The jury is still out on evolution

[Dr.Yes]

growing popularity of the Creationist "theory" of our origin

Please provide evidence of the growing popularity of creationism.

When you compare the number of people who tote the creationist line today to the number (per capita) from just 100 years ago you'll find that the popularity of the "¡ka bang! you're a human" theory has been reduced significantly.

 

[Phobos]

Comparitive presentation of all the facts and the pseudofacts quickly helps students decide which theories perform the best. Critical thinking usually happens when all the views of a question are known to the critical thinker. Then the most logical and reasonable explanation can be identified in comparisome with other candidates.

Sounds good..and that is often the position presented by creationists lately ("teach the controversy" or "let students decide for themselves") as it appeals to a sense of fair play. However, what is being proposed is teaching non-science in a science classroom or having opinion or non-mainstream views by-pass the scientific process (experimentation, peer review, etc.)* and be directly injected into the educational process (presented as what would seem to be a scientific view to the new students).

* An unfair proposal, given that the theory of evolution goes through that process.

Both are natural choices. Which ever one we choose, nature rules.

I agree that 'artificial' selection is part of natural selection. I just meant to make the distinction that we, as a society, can either let the chips fall where they may, or we can work toward a goal.

As far as I know a good education includes as many aspects there are of just as many subjects. This includes studying the beliefs that exist today concerning the gamut of subjects available in any institute of learning.

Its the religious schools that, for the most part, allegedly, teach monoptic views of a subject, never spending much time on challenging views of "creation" and history and other subjects.

If you want to see science taught in a similar manner just look at most of the universities in the world. There is very little time spent or tolerance wasted on the alternative approaches to scientific learning. There can be great value in every bit of information, misinformation and formation you lay yours eyes on in this world. But, for the most part, this is ignored.

I agree that studying alternative views can be educational (e.g., learning how to think critically, as you mentioned), but I think there's a time & a place for it (like, say, a specific course in critical thinking). There are many opinions/ideas/theories out there and it would be impractical to teach them all. I think it is the responsibility of schools to teach the best information each subject has to offer. The bar should be set high.

Science plods along in an hermetically sealed plastic baggie with its blinkers on, much like an Omish Clydsdale

I think we will just have to disagree on that image. Have you seen what's been going on over the past 100 years alone?
Science is dynamic, but it's screening of ideas is rigorous and methodical.

 

[Phobos]

...---that is, you keep talking about "facts" and "truth" and "theory" when you really do not understand the concepts in them. According to you all, evolution is a fact, a truth and a theory, all three! ...

I don't think people here are saying Science = Absolute Truth.

 

[Dr.Yes]

Sounds good..and that is often the position presented by creationists lately ("teach the controversy" or "let students decide for themselves") as it appeals to a sense of fair play. However, what is being proposed is teaching non-science in a science classroom or having opinion or non-mainstream views by-pass the scientific process (experimentation, peer review, etc.)* and be directly injected into the educational process (presented as what would seem to be a scientific view to the new students).

* An unfair proposal, given that the theory of evolution goes through that process.



I agree that 'artificial' selection is part of natural selection. I just meant to make the distinction that we, as a society, can either let the chips fall where they may, or we can work toward a goal.



I agree that studying alternative views can be educational (e.g., learning how to think critically, as you mentioned), but I think there's a time & a place for it (like, say, a specific course in critical thinking). There are many opinions/ideas/theories out there and it would be impractical to teach them all. I think it is the responsibility of schools to teach the best information each subject has to offer. The bar should be set high.



I think we will just have to disagree on that image. Have you seen what's been going on over the past 100 years alone?
Science is dynamic, but it's screening of ideas is rigorous and methodical.

Of course I forgot, and you are right to say that disciplines require discipline and won't be fully explored with a mish mash of ideas being mixed into the train of thought.

And I capitulate to the idea of a separate and rigorous course in critical thinking. That would keep interuptions to a minimum in classes of other disciplines.

Last hundred years of science? Not bad, in a primitive way. I still say you'd see leaps beyond bounds if a bit more attention was paid to those theories that are deemed "whacked-out" but remain uninvestigated or privately shelved. Some of these ideas are the kinds innovations that will generate huge advances in all manner of human endevour.

