| |
|
|
| Forum Rules
|
1. This is a moderated forum, all posts will be checked for bad language and composition. 2. Before you post in the information section, make sure the information you add is fully accurate. 3. All posts within the local and national policy sections must be factually correct and substantively debatable. 4. Feel free to be provocative or even politically incorrect, within the rules set. 5. No threats, sexual or racist remarks of any nature will be tolerated. Any posts that violate these common sense rules will be removed. Your account may also be suspended after so many violations. 6. Creating multiple accounts and pretending to be someone else will result in instant termination of all accounts. We check up on all accounts / IP addresses frequently. You must register and login in order to post within the forums. Your information will not be given out or sold for mailing lists. The register and login section is at the top right. You can also register or login here.
|
| Author |
Messages |
|
Zasch
Posts:134
Senior User
Online Status:
 |
| 05/27/2007 9:14 AM |
|
What are our opinions on it? (I only ask because I anticipate that there are people here who deny it, and I'm really starving for a debate ;))
|
|
|
|
|
mulhollandj
Posts:229
Senior User
Online Status:
|
| 05/28/2007 12:00 PM |
|
You really need your own blog on here. As far as evolution though, I rely on my own religious beliefs and believe in that the world was organized by God and we are all His children. If you are interested in more information as far as this belief goes please feel free to ask.
Evolution isn't really science as the scientific method cannot be applied but falls more into a philosophy of trying to explain findings. There is so much that we don't know or understand. |
|
|
|
|
Fiery Darts
Posts:133
Senior User
Online Status:
|
| 05/28/2007 3:28 PM |
|
There are two questions to address when considering evolution in light of creation theory. First, does evolution occur? Second, did humans come into existence by evolving from some other type of creature?
The answer to the first question appears to be a resounding yes. While it is difficult to track the evolution of species with large, diverse, long-lived organisms, it is remarkably easy to track evolution among small, short-lived, highly numerous organisms. There is substantial evidence that evolution has occurred among bacteria and viruses. There is no reason to believe that changes do not occur in larger organisms, although they may take longer, on the order of centuries rather than years, to occur naturally. It is arguable that selective breeding programs, such as those used to produce certain kinds of cows, horses, or dogs, are a form of deliberate human-driven evolution.
The answer to the second question is really at the crux of the debate, although many people fail to recognize the distinction between evolution as a process and evolution as the origin of man (or any other particular set of species or families of species, of you wish to consider a more general case). This question is not resolved conclusively by science, but it is addressed within essentially every religion in the world. If there is a god (or gods) that created the world, then that god could have created humans as well, either out of nothing/clay/dust or by causing a species to arise through evolution that had human traits (this latter position would be a valid part of Intelligent Design, but is probably not included by most ID proponents). If there is no god, then evolution is the best explanation that we have so far to explain the origin of the human race.
In the end, it is all a matter of faith. If you believe in a god, then you likely believe that humans were created. If you don't, then you probably believe that we are descended from apes. I am comfortable enough with my beliefs to allow people to disagree with me about which one is right, although I am deeply bothered by the people who get violent and angry in the face of ideas that conflict with their own. This includes both Christians who cannot stomach the fact that evolution is taught in schools and scientists who attack religion at every possible opportunity. Everyone has their dogmas. |
|
|
|
|
Zasch
Posts:134
Senior User
Online Status:
|
| 05/29/2007 10:44 AM |
|
I e-mailed the administrator of this site for my own little forum, but nothing has come of it 
Evolution isn't really science as the scientific method cannot be applied
Oh? What makes you say this?
This question is not resolved conclusively by science,
Not conclusively, since few things in science are so permanent, but what makes you think it hasn't been resolved to a high degree of certainty?
In the end, it is all a matter of faith.
But is it? It seems that we have rather strong evidence for one theory, and a mechanism to explain that evidence, and we have no evidence for another.
If you believe in a god, then you likely believe that humans were created. If
Not necessarily. There are hundreds of millions of religious people who have no problem with evolution. |
|
|
|
|
Fiery Darts
Posts:133
Senior User
Online Status:
|
| 05/29/2007 5:53 PM |
|
Ah, but Mr. Zasch, creation and evolution need not be mutually exclusive. Many religious people believe that a god used evolution as the mechanism by which humans were created. So, they believe in creation and in evolution (this view would be especially appealing to those subscribing to a Clockmaker theology and some agnostics). Many other people believe in a distinct divine creation of man and are also able to accept that evolution is a mechanism in force today (and presumably during all the time since the respective organisms were first created).
