Posted on 02/21/2005 4:03:29 AM PST by PatrickHenry
Nineteenth-century English social scientist Herbert Spencer made this prescient observation: "Those who cavalierly reject the Theory of Evolution, as not adequately supported by facts, seem quite to forget that their own theory is supported by no facts at all." Well over a century later nothing has changed. When I debate creationists, they present not one fact in favor of creation and instead demand "just one transitional fossil" that proves evolution. When I do offer evidence (for example, Ambulocetus natans, a transitional fossil between ancient land mammals and modern whales), they respond that there are now two gaps in the fossil record.
This is a clever debate retort, but it reveals a profound error that I call the Fossil Fallacy: the belief that a "single fossil"--one bit of data--constitutes proof of a multifarious process or historical sequence. In fact, proof is derived through a convergence of evidence from numerous lines of inquiry--multiple, independent inductions, all of which point to an unmistakable conclusion.
We know evolution happened not because of transitional fossils such as A. natans but because of the convergence of evidence from such diverse fields as geology, paleontology, biogeography, comparative anatomy and physiology, molecular biology, genetics, and many more. No single discovery from any of these fields denotes proof of evolution, but together they reveal that life evolved in a certain sequence by a particular process.
One of the finest compilations of evolutionary data and theory since Charles Darwin's On the Origin of Species is Richard Dawkins's magnum opus, The Ancestor's Tale: A Pilgrimage to the Dawn of Evolution (Houghton Mifflin, 2004)--688 pages of convergent science recounted with literary elegance. Dawkins traces numerous transitional fossils (what he calls "concestors," the last common ancestor shared by a set of species) from Homo sapiens back four billion years to the origin of heredity and the emergence of evolution. No single concestor proves that evolution happened, but together they reveal a majestic story of process over time.
Consider the tale of the dog. With so many breeds of dogs popular for so many thousands of years, one would think there would be an abundance of transitional fossils providing paleontologists with copious data from which to reconstruct their evolutionary ancestry. In fact, according to Jennifer A. Leonard, an evolutionary biologist then at the Smithsonian Institution's National Museum of Natural History, "the fossil record from wolves to dogs is pretty sparse." Then how do we know whence dogs evolved? In the November 22, 2002, Science, Leonard and her colleagues report that mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) data from early dog remains "strongly support the hypothesis that ancient American and Eurasian domestic dogs share a common origin from Old World gray wolves."
In the same issue, molecular biologist Peter Savolainen of the Royal Institute of Technology in Stockholm and his colleagues note that even though the fossil record is problematic, their study of mtDNA sequence variation among 654 domestic dogs from around the world "points to an origin of the domestic dog in East Asia" about 15,000 years before the present from a single gene pool of wolves.
Finally, anthropologist Brian Hare of Harvard University and his colleagues describe in this same issue the results of a study showing that domestic dogs are more skillful than wolves at using human signals to indicate the location of hidden food. Yet "dogs and wolves do not perform differently in a nonsocial memory task, ruling out the possibility that dogs outperform wolves in all human-guided tasks," they write. Therefore, "dogs' social-communicative skills with humans were acquired during the process of domestication."
No single fossil proves that dogs came from wolves, but archaeological, morphological, genetic and behavioral "fossils" converge to reveal the concestor of all dogs to be the East Asian wolf. The tale of human evolution is divulged in a similar manner (although here we do have an abundance of fossils), as it is for all concestors in the history of life. We know evolution happened because innumerable bits of data from myriad fields of science conjoin to paint a rich portrait of life's pilgrimage.
|
Religion is based on belief.
Science is based on theories that may ultimately be based on facts, thus creating new facts.
There is a divergence between beliefs and the plodding process of inductive reasoning through postulates and sometimes proofs.
While people are free to belief whatever they want, that does not make it fact any more than any other scientific theory. However, only one has a better chance of being proven, regardless of how a Supreme Deity might have shuffled the deck.
Just my $0.02.
Then why is evolution still a theory?
You can't meaningfully participate unless you buy a ticket. In this case, the ticket is some basic understanding of what's going on here, and the price you pay is the effort needed to bring yourself up to speed:
The Theory of Evolution. (Excellent introductory encyclopedia article.)
This is what science is: The scientific method.
What's a Scientific Theory? Encyclopedia article.
An opinion piece, at best.
And after reading all of that, he will end up back at his original conclusion.
I'm no Creationist, but evolution, as it stands today, is bunk.
