Posted on 12/15/2005 9:10:41 AM PST by flevit
Simon Schama appears to have little understanding of biology (Opinion, September 4). With an ostrich mindset that tries to ignore reality, pseudo-scientists continue in the vain hope that if they shout loud and long enough they can perpetuate the fairy story and bad science that is evolution.
You don't have to be a religious fundamentalist to question evolution theory - you just have to have an open and enquiring mind and not be afraid of challenging dogma. But you must be able to discern and dodge the effusion of evolutionary landmines that are bluster and non sequiturs.
No one denies the reality of variation and natural selection. For example, chihuahuas and Great Danes can be derived from a wolf by selective breeding. Therefore, a chihuahua is a wolf, in the same way that people of short stature and small brain capacity are fully human beings.
However, there is no evidence (fossil, anatomical, biochemical or genetic) that any creature did give rise, or could have given rise, to a different creature. In addition, by their absence in the fossil record for (supposed) millions of years along with the fact of their existence during the same time period, many animals such as the coelacanth demonstrate the principle that all creatures could have lived contemporaneously in the past.
No evidence supports the notion that birds evolved from dinosaurs, nor that whales evolved from terrestrial quadrupeds, nor that the human knee joint evolved from a fish pelvic fin. And the critically-positioned amino acids at the active sites within enzymes and structural proteins show that the origination of complex proteins by step-wise modifications of supposed ancestral peptides is impossible. In other words, birds have always been birds, whales have always been whales, apes did not evolve into humans, and humans have always been humans.
But you might protest that it has been proved that we evolved from apes. In fact, the answer is a categorical No. Australopithecines, for example, were simply extinct apes that in a few anatomical areas differed from living apes. If some of them walked bipedally to a greater degree than living apes, this does not constitute evidence that apes evolved into humans - it just means that some ancient apes were different from living apes.
Great. A cosmetic surgeon who's pontificating on evolutionary biology. What's next: a dogcatcher's views of General Relativity?
"Before you get too mad at that, realise that I am 46, and a good deal of what I was taught in MY high school science class regarding evolution is now known to be WRONG. In fact, when I bring it up, evolutionists call me ignorant for saying it."
Interesting that you should bring that up. I'm not much older than you and have had similar experiences on these threads. The problem comes in when someone is mocked or ridiculed for not believing a current scientific theory. Some years down the road, the theory has been proved wrong and a new one is in it's place. So what has happened is that those skeptics were mocked and ridiculed for not believing something that was not true in the first place. Something's wrong with that picture. Since scientists admit that theories are always open to revision and modification and some have been proved to be wrong before, perhaps they should exercise some restraint in engaging in that kind of behavior now. What would happen if some discovery 5 years from now blows the ToE as we know it out of the water? Apologies, perhaps? It hasn't happened before so I wouldn't hold my breath.
Let me give you an analogy. Peyton Manning throws an interception (it happens). J Random Couch Potato shifts his 400 lb bulk to yell. "Hey Manning, you stiff, learn how to throw the ball". Terry Bradshaw observes that Manning is sometimes a little too eager to throw the ball late down the middle of the field. They both say Manning shouldn't have thrown the pass. Are they equally valid criticism?
Interesting that you should bring that up. I'm not much older than you and have had similar experiences on these threads. The problem comes in when someone is mocked or ridiculed for not believing a current scientific theory. Some years down the road, the theory has been proved wrong and a new one is in it's place. So what has happened is that those skeptics were mocked and ridiculed for not believing something that was not true in the first place. Something's wrong with that picture. Since scientists admit that theories are always open to revision and modification and some have been proved to be wrong before, perhaps they should exercise some restraint in engaging in that kind of behavior now. What would happen if some discovery 5 years from now blows the ToE as we know it out of the water? Apologies, perhaps? It hasn't happened before so I wouldn't hold my breath.
You raise a good question. The real problem is the advances in evolutionary theory are not coming from the cheap seats, but from the hard work of professionals. Changes in the theory are coming from hard-working fossil-diggers, bone experts, and statisticians, not from religious disbelievers.