You also seem to ignore the fact that the fossil record does not provide many of the links between modern creatures and ancient ones. This lack of evidence is just as convincing to people who can see the hand of God in the world as the lack of physical evidence of divine power is convincing to many others. Both theories have their own evidence (of sorts) to back them up, and both provide a mechanism to explain how things happened.
As I said before, most people can accept evolution as a process for genetic change. The scientific evidence supporting it, at least within single-celled organisms, is fairly conclusive. Scientific theory gets far more dubious when the effort is made to trace back through time and determine the mechanisms by which different species came to be. There are several other theories that can explain how particular species arose in the first place (evolution from goo, extraterrestrial terraforming, divine creation/intervention). As I said before, determining the origins of man is all a matter of faith, either in the conjectures of science or in a higher power, some other theory, or some combination of the above. |
|
|
|
|
mulhollandj
Posts:229
Senior User
Online Status:
|
| 05/29/2007 8:39 PM |
|
| The reason I say evolution is a philosophy is that you cannot apply the scientific method to it. You cannot say, OK, here are some organisms, lets wait a billion years or so and track their progress and setup some controlled experiments. Instead somebody digs up some old bones and tries to explain it. Is this a better explanation? |
|
|
|
|
Fiery Darts
Posts:133
Senior User
Online Status:
|
| 05/29/2007 10:23 PM |
|
Mulholland has a point. Although evolution can be easily tracked among organisms with rapid genetic drift (as is the case with small organisms (typically single cell) that proliferate in very large numbers with very rapid reproduction cycles), most organisms, including all the ones that produce sexually, changes occur too slowly to track, or else they are lost in the noise of normal genetic variation in the population. Darwin's theory, on the short term, mostly applies to changes in trait frequency in a population instead of to actual change from one species to another (survival of the fittest cannot promote a trait that is not found in a population).
This is usually explained by pointing out that genetic mutation may occasionally produce a trait that has a survival advantage. This is somewhat counter to genetic realities in our day, which find that (almost) all mutations are highly harmful to the organism and represent a survival disadvantage like with cancer and trisomy disorders. The typical argument in this case is that there are enough mutations to allow a significant number to be beneficial over time, resulting in a net benefit to the species (see: X-Men). This is largely conjecture which is generally accepted because there aren't any other theories that can withstand Occam's Razor outside of theology.
On the other hand, "How can ace be one and eleven?"
|
|
|
|
|
Zasch
Posts:134
Senior User
Online Status:
|
| 05/30/2007 3:44 AM |
|
creation and evolution need not be mutually exclusive.
Oh indeed not. That is the whole point of why "creationism" is not a science: Every piece of evidence that supports anything can be used to support creationism. Absolutely everything can be explained by "God did it", and thus it isn't particularly interesting scientifically.
You also seem to ignore the fact that the fossil record does not provide many of the links between modern creatures and ancient ones.
Fossilisation is a completely different process than evolution, and a a fairly rare thing at that - most things simply aren't going to be fossilised.
However.....
It seems like there are a great numbre of transitional fossils that have been discovered: For humans alone there is P. Aethiopicus, A. Africanus, A Garhl, P Robustus, H georgicus, H Habilis, H. Erectus, H Heidelbergensis, and of course the more famous ones: H Neanderthalesnsis and H. Sapiens (us). That is for humans alone.
You have plenty of others for nonhuman species as well: Ctenacanthus, paleospinax, spathobatis, protospinax, canobius, leptoppis, pakicetus inachus, rodhecut kasrani, onychodonitiforms, acinistia, dipnoi, etc etc etc. I realise that these names are basically meaningless to you (They are to me, being in Latin and all), but it isn't as if there is any lack of a fossil record.
The discovery of these fossils fits in accordance with the prediction of the theory of evolution, which increase the probability that the theory fits as an explanatino for the natural world. (There are, of course, theoretical ways in which it might be proven false).
This lack of evidence is just as convincing to people who can see the hand of God in the world as the lack of physical evidence of divine power is convincing to many others.
Two things:
1) This sets up a false dichotomy. It is not as though evolution *must* be true if ID is not, or that ID *must* be true if evolution is not. Therefore, even if evolution were to completely collapse, all this means is that evolution completely collapsed, and it speaks nothing to any other hypothesis.
2) There is no lack of evidence here: We have a mechanism that makes predcitions and we have seen, over the short and long term, that mechainsm make accurate predictions.
Both theories have their own evidence (of sorts) to back them up, and both provide a mechanism to explain how things happened.
