Posted on 06/24/2005 4:07:28 AM PDT by PatrickHenry
Do these discussions about evolution always have to devolve into sarcastic comments and speeches about how anyone who questions evolution must be an anti-science religious zealot? Either help answer the questions or don't, but it looks like narrow-mindedness on the part of some posters here who believe the theory of evolution that they must dismiss anyone who dares ask questions about it. If you have some helpful sources to read, please post them. I've looked at some of the links you posted before and found some of it helpful and useful, and some of it sullied with angry rhetoric. I don't really care what some scientists think about religious people or the Bible. I am interested in their research on the subject of evolution.
Sure, any basic science book that discusses the Scientific Method, pick one.
W.K.
First, I made no comparison to Physics, I simply and straightforwardly applied the Scientific Method to the "theory of evolution" (which so far it has failed); therefore, this whole diatribe is mute, but does expose evolutions true weakness. As I have stipulated all along; evolution, exposed to the light of the Scientific Method, forces evolutionists into this usual copout => in other words, don't hold us to the same standard as real science.
Thank you, you just made my point for me. Evolution is bad science and self-admittedly can not stand up to the scrutiny of true science.
W.K.
W.K.
Still waiting for the "theory"
You replied:
What do you think I'm asking for sources to read for?
Sorry, that's an inadequate response. I've seen too many people come into these threads, ask questions as if they cared to learn, and when the answer is provided, they ignore it and launch into some kind of wild anti-rational rant. If you're not one of those, then life is unfair, because I've seen so many of those that I'm reluctant to waste the time providing information to people who have already made up their minds that evolution is bogus and I'm doing the devil's work or something. If you had responded differently, I would have reacted differently.
From your post 201:
Do these discussions about evolution always have to devolve into sarcastic comments and speeches about how anyone who questions evolution must be an anti-science religious zealot? Either help answer the questions or don't, but it looks like narrow-mindedness on the part of some posters here who believe the theory of evolution that they must dismiss anyone who dares ask questions about it. I
If you knew the experience I've had around here, you'd have a better appreciation for the apprehension with which I approach questions like yours. That's why I specifically asked if a link to the information would make any difference to you. If it won't, then why bother? And if I've judged you unfairly, you can thank hundreds of rabid creationists who have trained me.
Don't you think this is a problem with the whole discussion of evolution, that those who support evolution are suspicious and hostile towards people who ask questions about it? Again, don't bother answering and wasting both our time. I will look elsewhere for information about evolution, from people who have some legitimate sources for study, and not just smarmy comments to offer. Frankly, it makes me think you don't know the answers.
I'll be responding in short segments.
Here's what's wrong with Behe:
http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/design2/article.html
scroll to Behe, since it's a general article.
Thanks for the link. I'm reading it.
All I had to do was hit the "post" button and this popped into mind...
Here ya go:
Curiosities of Biological Nomenclature: Puns
http://home.earthlink.net/~misaak/taxonomy/taxPuns.html
Agra vation
Enema pan
Ba humbugi
...and a swarm of others
First you ask for the Theory of Evolution.
I post the short, simple and sweet version of the ToE and you respond by claiming that what I posted was a process, not a theory.
I then post a more lengthy and complete (at the time Futayama published his book) version of the theory. You then claim that it is too complex and conditional for your taste in theories.
"A hypothesis should be simple (not complex), elegant (not convoluted), short and sweet. The post is none of the above. "
Just to remind lurkers of what I posted:
____________________________________________
Major Tenets of the Evolutionary Synthesis
The principal claims of the Evolutionary Synthesis are the foundations of modern evolutionary biology. They are known collectively as the Synthetic Theory, and serve as a synopsis of much of contemporary evolutionary theory. Many of these points have been extended,exemplified, clarified, or modified since the 1940s. Although some authors have challenged or even rejected some of these principles, the vast majority of evolutionary biologists today accept them as valid and use them as a foundation for evolutionary research. Subsequent chapters of this book will present evidence bearing on these points.
1. The phenotype (observed physical characteristics) is different from the genotype (the set of genes carried by an individual), and the phenotypic differences among individual organisms can be due partly to genetic differences and partly to direct effects of the evironment.
2. Environmental effects on an individual's phenotype do not affect the genes passed on to its offspring. That is, acquired characteristics are not inherited. However, the environment may affect the expression of an organism's genes.
3. Hereditary variations are based on particles--genes--that retain their identity as they pass through the generations; genes do not blend with other genes. This is true not only of those genes that have discrete effects on the phenotype (e.g., brown vs. blue eyes), but also of those that contribute to continuously varying traits (e.g., body size, intensity of pigmentation). Variation in continuously varying traits is largely based on several or many discrete genes, each of which affects the trait slightly (polygenic inheritance).
