Sarah's Question: How Were We Created?

[loseyourname]

Nowhere did I say the formation of 1st organism is part of macroevolution. I simply stated that most evolutionists cannot account for the 1st organism because this thread is about human creation. If you are an evolutionist but believe the first organism was created by a higher being then I'm not inclined to debate you because we're really on the same side of this debate.

What reason do I have to hold a belief either way? The evidence in existence suggests strongly that the first organism came about through chance events, but that evidence is hardly conclusive. If you want to believe otherwise, I have no reason to argue with you. Neither of us is going to present a very compelling case. To be honest, I don't really care. Evolutionary theory has important and broad-reaching implications, and for that, it matters to me that it is a correct theory. Once accepted, we have a general framework in which we can solve a great many additional vexing problems, including some of biology's most difficult - those of animal behavior. Abiogenesis has no such implications. Whether that first organism was created or came about by chance doesn't matter. Either way, the world we live in and how we can explain it remains the same.

 

[noobie]

Evolutionary theory has important and broad-reaching implications, and for that, it matters to me that it is a correct theory. Once accepted, we have a general framework in which we can solve a great many additional vexing problems, including some of biology's most difficult - those of animal behavior. Abiogenesis has no such implications. Whether that first organism was created or came about by chance doesn't matter. Either way, the world we live in and how we can explain it remains the same.

Fair enough. I don't study biology so I don't really have any idea how evolutionary theory can help solve animal behavior problems. I study biophysics, namely thermodynamics and the structure and function of biomolecules. So for me, abiogenesis is important for the same reason that people are trying to engineer new molecules with novel structure/functions. There are tons of researchers today who are interested in the self-organization and self-assembly of molecules. I can't deny the far-reaching ramifications of the theory of evolution. But I think it's still up for debate whether or not it's the correct theory. I believe naturalists will still be naturalists even if their theory is disproven (most likely a different new theory will replace evolution) just as most creationists will still believe in a higher being even if creationism is disproven. But from what I have seen, evolution is still a theory along the ranks of Big Bang. Maybe that's the way things happened but it's a big if.

 

[Evo]

I listened to the radio program 'Truths That Transform' with Rev. Dr. D. James Kennedy at lunchtime yesterday. He claims that Stephen Jay Gould (now deceased) himself said that in the last hundred major debates of creationism vs. evolution, the creationism side won.

Hogwash. Gould was until his dying day against creationism.

"Gould’s career as a scientist at Harvard from 1967 until his death in 2002 ended with the publication of his magnum opus, The Structure of Evolutionary Theory."
http://www.harvardsquarelibrary.org/speakout/gould.html

"A victim of “willful misquotation” by scientific creationists who misused the concept of punctuated equilibrium to support their views, Stephen J. Gould was one of creation science’s harshest critics."

http://gsa.confex.com/gsa/2003AM/finalprogram/abstract_60086.htm

 

[misskitty]

Being a harsh critic isn't a bad thing though. Its through challenging ideas and theories that we learn new things and develop new technologies.

Just curious, Evo what did you mean by a "willful misquotation"? I don't think Janitor misquoted Gould on purpose.

 

[Phobos]

Just curious, Evo what did you mean by a "willful misquotation"? I don't think Janitor misquoted Gould on purpose.

Pretty sure Evo meant Dr. Kennedy, not Janitor.

 

[Evo]

Just curious, Evo what did you mean by a "willful misquotation"? I don't think Janitor misquoted Gould on purpose.

Oh no, not Janitor! That is an excerpt from the article I linked to, not my words, I was in a hurry, I usually make that clearer.

 

[misskitty]

Oh, ok! I'm sorry I thought Janitor. Alright, that makes more sense.

 

[Janitor]

The first of Evo's links mentions Duane Gish. Dr. Gish was interviewed by Dr. Kennedy on a radio program this week. Gish claims that the great die-out of dinosaurs that some scientists attribute to an asteroid strike does not make any sense. Gish says that such a violent event wouldn't have allowed fragile flying creatures to survive, to become today's birds. Gish also doesn't think such an event would have left anything that would lead (via theoretical evolutionary processes that Dr. Gish actually denies the reality of) to modern reptiles and mammals.

Gish offers this instead: Noah's flood didn't kill off dinosaurs or birds or reptiles, at least not right away. But the climate change that Gish says took permanent effect at the moment of the flood was not conducive to continued thriving of dinosaurs, so they went extinct over some relatively short period of time after the flood, while the climate change was something that birds and reptiles could handle, so they survived.

