ID and the like VS. Evolution.

[Kandahar]

I think you are confusing "plausible" with "intuitively obvious" when you bring in quantum mechanics. I agree there is nothing intuitively obvious about relativity or quantum mechanics, but the predictive accuracy makes it plausible. Evolution, on the other hand, has been supported on this thread by the intuitively obvious method of connecting the dots of the geological record, but there have been no examples presented of evolution accounting for the differentiation of species.

There's a lot of gray area in defining when one species "ends" and the next species "begins." Understanding that, there is no logical leap from observing that animals acquire slightly different characteristics better-adapted to their slightly different environment over a few generations, to predicting that animals acquire RADICALLY different characteristics over many thousands of generations (or over a few generations in a radically changing environment).

Suppose we're presenting with a species of large cat. This cat needs to be faster than its prey, so the fastest members of its species are likely to be the ones that survive and pass on their genes. A few thousand years later, the average cat of this species is much faster than its ancestors. But the cat species also needs sharper teeth and claws to be able to kill its prey faster. A few thousand years later, the average cat of this species has much sharper teeth and claws. But the cat species also needs a fur coat that camouflages it, so a few thousand years later the average cat has a fur coat that more closely resembles its surroundings. The "new and improved" cat looks nothing like the original and may be so different that it couldn't even reproduce with one of the original cats. Is this really the "same" species of cat that we started with? What's the difference?

In other words, traits that CAN survive and reproduce, survive and reproduce. There have been many direct observations of microevolution, and an overwhelming amount of evidence in the fossil record to suggest macroevolution.

 

[Diogenes]

Suppose we're presenting with a species of large cat. This cat needs to be faster than its prey, so the fastest members of its species are likely to be the ones that survive and pass on their genes. A few thousand years later, the average cat of this species is much faster than its ancestors. But the cat species also needs sharper teeth and claws to be able to kill its prey faster. A few thousand years later, the average cat of this species has much sharper teeth and claws. But the cat species also needs a fur coat that camouflages it, so a few thousand years later the average cat has a fur coat that more closely resembles its surroundings. The "new and improved" cat looks nothing like the original and may be so different that it couldn't even reproduce with one of the original cats. Is this really the "same" species of cat that we started with? What's the difference?

As I recall, Darwin came to that conclusion by observing variations among species on different isolated islands in the Pacific, and it certainly seems reasonable. It seems less likely in a population living more or less together on the same continent. The definition that I learned in high school was that different species are defined by the fact that they are mutually sterile, or (as with a horse and donkey) their offspring are sterile. The idea that a herd of buffalo in North America or a population of monkeys in Africa could simultaneously mutate in two different directions is possible I suppose, but it would seem to have a vanishingly small probability even over thousands of generations.

 

[hipsterdufus]

I say BOTH the theory of evolution and the notion of Intelligent Design be taught in school.

The problem here is that ID is not going through the Scientific community to get their "science" into textbooks. Rather, they are making a political argument, and activley recruiting School Board members whgo agree with them to change science curricula.

If the errors of religion aren't taught in school, when will they be taught?

So if a teacher want to teach that all religion is a big fairy tale with no basis in proof, you would be ok with that?

 

[Kandahar]

The definition that I learned in high school was that different species are defined by the fact that they are mutually sterile, or (as with a horse and donkey) their offspring are sterile.

That's generally the rule of thumb, but it's not an ironclad law of biology. There are exceptions. For example, if a husband or his wife cannot have a child together, we don't consider them different species. Similarly, that still leaves room for a lot of "gray area." For example, all humans today are considered to be a part of the same species, because most humans today are physically capable of having a child with most other humans of the opposite gender. However, if you introduced some similar-but-not-quite-the-same creatures into our society (for example, Neanderthals), it would be more difficult but not impossible for reproduction of viable offspring to occur between Group A and Group B. The more different Group A and Group B are, the less often this will occur.