Except that creationism cannot have evidence, since creationism is not an explanation for the physical processes of the universe. Rather, since it is a supernatural explanation, absolutely everything is compatible with it: A transitional fossil can be used to attempt to support creationism. A video game can be used. A bad grade can be used. Since it is supernatural, it has no constraints and thus, again, is not scientific.
Creationism has absolutely no predictive power to it at all, nor any explanatory power: Why do birds have wings? Well, God created them. What will happen to this species when we put it on this island? Well, I dunno, God will sort it out.
Thus, while it is always possible that creationism is true, it simply isn't interesting because:
1) You cannot disprove it, ever, even theoretically
2) It doesn't provide a mechanism for what might happen
3) It doesn't provide a mechanism for what has happend
4) Absolutely everything in existence is compatible with it
Evolution could be disproven, it does provide a mechanism for what might happen, for what has happend, and again, it can be disproven: Certain pieces of evidence would put much strain on it.
The dichotomy between the two is false, because they occupy entirely seperate realms and serve entirely seperate purposes.
either in the conjectures of science or in a higher power,
Except that one relies on evidence and has its probability change based on evidence, whereas the other relies on nothing but faith.
You cannot say, OK, here are some organisms, lets wait a billion years or so and track their progress and setup some controlled experiments.
Since humanity has not been around for a billion years, of course this is true. However, a billion years or not needed: All that is needed is for some organism to change to adapt to its environment. Such a thing is completely consistent with evolution.
For instance, there was a part of a lake (Lake Victoria I believe) that got cut off from the rest of the lake because of sand about 2000 yaers ago. Since that time, species have evolved that now depend upon the new lake that was created, indicating that they adapted to change to their environment.
If we were to discover a human in the precambrian era, or we were to find a situation were natural selection simply had no impact on a population, or whatnot...This would disprove evolution. By testing the predictions of the theory in a wide variety of situations (in a labratory, by studying speciation in the wild, by looking at fossil records, etc) we constantly apply the scientific method to it.
You might want to read this:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/dont_use.asp (Note: This is a creationist source)
, including all the ones that produce sexually, changes occur too slowly to track, or else they are lost in the noise of normal genetic variation in the population.
Please explain more what "normal genetic variation" is, and by what process it occurs. Is it random noise?
Allow me to use the example of human skin colour. Notice how populations in colder areas tend to have lighter skin colour than populations in warmer areas. Obviously this would be very beneficial for the populations involved, and indeed that is precisely why it occured: In warmer areas, people that had lighter skin colour had a lesser chance to reproduce, whereas a darker skin colour increased this chance, and thus we see the trends that we do. This is an example of evolution.
instead of to actual change from one species to another (survival of the fittest cannot promote a trait that is not found in a population).
That is not necessarily the case. If you seperate two populations from each other, and they begin to adapt to their environment, it is not difficult to see that they will drift apart from each other (unless their environmental circumstances are entirely similar) and thus create a new species.
This is somewhat counter to genetic realities in our day, which find that (almost) all mutations are highly harmful to the organism and represent a survival disadvantage like with cancer and trisomy disorders.
See, that "almost" is the problem with such an objection. Let us say that there is a population of 100 people. I press a button, and they all mutate. For most of them, this mutation will either do nothing or lead to various disorders, and they will die off. For those with a beneficial mutation, however, they will be able to reproduce. Thus, that beneficial mutation is selected for and gradually the trends of the population shift in favour of it. Simple probability.
For instance, a mutation occured in some humans that increases resistence to HIV infections. Or the mutation of the sickle-cell increased resistence to malaria, and hence became much more prevelant in the population.
Thus, again, this argument is somewhat weak.
The typical argument in this case is that there are enough mutations to allow a significant number to be beneficial over time, resulting in a net benefit to the species (see: X-Men).
This is largely conjecture which is generally accepted because there aren't any other theories that can withstand Occam's Razor outside of theology.
This isn't an objection and speaks nothing to the mechanism itself. Basically, you offered a counter-argument to your own position but then dismissed it as "counterintuitive" or "silly" - if that is all it took to disprove a thing, science would be radically different today (After all, the idea that I have cells is counterintuitive and silly! Isn't the more simple explanation that I just have skin?)
Since we've seen it happen, and it seems to (again, shockingly) correspond with the predictions of the theory...you need to offer a more substantial objection than "occams razor" (Which isn't a very substantial objection at all, since this explanation is far simpler than the existence of a supernatural being) or simply dismissing it out of hand. If you have a substantive objection, I would like to hear it.
On the other hand, "How can ace be one and eleven?"
Indeed. One thing I am always somewhat curious about is, for those IDers who reject evolution, why humans and the species on Earth appear so poorly designed.