These days, as was true 100 years ago and more, science is overtly influenced by private interests and capital gain, but, what else is new? So is basket ball, hockey, animal husbandry and so on!

edit) sorry, totally off topic.

I'm sorry to hear about the demolition of the teachings of Charles Darwin and his successors... in your area. Perhaps its just a little phase the area's going through. Maybe its the powers that be and no one else really believes all the apple and snake, mystical mumbo jumbo. However, myths and ancient stories etc... hold a lot of information about the times they reflect and can often point to the advances I've already mentioned. That is the way evolution works... it folds over, into and onto itself, recycling and composting then reusing the stuff that applies to the moment. Thanks

 

[Phobos]

Thanks Dr. Yes. Good food for thought.

 

[Icebreaker]

Perhaps creationism is exploiting science's willingness of saying, 'I don't know yet!'

Let me just quote something I read a while ago:

Subject: you've changed my life. thanks, I think.
Date: 31 March 2004
Message-ID: 4b9cfdb7.0403311145.2a446dc3@posting.google.com

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I have had a most extraordinary last two weeks and I owe much of it to this group, or more accurately, the talkorigins.org website and I'm writing to say thanks.

I have been raised my whole life as a Jehovah's Witness and (therefore) an old-Earth creationist. I'll be the first to admit that I've not always been the world's best JW, but I had always felt that when I was being good I was at least standing on relatively firm ground. My upbringing and books like "Life - How Did it Get Here, By Evolution or Creation?" taught me the complete absurdity and hopelessness of the evolutionist, secular humanist view of how we got here. The arguments presented seemed to make sense and I was satisfied that my questions were being answered honestly and meaningfully. It's so strange then what has happened over the last few weeks.

It started simply enough. My wife and I were discussing the Flood and the promised Paradise Earth and we wound up postulating some rather difficult questions for ourselves. Questions like, "If all the animals were originally herbivores (as the Bible says they were before the flood and would again be in the future), wouldn't that have disastrous environmental consequences?" "Wouldn't one-celled life and insects continue to have a role to play in the food chain? If so, wouldn't at least some of it be carnivorous or parasitic?" Once I started thinking of questions I couldn't stop (and more importantly, I couldn't think of any rational answers). A few days later some friends came over and we all got to talking about the Ark and the Flood and pondering some of the same questions. Now, these friends are JW's and I have no reason to believe they have abandoned "The Truth" (as it's referred to in the organization) but one of them sent me a link to a document on TalkOrigins about the flood a few days later saying that he thought it was interesting. Interesting didn't even begin to describe it. I was blown away.

Now, I don't think I'm a stupid person. I am a 30-year-old professional software developer with a 142 IQ. I read a lot. I consider myself educated, open-minded and capable of recognizing fact versus fiction and yet there I found myself realizing for the very first time that I had been blindly accepting as a fact something that was completely impossible. Perhaps some sort of flood happened in pre-history, but a global flood, the Biblical flood of Noah as described by Jehovah's Witnesses, could not have happened the way they say. It was so obvious when all the issues were laid out in one document and yet I had never noticed it before. For once, I felt stupid. I felt like I had been believing in Santa Claus (JW's don't do the Christmas thing, BTW, so it's the closest I've ever come TO believing in Santa Claus). I could have left it at that, but I didn't. If the "logic" given to me to explain the flood was wrong, I had to know what else was wrong too. Oh boy.

I went back to the beginning. In Genesis 3:15 is the first Messianic prophecy. Everything Jehovah's Witness teach about why we are here, the purpose of life, the reason Jesus came to Earth, the hope for the future... all of it, is rooted in the Garden of Eden, the Genesis account. I decided to re-examine, with an actual open mind, the question of Creation vs. Evolution (as I pictured it, rather naively). Could the chronology of the Bible, the location of Eden, the Genesis creation account, any of it, be reconciled with science? Did any of it, in fact, happen?

