Posted on 09/05/2011 5:17:21 PM PDT by SJackson
Republican presidential candidate Rick Perry said that evolution was “just a theory” and that it had “some gaps in it.”
Paul Krugman thinks that Republicans are dumb, knuckle-dragging Neanderthals. In the not-too-distant future he sees a Republican half-wit delivering his acceptance speech as presidential nominee at the convention in grunts, beating his chest, and bopping his wife over the head with the a club as he drags her on to the stage by her hair.
Writing in The New York Times, Krugman says, “One of these years the world’s greatest nation will find itself ruled by a party that is aggressively anti-science, indeed anti-knowledge.
And, in a time of severe challenges – environmental, economic, and more – that’s a terrifying prospect.”
Terrifying indeed. What’s more frightening then the prospect of a bunch of underdeveloped orangutans with their finger on the nuclear button? But saying that Republicans are anti-science is about as accurate as saying that democrats are anti-religion, and one wonders which is more outrageous: the prospect of a primitive party of Republicans getting control of government, or a Nobel-prize winning columnist in one of the world’s most authoritative newspapers writing broad generalities about how they’re unlettered buffoons who hate learning and science.
What seems even more outrageous is the fact that Krugman’s ire was piqued by Texas Governor and Republican presidential candidate Rick Perry’s comment that evolution was “just a theory” and that it had “some gaps in it.”
I am not a scientist. But beginning in about 1990, I started organizing an annual debate at Oxford University on science versus religion where the focus was almost always on evolution and which featured some of the world’s greatest evolutionists, like Richard Dawkins and the late John Maynard-Smith of the University of Sussex – then widely regarded as the leading evolutionary theorist. While I moderated the first few debates, I later participated in a debate against Dawkins at Oxford that he later denied ever took place, forcing us to post the full video of the debate online; in that video, it can be seen that Dawkins is not only the principal proponent of the science side, but actually loses the debate in a student vote. I later debated Dawkins again at the Idea City Convention at the University of Toronto, the video of which is likewise available online.
What I learned from these debates, as well as from reading extensively on evolution, is that evolutionists have a tough time defending the theory when challenged in open dialogue.
This does not mean that evolution is not true or that the theory is without merit or evidence. It does, however, corroborate what Perry said. Evolution is a theory. It has never been proven beyond the shadow of a doubt to be true.
Indeed, Dawkins and the late and celebrated Harvard paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould fiercely debated basic assumptions about evolution, with Gould arguing that the large gaps in the fossil record make a mockery of a theory of gradual evolution, which is why Gould advocated “punctuated equilibrium” – a variation on Darwinism in which evolution takes place in dramatic periods of change followed by long eons of stasis. Gould maintained this position precisely because, as Perry said, the theory of evolution has “some gaps in it” – in the case of the fossil record, quite literally.
No scientist has ever witnessed evolution directly; science itself says this is impossible given the vast amount of time needed for species to evolve.
Rather, evidence for evolution is found primarily in the fossil record, and evidence for natural selection stems from some famous contemporary observations. For example, prior to the Industrial Revolution, the vast majority of peppered moths (Biston betularia), which can produce light or dark offspring, were light in coloration.
However, with the rise in pollution during the Industrial Revolution, the lichens and trees against which the light-colored moths habitually hid from predators were darkened with soot, making the light-colored moths conspicuous to predatory birds and allowing the dark moths to survive.
A similar proof brought for natural selection is the Galapagos Finch, which Darwin theorized was originally a single species but over time changed very slowly in response to the demands of the environment.
For example, the large ground-finch had a big, powerful beak that seemed well-suited to cracking open seeds, while the vampire finch had a long, pointed beak, which allowed it to puncture the flesh of other birds and drink their blood. In each case, Darwin reasoned, beak shape had evolved over time to provide an adaptive advantage.
THE PROBLEM with both these observations is that they are manifestations of horizontal, rather than vertical, evolution, as they document how members of a species may change within the range of characteristics that they already possess. No new traits are generated. Vertical evolution, whereby natural selection can supposedly create entirely new structures, has yet to be directly observed and is thus a theory.