Also, if you want, we can expand this debate to one of the existence or nonexistence of God, if you believe you have a rational basis for such belief. |
|
|
|
|
Fiery Darts
Posts:133
Senior User
Online Status:
|
| 05/30/2007 5:42 AM |
|
Posted By Zasch on 05/30/2007 3:44 AM Please explain more what "normal genetic variation" is, and by what process it occurs. Is it random noise? Allow me to use the example of human skin colour. Notice how populations in colder areas tend to have lighter skin colour than populations in warmer areas. Obviously this would be very beneficial for the populations involved, and indeed that is precisely why it occured: In warmer areas, people that had lighter skin colour had a lesser chance to reproduce, whereas a darker skin colour increased this chance, and thus we see the trends that we do. This is an example of evolution. instead of to actual change from one species to another (survival of the fittest cannot promote a trait that is not found in a population). That is not necessarily the case. If you seperate two populations from each other, and they begin to adapt to their environment, it is not difficult to see that they will drift apart from each other (unless their environmental circumstances are entirely similar) and thus create a new species.
If one or more existing traits such as dark/light skin or a heavier or leaner build start to give a survival advantage and become the numerically dominant traits, that is simply natural selection. The species has not changed. Only the relative frequencies of traits within the species has changed. The inability to detect new traits amid this noise makes detecting evolution among humans essentially impossible.
On an almost entirely different note, with the reduced risk of fatal conditions, especially prior to reproducing, the ability to live to a reproductive age is no longer the key survival trait among humans. Now the genetic lottery is more likely to be decided by the number of children produced since a person with five children has contributed more genes to the pool than a person with one child. Curiously, this could make wealth (and whatever genetic conditions might predispose one to business success) into a negative survival trait. Studies have found that rich girls are more attractive, and so it becomes reasonable to assume that our world is getting uglier, and it is all thanks to natural selection.
|
|
|
|
|
Zasch
Posts:134
Senior User
Online Status:
|
| 05/30/2007 9:01 AM |
|
Evolution requires that some new trait be introduced which has a survival advantage,
Evolution doesn't "require" anything. If, for instance, the only food that was left on Earth were rocks, it isn't as if evolution says "Humans are going to become lithovoric" - in this case, humans would likely die out. If all of our food suddenly became digestable only to people with a certain enzyme, what evolution says is that it is highly likely that people without the enzyme will die off and people with it will reproduce, and eventually most humans will have the enzyme.
but that one new trait (or even hundreds of new traits) would be difficult, if not impossible, to distinguish from those traits that already exist in the population.
On a short term scale, of course. If the same conditions persist over the long term, whatever is most advantageous to reproduction will be passed on.
The species has not changed.
This is indeed true, but over (large periods of) time if enough changes are made because of natural selection, it is possible that they will become a new species. Now, this seems exceedingly unlikely to happen on Earth for the simple reason that humans are so interconnected. But let us take the following thought experiment:
Let us say that we send a bunch of humans off to colonise Alpha Centauri. They actually manage to do it! However, its so far away that we can't really communicate with them at all in any way. X thousands of years pass: It is highly likely that the humans on Alpha Centauri would be very different from the humans of Earth. It is even possible that we wouldn't be able to reproduce with them anymore, because their local conditions have created a situation where so many traits were selected against that our genetic structures are no longer compatible.
Speciation only rarely occurs in any sort of short timeframe (The Hawthorn fly being an exception), and in humans it would take a lot because of the way our society and environment are structured (basically we're conquering our environment, making it suit our needs rather than the other way around), and so you really ought not expect scientists to ever declare that the human species has split up into 2 within your lifetime. They have noticed certain trends, of course, in human evolution (certain groups having a greater ability to process sugar or milk or whatnot) and have noted changed in our general shape, but these are not significant enough to call us a new species.
Evolution isn't soley to describe the formation of new species: It describes the change in organisms over time. In many instances, over time, organisms will change so much that they can no longer breed with members of their original class. The difference between "microevolution" and "macroevolution" is the difference between a centimeter and a kilometer: The same process is at work, its just on a different scale. To use a really simplistic example: Let us say I have a computer. I wish to run a new game on it. So I upgrade my video card...now I'm downloading movies and music and whatnot, so I have to upgrade my hard drive. Eventually my job requires more processing power, so I upgrade my processor...Now I need more RAm, so I upgrade that. I want to burn SuperDisks, so I upgrade my CD Rom drive to a SuperDisk drive. I change out the power supply because I need an even better video card to play my game...I change my motherboard so I can fit the cool new UltraPhysics Card in, etc etc.