Now, chronology is vitally important to Jehovah's Witnesses. It's how they calculate the "end times" and why they are sure we are living in them. If the entire basis for all Bible chronology was based on a fictional story, everything started to go out the window. It all broke down. I dug out my "Creation" book and dug in and what I discovered made me sick to my stomach. The last time I read it I was 15 and it was incredibly convincing. This time I did the actual research. I looked up the references. I checked the quotations and examined the lines of reasoning and found... pseudo-science. Fallacies. Misquotes. Deliberately misleading re-writes of quotes. Argument through incredulity. Appeals to authority. Ignorance of evidence. Selective presentation of facts. Outdated information. This was worse than determining that the flood story was impossible. This was evidence that the religion I have been raised in was actually resorting to outright deception and taking quotes out of context and presenting as science something that is really just propaganda... and that I'd fallen for it.

See, JW's pay a lot of lip-service to examining the scriptures, researching your faith, PROVING that it's THE TRUTH, keeping an open-mind. At the same time (and I'm not making this up) they have a song that has the following words:

"We must act together as one
independance wisely we shun
harmony and one-ness of mind
bring peace of rarest kind"


I never felt right singing those words. Regardless, I always believed that my religious beliefs would stand up to scrutiny. I took comfort in that. I thought I HAD scrutinized them. That is what we are supposed to do. This is supposed to be a religion based on reasons for faith. To see that book for what it really was... that hurt.

Anyhow, after being basically crushed over the empty shell that is the Creation book I decided to take a serious look at evolution for the first time in my life outside of the writings of Jehovah's Witnesses. Oh. My. God. I never knew. I just never knew. I have spent the last week absorbing everything I can. I have downloaded the entire TalkOrigins.org website onto my laptop to read offline. I stayed up all night watching the Discovery Science channel the night before last because of a program on hominid evolution and I just kept watching every show afterwards. I bought The Blind Watchmaker and I'm almost done reading it. I have researched radioactive dating methods, transitional fossils, creationist arguments, abiogenesis theories and lots more and over and over and over again I have found a mountain of evidence, a mountain of evidence I had been informed didn't exist. I have found intelligent people who think for themselves, who (yes) argue and change positions and interpret things differently but who are firmly grounded in reality. The actual study of the actual world as it is, not the study of how a book says it should be and an obsession with trying to make the world appear to fit that model.

I don't know what this means for me. I know this... I am now, and on some level have always been, a secular humanist. I am suddenly comfortable in my own skin, like my mind is clear for the first time. I no longer know what role, if any, the concept of God plays in my life. It's certainly not the role that was there two weeks ago. Now that I actually understand the theory of evolution to some extent I realize it's not just a bunch of wishful-thinking atheists working on some quack theory and calling it a fact. I have developed a whole new awe and appreciation for the world I see around me, like I'm really seeing it for the first time. The geese outside my office looked like little dinosaurs to me and I got the chills. I'm 30 years old, my entire family, my wife and all my friends are Jehovah's Witnesses. If they knew for even a minute that I've conclusively disproved (for myself) all the fundamental teachings that underlay their (and my former) theology, that I had come to realize the fact of evolution (still hard for me to type that sentence...) and rejected the chronology of the Bible as impossible... they would probably never speak to me again. I don't like the position I'm in now. I'm scared. I have no idea what to do. I have no idea how to proceed. I feel like I just opened my eyes for the first time and I don't know what the next step is.

I do, however, want to thank all you long-suffering rational folks out in Talk.Origins land. You've put together a resource that has radically changed my life in the blink of an eye and I am grateful.

lodger

 

[O Great One]

This guy has an IQ of 142 and he falls for the fairy tale of evolution?
It's not too difficult to prove that evolution is not true. However, it is a million times harder to get anyone to admit this. If he has overwhelming evidence for the 'fact' of evolution, then why not present it? I sure would like to see it.

 

[bross7]

This guy has an IQ of 142 and he falls for the fairy tale of evolution?
It's not too difficult to prove that evolution is not true. However, it is a million times harder to get anyone to admit this. If he has overwhelming evidence for the 'fact' of evolution, then why not present it? I sure would like to see it.

Huh? Not difficult to prove evolution isn't true?

Perhaps you can share how this is the case with me.