In other words, if you had a time machine you couldn't go back to a certain moment in evolutionary history and say "This is where the last homo erectus begat the first homo sapiens" because there's no clearly defined line separating the two.

The idea that a herd of buffalo in North America or a population of monkeys in Africa could simultaneously mutate in two different directions is possible I suppose, but it would seem to have a vanishingly small probability even over thousands of generations.

I don't see why. Groups of animals often self-segregate on their own. Merely living on the same continent is not enough to ensure that the species don't diverge; for example, the squirrels on opposite sides of the Grand Canyon have slightly different characteristics. Furthermore, if you agree that divergence is possible when species are separated by an ocean, how is that fundamentally different from a species living in Maine diverging from its Californian counterparts?

 

[Diogenes]

Groups of animals often self-segregate on their own. Merely living on the same continent is not enough to ensure that the species don't diverge; for example, the squirrels on opposite sides of the Grand Canyon have slightly different characteristics. Furthermore, if you agree that divergence is possible when species are separated by an ocean, how is that fundamentally different from a species living in Maine diverging from its Californian counterparts?

Agreed that infertility is a necessary consequence of different species, but not sufficient proof.

There can be divergence within a species without mutation into a different species - skin color is one example; I understand that a dark skin is an advantage in southern climates with strong sunshine, and a disadvantage in northern climates with weaker sunshine (and vice versa) - but that's not the same as mutation into a different species.

My question has to do with how any species which is not physically separated can possibly mutate into two or more different species. The implicit assumption here is that if they can breed together they will breed together (are there any pureblood human races left anywhere?), in order to keep the gene pool viable. I don't understand how environmental adaptation can produce such a wide variety of grazing animals on the plains of North America or such a wide variety of monkeys all occupying the same patch of rain forest in the Congo or Amazon basins, even over thousands of generations.

 

[Vandeervecken]

I say BOTH the theory of evolution and the notion of Intelligent Design be taught in school.

Then you teach ID, identifying all the areas where it ISN'T a theory, and why it's not science, but religion.

That would be all of it. 100% of it. The whole ball of wax. You get the idea.

 

[nope]

Intelligent Design is the evolutionary product of creationism. :lol:

 

[tecoyah]

My question has to do with how any species which is not physically separated can possibly mutate into two or more different species. The implicit assumption here is that if they can breed together they will breed together (are there any pureblood human races left anywhere?), in order to keep the gene pool viable. I don't understand how environmental adaptation can produce such a wide variety of grazing animals on the plains of North America or such a wide variety of monkeys all occupying the same patch of rain forest in the Congo or Amazon basins, even over thousands of generations.

I would recommend reading up on Darwins Finches......heres a link, though there are many others:

http://www.alternativescience.com/darwin's_finches.htm

 

[Diogenes]

I would recommend reading up on Darwins Finches......heres a link, though there are many others:

Thanks. That link emphasizes my point:

Darwin arrived at the Galapagos in the Beagle in 1835. In his Journal of Researches (popularly known as The Voyage of the Beagle) Darwin famously commented that, 'in the thirteen species of ground-finches, a nearly perfect gradation may be traced from a beak extraordinarily thick to one so fine that it may be compared with that of a warbler. I very much suspect that certain members of the series are confined to different islands.'

Darwin went on to add, 'Seeing this gradation and diversity of structure in one small, intimately related group of birds one might really fancy that, from an original paucity of birds in this archipelago, one species had been taken and modified for different ends.'

These tentative statements contain all the main elements of Darwinism, then and now: There are a multiplicity of 'species' with a generic similarity: they live apart from each other and are 'confined' to different islands; they have adapted to the differences of habitat on those islands; they represent a graded series and look as if they have all descended from a common ancestor. These facts alone invite us to draw the inevitable conclusion, without any further evidence, that the finches represent an example of evolution by natural selection. And that is precisely the conclusion Darwinists have drawn for 130 years.

.... snip....