Microevolution is when I change some individual component. Macroevolution is simply when a lot of individual components have been changed. By the time I'm done with my computer, it may not even be able to interface with computers of the past, and yet it isn't that one day my computer was X and the next day it was 50000 times different.
Studies have found that rich girls are more attractive, and so it becomes reasonable to assume that our world is getting uglier, and it is all thanks to natural selection.
You raise an interesting point, and I have often encountered the misconception that evolution means "good" - in common speech, "evolution" means a positive change and "devolution" means a negative change. But evolution scientifically doesn't work like that: It isn't that the *best* change will be selected for. It is that the change most beneficial for reproduction will get passed on. If becoming really stupid or ugly is best for reproduction because of whatever factor, environmental or social, then that will be the trend. We will never reach a "pinnacle of evolution" because evolution isn't merely a progression toward some end goal - there is no end to it (unless we all die, of course).
And yes, our modern society is making natural selection operate in much different ways. Ultimately, though, wealth probably won't become a negative survival trait...that is to say, wealth won't decrease your chances of reproducing. It will likely merely decrease the number of children that you have. Places with high population will eventually become wealthy (either through peaceful or not so peaceful means) and it'll happen again. I don't think we'll see a "collapse of intelligence" or anything among humans because things that contribute to wealth aren't selected against enough.
Ultimately, I hope science will be able to take more direct control of human evolution...but now we're getting into my scifi fantasies ;) |
|
|
|
|
mulhollandj
Posts:229
Senior User
Online Status:
|
| 05/30/2007 4:09 PM |
|
Except that one relies on evidence and has its probability change based on evidence, whereas the other relies on nothing but faith.
It seems that you do not understand faith very well. Evidence can exist but it is different than what people would consider traditional scientific evidence.
All that is needed is for some organism to change to adapt to its environment.
All you have shown is that something has changed. You may set up controlled experiments and try to statistically correlate the two but you still need to accept the fact that science does not 'prove' anything. This was a very hard concept for me to understand at first. Let us say I have a coconut tree. Every time the wind blows a coconut falls. When the wind does not blow a coconut does not blow. I try many experiments and the results are consistent. What have I proven? NOTHING. I may use statistics to show that they are probably correlated though. Before we can look at the data and understand conclusions we must first realize our limits. We don't know everything and without understanding every possible thing we cannot prove anything. That is not to say that we can't put faith in our findings and apply them to how we live. |
|
|
|
|
Zasch
Posts:134
Senior User
Online Status:
|
| 05/30/2007 5:01 PM |
|
It seems that you do not understand faith very well. Evidence can exist but it is different than what people would consider traditional scientific evidence.
The only useful evidence is scientific evidence. "Faith" is not useful evidence at all: You have faith that Christianity is true (I presume). Most people have faith that it isn't. Is everyone right simply because they all have faith? After all, faith can be evidence, right?
What if someone has "faith" that the Earth is actually flat, or that gravity doesn't exist, or that they are a millionaire?
If the universe changed based upon common consensus, then perhaps faith would be "evidence". But until then, just because I have "faith" that I can fly, it doesn't make it true and is not "evidence" for it, nor is it even useful to talk about in any explanatory manner.
but you still need to accept the fact that science does not 'prove' anything.
Indeed: You cannot conclusively prove that most things are true (except perhaps logicla statements, like A=A or whatever). But you are establishing a false dichotomy: Either it must have 0% probability of being true, or 100%. Since science can't have 100%, it must all be 0%!
In reality, each time an observation is made that correlates with some scientific theory, the chance that such theory accurately explains the world goes up.
That is not to say that we can't put faith in our findings and apply them to how we live.
You are misusing the term faith. What we are doing is analyzing the probability that a thing is true or not: If we set up numerous experiments to try to defeat a theory, and none of them work, and all of our observations correlate with its predictions, then the chance that theory is true is pretty high. It is simple probability applied to logic. Allow me to illustrate:
Let us say you are in front of a fire. Two people stand before you: Bob and Mary. Mary here is telling you to put your hand in the fire, because if you do, you'll be transported to a realm of honey and glory!!! It sounds pretty good, doesn't it?
Bob then points out to you that studies on this exact same thing have been done: They've approached it from multiple angles, observing it in the wild, tweaking different variables, etc...and all of them show that, if you stick your hand in the fire, you will experience pain.
But Mary says "Well, you can't be certain of that. You cannot prove it definitively." - Bob has to admit that she is correct, he cannot say with 100% certainty that your hand will burn.