Unfortunately, what we usually get here, on these threads, is people who don't and won't believe evolution for religious reasons, and will use any loose thread to attack not only evolution, but all of science--anything to get that godless, materialistic science to say something else! Look at the Wedge Strategy, which I believe is being carried out exactly to plan.
I have already posted, earlier on this thread, a comment from a thread this summer:
I, [name deleted here], am a Young Earth Creationist. I do not accept geology, or radiometric dating, or any part of modern science that might support an old Earth or evolution. Furthermore, I do not accept creation or evolution as proper objects of science in the strict sense. Lastly, ... I attribute all tendencies toward verbal putzitude to be a product of those who ignore, disavow, or otherwise impugn the authority of biblical texts.This is what scientists in general, and evolutionary scientists in particular are facing. People who dislike the results some sciences (evolutionary biology, geology, radiometric dating, biology, etc.) are attacking the whole of science in order to support and defend their religious beliefs. And, they are using the trial and error, step by step, careful method of science, in which new data can lead to new theories, as a weapon against science as a whole. The strength of science is perceived as a weakness: Look, you changed your theory! We can't believe anything you say, you'll just change it next year! It's all garbage!
What do you suggest we do? As a scientist in a field closely related to evolution, I am not willing to let religion have a veto power over scientific research. But in the minds of much of the general public, and almost all of the fundamentalists, the sciences I mentioned above are all guesswork, if not the devil's work. You seem a reasonable sort, again, what do you suggest we do?
Perhaps a local university library might have a copy of the book you're looking for. You could borrow it instead of buying it.
If it's a conspiracy, it's not a grand one. The top biologists generally defer discussion of evolution because it is unrelated to their work. This is how it was explained to us at stockholder open house sessions. Competent biologists that really develop usable product have no desire to get snagged by evo bunk.
Actually, not as many numbers and big and little letters to label everything. However, quantum physics, realtivity, and string theory are not set in stone yet.
I can't recall you ever applauding rational thinking on this issue.
Yes, and there is ZERO, I repeat, ZERO evidence that 1. there is a God and 2. that he "designed" us according to his specifications.
Much of it had to happen during the flood, since the ark landed on a mountain that clearly could not have existed before. But the Bible does mention it in a casual manner. It was the "growth" of the earth that was ststed to occurr during the time of Peleg. There is no reason to discuss any of this in depth, since the material universe is not scheduled to last forever. There will be no need of it once the elect have their 'changed' bodies. The physical universe is merely an illusion of specific and temporary value. (except to the earth worshippers, but that is their problem)
But in fact it doesn't need to. Horses and donkeys have different chromosome counts. They produce viable offspring, mules. It's a little-known fact, but a small percentage of mules are actually fertile as well. Just google "fertile mule".
I don't have a problem with science changing its theories as new evidence comes in. I would expect that. I realize that it needs to be open to revision and you're correct about its greatest strength being perceived as its greatest weakness. I recently dealt with the old info issue when I made some comment on the fact (as I was taught it) that most mutations are harmful. I was informed that that was misinformation circulated by the creationists when in reality, that is what I was taught in high school biology. That is just a minor example of what I was getting at. I didn't say that because I was lying or pushing a creationist agenda; I just hadn't realized that that teaching had changed. Not everything that everyone posts here that is wrong is a deliberate attempt to misguide or deceive.
What bothers me some is that people who are skeptical of a current theory and express that skepticism, are sometimes, maybe often, ridiculed because of it. Then later the theory is modified or thrown out altogether and it turns out that those skeptics were correct in their skepticism in the first place.
But in the minds of much of the general public, and almost all of the fundamentalists, the sciences I mentioned above are all guesswork, if not the devil's work. You seem a reasonable sort, again, what do you suggest we do?
Someone else raised a similar issue on another thread about the problem of what happens with the data once it's published. When a special interest group takes a little data and runs with it, proclaiming it as fact to support their agenda (global warming comes to mind here), the general public has little way of knowing whether or not the info is being misused. It casts a bad reflection on science as a whole and not for any good reason.