In almost all respects, the finches of the Galapagos are so similar that it is difficult to tell them apart. Indeed, Weiner himself remarks that, 'Some of them look so much alike that during the mating season they find it hard to tell themselves apart.' This mirrors David Lack's observation that 'In no other birds are the differences between species so ill-defined.' The finches all have dull plumage, which varies from light brown to dark brown, all have short tails, all build nests with roofs, and lay white eggs spotted with pink, four to a clutch.

In this case, it would seem that the different "species" are actually closer than, say, Australian aborigines and Eskimos.

 

[-Demosthenes-]

Funny cartoon:

 

[nkgupta80]

Originally Posted by Diogenes

My question has to do with how any species which is not physically separated can possibly mutate into two or more different species. The implicit assumption here is that if they can breed together they will breed together (are there any pureblood human races left anywhere?), in order to keep the gene pool viable. I don't understand how environmental adaptation can produce such a wide variety of grazing animals on the plains of North America or such a wide variety of monkeys all occupying the same patch of rain forest in the Congo or Amazon basins, even over thousands of generations.

Why? Because that same patch of rainforest is itself divided into many different habitats. The top of the tree may require different adaptations than for the bottom of the tree. Species, if tehy cannot find symbiotic or harmless relationship in competeing for that niche will drive one or the other to adapt to a different niche. These small time separations in habitat help cause a lot of biodiversity.

 

[steen]

Agreed, evolution has nothing to do with why, only the mechanics of how. Even so, it is a theory with problems that have not been addressed.

And also, the Scientific Theory of Evolution SOLELY deal with how generations of biological organisms change over time. Nothing else.

No, I merely propose a hypothesis, like the theory of evolution itself.

A hypothesis is not a Scientific Theory. The hypothesis is the BEGINNING of the Scientific Method, whereass the Scientific Theory is the end product when all the data fits.

If the story were repeated in a form much like Genesis, then there is no essential conflict between biblical and "scientific" accounts except for the timeline.

Yes, there is. Genesis I does not have a flow similar to what the research into Evolution has established. Genesis has several big flaws if you read it as a science text.

The point is that evolution does NOT conflict with the teachings of the time, except for the timeline.

Your claim is not entirely true. Genesis I has flaws, significant flaws. Go read it carefully with attention to things like photosynthesis and bats, just to mention a few things.

 

[steen]

and the Scientific Community has never been wrong :roll:
Neither theories on the origin of the universe are based on fact
therefor neither should be taught in school

The Scientific Theory of Evolution has NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with the origin of the universe. I am shocked that you claim so, as it indicates a serious ignorance of what you are trying to discuss.

SO why did you make such a claim? Do you at all KNOW what the Scientific Theory of Evolution actually says?

you want to teach evolution which can be proven, be my guest

And that is indeed what is being done when the Scientific Theory of Evolution is being taught.

keep your religion/

Hmm, the only religion here is cr5eationism and ID. I guess you agree to dump that stuff, then.

atheism out of my kids classroom

Atheism? What atheism? You are not so silly that you would claim the Science to be atheistic, are you?

school is not meant to indoctrinate my kid into a religion or lack there of

I am glad that you thus reject the lies of creationists and ID'ers. And that you accept teaching SCIENCE in Science Class, as we are currently doing when we teach the Scientific Theory of Evolution.

 

[steen]

nothing but the stories passed down from generation to generation for 1000's of years since God informed his people how they came to be

Hmm, I am glad that you admit creationism to only be a story.

you will come to find that enough people on this earth have a hard time knowing they were created accidentally by their parents (condom broke) but than to lump on top of it, the fact that humanities entire existence is but a Universal accident as well
a double oops
you are meaningless and have no reason
you are nothing but a random occurence

And, of course, we don't do these people a favor by lying to them and trying to confirm their false beliefs.

where are all the other accidents in the universe, why, so far, are we the only intelligent life forms anywhere?

And so what? Oh, you are not one of those who so seriously have misunderstood the Scientific Theory of Evolution as claiming that it progresses towards some kind of universal goal such as intelligent humans, are you?