No doubt biologists have theorized as to how the ancestors of modern birds and reptiles and mammals could have survived the impact 65 million years ago, but I am not aware of what their ideas are. Maybe somebody here can something about that?

 

[Janitor]

Kennedy... is quoting Gould out of context...

Yeah, I wish I could read the exact, full body of text from which Kennedy drew his quote. Evangelicals complain about the dishonesty out there in the heathen world, so one would think that they themselves would strive to be utterly honest and open. But if in fact Kennedy was quoting selectively to give an impression of Gould's thoughts that does not match up with what Gould really thought, that would be less than honest on Kennedy's part.

 

[Evo]

The first of Evo's links mentions Duane Gish. Dr. Gish was interviewed by Dr. Kennedy on a radio program this week. Gish claims that the great die-out of dinosaurs that some scientists attribute to an asteroid strike does not make any sense. Gish says that such a violent event wouldn't have allowed fragile flying creatures to survive, to become today's birds. Gish also doesn't think such an event would have left anything that would lead (via theoretical evolutionary processes that Dr. Gish actually denies the reality of) to modern reptiles and mammals.

Janitor, the article sites Gish as a creationist. "Unbeatable systems are dogma, not science. Lest I seem harsh or rhetorical, I quote creationism's leading intellectual, Duane Gish, Ph.D., from his recent (1978) book Evolution? The Fossils Say No! "By creation we mean the bringing into being by a supernatural Creator of the basic kinds of plants and animals by the process of sudden, or fiat, creation. We do not know how the Creator created, what processes He used, for He used processes which are not now operating anywhere in the natural universe [Gish's italics]. This is why we refer to creation as special creation. We cannot discover by scientific investigations anything about the creative processes used by the Creator."

Pray tell, Dr. Gish, in the light of your last sentence, what then is "scientific" creationism? "

 

[Janitor]

Janitor, the article sites Gish as a creationist...

Yes, Dr. Gish did not try to hide the fact that he is a creationist. When I said, "theoretical evolutionary processes that Dr. Gish actually denies the reality of," I was making reference to Gish not being an evolutionist.

I have heard of Gish on a few occasions before this. I think he is touted as one of the best-credentialed persons within the creationist camp. Dr. Kennedy described Dr. Gish as a biochemist.

 

[Evo]

Yeah, I wish I could read the exact, full body of text from which Kennedy drew his quote. Evangelicals complain about the dishonesty out there in the heathen world, so one would think that they themselves would strive to be utterly honest and open. But if in fact Kennedy was quoting selectively to give an impression of Gould's thoughts that does not match up with what Gould really thought, that would be less than honest on Kennedy's part.

I searched the internet last night for any mention of Gould saying anything near what Kennedy claims and came up with nothing. If what Kennedy said was true, surely something would have turned up.

 

[Janitor]

... surely something would have turned up.

One would like to believe that D.J. Kennedy would not just fabricate a quote from nothing. :grumpy: Phobos's idea that K is quoting G out of context would be bad enough.

 

[misskitty]

Yeah, I wish I could read the exact, full body of text from which Kennedy drew his quote. Evangelicals complain about the dishonesty out there in the heathen world, so one would think that they themselves would strive to be utterly honest and open. But if in fact Kennedy was quoting selectively to give an impression of Gould's thoughts that does not match up with what Gould really thought, that would be less than honest on Kennedy's part.

Well we can't expect everyone not to be hypocritical. Everyone does it at some point in their lives. Its just part of human nature.

 

[misskitty]

I searched the internet last night for any mention of Gould saying anything near what Kennedy claims and came up with nothing. If what Kennedy said was true, surely something would have turned up.

Is there anyone who knows the title of the transcript of the program or the website of the radio station. It might have different keywords. Which would explain why your search turned up empty. You might be able to get a copy of that portion of the program. Everytime you read something out of context its always a good idea to take it with a grain of salt until, if possible, you can read it in context.

 

[Evo]

One would like to believe that D.J. Kennedy would not just fabricate a quote from nothing. :grumpy:

It appears that Kennedy has been caught doing this before.

Just google "A Response to D. James Kennedy's Presentations on Creationism and Evolution on 'The John Ankerberg Show".