But in the minds of much of the general public, and almost all of the fundamentalists, the sciences I mentioned above are all guesswork, if not the devil's work.I can't argue with that statement, although I'm not sure that that is true of most fundamentalists or not. The Christian circles that I've run in certainly don't fit that profile. (They include several public university science professors with at least one PhD in their field.) My guess is that in the field you're in, you are more likely to run into the fringe types than the general public types. I know an awful lot of Christians who are not interested in throwing out all of science just because they disagree with the ToE.
I would almost agree with the comment about religion having veto power over scientific research but what comes to mind is the whole stem cell debate and what science could end up like if it weren't for some moral constraints. But that's another issue.
Let me qualify this by saying that I recognise that this doesn't apply to everyone. I could get flamed from both sides on this. This is just a "IMO" type statement.I think what many people want in this debate is not that creation be taught *AS* science, (which it's not and can't be) but the issue be addressed in science classes. I don't perceive the basic idea of ID as anti-science but it does answer many questions that evolution can't. When people suggest that it be taught in a religion class it comes across as a brush off because everyone knows that religion is not going to be taught in school. I would also hazard a guess that most high school students are pretty aware of the debate and have formed their own opinions about it so it's not like addressing the issue would corrupt someone's science career.
I don't have a clue what to do about people's perception that science is all guesswork. Unfortunately, that is supported by the changing of theories and the occasional "Oops, look what we just discovered" in a serendipitous situation. I don't think there's much fighting that.
BTW, for all us OEC, the Flood could have happened much further back than 4,000 years or so. Perhaps you need to look further back.
What an absurd, myth-based statement. The purpose of the appendix is the same as it always has been: it stores a small colony of bacteria that are necessary to quickly repopulate the colon after a severe illnes kills them off and empties the whole canal. Otherwise, undigested food would quickly ferment to the point that the lactic acid would kill you. Lactic acid cannot digest your food properly, but it can burn your intestines.
I will try to add some comments in the morning, but--long day and the brain is moderately fried.
So, with that--It's late and I haven't shaved.
Good night all ===> Placemarker <===.
Technically, the law of faunal succession is the fact (basically the restriction of fossils to certain layers, the more modern ones looking more like modern animals), Darwin was the first to come up with a convincing explanation for it, now we include genetics as well.
Other theories should be allowed in the discussion including ID and Creation - Judaeo-Christian Creation.
ID is not a theory - there's no way to test it. Another way to say this is that ID is vacuous; there is no possible observation that can't be "explained" by saying "oh, that's just the way the designer did it."
On the other hand, strict literalist Biblical/Koranic creationism does make definite predictions. It was proven wrong decades before Darwin. (for example, there was no global flood, the order of appearance in Genesis doesn't match the fossil record)
Thank you. 'night from me, too. Too much shoveling from that nor'easter for me. I'm whipped.
In science class they're supposed to be taught what scientists have found out and what they have theorized.
The only dispute here is what is taught as science. If ID is taught in philosophy, rhetoric, history of science, etc, contexts, no problem.
The problem is lying to children by saying that ID is scientific.
BTW, what's so cold about science? I think it's one of the most exciting things that exists.
Great line-up. The variety is amazing. Isn't it? But to assume that they are related in a linear time-wise way is silly, as the article suggests.
Why is the *exact same* mutation responsible for the fact that people, chimps, gorillas and other great apes can't synthesize ascorbic acid (vitamin C)? The *exact same* error. How do I dare call it an error? Because if ONE base pair is inserted there is a functional gene for the missing enzyme needed for ascorbic acid synthesis.
If it's becuse of the hypothetical designer's version of code re-use, it really makes me wonder about his quality control program. If it's because of the Biblical "fall", I don't remember hearing about the other apes sinning. If it's because that stretch of DNA is especially vulnerable to mutation, it just pushes the question back - why should the great apes, and no-one else, have this particular DNA?
It might. I'd be especially interested in the ones with differently-shaped jaws. In particular, apes have more-or less parallel teeth along the side, whereas people have a more parabola-shaped jaw. Discussed here.
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.