 

[steen]

Agreed also that there is certainly evidence of incremental evolution on a very low level, where various bacterial and virus infections mutate to become resistant to medication.

On the other hand it's quite a leap to talk about birds evolving from dinosaurs, or similar claims of one species evolving incrementally from another.

Why? What is the difference in mechanism? It is almost like you claiming that the sun can melt an icecube but not an iceberg? How is the scale of change somehow limiting? What mechanism is prevented so Dinosaurs can't evolve into birds?

When you look at the paleontology record of the horse, for instance, all the way from the five-toed Eohippus to the modern horse, what you see is a series of dots separated by millions of years. It may be tempting to assume a gradual change in connecting the dots, but it is only an assumption.

Well, it is a bit more complicated than that. Have you actually read up on the science behind this, or are you just making the assumption that we only have a few distinct and very separate "dots"?

Earth In Upheaval explored a number of the anomalies in the theory of evolution, and makes interesting reading.

Mostly per misrepresentation of the Scientific Theory of Evolution, ommission of evidence and making downright false claims. Are you saying this is a relibale source for a science educatiion?

(The book was also protested vigorously by the evolution establishment, who threatened not to buy any textbooks from any publisher who dared to print it.)

When somebody makes up lies about your profession, why whould you support the lies?

Catastrophic evolution, happening over a generation or two of massive species die-out, has an equally convincing evidentiary basis (i.e., none) as incremental evolution.

"incremental evoluiton"? By golly, I think you are alluding to PUNCTUATED EQUILIBRIUM? Your science info is about 30 years out of date if THAT is the argument you are makijnhg here.

One should always beware of making brash leaps of assumption. The fundamental assumption of astrology, for instance, is that events on earth can be predicted by watching the stars. This is true, and to prove the assertion you need only ask how you set your watch, or ask when next Easter will be celebrated. However, the leap from the basic truth of astrology to your daily horoscope in the newspaper is hardly rational.

And what does this idea (not even hypothesis) have to do with a Scientific Theory?

 

[steen]

Steps 3 and 4 have never been taken in evolution, at least above the bacterial and viral level. It is still a theory, and it will take more than wishful thinking to make it scientific.

Sorry, but your claim is outright false. You really need to learn more about the Science and Evidence behind the Scientific Theory of Evolution before making such claims.

You are getting dangerously close to confirming the sentiments in this post:
http://www.debatepolitics.com/showpost.php?p=123518&postcount=14

Why do you seek to misdefine the Science?

 

[steen]

Hybrid plants are still only examples of evolution on a micro level.

What do you mean with "micro level"? What is different here compared to other examples of Evolution? Do you at all KNOW what Evolution is?

Corn is still corn, even if one variety is more resistant to certain diseases than another. Do you have any examples where one species has evolved into another (and distinct) species?

Yeah!! DUH! There are many examples. So what? Evolution occurs even if no new species are formed.

Please tell me, as that is becoming an issue here, what IS your understanding of what Evolution is?

Because your claims sure are bizzare if based in the Actual Science of Evolution.

 

[steen]

Agreed that evolution should be taught, but only as a theory.

As a SCIENTIFIC THEORY, right? That is how it is taught, after all.

And by the way, each of the individually researched examples of Evolution that have collectibly been gathered into the Scientific Theory are very much factual in themselves.

JUST as is the case with ANY AND ALL Scientific Theoryes. You seem to try to claim that no science is valid as anything but "only a theory." Please clarify your justification for that claim. You seem to not only show ignorance of the Scientific Theory of Evolution, but also of all other science as well.

As I noted in an earlier post, the fossil record is incomplete and requires connecting dots that are millions of years apart -

Not all of the fossil record is like that.

it's possibly the result of incremental evolution, but equally likely to be the result of catastrophic environmental changes.

You are still 30 years behind in knowledge. Go read up on punctuated equilbrium.

Plausibility makes it a theory.