Other challenges remain regarding evolutionary theory, most notably the anthropic principle, which maintains that if the physical laws and constants governing our universe were even slightly different, we would not be here to notice it because the emergence of life could not have occurred.
The English cosmologist Sir Martin Rees argues in his book Just Six Numbers that the values of six numbers determine to a great degree many of the large- and small-scale properties of our universe, and if any of these were changed, even slightly, the universe might not exist at all.
The second number, epsilon, which is roughly .007, describes, roughly speaking, how durable matter is, because it tells us how much energy is required to separate an atom into its constituent particles. If epsilon were .006 – a difference of about 14% – the universe would consist entirely of hydrogen. No other elements would form, because the process of nuclear fusion could not occur. There would be no planets, very little light, no nebulae, no comets and certainly no life.
The value of epsilon is one of the most profound mysteries of the universe.
Nobel laureate Richard Feynman, in his typically flamboyant way, said of it: “It’s one of the greatest damn mysteries of physics: a magic number that comes to us with no understanding by man. You might say ‘the hand of God wrote that number...’” Many leading scientists, like Francis Collins – described by the Endocrine Society as “one of the most accomplished scientists of our time” – therefore believe that while evolution may indeed be an accurate theory regarding the rise of life, it still requires the guiding hand of a higher power in order to operate.
Indeed, Dawkins himself said in a famous interview with Ben Stein that the intelligent life in our universe may have come from “a higher intelligence” consisting of space aliens that seeded our planet with intelligent life.
IN THE final analysis, however, the biblical account of creation easily accommodates an evolutionary ascent, seeing as the narrative expressly relates that God created the mineral, the vegetable, the animal and finally human life forms in ascending order.
It would be wise of Krugman to remember that the very essence of science is to question, and that stifling doubt is a sin of which religion has been quite guilty in the past – one science should refrain from repeating in the present.
It is simply not true that there is some difference between "micro-" and "macro-" evolution, beyond the undisputed fact that one takes much longer times than the other.
But it's the same process, from beginning to end.
To put it another way, "micro-" and "macro-", like beauty, are in the eyes of the beholders.
As for "self assembly of the DNA molecule", (abiogenesis) that is not a scientific fact, it's not even a confirmed theory, it's just one unconfirmed hypothesis among several out there including panspermia (seeds from another world) and Intelligent Design (some being started and maintained it all.
Of these hypotheses, only abiogenesis has any hope of being tested scientifically, in a laboratory.
In fact, with known rates of DNA mutations -- whether helpful, harmful or of no effect -- comparing the DNAs of various species with each other shows common ancestors at just about the time periods confirmed by the fossil record.
So you'd have to work hard to imagine reasons for not accepting what the evidence suggests.
Easily? OK. Name one species that has evolved into another.
Hardly. DH has a PhD in Physics and is successful in his scientific career. He does not believe in evolution.
To put it another way, “micro-” and “macro-”, like beauty, are in the eyes of the beholders.”
Give us the mechanism for explaining the Darwinian evolution of one species to another. Saying Species 1 + Mutations + Changing Environment + Natural Selection + Time = Species 2, is not a mechanism.
Tell us which mutations occured, and why those particular mutations were of such benefit that each intermediate mutation allows the species to survive and predominate as the original species dies off. Explain the change in the environment that corresponds to the mutated species having an advantage. Starting from species 1, build the new genome mutation-by-mutation that results in the new species.
Or to make it easier perhaps, start with a fin and describe the mutations that eventually result in a leg and how all intermediate mutations were beneficial on the way from swimming to walking. Then you have a mechanism. Otherwise, it's just an assumption that changes/adaptations within a species can cross the gap to new life forms.
You don't even have to prove or demonstrate that they happened. Just use mind experiments.
I don't think evolutionists can describe such a path/mechanism that would be realistic even in their imagination.
I note first that you refused to answer my question: what is your definition of the word "species".
The evidence shows that every species -- however you wish to define the word -- evolved from many previous species, and that virtually all life on earth is related to some degree or another.
The degrees of relationship can be established by comparing DNAs.
And the results are mostly obvious -- great apes, for example are more closely related to each other than we are to, say, cows and horses, which are more closely related to us than we are to, say, spiders or slugs.