As far as Gould ever saying anything like what Kennedy says, everything shows the exact opposite. Here's how Gould felt about creationsts and being misquoted by them.

"it is infuriating to be quoted again and again by creationists-whether through design or stupidity"

"Sometime in the 1980s when I was on a visit to the United States, a television station wanted to stage a debate between me and a prominent creationist called, I think, Duane P Gish. I telephoned Stephen Gould for advice. He was friendly and decisive: "Don't do it." The point is not, he said, whether or not you would "win" the debate. Winning is not what the creationists realistically aspire to. For them, it is sufficient that the debate happens at all. They need the publicity. We don't. To the gullible public that is their natural constituency, it is enough that their man is seen sharing a platform with a real scientist. "There must be something in creationism, or Dr. So-and-So would not have agreed to debate it on equal terms." Inevitably, when you turn down the invitation, you will be accused of cowardice or of inability to defend your own beliefs. But that is better than supplying the creationists with what they crave: the oxygen of respectability in the world of real science."

http://pages.sbcglobal.net/amun_ra/

We're straying from the topic now.

I have nothing against creationists, I have nothing against religion, I don't agree with either, but I will defend anyone's right to believe what they wish.

 

[Janitor]

Is there anyone who knows the title of the transcript of the program or the website of the radio station...

I couldn't find a transcript of the program, which is called 'Truths that Transform.' But following Evo's lead, I found a website that Kennedy would like you to read:

http://www.truthsthattransform.org/

and one that he would probably prefer you not read:

http://www.rapidnet.com/~jbeard/bdm/exposes/kennedy/general.htm

 

[loseyourname]

Fair enough. I don't study biology so I don't really have any idea how evolutionary theory can help solve animal behavior problems.

Major advances have been made theoretically in the last three decades. Developments such as Sociobiology and Selfish Gene Theory have made sense of the problems of altruism and intraspecies aggression. The findings have even recently begun to be applied to human behavior, in the new field of Evolutionary Psychology. Perhaps one of the more intriguing applications of this discipline comes in the form of a book that we just finished discussing in a Political Philosophy class of mine called , in which a prominent primatologist attempts to explain the origins of human violence, and particularly warfare, by appeal to our evolutionary past and relationships with the other great apes.

I study biophysics, namely thermodynamics and the structure and function of biomolecules. So for me, abiogenesis is important for the same reason that people are trying to engineer new molecules with novel structure/functions.

That's different, though. For you, the research is important because it can lead to the discovery of improved catalysis and even self-catalysis. What is not important to this, however, is whether or not the first organism that came into existence did so through these methods or did so under the direction of an intelligent force.

It is worth noting at this point that, as Richard Dawkins points out in the final chapter of The Blind Watchmaker, intelligent design hypotheses are circular in nature. It is the origins of life, and more specifically, intelligent life that we eventually hope to explain. Ultimately, we want to know how we came to be. Intelligent design would explain the existence of intelligent life by an appeal to another intelligent lifeform and we are simply left with a regression of the original question one step: Where did this intelligence come from? Nothing is really explained. Daniel Dennett goes to great length in Darwin's Dangerous Idea to demonstrate that only a theory that postulates the emergence of life and intelligent from non-living, non-intelligent forces can explain, in principle, the existence of life and intelligence. Anything less is question-begging.

But from what I have seen, evolution is still a theory along the ranks of Big Bang. Maybe that's the way things happened but it's a big if.

From what I know of the big bang theory, the only pieces of evidence that corroborate it are red-shifting and cosmic microwave background radiation. I've never studied the least bit of cosmology, so I could be dead wrong, but this is nowhere near the absolute mountains of evidence from multiple disciplines that serve to confirm both the general and many specific hypotheses of evolutionary theory. It isn't 'maybe it happened, maybe it didn't;' it's about as certain as any scientific theory out there.

 

[noobie]

From what I know of the big bang theory, the only pieces of evidence that corroborate it are red-shifting and cosmic microwave background radiation. I've never studied the least bit of cosmology, so I could be dead wrong, but this is nowhere near the absolute mountains of evidence from multiple disciplines that serve to confirm both the general and many specific hypotheses of evolutionary theory. It isn't 'maybe it happened, maybe it didn't;' it's about as certain as any scientific theory out there.