Sigh...
For the same reason that gravitational theory is still a theory, not to mention atomic theory, the germ theory of disease, and the theory of limits (on which calculus is based), even though no sane person questions *them* either.
Read this: Evolution is a Fact and a Theory.
Educational, actually, although many refuse to learn.
Well, after reading that, one gets the idea that ‘evolution’ is a nebulous thing; sort of like looking at a impressionist’s painting, whereby one must stand back from the work and turn their a certain way, before they can fully appreciate it’s nuance.
Dawkins apparently has a ‘better eye’ for this ‘art’ than myself.
Omar.
Don't you guys ever get tired of this silly debate? It's always the same 20 or so guys arguing back and forth. Nobody gets convinced of anything.
Not directed personally at you, PH, but all of you as a group.
Theory: A belief that can guide behavior.
So is evolution.
Who cares what you "think?" Intelligent design is evidence whether or not you want to accept it. If only the fantasy referred to as "evolution" had as much evidence. Meanwhile, enjoy your sterile worms.
Article "We know evolution happened because innumerable bits of data from myriad fields of science conjoin to paint a rich portrait of life's pilgrimage."
sirch "Then why is evolution still a theory?"
ARRRRRGGGGGHHHHHH!! LOL
In the American vernacular, "theory" often means "imperfect fact"--part of a hierarchy of confidence running downhill from fact to theory to hypothesis to guess. Thus the power of the creationist argument: evolution is "only" a theory and intense debate now rages about many aspects of the theory. If evolution is worse than a fact, and scientists can't even make up their minds about the theory, then what confidence can we have in it? Indeed, President Reagan echoed this argument before an evangelical group in Dallas when he said (in what I devoutly hope was campaign rhetoric): "Well, it is a theory. It is a scientific theory only, and it has in recent years been challenged in the world of science--that is, not believed in the scientific community to be as infallible as it once was."
Well evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts don't go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's in this century, but apples didn't suspend themselves in midair, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from ape-like ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other yet to be discovered.
Moreover, "fact" doesn't mean "absolute certainty"; there ain't no such animal in an exciting and complex world. The final proofs of logic and mathematics flow deductively from stated premises and achieve certainty only because they are not about the empirical world. Evolutionists make no claim for perpetual truth, though creationists often do (and then attack us falsely for a style of argument that they themselves favor). In science "fact" can only mean "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional consent." I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms.
Evolutionists have been very clear about this distinction of fact and theory from the very beginning, if only because we have always acknowledged how far we are from completely understanding the mechanisms (theory) by which evolution (fact) occurred. Darwin continually emphasized the difference between his two great and separate accomplishments: establishing the fact of evolution, and proposing a theory--natural selection--to explain the mechanism of evolution.
- Stephen J. Gould, " Evolution as Fact and Theory"; Discover, May 1981
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-fact.html
Because Science creates Theories. Or, as I've said elsewhere, here on FreeRepublic, Science is not in the Truth Business: see the Religion or Philosophy departments for that. Science, when boiled down to the basics, is the process of constructing working models of reality, with a very close match to observed physical reality, that are dependable enough for engineering or prediction purposes. . .
How do you feel about evolution?
It must be difficult being you.
hahaha
now I've got everyone mad at me!!
No, because I've learned more about science and evolution from the likes of PH than I ever would have sitting in some boring class room.
Eventhough I believe evolution is a religion, the knowledge gained from science is immeasurable.
First, there are nearly 250 pro-science people on the evolution ping list. All but the first dozen or so (regulars from around 4 years ago) have specifically requested to be on the list. Most don't actively participate, but they sure do lurk.
Second, the purpose of these threads is to counter the dems' propaganda that all conservatives are ignorant flat-earthers. That's what it's all about. If the dems can ever frame the debate so it's them against the Dark Ages, we're going to lose. Those who don't know what I'm talking about are part of the problem.
Sure, I learn a lot too, and I agree with your views pretty much, but the eternal pissing match has got to get old to you guys too, doesn't it?
Give me your VERY BEST piece of evidence that it "is bunk", and I'll show you why you're mistaken or are laboring under a large misconception about what evolutionary biology *actually* involves. Go for it.
And if you really want to go for the brass ring, take "Dr. Pepper's" challenge (note -- no one has won yet, you could be the first):
THE ANTI-EVOLUTION GAME
-----------------------
Here's an opportunity to see how good you are at refuting evolution
scientifically. That means using science, not faith. If you have faith
that evolution is false, that's great for you but has nothing to do
with science.