 

[Rev Prez]

And do you think including non-science in a science classroom (i.e., presenting it as if it were valid science) will help or hurt the level of critical thinking in the population?

I can't locate any research correlating belief in creationism with academic performance (assuming academic performance is positively correlated with critical thought), but the literature relating religiosity in general to achievement in school suggests more religious students perform better on average than their non-religious peers [http://www.webster.edu/~hulsizer/research/Adams.pdf ]. So I'll have to say the "jury is still out" as to whether including "non-science in a science class...will help or hurt the level of critical thinking in a population."

Shall we just open every door to every opinion or should there be some structure to an education?

I don't think any of the parties involved are arguing for structureless education or rejecting standardization.

Rev Prez

 

[Rev Prez]

In my view, evolution is not a theory.

What you're describing is history, not theory. Scientific theory promises a model of processes that is consistent to some degree of accuracy with past (explanatory) and future (predictive) observation and experiment. A history would amount to recording and perhaps indexing observations themselves. We can use scientific models to bound statements about unobserved events, and these do rise to the level of fact. Of course, you can craft a theodicy--as the more reasonable creationists do--that rejects factual statements on the unmeasured inconsistent with their divinely revealed truth.

Rev Prez

 

[Rev Prez]

I don't think people here are saying Science = Absolute Truth.

But people here are advocating that only science be taught in public school science classes. That in turn means that students are exposed only to scientific materialism, something Christian creationists or not--may find offensive.

Rev Prez

 

[Rev Prez]

Science isn't forced on persons because one ignores science at their own peril.

We can say the same thing about religion and end up at very similar nonsensical points of view. The sociology and of science education at the university is as interesting in its development of social norms as it is in religious communities.

Rev Prez

 

[Rev Prez]

for starters, check into...
Answers in Genesis
Creation Research Institute
Creation Science Evangelism
Creation Science Research Center
Discovery Institute
Institute for Creation Research

I don't think Pen was looking for a list of creationist organizations, but specifically a list of groups that believe that rocket ships should be built based on nothing but Scripture.

Rev Prez

 

[Rev Prez]

Please provide evidence of the growing popularity of creationism.

When you compare the number of people who tote the creationist line today to the number (per capita) from just 100 years ago you'll find that the popularity of the "¡ka bang! you're a human" theory has been reduced significantly.

We don't have the numbers from a century ago. What we do have, for the general population, is data going back twenty years showing some pretty static numbers and reason to believe that the expanded class of the college educated is responsible for any decrease over the past century. [1],[2]

Rev Prez

 

[Phobos]

I don't think Pen was looking for a list of creationist organizations, but specifically a list of groups that believe that rocket ships should be built based on nothing but Scripture.

His quote was..

According to people on this board and on this thread specifically, it seems like there's a portion of our country that believes rocket ships must be built based off blueprints in the bible and that we are demanding that all professors teach that evolution is stupid.

From the overall conversation, it was my impression that Pen was not familiar with the extent of the creation-evolution debate. I did not take the "rocket ship blueprint" bit literally. Although you will see from O Great One's recent post that there are people who want schools to teach that evolution is stupid (or "a fairy tale").

 

[Phobos]

It's not too difficult to prove that evolution is not true.

I don't recall you doing this in past threads.

If he has overwhelming evidence for the 'fact' of evolution, then why not present it? I sure would like to see it.

Check out some science-based biology textbooks.

 

[Phobos]

So I'll have to say the "jury is still out" as to whether including "non-science in a science class...will help or hurt the level of critical thinking in a population."

I'll have to review those references you provided (thanks for digging them up), but offhand, I'd say we're talking about the inclusion of creationism in science classrooms and not whether there is a correlation between belief in a religion and academic performance in general.

I don't think any of the parties involved are arguing for structureless education or rejecting standardization.

Sure, we're getting into a bit of a "slippery slope argument", but we are talking about allowing (nay, requiring, by law or set by a school board cirriculum) religious-based ideas to bypass the scientific method and be directly introduced into science class. Mind you, it's also essentially based on one particular brand of religion (shall we include all the others too?)