No, Scientific Evidence does, just as is the case with ANY Scientific Theory. What you are doing here is claiming the Scientific Method, and thus ALL Science as being invalid.

If a theory is useful in making predictions, it gains credibilty (as with relativity or drifting continents, for instance), but I'm not aware of any predictions from the theory of evolution which have proven out.

Your ignorance is not our fault.

Experimentation can prove the theory, but that seems to be out of the question with evolution, at least within my lifetime.

Why? Evolution is the change in the alleles of a population from one generation to the next. That can be demonstrated in 45 minutes in some bacteria. Are you saying that you will be dead before then? Or are you making arguments in complete ignorance of what Evolution actually is?

 

[steen]

I agree that the mere existence of niche species is convincing evidence that life adapts (somehow) to the environment available, but I wouldn't call it "extremely close to perfect" as long as there are significant gaps in the fossil record.

And what is a "significant" gap? Given that we have directly OBSERVED new species to evolve per changes in their environment, your claim seems utterly pointless.

Ptolemy's terracentric view of the universe served well for over a thousand years, and Newtonian mechanics still serves us well until we get into extremely precise measurements, but both theories have been superseded as "the last word" in their respective fields.

Ah, so Newtonian Physics is no longer valid?

IMO evolution should be taught as a theory, the best available explanation for making sense of our observations, but not as "scientific fact" which would have to be subject to replicable experimental verification.

It is a Scientific theory, which means that replicate experimental verification HAS BEEN DONE. Your ignorance of the Science behind the Scientific Theory does not invalidate the Scientific Theory; instead it underscores your ignorance of the Science and drops your credibility to speak against the Science. If you can't even be bothered knowing what the Scientific Evidence IS to begin with, your claim that the evidence is flawed rigs hollow at best and shows deliberate deception at worst.

I really think our only difference is over the "penumbras and emanations" (to use Supreme Court terminology) surrounding the word "theory."

It is not our fault that you don't comprehend what a Scientific Theory is.

 

[steen]

I'm not sure it is as close to fact as you seem to think.

However, I will admit that it is the theory with the most proof. But it is almost the only theory presented.......Think about that for a bit.

In Science, there are not two explanatyions for the same thing. If there are conflicts, then the research resolves it. But hey, why are you stopping at Evolution? How about gravity? I can speculate that invisible angles sit on our shoulders and flap their wings to keep us Earth-bound. Hey, it is a "theory" so it shouldbe taught along with the Scientific Theoiry of Gravity, as gravity shouldn't be taught as a fact, right?

Do you now under4satnd how lamne and hare-brained your arguments sounbd? It sounds like you ate utterly and totally ignorant of Science and the Scientific Method when making such claims.

That you want your wishful thinking taught as an alternative to an established Scientific Theory, well that is just to bad. Do the research and prove your wild idea, else drop it.

If most of the kids who may grow up to be our next scientists believe that evolution is so close to truth that they stop trying to find another theory.....it is going to make them poor scientists. After all, if they are taught from the beginning of their life that evolution is fact (not saying that they are, but all the biology textbooks I've read seem to imply that), then when they are researching something, they will automatically apply (probably without thinking) it to their findings. I'm not saying that they all will, but alot of them will........in fact, I think this has already happened to some extent.

Yes, just like they are taught that gravity is NOT from an invisible angel, or that the Earth is NOT flat. By golly, by so closing off their minds by presenting established facts instead of wild delusions, we surely are making them poorly equipped to deal with the real world, right?

Following that logic, it would seem that teaching only evolution in text books would hinder scientific progress.

To you it seem that way. But you have already established an astonishing ignorance of what you speak, so what you think has little impact on anybody.

What I would like to see is a text book that presents all the facts,

That's called Scientific Journals. That's where the facts are poresented through a couple hundred thousand studies every year. You want kids to read ALL these studies?

and wherever evolution is mentioned make sure that students know that it is still a theory and they should keep an open mind. (This might already be the case in some textbooks, but I have yet to see it).