These relationships are confirmed by fossil records, which reveal many ancient species with all appearances of being ancestors of more recent fossils and modern species.
In short, DNA analysis confirms what the fossil record first suggested: the closer the match-ups the more recent the speciations.
None of which proves that any particular species evolved from any particular fossil species.
But it does confirm that evolution over millions of years can produce some pretty remarkable speciations.
For more details on the subject of speciation, you might start here.
Of course it is, and you are simply working your own mind overtime to deny what is obvious:
Evolution (whether "micro-" or "macro-") consists of two main confirmed observations = facts:
The only issue here is how many iterations of this process are we talking about, and when, exactly, do we define a new "species"?
By any definition the historical record on, for examples, dogs and cats, shows that just a few thousand generations can produce amazing new breeds, but do not produce new "species."
But if you could isolate one species for millions of generations, selecting each time for some special characteristic (i.e., adaption for cold climate), you would easily find that at some point the isolated species will no longer interbreed with other descendants of their common ancestors.
Hence a new "species".
Mudtiger: "Starting from species 1, build the new genome mutation-by-mutation that results in the new species."
The ancient records of "mutation-by-mutation" are readily available through DNA analyses showing where, exactly, are the differences between one species and another.
If you'd like a surprising example, consider the little Hirax and elephants, whose similar DNAs shows them as closer related than anyone had previously suspected.
Mudtiger: "Or to make it easier perhaps, start with a fin and describe the mutations that eventually result in a leg and how all intermediate mutations were beneficial on the way from swimming to walking.
Then you have a mechanism.
Otherwise, it's just an assumption "
Far more than "assumption," when there are many living examples of "intermediate" steps between swimming and walking, when the fossil record shows many more, and when DNA analyses show how closely related are characteristics of one particular species to another.
It is just these kinds of evidence which make evolution not just another scientific hypothesis, but a confirmed theory.
Mudtiger: "I don't think evolutionists can describe such a path/mechanism that would be realistic even in their imagination."
The natural world, including fossil records are chock full of examples of "intermediate steps."
These are exactly reflected in DNA analyses of modern species.
So what, exactly, is your problem?
Similarities in DNA can be used to support modular design as much as support common descent. Since many (most?) lifeforms carry out many of the same basic functions on molecular scale, it makes sense that they would have some DNA in common, whether designed or evolved. Intermediate steps may not be intermediates at all but created species that went extinct. The evidence is the same, it's just how does one interpret the evidence.
"My problem" is that no one has solved the details of the mechanism that explains which mutations occured in changing a fin to a leg (for example) and why each specific mutation imparts greater survivability so as to predominate. Just an assortment of general statements are offered.
And who said there is "nothing new under the sun"?
There's a term I never heard before -- "modular design."
No doubt some variation on the theme of "Intelligent Design."
One problem with "Intelligent Design" from a scientific perspective is that, difficult as Evolution may be to test and confirm, there is no scientific test which would "prove" ID.
It is simply the modern equivalent of ancient beliefs that "Thor" caused lightning, thunder and rain -- no way to disprove it, but decidedly a non-scientific claim.
Of course, the majority of Christians do believe that God had a hand in evolution, sure, possibly with direct intervention, but more likely God's very design of the Universe from the beginning included the feature that once conditions are right, life would arise on its own.
I call that "Intelligent Design", but it has nothing to do with replacing the Theory of Evolution with something else.
It simply says that God is the Master-Theorizer!
Mudtiger: ""My problem" is that no one has solved the details of the mechanism that explains which mutations occured in changing a fin to a leg..."
I'm not certain why that is important to you.
Presumably the process had many intermediate steps, of which only a percentage today can be identified.
How should some missing "intermediate" steps cause a problem with the theory?
Mudtiger: "Just an assortment of general statements are offered."
Sounds to me like a "target rich" field for further scientific investigation, for anyone with a good aptitude in science, and a strong disciplined mind.
Would that be you?