 

[sage]

why do so many people in America refuse to believe evolution?they instead cling to the idea that life on Earth was created by god as told in the bible. is it so difficult for people to at least entertain the notion that bible can be wrong?that it may be a book written by men like you and me and is not in fact the word of god.i know what is most difficult for people to swallow if they accept evolution.HUMANS ARE NOT THE END RESULTS OF A DIVINE PURPOSE, BUT RATHER A CHANCE HAPPENSTANCE OF A NATURAL PHENOMENON THAT WE CALL EVOLUTION. there is no preordained purpose of human existence-there is no answer to the question WHY AM I HERE.it is perhaps comforting for all to go on believing that there is a benevolent creator who looks after us and protects us when we are in danger- but there is nothing in the outside world to support this. all branches of scientific knowledge, including evolution tells of a creator-less universe evolving through time in a predictable fashion(according to laws of nature that is) where humans are but a recent development with no special significance.right,wrong,morality-immorality,goal-purpose are concepts that make no sense in a world outside human society. believing this is a personal decision. but this i will say- it is upon you folks to prove that there does exists an omnipotent god who created everything, that bible is indeed inspired by god, that universe has an ultimate purpose, and there is an universal concept of good and evil that was there from the beginning and not created by humans-and finally that humans are not descended from apes

 

[Phobos]

But people here are advocating that only science be taught in public school science classes. That in turn means that students are exposed only to scientific materialism, something Christian creationists or not--may find offensive.

It is simply appropriate to teach science in science class. Seems like the debate can end there. But I can understand the deeper concern. Although science is based on a Methodological Materialistic approach, it is not pushing Philosophical Materialistism (i.e., it does not teach atheism). How about including a separate, comparative religion class in schools? Or how about keeping spiritual education in the churches? Of course many creationists would like to present their scientific evidence against evolution in a science classroom but the appropriate venue for that is first passing peer review in the scientific community. That generates claims of conspiracy, but from what I've seen (and the peer review process bears me out) is that the creationist evidence is lacking.

 

[Phobos]

all branches of scientific knowledge, including evolution tells of a creator-less universe evolving through time in a predictable fashion(according to laws of nature that is) where humans are but a recent development with no special significance.

Your post is getting into a religious debate (best to steer clear of that here at PF). But, regarding the above quote, I'll just note that science provides explanations that do not include supernatural aspects...but science does not say there is no God. Science also does not attach a Cosmic Significance or Insignificance (value judgement) to anything. Of course, individual scientists have their own personal beliefs about that. Some may personally believe that humans are just another species. Some may personally believe that humans are an extraordinary species as compared to others. But the theory of evolution doesn't say that humans are better or worse as a whole compared to others.

 

[O Great One]

Son: "Dad, why do children resemble their parents in appearance?"
Dad: "Do you know anything about genetics, son?"
Son: "Well, not very much, please proceed."
Dad: "You resemble your parents because half of the instructions — genes — for making you came from your father and half from your mother. Similarly, your brother or sister also received half of their genetic instructions from each parent, but the set they received is somewhat different from the set you received. That's why they may resemble you, but they are not identical to you."
Son: "So, then my genes were already in existence in the previous generation?"
Dad: "Yep, same with everybody else too."
Son: "Hmmm...I just thought of something. This means evolution is impossible."
Dad: "How so? Please explain."
Son: "Well, if the genes were already in existence in the previous generation then there is really nothing 'new'. I suppose a crude analogy would be that Mom holds 44 playing cards and Dad also holds 44 playing cards. When someone is born 22 cards are selected at random from each and a new unique stack of 44 cards are produced, but none of the cards are really new."
Dad: "Interesting analogy. Yes, that really does seem to chop down the evolution tree."