4. Genes mutate, usually at a fairly low rate, to alternative forms (alleles). The phenotypic effects of such mutations can range all the way from undetectable to very great. The variation that arises by mutation is amplified by recombination among alleles at different loci.
5. Environmental factors (e.g., chemicals, radiation) may affect the rate of mutation, but they do not preferentially direct the production of mutations that would be favorable in the organism's specific environment.
Points 1-5 were important early contributions to the Synthetic Theory from laboratory genetics.
6. Evolutionary change is a populational process: it entails, in its most basic form, a change in the relative abundances (proportions) of individual organisms with different genotypes (and hence, often, with different phenotypes) within a population (see Figure 2.2). Over the course of generations, the proportion of one genotype may gradually increase, and it may eventually entirely replace the other type. This process may occur within only certain populations, or in all the populations that make up a species (see point 11).
7. The rate of mutation is too low for mutation by itself to shift an entire population from one genotype to another. Instead, the change in genotype proportions within a population can occur by either of two principal processes: random fluctuations in proportions (random genetic drift) or nonrandom changes due to the superior survival and/or reproduction of some genotypes compared to others (natural selection). Natural selection and random genetic drift can operate simultaneously.
8. Even a slight intensity of natural selection can (under certain circumstances) bring about substantial evolutionary change in a relatively short time. Very slight differences between organisms can confer slight differences in survival or reproduction; hence natural selection can account for slight differences among species, and for the earliest stages of evolution of new traits.
Points 6-8 were among the major contributions of the mathematical theory of population genetics.
9. Selection can alter populations beyond the original range of variation by increasing the proportion of alleles that, by recombination with other genes that affect the same trait, give rise to new phenotypes. (This point is a contribution from genetic studies of agriculturally based plant and animal breeding.)
10. Natural populations are genetically variable: the individuals within populations differ genetically and include natural genetic variants of the kind that arise by mutation in laboratory stocks.
11. Populations of a species in different geographic regions differ in characteristics that have a genetic basis. The genetic differences among populations are often of the same kind that distinguish individuals within populations. A genotype that is rare in one population may be predominant in another.
12. Experimental crosses between different species, and between different populations of the same species, show that most of the differences between them have a genetic basis. The difference in each trait is often based on differences in several or many genes (i.e., it is polygenic), each of which has a small phenotypic effect. This finding provides evidence that the differences between species evolve by small steps rather than by single mutations with large phenotypic effects.
13. Natural selection occurs in natural populations at the present time, often with considerable intensity.
Points 9-13 were contributions from those geneticists, most of whom had a background in natural history, who studied natural populations.
14. Differences among geographic populations of a species are often adaptive (hence, are the consequence of natural selection), because they are frequently correlated with relevant environmental factors.
15. Organisms are not necessarily different species just because they differ in one or more phenotypic characteristics; phenotypically different genotypes often are members of a single interbreeding population. Rather, different species represent distinct gene pools, which are groups of interbreeding or potentially interbreeding individuals that do not exchange genes with other such groups. This reproductive isolation of species is based on certain genetically determined differences between them. (This is one version of the biological species concept.) Hence, even a mutation that causes substantial change in some phenotypic feature does not necessarily represent the origin of a new species.
16. Nevertheless, there is a continuum in degree of differentiation of populations, with respect to both phenotypic difference and degree of reproductive isolation, from barely differentiated populations to fully distinct species. This observation provides evidence that an ancestral species differentiates into two or more different species by the gradual accumulation of small differences rather than by a single mutational step.
17. Speciation--the origin of two or more species from a single common ancestor--usually occurs through the genetic differentiation of geographically segregated populations. Geographic segregation is required so that interbreeding does not prevent incipient genetic differences from developing.
18. Among living organisms, there are many gradations in phenotypic characteristics among species assigned to the same genus, to different genera, and to different families or other higher taxa. This observation is interpreted as evidence that higher taxa arise through the prolonged, sequential accumulation of small differences, rather than through the sudden mutational origin of drastically new "types."
Points 14-18 were contributed chiefly by systematists and naturalists who studied particular taxonomic groups.
19. The fossil record includes many gaps among quite different kinds of organisms, as well as gaps between possible ancestors and descendants. Such gaps can be explained by the incompleteness of the fossil record. But the fossil record also includes examples of gradations from apparently ancestral organisms to quite different descendants. Together with point 18, this leads to the conclusion that the evolution of large differences proceeds by many small steps (such as those that lead to the differentiation of geographic populations and closely related species). Hence we can extrapolate from the genesis of small differences to the evolution of large differences among higher taxa, and can explain the latter by the same principles that explain the evolution of populations and species.