And likewise, where ANY scienec is mentioned, we should be sure they know it is only a theory and that in fact the Earth MIGHT be flat, Angels MIGHT keep us earth bound, and 2+2 MIGHT not be 4, right? Any other silly ideas you have?

 

[steen]

Very interesting link describing theory. Any who are confused as to it's definition, please read.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory

Which again shows the fundie crowds complete ignorance of what a SCIENTIFIC THEORY is, trying to compare it with an "ordinary" theory. The Scientific Theory is the end product of the Scientific Method. Go look THAT up instead.

 

[libertarian_knight]

I read some of the posts, not all. If someone pointed these out already I am sorry in advance. Otherwise, listen up.

First, Evolution itself is NOT A FACT. It is a Theory, or model, used to EXPLAIN FACTS. Theories in science are explanations of relevant observations and data, but not actually data themselves. Many theories seek to admit all pertinent data, however, with something as large as the totality of known biology and most of chemistry, no human being on earth could ever be exposed to all such information; therefore, with the relative newness of evolution, there will be gaps. GAPS DO NOT NECESSARILY NEGATE OR DEFEAT A THEORY.

This is the problem with Intelligent Design, it's more a pointing out of a fundamental human flaw: imperfect knowledge; rather it is a criticism of Evolution. ID Proponents have said things like "explain the woodpecker," "explain the flagellum” etc. ID points out the imperfectness of current evolutionary knowledge. ID does not do what theories do, and that is EXPLAIN FACTS.

Thomas Aquinas once explained that wind was the result of God's action. We know that now, wind is the result of Temperature and Pressure variations in adjacent portions of the Troposphere.

Saying that God is an active participant in all action of all things, IS INTELLECTUALLY LAZY AND AN INSULT TO GOD. I do Believe in God, and I say that one of Gods gifts is Intellect, and to waste it, is to spit on God.

Ignorance is Bliss, not a Virtue; and willful Ignorance is a sin. If you love God, Love God's Universe by learning God's Universe.

Furthermore, and more to the point. Would the proponents of ID actually, I don't know, OFFER A LESSON PLAN FOR WHAT THEY DEMAND BE TAUGHT!!!!?

I have scoured, though not too hard, for a SINGLE DAY'S lesson plan on Intelligent Design, Let alone a syllabus or course curriculum for it. Listen, if you REALLY want Intelligent Design to be taken as a subject to be taught, how about fricken telling us the facts and theory you want taught. I mean how the f*** can you teach something, when NO ONE has come up with something to teach?

All I find on my searches are "how to get ID taught in schools"... Never, "Here is what an ID lesson would teach"... I mean isn't that kind of, well, UNINTELLIGENT?

ID Proponent: We want to teach ID as a science in Biology
Q: what do you want to teach about it?
ID Prop: uhhhh... something... UG SMASH.

 

[The Mark]

Which again shows the fundie crowds complete ignorance of what a SCIENTIFIC THEORY is, trying to compare it with an "ordinary" theory. The Scientific Theory is the end product of the Scientific Method. Go look THAT up instead.

I didn't read all of this yet, but you said I should look it up, so........

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_Method

Also.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory

Both links are interesting reading and contain alot of information that I am sure you and others will find usefull.

 

[The Mark]

Which again shows the fundie crowds complete ignorance of what a SCIENTIFIC THEORY is, trying to compare it with an "ordinary" theory. The Scientific Theory is the end product of the Scientific Method. Go look THAT up instead.

Oh. I wasn't sure what the term "fundie crowds" meant, so I looked that up too.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundies

Interesting.....very interesting.

Just so you know, I am not one of.......those

 

[DeeJayH]

The Scientific Theory of Evolution has NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with the origin of the universe. I am shocked that you claim so, as it indicates a serious ignorance of what you are trying to discuss.

ooops. Busted :doh
forgot what the thread was on
but easy to confuse, considering Evolution and the Big Bang theories go hand in hand, in science class
and ID/Creationism, are deemed in direct opposition of both, by many