In my mind a lot of the evidence for evolution is circumstantial. There is no foolproof evidence that a complex organism can evolve into a completely different organism. It might sound like harping but no one has observed monkeys turning into humans and a theory is just a theory until it can be fully validated and predict future events. Frankly, a lot of the evidence for evolution must be archaelogical(which I know little about) because molecular evidence is circumstantial. Even evolutionists argue about the mechanism by which evolution occurred so I find it surprising that you can be so certain to its validity (especially if you are not a biologist). I mean how could you be so certain of something when it is not even clearly established how these things occur. I suspect it's because there are no better theories out there for naturalists. But that does not mean that with the advancement of science that in a hundred years evolution could be debunked and a new and better theory will replace evolution.

I don't mean to belittle the whole field of evolutionary biology but it is not the same as quantum mechanics or even biophysics. Evolutionary biology would not stand up to same rigor found in these fields nor could you realistically expect to since we try to take everything to its reductionary limit. BTW, the Templeton Prize was given out to Charles Townes this year (nobel laureate for inventing microwave lasers). I asked him during a talk couple of years ago about faith and science and he mentioned that as you get into more of the physical sciences and away from soft sciences, there are more and more theists because you realize that you've reached the limits of knowledge and are humbled by limits of our understanding.

 

[Janitor]

... From what I know of the big bang theory, the only pieces of evidence that corroborate it are red-shifting and cosmic microwave background radiation...

I think some people would also include the abundance ratios of various elements/isotopes as corroborating the Big Bang as well.

 

[Evo]

This discussion is in danger of becoming a religious discussion, and that's not allowed at PF. This is the biology forum. Any discussion of human creation here needs to be absent of any religious content or references.

 

[misskitty]

So in an attempt to steer away from religion...how long have humans been researching their origins? I know Darwin's theory dates back to the Mid-1800's. Was there anyone who tried to scientifically research human orgin?

 

[Evo]

So in an attempt to steer away from religion...how long have humans been researching their origins? I know Darwin's theory dates back to the Mid-1800's. Was there anyone who tried to scientifically research human orgin?

Yes, many. The scientific approach as we know it today hasn't been around all that long, and is improving all the time. For example, before the early 20th century the approach to archeaology was abysmal. There was no care to record the exact placement of bones and artifacts found. They were only interested in finding things and did not realize the importance of maintaining careful records. As a result a large amount of extremely valuable information at a lot of important sites has been destroyed forever.

The Leakeys, Louis, Mary, Richard and Meave are very famous for their work in the study of the origins of man.

 

[iansmith]

It might sound like harping but no one has observed monkeys turning into humans and a theory is just a theory until it can be fully validated and predict future events.

I don't think you understand the meaning of theory in scientific sense. A theory in science has been validated and holds true under every test.

Frankly, a lot of the evidence for evolution must be archaelogical(which I know little about) because molecular evidence is circumstantial.

There is more than just archaelogical, which is just a small fraction of the evidence. What come to mind is comparative embryology, compartive biology and genetics.

What do you mean molecular evidence are circumstantial?

Even evolutionists argue about the mechanism by which evolution occurred so I find it surprising that you can be so certain to its validity (especially if you are not a biologist). I mean how could you be so certain of something when it is not even clearly established how these things occur.

Argument about the mechanism does not discredit the theory of evolution. The element being argued are about what mechanism are more important and what is really happening in terms of speciation events.

I suspect it's because there are no better theories out there for naturalists. But that does not mean that with the advancement of science that in a hundred years evolution could be debunked and a new and better theory will replace evolution.

You are right we have no better theory because the theory of evolution is the best and holds true and give accurate predictions for models.It is not likely that the theory of evolution will be debunked and anything that arise to replace it will be build upon it.

I don't mean to belittle the whole field of evolutionary biology but it is not the same as quantum mechanics or even biophysics. Evolutionary biology would not stand up to same rigor found in these fields nor could you realistically expect to since we try to take everything to its reductionary limit.

You are wrong, evolutionnary biology has high standard and it is will stand has high has any of the old hard science. Several evolutionnary prediction model are based on mathematics. Biology is a new hard science and the field is still evolving.

 

[noobie]

I don't think you understand the meaning of theory in scientific sense. A theory in science has been validated and holds true under every test.

A theory is an explanation which can be supported by a set of observations or data that one may have. It can never be proven true but only disproved. But the only useful theories in science are the ones that can correctly predict natural phenomena. We use the word theory in our lab all the time and 99% of the time it's another way of saying it's our best guess.