;-)
OK...lets go with the basics...the ability to interbreed and produce fertile offspring. I know there are some more precise definitions out there but since Darwin wrote "Origin of Species," that's essentially the definition he used, and the one I think most persons can generally agree upon
"The evidence shows that every species -- however you wish to define the word -- evolved from many previous species, and that virtually all life on earth is related to some degree or another. The degrees of relationship can be established by comparing DNAs....And the results are mostly obvious -- great apes, for example are more closely related to each other than we are to, say, cows and horses, which are more closely related to us than we are to, say, spiders or slugs."
What evidence? Just because all life is built of the same general materials is no more evidence of a common ancestor than it is of a common designer. One would no more say a saucepan evolved from a ladel which evolved from a tablespoon even though they appear to be variations on the same form and may be made of identical materials.
DNA is codified information; it's data, just like a binary digit or the English alphabet. The way that data is arranged and presented may be similar, but represent entirely different things.
Compare these two sentences:
Charles Darwin was a god of science.
Charles Darwin was a dog of science.
The data forms (i.e. letters) are 100% identical. Their arrangement shares well over 90% commonality. The only real similarity between the end state of the sentences however, and the information they convey is that they they were written by the same person (i.e. a common designer.)
"These relationships are confirmed by fossil records, which reveal many ancient species with all appearances of being ancestors of more recent fossils and modern species."
That is one interpretation of the fossil record. Many (apparently such as yourself) refuse to accept other interpretations simply by rejecting any other possibility apart from evolution at the outset. "None of which proves that any particular species evolved from any particular fossil species. But it does confirm that evolution over millions of years can produce some pretty remarkable speciations."
No. It proves that there has been a tremendous variety of life forms, some more similar than others. Nothing more. Nothing Less. You keep bringing up the subject of "years." If evolution is correct would it not be more productive to discuss in terms of "generations"? Yet, even rapidly multiplying, and simple organisms with rapid generational cycles have not been shown to "evolve," in a macro-evolutionary manner. No amoeba has demonstrably evolved into a paramecium. No fruitfly has ever evolved into an ant or a wasp, even though very deliberate efforts and experimentations have been conducted in an effort to encourage mutation (which, more often than not, makes an organism more vulnerable rather than more "fit"). Certainly on the "micro" level bacteria can develop drug resistance, and wrens with different beaks can take primacy in an ecosystem based on the availibility of food types...nonetheless you're fitting your theory to the evidence, rather than allowing the evidence to forge your theory. IMHO, that is the "unscientific" approach...
Show me a monkey that can talk...one that is the figurative ‘link’ between ape and man, and I’ll consider
the whole gamut of evolution....show me..
“Sounds to me like a “target rich” field for further scientific investigation, for anyone with a good aptitude in science, and a strong disciplined mind.”
Well, what it has been, and what I think it will continue to be, is just a lot of surmising and presuming. A bacterium can mutate for immunity (but remain a bacterium), a moth can select for a certain color (but remain a moth), therfore a fin can turn into a leg (and completely change body plan), gills can turn into lungs, the blind can see, the deaf can hear, just needs more time. But how, one asks? Well, by mutation and selection of course, nothing else needed for explanation. If you can walk to the mailbox, you can walk to Mars - just takes more time. Doesn’t take much of disciplined mind to practice that art. :)
Perhaps you should look in a mirror
How droll....wit has become a scarce commidity here lately......yawn....
Or to make it easier perhaps, start with a fin and describe the mutations that eventually result in a leg and how all intermediate mutations were beneficial on the way from swimming to walking. Then you have a mechanism. Otherwise, it's just an assumption that changes/adaptations within a species can cross the gap to new life forms.
First, let us take the case of the sea otter. Short flat tail, rear feet so modified that it can barely walk on land, if it ever chooses to do so, as well as having no musk glands and building no dens (which is unique among otters and badgers [it is classed as a mustelidae]). Does this qualify it as a distinct species, or not? If not, why not?
River otters and sea otter cannot interbreed, the qualification of a separate species (that I could find).
Second, cetaceans have a residual pelvis? Why? Since the only purpose of a pelvis is to support rear legs in a walking position, why does this formation still exist? If cetaceans didn't evolve from land mammals, what is the purpose of this skeletal item? (God fooling us?) Is it not evidence of a transitory form in continuing evolution. If not, why not?