 

[selfAdjoint]

Son: "Dad, why do children resemble their parents in appearance?"
Dad: "Do you know anything about genetics, son?"
Son: "Well, not very much, please proceed."
Dad: "You resemble your parents because half of the instructions — genes — for making you came from your father and half from your mother. Similarly, your brother or sister also received half of their genetic instructions from each parent, but the set they received is somewhat different from the set you received. That's why they may resemble you, but they are not identical to you."
Son: "So, then my genes were already in existence in the previous generation?"
Dad: "Yep, same with everybody else too."
Son: "Hmmm...I just thought of something. This means evolution is impossible."
Dad: "How so? Please explain."
Son: "Well, if the genes were already in existence in the previous generation then there is really nothing 'new'. I suppose a crude analogy would be that Mom holds 44 playing cards and Dad also holds 44 playing cards. When someone is born 22 cards are selected at random from each and a new unique stack of 44 cards are produced, but none of the cards are really new."
Dad: "Interesting analogy. Yes, that really does seem to chop down the evolution tree."

Nope it doen't because it ignores genetic variation which is going on all the time in all of us. There isn't one fixed deck of cards; they keep morphing into something else. And sometimes the variation helps the next generation survive and have kids, and sometimes it hurts them, and many times it has no effect at all. The hurting variations will tend to get eliminated and the other two kinds will tend to get passed on to further generations. Thus evolution.

 

[Phobos]

There's evolution within the deck (from the many, many possible combinations of 44 cards). Adaptation is one aspect of evolution. A population can shift toward one end or the other of what is possible within their genes. Consider how we can continually create new literature (and even new languages) with the same old 26 letters of the alphabet.

There's inter-deck evolution (addition of new existing cards from another deck). Gene flow from related populations or similar species can change the make-up of a particular species' gene pool. That too is part of evolution. When a gene pool is mixed, it is changed.

Then there's the cards that change, which is probably the most contraversial part of the creation-evolution debate. I think we all agree that mutations happen. The next step in the debate seems to be over how some mutations are not necessarily harmful. Even if a beneficial mutation is very rare, there can be many neutral ones that become beneficial once ecosystem conditions change or there is an interaction with other changing genes/gene combinations.

 

[Selbstüberschätzug]

The story about Kein which was a murder who was married wit who?! Lead to genes in which badness was so common that God had to remove them like you would remove them from your agars by washing it away.

The bible has so many beautiful mistakes, the creation theories is one of them, that you have to doubt. We are one this planet to ask not more.

 

[joahua]

Darwin conceded that the lack of fossil evidence for transitions between species of animals (in the sense that macro evolution advocates) is a potential objection to his theory, stating that:

"Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and serious objection which can be urged against my theory"[1]

He predicted, however, that future discoveries would vindicate his theory and resolve this stumbling block.

In 1979, David Raup, curator of the Field Museum of Natural History (Chicago) said this:

We are now about one hundred and twenty years after Darwin, and the knowledge of the fossil record has been greatly expanded. We now have a quarter of a million fossil species, but the situation hasn't changed much... We have even fewer examples of evolutionary transition [now] than we had in Darwin's time.[2]

Apparently the fossil record we do have shows that in rocks dating back roughly 570 million years, nearly all animal phyla appears fully formed and "without a trace of the evolutionary ancestors that Darwinists require."[3]

Thoughts?

[1]Charles Darwin, On the Origin of Species, 6th Ed. (available from Project Gutenberg http://www.gutenberg.org/dirs/etext99/otoos610.txt)
[2]Raup, D. M., "Conflicts between Darwin and Paleontology", Bulletin, Field Museum of Natural History, January 1979, cited in Strobel, L. The Case for Faith, 127.
[3]Johnson, P. E., ]Darwin on Trial, 2nd Ed., 54.

 

[Selbstüberschätzug]

Yes... 120 Years aren’t enough. Take the example with the with butterflies. If you would eliminate every recessive genetic information for the black paint it would go a very long time until a NEW mutation would be occur. The time before this mutation and the time after must be much, much longer as the time in witch you have black and with ore grey (cause grey is not a real advantage and must also be an disadvantage cause the reason why thy were absolutely wait butterflies is most likely also still existing. -Therefore it’s absolutely logical that evolution happens in leaps-) butterflies.

 

[selfAdjoint]

I agree with you selbst, I think real species store up variation (population genetics suggests they have to keep reinventing the wheel to do it) for potential use when the long shot environmental change hits. Sex and mix and match genetics does this for metazoans, and conjugation does it for single celled organisms.