20. Consequently, all observations of the fossil record are consistent with the foregoing principles of evolutionary change (although they do not prove that these mechanisms provide a necessary and sufficient explanation). There is no need to invoke, and in some instances there is evidence against, non-Darwinian hypotheses such as Lamarckian mechanisms, orthogenetic evolution, vitalism ("inner drives"), or abrupt origins by major mutations.
Points 19 and 20 were among the contributions of paleontologists.
D.J. Futuyma. 1997. Evolutionary biology 3rd ed. Sinauer Associates, Sunderland, Massachussetts.
____________________________________________
Then I post a response from a biologist in the field, explaining that biology is a fluid science. Your response is that biology is asking for a special definition because it fails at being scientific.
"As I have stipulated all along; evolution, exposed to the light of the Scientific Method, forces evolutionists into this usual copout => in other words, don't hold us to the same standard as real science."
At the same time I post a short quip from Feynman (who was a leading physicist) that shows physics is not as straight forward as you demand. You then claim that it was just another attempt to obscure evolution's failure.
"Just more attempted justification why evolution cannot stand up to the rigors of the Scientific Method.
Yet if you consider the Theory of Gravitaion you find that it is also a messy, complex and conditional theory.
Perhaps the problem does not lie with the Theory of Evolution but with your naive insistence on an overly simplistic grade school version of the Scientific Method?
I have no doubt that you will in the future. There will be no shortage of opportunities to try. ;->
I'm glad you found it useful. I got the link from PatrickHenry's "List o'Links" and thought it had a good analysis and dispassionate tone.
Let's see the response from Cinnamon Girl who appears to like Behe's work.
which you might be interested in. I would like to see a response to the response to the response when it comes.
Here's a quote from Miller: Living cells are filled, of course, with complex structures whose detailed evolutionary origins are not known. Therefore, in fashioning an argument against evolution one might pick nearly any cellular structure, the ribosome for example, and claim – correctly – that its origin has not been explained in detail by evolution.
This seems to be part of the semantic issue that Miller and Behe are disputing: what is meant by "irreducibly complex" and, according to Dembski's response, Miller's TTSS issue did not explain how the flagellum evolved. That the TTSS could exist on it's own doesn't answer the question.
I certainly can't understand everything that is being discussed in these essays, although I am trying. But what I think is valuable about Miller's above quote, and this one:I do not believe, even for an instant, that Darwin's vision has weakened or diminished the sense of wonder and awe that one should feel in confronting the magnificence and diversity of the living world. Rather, to a person of faith it should enhance their sense of the Creator's majesty and wisdom (Miller 1999).
-- is that Miller doesn't entirely dismiss what the "creationists" or "IDers" are saying. Still, both he and Behe and Dembski are operating on a hypothesis that they each fall back on to fill in the blanks.
What is admirable is being open to discussion and new information, and not slamming the door angrily at anyone who challenges a long held belief. As Stephen J. Gould said in "The Mismeasure of Man": "But science's potential as an instrument for identifying the cultural constraints upon it cannot be fully realized until scientists give up the twin myths of objectivity and inexorable march toward truth. One must, indeed, locate the beam in one's own eye before interpreting correctly the pervasive motes in everybody else's. The beams can then become facilitators, rather than impediments."
Incorrect, I applied the Scientific Method to your "short, simple and sweet version" and proved it was not a theory at all but in point of fact merely an observation and an observation that is possibly not universally correct. I never called it a process; therefore, you have misrepresented the facts. Additionally, my assessment was in fact correct and you have been unable to refute it. Claiming something to be true, does not make it so. If you have a logical proof that invalidates my assessment, I would be more than happy to discuss it with you. You are 0 for 1.
I then post a more lengthy and complete (at the time Futayama published his book) version of the theory. You then claim that it is too complex and conditional for your taste in theories.
Incorrect, the very title of the post is "Major Tenets of the Evolutionary Synthesis" and makes no claims to a theory at all. Also, I reasonably, logically and systematically listed the deficiencies in the post; the salient point is these were the "tenets"; (tenets = beliefs) of the supposed "theory of evolution". There wasn't a recognizable theory anywhere in the post; which I believe I made apparent. I never made the claim it was too complex; as you state above. The part of the post you are referring to was a suggestion (operative word was should be) to encourage and help you to actually come up with a usable theory we could discuss. The fact you wished to ignore my suggestion was not unexpected; your twisting what I posted was dishonest. The following is what I actually posted:
A hypothesis should be simple (not complex), elegant (not convoluted), short and sweet. The post is none of the above.