HOW TO PLAY
Just write a series of statements showing either inadequacy in the
basic tenets of evolution, or contradictory evidence.
It is not necessary to absolutely disprove evolution, just give us
something to rock conventional science.
Your statements will be evaluated and assigned points. 10 points wins.
PROCEDURE
1. To enter the game, leave a post declaring your intention to play.
You may start making statements in that post if you like.
2. You will then have 60 days to make as many posts as you like with
statements for the game. If you do not make 10 points in those 60 days
you will have to start over.
3. All posts in the game should have ANTI-EVOLUTION GAME as the
subject line and contain only statements relevant to the game.
Anything else will not be counted.
WINNING
I'm self (un)employed so i can't give away cadillacs or trips to
Hawaii. But if you can get 10 points your name will go on a public
list of succesful challengers of evolution, a list that is currently
empty. And i will send a $10 donation to the organization of your
choice.
SCORING
Type of Statement Points
Observation of spontaneous generation of a modern lifeform
either from nothing or from nonliving elements. 5
Explanation of how totally independent dating methods agree
so well if the dates they show are wrong. 5
Evidence showing that all remains of Earth are younger than
1 million years. 3
Example of total genetic discontinuity between two species
considered closely related by conventional science. 2
Example of two species considered separated by over 100
million years of time by conventional science found to 2
be contemporaneous.
Example of a fossil considered over 2 million years old by
conventional science showing the exact same genetic makeup as
a modern member of the same species. 1
Correct statement of the theory of evolution. 1
Any other single statement showing you understand evolution. 1
Any quote from secondary sources. -1
Any statement mischaracterizing evolution. -1
Misunderstanding of the difference between theory and fact. -2
Misunderstanding of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. -2
Misunderstanding of entropy, order, randomness or
complexity. -2
Misunderstanding of the use of C-14 dating. -2
Misunderstanding of isochron dating. -2
Misunderstanding of nuclear decay. -2
Misunderstanding of the speed of light. -2
Appeal to supernatural entities. Such is outside the
framework of science. -2
Misquoting or distorting someone's statement. -3
Mischaracterizing a disagreement on the hows of evolution
as doubt of the fact of evolution. -4
Appeal to your own ignorance "I don't see how else..."
is a description of your personal inadequacy, not that
of conventional science. -4
Outright lie. It doesn't matter if you didn't know it
was a lie. -5
Use of argument already thoroughly refuted. You are
responsible for looking these things up. -5
Appeal to moral consequences. That has no bearing on
truth value. -5
GOOD LUCK
A theory by definition is a model or framework for organizing the factual evidence. A hypothesis is a provisional idea that remains unverified. You seem to have the two confused.
Evolution is a theory (i.e., a set of axioms, principles, models, and definitions extrapolated from the evidence).
Creation is a hypothesis (i.e., wild-ass guess).
So, the insults begin hey?
Intelligent design implies results that are contrary to common sense. Spider webs apparently meet the standards of specified complexity, which implies that spiders are intelligent. One could instead claim that the complexity was designed into the spider and its abilities. But if that claim is made, one might just as well claim that the spider's designer was not intelligent but was intelligently designed, or maybe it was the spider's designer's designer that was intelligent. Thus, either spiders are intelligent, or intelligent design theory reduces to a weak Deism where all design might have entered into the universe only once at the beginning, or terms like "specified complexity" have no useful definition.
talkorigins
I enjoy smiting down ignorance wherever it rears its ugly head. =)
I'm sure you 've seen the polls which indicate that most americans don't buy into the evolutionary version of planetary history anyway. They also don't buy into the strict literal version of the Biblical creation account. So where's this big voting bloc?
Nobody is ever going to PROVE anything. This whole thing is stupid.
It's not? Science is definatly in the "FACT" business and like I've stated already you must only conclude that evolution is another "Belief" system no different from any religion.
A theory is a belief system based on FACTS, but by itself is NOT a fact.
Yet another item to be added to the List-O-Links.
Well, to paraphrase an old classic: "If the creationists will stop telling lies about evolutionists, we'll stop telling the truth about the creationists."
If there wasn't so much misinformation to correct, I'd be quite happy discussing something else. But I can't sit by and let people tell waves of falsehoods when I *know* they're falsehoods and other people might swallow them. A mind is a terrible thing to waste on anti-scientific propaganda.