There is more than just archaelogical, which is just a small fraction of the evidence. What come to mind is comparative embryology, compartive biology and genetics.

Could you point me to direct concrete evidence that evolution occur. And I mean that sincerely because I don't know much about archaeology. One that doesn't require me to use my imagination to infer that evolution occurred sometime in the past. Evolution is not an empirical science in the same sense of physics or chemistry where you can come up with the a theory and test those theory over and over. Evolution is more of a historical science because you are looking for clues throughout history to construct an explanation of what may have happened. And yes if you show me an elapsed video of a complex organism evolving into another over time I will believe you. That is the kind of rigor and standard you face in hard sciences but not in evolutionary biology. The fact that evolutionary theory has to invoke so many different fields to support its claims by default makes me suspicious of its claim- it's not yet simple or elegant.

You are wrong, evolutionnary biology has high standard and it is will stand has high has any of the old hard science. Several evolutionnary prediction model are based on mathematics. Biology is a new hard science and the field is still evolving.

Perhaps. But I'm a byproduct of my education and I don't believe evolutionary biology is in the same league as chemistry or physics. In my old undergraduate institution (MIT), I ended up 2 classes short of double majoring in biology and never did any of my professors mention macroevolution (well maybe they might have mentioned the word once or twice but it certainly wasn't in any of my exams. I suspect it's because my professors didn't want to resort to hand waving complicated explanation that the theory of evolution often entails. BTW, I took genetics, molecular cell biology, biochemistry, introductory biology, etc. And visit the top science universities in the world, you will see that physical scientists look down on biologists. I'm in these fields and my colleagues and I notice and talk about these attitudes all the time.

 

[misskitty]

Yes, many. The scientific approach as we know it today hasn't been around all that long, and is improving all the time. For example, before the early 20th century the approach to archeaology was abysmal. There was no care to record the exact placement of bones and artifacts found. They were only interested in finding things and did not realize the importance of maintaining careful records. As a result a large amount of extremely valuable information at a lot of important sites has been destroyed forever.

The Leakeys, Louis, Mary, Richard and Meave are very famous for their work in the study of the origins of man.

Why would you go to so much trouble to hypothesize, design, and carry out an experiment and not record your findings? Without them the whole experiment would be a waste of time. The same would hold true for any field of science.

This is going to sound highly ignorant, but why do people feel the need to look down upon their peers in other fields of science? All scientists strive for one thing, learn how the world works and why it does what it does. Isn't that what they all strive for? What makes the work of one reputable scientist more important or better than the work of another reputable scientist who happens to be in another field? Acinine is the word that pops into my mind when I ask myself that question.

 

[loseyourname]

A theory is an explanation which can be supported by a set of observations or data that one may have. It can never be proven true but only disproved. But the only useful theories in science are the ones that can correctly predict natural phenomena. We use the word theory in our lab all the time and 99% of the time it's another way of saying it's our best guess.

It is important at this point to note the difference between evolutionary theory and what you presumably mean by "theory." What you seem to mean is simply a proposed explanation for some occurence or other, an explanation that probably stands a great chance of being reduced to a more accurate explanation. Something along the lines of the ether theory of the Lorentz transformation being reduced to the relativistic theory. In this case, however, it wasn't a theory in the same sense as evolutionary theory that was being reduced. It was only an explanation of a small set of equations. Evolutionary theory, on the other hand, is far more widely encompassing, something more akin to the entire standard model in physics or atomic theory in chemistry.

I'm going to sidetrack briefly to explore how scientific theories come to be discarded. Strictly speaking, I'm not sure that any scientific theory has ever been disproven in the way you seem to think evolutionary theory can be disproven. The ether theory to explain the Lorentz transformation, for instance, wasn't really a theory at all. It was little more than conjecture. The transforms themselves, the set of equations, was the only part of the work that could be considered even part of a theory. The proposed explanation for the transformations was really only a hypothesis, one that was disproven, as hypotheses often are. The theory under which the hypothesis was constructed, however, was simple Newtonian mechanics. The ether hypothesis was constructed in an attempt to reconcile the transformations with a Newtonian universe. So do we want to say that Newtonian mechanics was disproven? I certainly don't want to say that, especially given that his equations still hold true under almost any circumstances and certainly under any everyday circumstances. I want to say that the theory of Newtonian mechanics was reduced to relativistic mechanics, rather than disproven.

