Sarah's Question: How Were We Created?

[Phobos]

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?

Probably as long as there has been Science. But like Evo suggested, we didn't approach the modern theory until more recently. There were some hints in the 1700s, the big step with Darwinian's work in the mid/late 1800s, and the modern synthesis in the early 1900s (combination of Darwinian selection processes and Mendelian genetics).

 

[Phobos]

In my mind evolution will never become a law (in the sense of law of gravitation) ...

A quick note to your post which rightly deserves a longer response...

Recall that theories do not become laws. Theories are explanations. Laws are statistical/mathematical descriptions. The law of gravity tells you how fast a ball will drop. The theory of gravity tells you why it drops. A law of evolution might be "things change". The theory explains how (plus the history of it).

 

[noobie]

A quick note to your post which rightly deserves a longer response...

Recall that theories do not become laws. Theories are explanations. Laws are statistical/mathematical descriptions. The law of gravity tells you how fast a ball will drop. The theory of gravity tells you why it drops. A law of evolution might be "things change". The theory explains how (plus the history of it).

Thanks for clearing that up. I was not being very rigorous or precise with my usage of theory and laws. I agree they are based on different sets of data. What I meant was that we cannot hold the theory of evolution with the same certainty as laws.

 

[misskitty]

The deeper we try to get with the theory of evolution, the more technical it gets. You can only support your thoughts to a point because the evidence will only go so far. After you've reached that point, it prettty much turns into either speculation or faith. Or if your really courageous, both.

 

[selfAdjoint]

The deeper we try to get with the theory of evolution, the more technical it gets. You can only support your thoughts to a point because the evidence will only go so far. After you've reached that point, it prettty much turns into either speculation or faith. Or if your really courageous, both.

Nearly all scientific areas get too technical for popular exposition. That certainly doesn't make them speculation. There is a ton of evidence for evolution, actual speciation has been observed in a number of species, including some chordates (fish). Bacteria reproduce so rapidly that they exhibit controlled evolution in the lab; that is, experiemters can vary their environment is controlled ways and watch as inheritable adaptations evolve in the bacterial population.

Even many creationists don't try to deny these facts; they try to explain them away with a false concept of "micro" evolution. There is no mechanism to say micro happens and macro doesn't, but they can't accept macro evolution for religious reasons.

 

[misskitty]

I have no doubt that there is a ton of evidence for evolution. Even though there is this evidence, there are still going to be people who speculate rather than look to the information to help support their opinion.

 

[selfAdjoint]

I have no doubt that there is a ton of evidence for evolution. Even though there is this evidence, there are still going to be people who speculate rather than look to the information to help support their opinion.

And these people arre supposed to be scientists? I don't understand where you are coming from here. Have you any examples of crank evolutionists to cite?

 

[misskitty]

I'm just speaking from personal experience. The greatest extent I have discussed this topic is in my general biology adn science classes. My point is, people who THINK they know they have enough information to demolish creationism and promote evolution argue to a point and then speculate. Which isn't a scientific arguement. Which is what I was trying to get at. Its unfortunate that this happens. These people don't take the time to look up the information on evolution to back up there arguement. The same thing happens with the people who are in favor of creationism. These people think they are scientists and there not.

I don't know if this helped clarify my thoughts. I hope it does.

 

[selfAdjoint]

Yes, it does clear that up. You have encountered some amateur debunkers of creationism. To see the pros at work, visit Panda's Thumb (currently it specializes in debunking the Intelligent Design variant), and Talk Origins Archive.

 

[Phobos]

To see the pros at work, visit Panda's Thumb (currently it specializes in debunking the Intelligent Design variant), and Talk Origins Archive.

And their recent offspring...http://www.talkdesign.org/

 

[misskitty]

Yes, it does clear that up. You have encountered some amateur debunkers of creationism. To see the pros at work, visit Panda's Thumb (currently it specializes in debunking the Intelligent Design variant), and Talk Origins Archive.

Ah, I was wondering what I was supposed to call them. Cool links too, thanks.

 

[Janitor]

... 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...

By chance I happened upon a periodical called The Week today. It has a very brief article that sets out the argument of a disease expert, Dr. Arturo Casadevall. "The dinosaurs died out suddenly... but paleontologists have never been able to explain why mammals and other creatures survived... The asteroid strike... would have released a massive number of fungal spores into the air. The fungi... could have overwhelmed the immune systems of cold-blooded dinosaurs... But warm-blooded mammals and birds would have had a natural advantage--body temperatures too hot for fungal infections to take hold."