This would explain the bush-and-spike inheritance tree of related species noticed by Gould (in Full House, I think). When a Genus first evolves, adaptive radiation produces a "bush" of narrowly adapted daughter species. But after a time these tend to die out and the genus is then represented by just a few species that tend to last a long time. One presumes that the overspecialized genomes were replaced by some which were more omnicompetent. In Kipling's words, "Full of infinite resource and sagacity". The genome of the Peppered Moth is my witness.

 

[Selbstüberschätzug]

Now we have only to hope that we are understand right. It’s a undeniable fact that earlier information is stored for a long time in the DNA. (Junk-DNA). This information can be reactivated with quite simple methods. Think on the trout witch they have back-developed in a well known experiment.
But I don’t mean (to assure the clearness) that sudden changes of the phenotype is happened because there are a mass of blueprints around. I mean that if the weal is once developed it will find his way quick to the farest places of the species.
Your approach is an other, with the declared little problem that you have to explain how the sagacity was written in the genome.

 

[selfAdjoint]

What I mean is that among a large population of phenotypes (I am talking about metazoans here), expressing common dominant genes and therefore pretty much all alike, there is a richness of recessive genes that can be expressed with lower probability, and this collection of recessives is constantly and randomly being enhanced via neutral genetic drift (significantly bad genes will be quickly eliminated unless mixed dominant-recessive phenotypes have an advantge that outweighs or balances the lethal recessive-recessive effect).

When the environment changes suddenly, some of these recessives may give an advantage, and be selected. Then the characteristics of the population can change rapidly and adaptively. I emphasize that it takes a large population and a high mutation rate to bring this about, but I believe we are discovering that both of these conditions do obtain in wild populations.

 

[joahua]

I can see all that works for so-called "micro evolution", but how about larger changes? The argument that there is a "richness of recessive genes" that are "selected" in response to the most favourable conditions is self-defeating in this respect, is it not? If a certain gene combination in concert with certain conditions contribute to the manifestation of a particular phenotype, then how can a major 'branch' occur?

I recognise that, if it did, it would occur over a substantial period of time (and within large populations - though I dispute the necessity of "high mutation rate"... how does this assist? There are only so many genes to choose from, surely? -- as @selfAdjoint suggested) -- but, as we have established this "junk DNA" does exist, when is it disposed of?

And, if it is not disposed of, what would prevent the closure of any discrepancy existing between newly-branched (I daren't say "created" in the present climate :P) species? The idea that evolution results in a species (or, in macro evolution, metazoans generally) better suited to its environment is logically discriminatory against those who are less suited - hence, there is either no apparent reason for variation on a large scale (say, deer, cattle, and giraffes or something... I don't know, pick a variation!) OR the variation should not (have been able to) occur to that extent in the first instance.

Assuming junk DNA extends so far as to permit that level of variation (it might, I don't know... anyone?), the question remains: why has this variation occurred to this extent, yet remnants of the "inferior" (or, less suited) species (within or even OUTSIDE a particular genus, to stretch the theory somewhat) continue to exist?

If nothing else, does that not serve to devoid the reasoning behind evolution (assuming that the theory on its own still stands)?

Just to clarify: I'm not arguing for anything else - I'm a Christian, believe God created me, that Jesus died for me, that the Bible is His word... but I'm not particularly tied to any mechanism of creation. I'm just arguing to try and assert "evolution" isn't "hard fact" (because, as the more intelligent posters will realize, there is no such thing in science - or shouldn't be).

Josh.

 

[Selbstüberschätzug]

A major branch can occur ether with my approach, with a interlay new genetic mutation ore with the approach from selfe with a recycling from certain sequences. Here you have to see that not only sequences from the direct-mother-branch is still in the Junk-DNA. What once was a disadvantage for the mother branch is now in a new environment again advantageous.
The dolphins to give you a example, had developed themselves (ore with the help of god) from a animal quit similar to a dog. If you keep in mind that all live on land cam from the see then you can understand that certain mutations witch were for a long time only junk are now the new blueprint for your animal (here the blueprint of perhaps the skin etc.). A NEW animal not to confuse with a fish .