So what does it mean for a theory to be reduced? The current definition given in the philosophy of science is as follows: Any theory a is said to be reduced to theory b if, and only if, all of the statements of theory a can be stated in terms of theory b. Thus, any statement of Newtonian mechanics can be made using the terms of relativistic mechanics. The reverse is not true, and so we can say that Newtonian mechanics has been reduced to relativistic mechanics. Several hundred years before this, the geometrical physics of Descartes was reduced to Newtonian mechanics. To use an example you would likely be more familiar with, classical thermodynamics has been reduced to statistical mechanics. Nonetheless, you presumably still use quite a bit of classical thermodynamics in your work (we certainly do here at school, where I actually am a chemistry major).

In light of this, we should not speak of the possibility of evolutionary theory being disproven, but rather of it being reduced. In fact, in many ways, it already has been. The theory of genetic evolution first formulated after the work of Mendel has since been reduced to a molecular theory involving point mutations, recombinance, and other sources of genetic variation. Even the entire framework of evolutionary theory has been largely reworked from a theory that natural selection operated on the level of the individual to the idea that selection operates primarily on the level of the single gene. Darwin's basic theory, however, that the biodiversity we observe today is the result of descent with modification, tempered by the pressures of natural selection, has never been reduced or eliminated from any evolutionary explanation. Part of the reason for this is the sheer amount of evidence to corroborate Darwin's claim. In fact, there is far more evidence to support his claim than there is to support any claim by any of the physical sciences. The reason for this is that evidence comes from so many different avenues, from paleontology to geology to molecular systematics to pharmaceutical research to behavioral studies to comparative morphology and embryology, with each new piece of evidence supporting every other piece of evidence that Darwin's basic claim regarding descent with modification and natural selection (two observable and non-contentious phenomena) is truly the source of the world's biodiversity.

Could you point me to direct concrete evidence that evolution occur.

Presumably you have no qualms with microevolution, evolved resistance to antibiotics and pesticides and such. The Talk Origins archive is a great source (probably the most popular one here) for information regarding the evidence for macroevolution. They have a page specifically addressing Observed Speciation Events. No, they can't go back and confirm every single speciation event that ever occured, such as the series connecting humans and chimps by a common ancestor. Neither can the physical sciences go back in time to confirm that every chemical reaction that has ever taken place obeyed the law of entropy.

I would like to add to their list the very obvious examples of domesticated pets and food products, both plant and animal. The species that we cultivate for food or keep as pets today bear little resemblance to their ancestral wild species that existed when humans first began to selectively breed. You might say that intelligent intervention was required and that this disqualifies these as speciation events, but I would argue otherwise. From the point of view of the genomes doing the evolving, human breeding practices are just another environmental pressure that works no differently from ordinary sexual selection, only faster. There is nothing supernatural going on.

Evolution is not an empirical science in the same sense of physics or chemistry where you can come up with the a theory and test those theory over and over. Evolution is more of a historical science because you are looking for clues throughout history to construct an explanation of what may have happened.

That is not at all true. Evolutionary theory has made many testable claims that have turned out to be true. Examples of the behavioral predictions made by sociobiology alone are enormous. More along the lines of what you seem to have in mind, however, are the predictions made that there will be transitional forms at all, something that has been corroborated many times. The Talk Origins Archive also has a page on many of these located here. There is a large amount of material to go through there. I urge you to read all of it, but if you feel your time is limited, you might want to take a look only at the section on transitional forms in the fossil record, found here.

This isn't a time lapse video of one species becoming another (a single organism never evolves into a different organism and you should know that, although it is interesting to note that all chordate embryos go through a similar developmental process - humans essentially start out the same as lampreys, then develop into something fish-like before acquiring mammalian features and finally human features), but the page itself explains why this evidence is scientific, empirical evidence that does confirm the testable predictions made by Darwin.

Perhaps. But I'm a byproduct of my education and I don't believe evolutionary biology is in the same league as chemistry or physics.

You are correct. In fact, I would say that it is in a far greater league than chemistry or physics. No theory of chemistry or physics has ever found anywhere near the diversity and breadth of applications that the theory of evolution has.

I suspect it's because my professors didn't want to resort to hand waving complicated explanation that the theory of evolution often entails.