PH, ya think we might have a Flat Earther here?
You are correct. Scientists don't really deal in "proof", except in the mathematical sense.
Your confusion is caused by the colloquial vs. the scientific definition of terms. The whole debate between evolution and creationists has been framed by the creationists misunderstanding of science and the Bible.
Evolution does not contain anything about origin of life. It is origin of SPECIEs. The literalist Bible interpretation the creationists insist is the only authoritative one is pure nonsense. The combination of a nonsensical take on God (which insults God's intelligence) and the strawman of origin of life, makes the creationist position on the debate completely fraudulent.
It is sad that so few people in this country understand biology that the creationist scam artists have been able to make millions of dollars from silly theology.
The polls indicate the more Americans buy into evolution than into young-earth creationism. The vast majority of evolutionists attribute evolution to a god or gods, which is what has you confused.
What does that mean? Does that mean that the converse ("science," I guess, according to you) is based on "disbelief"? Why believe something that you don't "believe"? Facts are opposite of belief? You don't "believe" "facts"?
Do you believe in something you can't see?
For example, do you believe in logic, or in the scientific method? Show me those things and perhaps I'll believe them too....
Seems to me that your efforts would be more useful if you concentrated on the 'science' of second hand smoke, global warming, epidemiology used for political purposes (AIDS, open borders), and generally areas where policy is being made with regard to science. The evolution debate means NOTHING when it comes to politics, besides some minor wording changes in textbooks.
Well, I dunno. I'm just a high-school educated dummy and that was long ago, but it seems to me it's kind of silly to talk about 'evolution' as opposed to 'creation' without being more specific.
I don't think anyone including creationists disagrees that there are certain evolutionary forces at work. What I think they do dispute is that life was created from non-life, and that very different species evolved from other species - for example humans evolved from primates. Now mayhe I am wrong, but it looks like people that call themselves 'evolutionists' clearly do believe that.
It seems to me the argument in this article is something like this: There is strong evidence that dogs evolved from wolves which also proves that humans evolved from primates which evolved from something else which all started from ameoba or whatever. I don't find it very convincing.
Personally, until I see life created in a lab from non-life by electomagnetic forces acting on a chemical 'soup' I'm gonna continue to believe in a creator and live my life according. Perhaps even if life _is_ created in a lab, which after all would not specifically disprove the existence of God even if it did happen.
You're right. The pattern is always the same. Starts with an article, then within a few posts the Creationists are ridiculed (who often leave after being attacked so much), and then the anti-Creationists pat each other on the back for a bit, laughing at the foolish Creationists....
Fun for a bit, but never a productive conversation because of all the ad hominem attacks and straw men arguments from the anti-Creationists....
In practically every field, we are coming to understand that evolution is not supportable.
You can't see the DNA for the spider web.
If my statement can be shown to be inaccurate, I'll retract it. But it's based on years of experience.
Not really. sure there are some things that become mundane, but whenever I learn something new here I check it out and apply it.
My views may be simplistic, but I try to make every effort to be intellectually honest so I may learn new science.
There are some VERY smart people on these threads.
And here are some of The Laws of Itelligent Design:
The universe is made for life, therefore ID.
Life can't arise naturally, therefore ID.
Anything produced in the lab is proof of Intelligent Design.
Anything not produced in the lab is proof of Intelligent Design.
Verrry interesting. What are your references for that statement?
I don`t think there is anything that you can do or believe will change that.They are going to hate us no matter what.
"Who cares what you "think?" Intelligent design is evidence whether or not you want to accept it."
And here are some of The Laws of Itelligent Design:
The universe is made for life, therefore ID.
Life can't arise naturally, therefore ID.
Anything produced in the lab is proof of Intelligent Design.
Anything not produced in the lab is proof of Intelligent Design.
...odd that only the *creationists* say this -- I don't find any such conclusions in the science journals. In fact, quite the opposite. Every week there are more and more research articles confirming evolution. How many would you like me to post here?
In practically every field, we are coming to understand that evolution is not supportable.
...and yet, every time you post an actual "example" of this claim, we show you how it's fatally flawed and based on creationist misunderstandings of the topic.
Haven't you begun to see a pattern yet?
Feel free to try another one, though. Give a *specific* item you feel supports your claim. Maybe you'll get lucky one of these days and post something that's actually valid and actually means what you think it does.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.