So do you put your hand in the fire every time Mary tells you to? Most people would not. Were they both merely articles of faith, then you would have to randomly choose between the two, since they would hold the exact same weight: But people realise that, while you cannot be *entirely certain*, the probability of Mary being correct is so incredibly low that it isn't worth it.
This is science.
So you are correct, science cannot "prove" anything. It can establish various things to a high degree of certainty. If I conduct studies as to whether my hand will burn when I put it in the fire, and I find that it does all the time, then the correlation I have observed has a high chance of being causal.
Your objection basically means that nothing you do is ever justified because you cannot have 100% certainty in it, and therefore *EVERYTHING* becomes justified as an article of faith. Hey! It's possible that, if I cut a hole in my chest, gold coins will pour out!! Since I cannot completely rule it out, should I just do it on faith? No, because I have no reason to believe the probability is significantly high.
Faith is when, having no evidence for something, you believe it anyway. Faith is not when you gather evidence repeatedly, find the same things, test it all and continue to find the same things, and then act on those findings: That is science. |
|
|
|
|
Fiery Darts
Posts:133
Senior User
Online Status:
|
| 05/30/2007 6:22 PM |
|
I've been thinking a lot about your last post, and I wish I had more time this morning to write, but alas. Now I'll have to try. Earlier, you said (or at least implied) that evolution provides a means
to explain the past and to try to predict the future. Evolution is, by
its very nature, random and unpredictable. Aside from the generic
prediction that in an isolated population over enough time, its members
may change enough to be a new species, it is utterly unable to tell
what kinds of changes to expect. Of course, this is irrelevant to our
discussion as I doubt that anyone here believes that evolutionary
changes can be predicted in any meaningful way.
Posted By Zasch on 05/30/2007 9:01 AM Evolution requires that some new trait be introduced which has a survival advantage, Evolution doesn't "require" anything. If, for instance, the only food that was left on Earth were rocks, it isn't as if evolution says "Humans are going to become lithovoric" - in this case, humans would likely die out. If all of our food suddenly became digestable only to people with a certain enzyme, what evolution says is that it is highly likely that people without the enzyme will die off and people with it will reproduce, and eventually most humans will have the enzyme.
For example, in your Alpha Centauri scenario, if the Centarians possess (and uniformly use) some method of in vitro genetic manipulation wherein they can "fix" any genes that are not recognized as human genes (so as to remove all genetic mutations) and the humans on earth do the same thing, then X thousand years later, they will still all be human, although there would likely be some distinct races that arose on each planet.
Your computer analogy is also telling. As it passes through its slow transition from a bitty box to a high-end gaming system, it has new parts added. These parts were not part of the original system (nor even of the entire body of available computer parts at the time the machine was initially built) and so they represent new genetic material. If you had at your disposal only parts that were on the market at the time of the original build, your machine may undergo some changes but would be part of the species of "Computers circa 200x".
I've also been thinking about your point that religion is boring because it lacks explanatory power. This is an interesting statement because one of the key roles of religion is to explain why, if now how, things happen. Its predictive power is dubious at best, being highly subject to confirmation biases and other fallacies. Then again, people don't usually look to religion to study what is going to happen, except in the case of eschatology. Science, on the other hand, has provided another explanation for the creation of the world and all the things in it. This time it was right, it would work, and nobody would have to get nailed to anything.
|
|
|
|
|
Zasch
Posts:134
Senior User
Online Status:
|
| 05/30/2007 6:57 PM |
|
Evolution is, by its very nature, random and unpredictable.
Not at all. ;) Of course scientists can't just look at a species and say "200 years from now it will be X", but that is more due to a lack of information on the part of scientists (they would be able to analyse environmental trends and come to conclusions). But it isn't "random" at all - natural selection, being the mechanism of evolution, is not random but instead selects for things that increase probability of passing on genes. It isn't that, for instance, women are attracted to muscular men/men are attracted to large breasted women because of chance, but because that increases the probability of having viable offspring.
In my simple examples, we can look at it and say "Yes, if X happens to the environment, Y change will probably result" if we go through the mechanisms of evolution. Creationism, no matter what the situation, cannot provide us with this: It has no ability, theoretical or otherwise, to "predict" the future.
I was stating that evolution only occurs when new traits are introduced
Evolution occurs anytime change occurs. It doesn't have to be "new" traits that are introduced: If our necks start lengthening, that would be evolution as well as whether we develop some bizarre way of reproducing.
then natural selection may occur, but there is no evolution
I'm not sure where you make the distinction. Evolution is, at its core, natural selection: Microevolution is natural selection over short periods of time, and macro is natural selection over long periods of time. Perhaps if you would give me a definition of both natural selectio nand evolution, it might reduce the confusion.
