would be willing to alter my opinion.
I have always contended that they are all transitionals... But more to the point, evolution actually predicts no such thing. Then how do you explain the transitionals that we have? Simply require more? Now it must be a VAST number of transitionals...
quote:
Until that time, macroevolution remains an unsubstantiated myth perpetuated by wishful thinking.
LOL! Coming from a YEC, this is pretty good stuff! Please explain the evidence present in the fossil record (ooops! you already ignored that!).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 187 by DarkStar, posted 06-22-2004 8:37 PM DarkStar has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 192 of 212 (117709)
06-22-2004 11:18 PM
Reply to: Message 187 by DarkStar
06-22-2004 8:37 PM


While there are claims of some fossils being transitionals, opposing views debunk this notion.
How do you figure? Those "opposing views" hardly debunk anything by their mere existence, as you seem to suggest, and certainly those views have made no scientific traction whatsoever on their own merits.
There are a considerable number of transitional fossils. You can read about many of them here:
Transitional Vertebrate Fossils FAQ
if macroevolution was ever observed, I would be willing to alter my opinion.
Here's a page detailing the evidence for what you refer to as "macroevolution". It's difficult to imagine "observing" a process that is the result of a sum of small evolutionary changes over time. At each step, of course, the hardened anti-evolutionist could simply dismiss each step as "microevolution". You can lead a horse to water, but apparently, you can't make him add things up.
29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: The Scientific Case for Common Descent
Can I presume your opinion is suitably altered, now?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 187 by DarkStar, posted 06-22-2004 8:37 PM DarkStar has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 193 of 212 (117710)
06-22-2004 11:19 PM
Reply to: Message 188 by DarkStar
06-22-2004 8:43 PM


An erroneous conclusion, but a conclusion nonetheless.
So, you believe then that the results of paternity tests in humans are also always erroneous conclusions?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 188 by DarkStar, posted 06-22-2004 8:43 PM DarkStar has not replied

  
pink sasquatch
Member (Idle past 6022 days)
Posts: 1567
Joined: 06-10-2004


Message 194 of 212 (117780)
06-23-2004 2:57 AM
Reply to: Message 187 by DarkStar
06-22-2004 8:37 PM


Re: What does the fossil record suggest?
Hey DarkStar,
You stated:
If vast numbers of transitionals were found, inspiring a true concensus on the reality of transitionals, or if macroevolution was ever observed, I would be willing to alter my opinion.
Genetic evidence does NOT predict a complete set of transitionals, as I discuss here:
http://EvC Forum: Is the ‘missing link’ argument outdated? -->EvC Forum: Is the ‘missing link’ argument outdated?
I'd be interested in what you think, since I feel you are asking for evidence that isn't necessarily predicted to exist.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 187 by DarkStar, posted 06-22-2004 8:37 PM DarkStar has not replied

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


Message 195 of 212 (117801)
06-23-2004 4:42 AM
Reply to: Message 187 by DarkStar
06-22-2004 8:37 PM


Gee were there too many words for you?
That wasn't the whole post. Will you finish the reply and answer the questions?
quote:
Is this true? ---
At one time there were no complex, multicellurlar organisms on earth.
At a later time there were animals like fish but no amphibians, reptiles etc.
At a still later time there were amphibians and then reptiles but no mammals or birds
And still later there were mammals and birds and primate within the mammals.
Still later there were humans as well.
Do you agree or disagree? What parts do you disagree with and why?
This message has been edited by NosyNed, 06-23-2004 03:44 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 187 by DarkStar, posted 06-22-2004 8:37 PM DarkStar 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