Unfortunately, you are likely correct here as well. Evolutionary biology is a complex field that is difficult to understand properly. Undergrad level courses, apparently even at MIT, don't go over it in near as much detail as it deserves, probably because the sheer amount of information that is disseminated in any biology course, especially in survey courses, precludes going into a great deal of depth regarding any of it, unless the course is specialized to deal with that topic. Also unfortunately, MIT was home to the crackpot that came up with http://mypage.direct.ca/w/writer/hydro.html , the idea that all of the geological and paleontological evidence for evolution could be explained by appeal to a sieve effect induced by the great flood.

And visit the top science universities in the world, you will see that physical scientists look down on biologists.

That's great to know, but the simply proposition that physical scientists are condescending to life scientists says nothing about the relative scientific value of their respective disciplines. Ask the NSF and other funding agencies where most of their money is going these days and we'll see how much life science is valued relative to physical science.

 

[noobie]

Thanks for taking the time to respond. Like I've said, I'm not an expert in evolutionary biology. I'm going to try to work back here and see if I can make myself sound coherent.

That's great to know, but the simply proposition that physical scientists are condescending to life scientists says nothing about the relative scientific value of their respective disciplines. Ask the NSF and other funding agencies where most of their money is going these days and we'll see how much life science is valued relative to physical science.

No doubt I probably came off sounding like a dummy. I didn't mean to imply that physical sciences are superior to biological sciences in their value to society. I study the structure and function of nucleic acids so in the end I am bit of a biologist. I was merely stating that there is a general bias and it is present. Yes biological groups get more $$ but that certainly would not have been true 100 years ago. We are at the boom of biological sciences just as physics was at the turn of the last century. But I would argue that the golden age of biology is the direct result of the groundwork laid by physicists. Many of the methods developed by physicists in the past 100 years have been effectively used by biologists to get to where they are now. That being said, I'd like to see the numbers on how much $$ evolutionary biologists get compared to molecular biologist or research groups that study the function and structure of biological systems.

In fact, I would say that it is in a far greater league than chemistry or physics. No theory of chemistry or physics has ever found anywhere near the diversity and breadth of applications that the theory of evolution has.

I would say for example that the laws or theories (I hope I'm not confusing the two under your usage) of thermodynamics have much greater implications that the theory of evolution. And it is for the most part laid out in 3 simple laws (not counting the zeroeth law). Every object in nature, whether animate or inanimate is governed by the principles of thermodynamics (including the products and byproducts of evolution). I don't believe there has ever been a case where you could not apply thermodynamics (in conjunction with relatively simple kinetic theory) to a material object and natural phenomena (except for quantum events) whereas the theories of evolution apply primarily to animate objects (in my mind a general hand waving way). Was the theory of evolution important or relevant before the existence of life? Can it even explain how the DNA in a cell could mutate thereby facilitating the diversification of the genetic pool? If you are a biologist or even a behavior scientists, I can understand why you would be so excited about the theory of evolution because it provides a framework that just did not exist before Darwin. But I would have to disagree with your assertion. It might in the end be more accessible to the common man but I don't think its implications are as far reaching as other theories/laws.

Evolutionary theory has made many testable claims that have turned out to be true. Examples of the behavioral predictions made by sociobiology alone are enormous. More along the lines of what you seem to have in mind, however, are the predictions made that there will be transitional forms at all, something that has been corroborated many times.

I would like an example of the logic involved here. For instance, from the theory of evolution how can you construct a testable claim? Are we using simple logical deduction here or are the claims based on the known mechanisms of evolutions. Also what would be sufficient evidence that evolution is incorrect? If someone was able to debunk a testable claim by evolution? What would that be? As far as I can remember from high school biology, even the time scale of evolutionary events seemed under debate and not all together coherent. Is there a unifying theory of evolution which brings all these observations together? If evolution occurs in a punctuated time scale for instance, what aspect of the theory can account for this. You mention the law of entropy (I don't believe it's the best example because entropy is so abstract and you cannot measure it directly, but literally hundreds, thousands measurements are made daily to corrobate that entropy cannot be conversed in a closed system. I don't believe the theory of evolution has been validated to that extent. To me it sounds more like the theory of evolution gives you a working model under which you can test some of more complicated happenings in science. I actually like your analogy of the theory of evolution to the theory of atomic structure. Some of the early assumptions have proven to be not true (ie the idea that the nucleus is fixed and electrons are somehow orbiting around is now debunk- a closer model is that the electron and nucleus are rotating about an point somewhere in between very close to the nucleus). While the theory of atomic structure turned out to be a good approximation I don't believe evolution can be held in the same regard. In my mind evolution will never become a law (in the sense of law of gravitation) and even if it does that would not bother me as long as I have the freedom and choice to question it. It will always have enough to satisfy the naturalists and enough grey area to turn away others. Let me say that I'm not against the teaching of evolution in schools. I just don't believe it is a correct account of what happened.