For example, in your Alpha Centauri scenario, if the Centarians possess (and uniformly use) some method of in vitro genetic manipulation wherein they can "fix" any genes that are not recognized as human genes (so as to remove all genetic mutations) and the humans on earth do the same thing, then X thousand years later, they will still all be human, although there would likely be some distinct races that arose on each planet.
Yes, this is true. I'm not sure what your point is though: Obviously if we begin "securing" our genetic code, natural selection won't occur since it will no longer be applicable (human intelligence now directly selects for genes, rather than environmental circumstance).
and so they represent new genetic material.
I'm sensing that you are attempting to say that new genetic material cannot be created. Is this the case?
If you had at your disposal only parts that were on the market at the time of the original build, your machine may undergo some changes but would be part of the species of "Computers circa 200x".
Two points:
1) The addition of newer and better products (the SuperDisk drive, for instance) is intended to represent significant environmental change over a very long period of time. Thus, limiting our computer to things "already on the market" is almost like saying no environmental change occurs whatsoever.
2) Even here, it is possible to still use the anaology: With the parts on the market today, I can still construct vastly different systems, many of which cannot operate with each other at all. For instance, lets say I get really into single player games (the environment is such that single player games are great!). However, to get the most out of it, I need another video card in addition to the one I have now. I don't have any room in the computer, though. Then I notice something: I don't use my network card at all, because I don't play multiplayer games. Thus, I swap them out.
This represents how traits that are not selected for are vulnerable to traits that are selected for.
This is an interesting statement because one of the key roles of religion is to explain why, if now how, things happen.
Indeed. The physical sciences are not at all concerned with "why" things happen - that is something that is left to the philosophers (Who can employ scientific reasoning, I should note: Formal logic and all that). We could probably have a very interesting debate on the "why" (My opinion: "Why" and similar normative questions are subjective, a product of humanity rather than a fundamental part of the universe. Therefore, there is no answer, except the answer you give to yourself), but evolution itself doesn't talk about "why" ever at all (except in a colloquial sense: "Why do I have a tailbone?", etc, but this isn't the same "why" as we are using it)
Science, on the other hand, has provided another explanation for the creation of the world and all the things in it.
Science is able to roughly explain the creation of the world (simple probability, study of the history of the solar system, etc), but we should note carefully that science does not, as of yet, have an explanation for the creation of the Universe/Existence*. So far the best it has is string theory, but it isn't a proper "theory" yet and thus generally I treat it as an interesting development, one that I want to pay close attention to, but I do not integrate it into my beliefs as such.
*The philosophers still debate on what these two terms even mean, and what the nature of existence is, and the nature of infinity, and such, so it might be an absurd question to even ask.
For me, I see the role of science as providing explanations for the physical world. If we want to ask questions about why things occur or what morality is or whatever, then we ought turn to philosophy. Theists should direct their efforts there, because religion itself becomes somewhat meaningless when we step out of that area (I'd argue that religion has massive problems philosophically as well, but thats another debate for another thread. My beliefs basically: Without proof for God, belief is not justified. Additionally, the gods of many popular religions, such as the Abrahamic ones, are likely contradictory).
I just don't understand why creationists are so virulently opposed to evolution. This should not be taken to mean that I don't seek debate on the issue, but often it seems to me that it isn't debate so much as it is sophistry, where "victory" is defined not by which idea is the most consistent with our universe, but by who can make the "better sounding" argument. Given that creationism can basically integrate evolution entirely, I don't see why there is so much emotion on that side of the debate. |
|
|
|
|
Fiery Darts
Posts:133
Senior User
Online Status:
|
| 05/30/2007 8:21 PM |
|
Posted By Zasch on 05/30/2007 6:57 PM Evolution is, by its very nature, random and unpredictable. Not at all. ;) Of course scientists can't just look at a species and say "200 years from now it will be X", but that is more due to a lack of information on the part of scientists (they would be able to analyse environmental trends and come to conclusions). But it isn't "random" at all - natural selection, being the mechanism of evolution, is not random but instead selects for things that increase probability of passing on genes. It isn't that, for instance, women are attracted to muscular men/men are attracted to large breasted women because of chance, but because that increases the probability of having viable offspring.
For
example, in your Alpha Centauri scenario, if the Centarians possess
(and uniformly use) some method of in vitro genetic manipulation
wherein they can "fix" any genes that are not recognized as human genes
(so as to remove all genetic mutations) and the humans on earth do the
same thing, then X thousand years later, they will still all be human,
although there would likely be some distinct races that arose on each
planet. Yes, this is true. I'm not sure what your point is
though: Obviously if we begin "securing" our genetic code, natural
selection won't occur since it will no longer be applicable (human
intelligence now directly selects for genes, rather than environmental
circumstance).