Additionally, I will only add this; the more times you use the following words in relationship to a theory or hypothesis, the farther you are away from a correct/scientifically accurate hypothesis or theory. These are the words this author used, I just copied and pasted them; many, majority, can be, partly, may affect x 2, is largely based, slightly, usually, can range, preferentially, would be, relative, may gradually, may eventually, may occur, can occur, random, some, can operate, can bring, can confer, can account, can alter, may be, most, often x 4, several, provides, most, frequently, not necessarily, one version, ...etc... I stopped at point 14 as it became obvious that there is a lot of guess work in this post, based largely on supposition and assumption. Of course you are free to disagree. If there is a hypothesis or theory anywhere in there, I missed it, but I know you will point it out for me; when you do, please keep in mind the Scientific Method definition of a good hypothesis.
Cheers, WhiteKnight
I stand by this posting, which I believe is a valid argument refuting your further attempt at trying to come up with a "theory of evolution". Once again, as you were unable to come up with a rational, reasoned response to contradict my post. You are attempting to spin what I posted, which is intellectually dishonest of you. I expected more. This makes you 0 for 2.
Then I post a response from a biologist in the field, explaining that biology is a fluid science. Your response is that biology is asking for a special definition because it fails at being scientific.
Incorrect, I straightforwardly and logically made the point that if evolution wishes to be taken seriously it should comply (like all valid sciences) with the Scientific Method. I made no claims regarding the science of biology. Nor do I require a special definition for anything nor did I claim biology as being unscientific. The Scientific Method is the template and should be applied indiscriminately to all theories. Theories pass or fail on their own merit. The fact this bothers you is telling. Your claim of what I posted is misleading and intellectually dishonest. This makes you 0 for 3. As all can see there is no mention of the science of biology anywhere in the following post nor any claim of a special definition (counter to your claim) and as you were unable to logically refute the claim, I again must assume it to be correct.
"As I have stipulated all along; evolution, exposed to the light of the Scientific Method, forces evolutionists into this usual cop-out => in other words, don't hold us to the same standard as real science."
At the same time I post a short quip from Feynman (who was a leading physicist) that shows physics is not as straight forward as you demand. You then claim that it was just another attempt to obscure evolution's failure.
Incorrect, I never made any claims about the science of physics nor whether it is straight forward (whether it is or not is unimportant). What is important is whether or not theories in this area of science pass the rigors of the Scientific Method and most do. Those that don't are discarded. This makes you 0 for 4. You are spinning and misleading, without any attempt at a valid argument against what I posted. Also, it isn't my claim against your "theory", I am just applying the Scientific Method; the outcome is determined by that standard (as are all real scientific theories). Come on man, at least attempt to quote me correctly. By the way, for those lurking, here is what I posted (note not one word about physics):
"Just more attempted justification why evolution cannot stand up to the rigors of the Scientific Method."
I stand by this statement.
Yet if you consider the Theory of Gravitation you find that it is also a messy, complex and conditional theory.
I don't agree with this assessment, but whether it is messy or not, it (unlike the "theory of evolution") stands up to the rigors of the Scientific Method. So your point here is mute.
Perhaps the problem does not lie with the Theory of Evolution but with your naive insistence on an overly simplistic grade school version of the Scientific Method?
Having received over 10 posts from you and still not having seen your "theory of evolution"; it is difficult to determine whether there is or isn't a problem with your "theory of evolution". My guess is there probably is a snag or you would be more forthcoming. Lastly, if your theory cannot even past the rigors of (how did you put it?) my "overly simplistic grade school version of the Scientific Method"; what does that say about your theory?? hmmmmmmmmmmmmm?? probably not a very good theory.
Still waiting for your "theory of evolution" complicated or otherwise. At your service, the WhiteKnight
You have hit on their dirty little secret. There is no "Theory of Evolution". It is religion, and nothing more. That may explain their contempt for "religious" people. It is not uncommon for true-believers of one religion to hate those who practice other religions.
Here's my take:
I switched my college major to genetics back in the days of Watson and Crick.
There is a sense of awe associated with learning the details of how Creation works. New nifty bits regularly fall into place.
There is no way I will ever believe that God was just playing around and that all this is meaningless beyond the few words of Genesis. The order and beauty of the stars must also be true for the starfish.
To me, irreducible complexity is arrogance personified and a literal interpretation of Genesis, without accounting for human error and misinformation, is hubris.
These are my beliefs and are not meant to challenge yours, just to inform you as to where I am coming from. I do not proselytize, but I do try to make information in my field comfortably available to others.
As for why scientists have not elaborated on the myriad complex biological systems...we come down to earth with a thump. Simply, it costs too much money.
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.