 

[selfAdjoint]

My idea wasn't intended to cover big changes. they would happen, I suppose, as the result of a number of these events.

To answer this question:

I recognise that, if it did, it would occur over a substantial period of time (and within large populations - though I dispute the necessity of "high mutation rate"... how does this assist? There are only so many genes to choose from, surely? -- as @selfAdjoint suggested) -- but, as we have established this "junk DNA" does exist, when is it disposed of?

The math of population genetics suggests that on the average neutral alleles are lost in a few generations. So re-mutation would be necessary for a steady-state pool of them. Some silent DNA is disposed of in major speciation splits. But as we are discovering, not all of it is "silent" or non-adaptive! It just does second order things that weren't included in the first order theory.

 

[Phobos]

In 1979, David Raup, curator of the Field Museum of Natural History (Chicago) said this:

"We are now about one hundred and twenty years after Darwin, and the knowledge of the fossil record has been greatly expanded. We now have a quarter of a million fossil species, but the situation hasn't changed much... We have even fewer examples of evolutionary transition [now] than we had in Darwin's time."

This is a common misquoting by creationists. Actually, he said this...[emphasis mine]
from http://www.palaeos.com/Evolution/People1.html

Well, we are now about 120 years after Darwin and the knowledge of the fossil record has been greatly expanded. We now have a quarter of a million fossil species but the situation hasn’t changed much. The record of evolution is still surprisingly jerky and, ironically, we have even fewer examples of evolutionary transition than we had in Darwin's time. By this I mean that some of the classic cases of Darwinian change in the fossil record, such as the evolution of the horse in North America, have had to be discarded or modified as a result of more detailed information — what appeared to be a nice simple progression when relatively few data were available now appears to be much more complex and much less gradualistic. So Darwin’s problem has not been alleviated in the last 120 years and we still have a record which does show change but one that can hardly be looked upon as the most reasonable consequence of natural selection. Also the major extinctions such as those of the dinosaurs and trilobites are still very puzzling.

So, he wasn't saying there are no examples...he was saying that evolutionary changes are more complex than originally envisioned.

More fun with quote mining...
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/mine/project.html

 

[Phobos]

Apparently the fossil record we do have shows that in rocks dating back roughly 570 million years, nearly all animal phyla appears fully formed and "without a trace of the evolutionary ancestors that Darwinists require."[3]

[3]Johnson, P. E., ]Darwin on Trial, 2nd Ed., 54.

If I may paint with a big brush...
Dinosaur - archaeopteryx - modern birds

Even Philip Johnson agrees that archaeopteryx is a pretty good example of a transitional fossil (which he says in the same book you cite) although he said he's not convinced by one example (as if that is the only one available).

 

[Phobos]

There are only so many genes to choose from, surely?

Aside from the myriad of ways that genes can combine & interact (e.g., through recombination), new genes can also be added to a gene pool through such mechanisms as gene flow (influx of genes from another population) and mutation (modification of existing genes into new genes). There's also things like gene duplication, etc. which can increase the amount of info encoded in DNA.

And, if it is not disposed of, what would prevent the closure of any discrepancy existing between newly-branched species? The idea that evolution results in a species (or, in macro evolution, metazoans generally) better suited to its environment is logically discriminatory against those who are less suited - hence, there is either no apparent reason for variation on a large scale (say, deer, cattle, and giraffes or something... I don't know, pick a variation!) OR the variation should not (have been able to) occur to that extent in the first instance.

Every population has some level of genetic variation in it. As local conditions change, populations adapt (certain variations are favored). Over time there can be sufficient divergence from the ancestral population that a speciation event can be identified.

Assuming junk DNA extends so far as to permit that level of variation (it might, I don't know... anyone?), the question remains: why has this variation occurred to this extent, yet remnants of the "inferior" (or, less suited) species (within or even OUTSIDE a particular genus, to stretch the theory somewhat) continue to exist?

Not sure I follow the question, but an "inferior" species/individual/gene need only be good enough to survive long enough to reproduce in order to persist. Of course, many species do go extinct. Also, some "inferior" bit of genetic code can also cruise under the radar if its current effect is neutral (not detrimental to the creature's survival).