The point in my example was not that they would choose the genes, but that they would simply remove any mutated genes. The process of natural selection would still be free to occur, but only among the traits extant in the population at the time of the separation. In this case, all of the descendants would still be homo sapien.
I
just don't understand why creationists are so virulently opposed to
evolution. This should not be taken to mean that I don't seek debate on
the issue, but often it seems to me that it isn't debate so much as it
is sophistry, where "victory" is defined not by which idea is the most
consistent with our universe, but by who can make the "better sounding"
argument. Given that creationism can basically integrate evolution
entirely, I don't see why there is so much emotion on that side of the
debate.
You and me both. People are sometimes surprisingly offended by the presence of ideas that they can't reconcile with their own beliefs. I find this type of intolerance especially troubling because the existence of believers does not make the belief valid, but most belief systems at least allow for the idea that other people can believe false things to be true. So, even if I believe that there is no god, I shouldn't be outraged that other people do. If I believe that God created man, I shouldn't become violent because there are people who don't also hold that belief. In the case of evolution, aspects of the theory can be readily integrated into almost all religious beliefs without destroying any of their existing tenets.
I suppose that many people are unable to make the distinction between evolution as a process and evolution as a cause. The former should be easy for most people to accept, while the latter is far more likely to conflict with personal beliefs.
|
|
|
|
|
Zasch
Posts:134
Senior User
Online Status:
|
| 06/01/2007 3:25 PM |
|
If you accept my definition of evolution as only including the introduction of new traits,
I do not. You are redefining a central term in the middle of the debate: The Theory of Evolution describes change over time, not the process by which new traits are added. Therefore, your definition does not seem to conform to normal scientific useage, and ought not be considered for this debate.
The point in my example was not that they would choose the genes, but that they would simply remove any mutated genes. The process of natural selection would still be free to occur, but only among the traits extant in the population at the time of the separation. In this case, all of the descendants would still be homo sapien.
If you are attempting to demonstrate that evolution cannot be true through your example, it is seriously flawed: Natural selection obviously will not be able to work if humans use technology in order to maintain the present structure of their genetic code.
It is akin to saying that gravity will not pull an object if we attach that object to a space shuttle and launch it. The statement itself is true, of course, but does not serve as a proof against the Theory of Gravity.
|
|
|
|
|
Fiery Darts
Posts:133
Senior User
Online Status:
|
| 06/01/2007 5:25 PM |
|
Posted By Zasch on 06/01/2007 3:25 PM
You are redefining a central term in the middle of the debate
I have not been changing definitions mid-stream. I will grant you that my wording "only including the introduction of new traits" was poorly chosen, but I have been absolutely consistent in my usage of the terms "evolution" and "natural selection" throughout the course of this thread. In every case, I have used "evolution" to refer to a change in species brought about by the introduction and proliferation of new alelles. I have consistently used "natural selection" to refer to the process by which some alelles become more prominent in a population due to a greater number of individuals being born with them and reaching maturity to pass them on. You may disagree with my usage, but I have been absolutely consistent in it.
(You may note that I have scrupulously avoided any variation of the word "dominant" in order to avoid confusion with the concept of dominant vs. recessive genes.)
While you may have always treated natural selection and evolution as synonyms, they are not the same thing. The former is a key mechanism in the latter, but natural selection does not bring about evolution without the help of some other mechanisms such as mutation. I can understand why you would treat them as synonyms since they are often used that way in everyday settings. I have not used them as synonyms at any time in this thread.
This was the point of my version of Alpha Centauri. Of course the control exerted on the genes was not natural, but the only artificial control that I proposed was to remove mutations from the human gene. This would leave natural selection free to operate, but remove the other mechanisms of evolution and the result would not be evolution.
|
|
|
|
|
Zasch
Posts:134
Senior User
Online Status:
|
| 06/01/2007 6:24 PM |
|
Evolution can best be described as the change in a population's inherited traits from generation to generation. Natural selection is, of course, a major component of this, as are mutations, human interference, etc. I do not think that your definition of evolution to only include the development of new traits is consistent with how the term "evolution" is typically used by scientists.
Even under your definition, though, I'm still a bit unclear as to where we have disagreement. Are you saying mutations are not possible? |
|
|
|
|
|
| You are not authorized to post a reply. |
|
|
|
ActiveForums 3.7
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|