 

[Janitor]

...Also what would be sufficient evidence that evolution is incorrect?...

In a thread here somewhere (maybe this same one), somebody pointed out that if the fossilized skeleton of a modern rabbit were found in the same rock stratum with a dinosaur fossil, and if hoax could be ruled out, that would do the trick.

 

[Evo]

In a thread here somewhere (maybe this same one), somebody pointed out that if the fossilized skeleton of a modern rabbit were found in the same rock stratum with a dinosaur fossil, and if hoax could be ruled out, that would do the trick.

I guess that means the theory of evolution is safe then.

 

[saltydog]

My goodness. First thing's first: Gould would never have said that. End OF story.

I think you mean Paleontology, not Archaeology.

The world becomes so clear when viewed from the perspective of evolution . . . so beautiful. Stacy Keech, talking about elephants said:

"she purposefully pursues him, and wins for her prize, his dominant genes for her offspring".

I am in awe by that. For the same mechanism works in humans thus assuring a sound genetic heritage and giving rise to me. What a rich tradition of one-hundred thousand generations within me! I am humbled by that. So many people live their lives asking "why?" about the world. They don't have a clue and it causes much difficulty in their lives. Evolution, natural selection, survival of the fittest, jungle law . . . raw Darwinism, explains much of the world and for me personally, contributes profoundly to a rich and satisfying life.

 

[Phobos]

Gish claims that the great die-out of dinosaurs that some scientists attribute to an asteroid strike does not make any sense. Gish says that such a violent event wouldn't have allowed fragile flying creatures to survive, to become today's birds. Gish also doesn't think such an event would have left anything that would lead (via theoretical evolutionary processes that Dr. Gish actually denies the reality of) to modern reptiles and mammals.

Note that Gish is arguing from personal incredulity (opinion) and not from the evidence. He also seems to miss the idea that the KT event did wipe out most species (something like 70%?) and the survivors are the ancestors of modern birds, reptiles, mammals, etc. I also wonder what he means by "fragile" (some half-evolved strawman creature?)

Gish offers this instead: Noah's flood didn't kill off dinosaurs or birds or reptiles, at least not right away. But the climate change that Gish says took permanent effect at the moment of the flood was not conducive to continued thriving of dinosaurs, so they went extinct over some relatively short period of time after the flood, while the climate change was something that birds and reptiles could handle, so they survived.

An interesting variation on Gish's usual Bible-literalism. However it doesn't explain ancient bird, reptile, etc. fossils.

 

[Phobos]

I have heard of Gish on a few occasions before this. I think he is touted as one of the best-credentialed persons within the creationist camp. Dr. Kennedy described Dr. Gish as a biochemist.

Yes, D. Gish has a PhD in biochemistry. He's also the VP (last I heard) of the Institute for Creation Research (ICR), which is a Young Earth Creationist group. You can find some of his writings/interviews on the internet.

 

[Phobos]

One would like to believe that D.J. Kennedy would not just fabricate a quote from nothing. :grumpy: Phobos's idea that K is quoting G out of context would be bad enough.

My impression of K (having heard several of his sermons as well as one on evolution) is that he would not fabricate something like that. But misquotes of Gould are common in this debate. It is more likely that K read that quote from some other creationist literature and used it without checking the full story.

 

[Phobos]

From what I know of the big bang theory, the only pieces of evidence that corroborate it are red-shifting and cosmic microwave background radiation. I've never studied the least bit of cosmology, so I could be dead wrong, but this is nowhere near the absolute mountains of evidence from multiple disciplines that serve to confirm both the general and many specific hypotheses of evolutionary theory. It isn't 'maybe it happened, maybe it didn't;' it's about as certain as any scientific theory out there.

I'll invite you all to the Astronomy & Cosmology forum to learn about the supporting evidences for Big Bang Theory!