Third, “Based on mitochondrial DNA found in fossils, all Hawaiian geese, living and dead, are closely related to the Giant Canada Goose.”
So, are they a separate species, or not? If not, why not? Can you 'prove it?'
Fourth, is the Polar bear a separate species? They are descended from the Brown bear, the Black Bear and the Grizzly, all of which interbreed freely with Polar bears. So, are they all one 'species?' If not, why not? And can you 'prove it?'
Or is this all a convenient human convention? If not, why not? And, can you 'prove it, either way?'
Finally, you said,
“"My problem" is that no one has solved the details of the mechanism that explains which mutations occured in changing a fin to a leg (for example) and why each specific mutation imparts greater survivability so as to predominate.”
To which I would rephrase: “"My problem" is that no one has solved the 'details of the mechanism' that explains the Resurrection”.
Good for the Goose, good for the Nene. What is in the details?
It was not a trick question, just important to establish whether your definition would be more-or-less scientific, or related to the biblical "kinds."
If "kinds", then we'd need to explore how a "kind" might differ from a species, genus, family, order, phylum, etc.
But since you chose the usual definition of interbreed-ability, we'll need to investigate when, exactly, a breed or sub-species "breaks away" from its parent species and now becomes a separate species of its own.
Consider, for example, the genus Equus which consists of eight living species of horses, zebras and, ahem, donkeys.
None of these species normally interbreed in nature, but can be forced to by humans with results that are sometimes viable, more often not.
So these species are right on the fine-line between separate and not-separate.
Now the fossil record shows us the earliest horse-like creature around 50 million years ago.
The first actual horse/zebra/donkey appears in the fossil record of 3.5 million years ago.
And, DNA analysis says the earliest common ancestor of all modern Equids lived around six million years ago.
So now we are seeing some rough idea of how long it takes for evolution of different breeds and sub-species to proceed so far they can no longer interbreed, and are therefore considered by scientists to be separate species.
But is there some precise dividing line between one "species" and a closely related sub-species?
No, instead there is a long period of overlap when breeds and sub-species could, at least in theory, get back together with their original populations.
During this long period, you might say, the sub-species are separated, but not yet "divorced." ;-)
Joe 6-pack: "Just because all life is built of the same general materials is no more evidence of a common ancestor than it is of a common designer. One would no more say a saucepan evolved from a ladel..."
Now, again, you are working your brain overtime to deny what should be perfectly obvious -- and why do that?
You have an extensive fossil record showing the earliest Equids slowly changing into modern species.
You have DNA analyses which confirm the degrees of separation suggested by fossils and careful taxonomy.
You have a pretty well-defined process of confirmed observations = facts, including 1) descent with modification and 2) natural selection.
So why work your brain up into a lather trying to imagine some completely undefined Designer is somehow working from a laboratory -- building and injecting new genes into old species to make them better adapted, and to create new species?
What sense does that make?
If you wish to imagine God involved (and most people do, rightly) then why not assume God is responsible for every allegedly "random" event along evolution's path?
Do you suppose God would want to shirk His responsibilities?
And why not suppose God is the Designer of the whole system, including alleged "randomness", and while we're at it, why not make His "laboratory" Nature itself?
In short, if you wish to imagine God in the System, why not see Him Designing and Directing what the System is obviously doing?
Joe 6-pack: "That is one interpretation of the fossil record.
Many (apparently such as yourself) refuse to accept other interpretations simply by rejecting any other possibility apart from evolution at the outset."
There are no other scientific interpretations, period.
What you are talking about are religion-inspired fantasies, and crude fantasies at that.
Joe 6-pack: "even rapidly multiplying, and simple organisms with rapid generational cycles have not been shown to "evolve," in a macro-evolutionary manner."
Amoebas have been evolving for billions of years.
Why would they suddenly change overnight into some new phylum?
I say there is no such thing as "macro-" evolution, because it is a false distinction, used only by anti-evolutionists in order to confuse themselves and others.
In reality, there is only shorter-term and longer-term evolution, and the longer the term, the greater the change potential.
In nature, a new sub-species (i.e., of zebras) may take hundreds of thousands of years to form.
A completely separate species (i.e., of Equids) could take a few million years to evolve.
A new genus or family (i.e., Equidae) might take tens of million years, and a new class (i.e., mammals) hundreds of millions.
A new phylum (i.e., cordates) could take a billion years in nature.
So there is no way that such things will happen in human laboratories over just a few generations.
What does happen in every generation is evolution, meaning 1) descent with modifications and 2) natural selection.
Over very long time periods, these small changes grow into new species, genera, orders, families, phylums, etc.
So I ask, what exactly is your problem with that?
Ummmm.... no- that is exactly what we DON'T have, duh. That is kind of our point.
We do not see millions of intermediate species. For example -we suddenyly eyes on all creatures- complete and functional. We don't see any intermediate things that turn into eyes. And we certain have no fossils of any intermediate species. (i.e. the missing link)
A creature that can "walk to the mailbox" could eventually walk across the continent.
A creature that can swim to the next island could eventually swim across the ocean.
A creature than can fly from tree to tree could eventually fly from northern to southern arctics.
And yes, a creature that can send its kind to the moon could eventually go to Mars, but certainly not under our current political leadership. ;-)
Mudtiger: "Doesn’t take much of disciplined mind to practice that art."
And you propose what, exactly, to replace it?
Do you imagine some Designer working in His laboratory, every few million years creating new sets of DNA which He somehow injects into old species, causing them to transform and advance towards the varieties we find today?
And you call that "science"?
That's not science, it's not even true religion, it's just wild & rambling imagination.
Where is Right Wing Professor when we need him?
When Biologists discovered that those different species birds Darwin claimed evolved into different species were caught breeding successfully right under the observing biologist noses...there should have been a clue that a key part of evolution, notably the definition of species is squishy. I particularly like the successful mating of a Pseudo Orca and a Bottle Nose Dolphin resulting in a fertile off spring. Apply this same set of circumstances to the Global Warming junk.
Crappy definitions, crappy predictive value...ergo crappy theory.
Global Warming...no wait Global Climate CHANGE..a time period too long to hold anyone responsible for crappy predictions...
Natural selection is the theory...”evolution” is the observation. Bones don’t show the species, only the similar morphology. I’m sure molecular biology will eventually be able to do a run back on the collective species and maybe map which bones belong to what DNA, but the bottom line is: if you have a crappy definition over time of species, I am not sure you can have an argument that involves reason. If you do not have consistent definitions, it is inappropriate to apply the tools of reason.
You can argue, but what you are arguing is strictly belief based. It is not epistemologically sound.
Mr. Professor...it is time to come out of hiding!
DK
There are literal mountains of fossil evidence for you to see, if you are willing to look.
Mr. K: "We do not see millions of intermediate species.
For example -we suddenyly eyes on all creatures- complete and functional.
We don't see any intermediate things that turn into eyes.
And we certain have no fossils of any intermediate species. (i.e. the missing link)"
The only reason you don't see is because you refuse to open your eyes -- it's all there.
We can begin with the fact that every species is or was "intermediate" between what went before and what may have come after.
And remains of old intermediate species are found not only in fossils, but also in DNA and even in the growth of embryos.
So intermediates are everywhere.
And if that doesn't satisfy you, then you need to begin by asking yourself just how, exactly, you personally define the word "species", and how do species relate to breeds and sub-species on the one hand, plus biological genera, families, orders, classes, etc. on the other?
And the reason that's important is because evolution normally makes small changes over shorter time periods and larger changes over much longer times.
So we're talking circa a million years for a new species, but tens of millions between biological orders.
Mr. K: "For example -we suddenyly eyes on all creatures- complete and functional.
We don't see any intermediate things that turn into eyes."
In fact, there are many "intermediate" eyes in nature, beginning with just a few cells which are sensitive to light, and including various primitive eyes, all the way to the most complex eyes on predators.
So, if you don't see them, it's because you haven't looked.
Mr K: "And we certain have no fossils of any intermediate species. (i.e. the missing link)"
All fossils are of "missing links" until they are found -- then, surprise, they are no longer "missing."
If you wish an example, there are fossils of about two dozen pre-human type creatures going back in time from Neanderthals to our common ancestors with other apes.
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.