quote: For one thing, the existence of God has not been contradicted by science, but that does not make it a fact.
Well, you really should make a big distinction between things that haven't been disproven (such as the existance of some kind of supernatural beings) and things that not only haven't been disproven but also have a whole lot of evidence backing them up (such as evolution).
You can't compare the two as being similarly factual or theoretical, as they are clearly not.
Also, you should consider the possibility that things that have no evidence backing them up (such as some kind of supernatural beings) can be considered "theories" at all, or whether, without any evidence, they fall off the scientific scale completely into "fantasy".
Can anything be proven not to exist? There are pixies inside my computer... they're just invisible, silent, emit no radiation, and have no other means of communication.
I think that the use of the word "fact" with regards to the statements given in the document is quite applicable. If you put "theory" at one end of the scale and "fact" at the other, then place these four statements on the scale, they would fall close to "fact".
Posts: 8473 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think 'wild guesswork' is a better name for the other end of the scale on which 'fact' is the "we're-sure-of-this" end. 'Theory' in the scientific sense is actually quite close to fact.
BlackBlade, the discussion can certainly be postponed a little. For evidence of what you call 'macro-evolution', and you should note that this is not a good term for a factual discussion because it doesn't actually define where the border lies, I would suggest some of these :
Evidence that all organisms lie in a nested hierarchy of descent. Evidence that humans and the great apes have a common ancestor. (A subset of the above, to be sure.) A demonstration in principle that the jump from single-celled to multi-celled is possible; similarly for the transition from 'blob' to 'creature with organs and limbs'. I think you'll agree that given these, minor stuff like the transition from water to air is a doddle. You'll note, I don't think it necessary to show what actually occurred when these transitions took place; all I desire is proof that it could have happened without intelligent interference. That's all that's needed, in my opinion, to make evolution the simlest possible explanation, and therefore preferable. You may disagree. A similar demonstration for the transition from non-life to life.
I don't think I particularly want to produce all of these in one thread, but I'm prepared to argue any one of them; take your choice. Or you could pick one of your own.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
That all life on earth is a single family is evident to everyone who cares to study it. The evidence is overwhelming. Those who hold out against it all seem to be motivated by a fear that God would not exist if evolution were true. To me it seems a great lack of faith, to believe that God is so limited that he can't exist, or wouldn't be needed, or would be sidelined as unimportant, or something of the sort, if evolution were true. God has no such restrictions!
Posts: 6246 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
It's a shame that so many of the people in American who claim to be educators are more than willing to throw out education in favor of religious teaching.
Posts: 3950 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
MightyCow, I'm not sure what you are trying to say.
Tresopax,
quote:This document would be excellent except for one word:
quote:We agree that the following evidence-based facts about the origins and evolution of the Earth and of life on this planet have been established by numerous observations and independently derived experimental results from a multitude of scientific disciplines.
The things they list are not facts. The statement says "science has never contradicted" them, which is true - but not all things that science hasn't contradicted are facts. For one thing, the existence of God has not been contradicted by science, but that does not make it a fact.
Also, note that it says science "focuses" on (i) observing the natural world and (ii) formulating testable and refutable hypotheses to derive deeper explanations for observable phenomena. It does not say that science is "limited" to these things, which leaves an opening for intelligent design to be considered a scientific issue even if it is untestable.
For these reasons, I think this statement says very little that directly contradicts the beliefs I suspect it is attempting to refute - with the exeption of the word "facts". And the use of that word is definitively wrong in this case. Numbers 1-4 are not facts because we aren't certain they are true. They are arguably well-supported theories. For that reason, this statement is more rhetoric than a direct refutation of anything.
I don't so much see a refutation as a policy statement. Nowhere in here do they say that you shouldn't teach other theories, in fact. It does say that teaching young earth is contrary to fact. Did you miss that part or were you just going for the bigger picture?
I think they are stating that the facts should be taught, and they list a few that should be included. At least that's how I read it.
It would have implications for the ability to teach creationism, and at least some versions of ID (those that include a young-earth component).
At any rate, I could see this being used to counter one specific tactic of people who try to get creationism taught in schools. When they say things about a lot of scientists disagree with evolution, the stated position of several national academies can be brought into the discussion.
Will it matter? I don't know. But it's better than trying to enumerate the scientists pro and con.
I could still see a school board trying to get creationism into the science classes, but it would also be interesting to see teachers and text books reference this piece and go through the reasons behind the half-dozen statements here as part of the block on evolution/creationism. Just as it would in a block on just evolution.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:It does say that teaching young earth is contrary to fact.
Yes, but as I said, calling that a "fact" is the one part of this statement that is definitively wrong. It is not a "fact" that the Earth is approximately 4.6 billion years old. That is a theory.
They need to remove the word "fact" from this statement in order to make it accurate.
quote:At any rate, I could see this being used to counter one specific tactic of people who try to get creationism taught in schools. When they say things about a lot of scientists disagree with evolution, the stated position of several national academies can be brought into the discussion.
Yes, but I'm sure the other side will produce a similar letter by some other group of scientists that will give their perspective in just the same way. I don't think a war of policy statements will be very effective, because all it really amounts to is two sides each stating what they personally think science has and has not contradicted. Unless there is some argument, refutation, or evidence being added to discussion, I don't think much substance is being added to the debate. I'd actually rather see the pros and cons, because that at least is evidence. My suspicion is that if the debate is engaged in personal opinions and policy statements, rather than evidence, then creationists and other groups will win.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
What I don't understand is who this is supposed to convince. Those who already accept the authority of science don't need this; and those who do not will ignore it.
And those who agree that evolution is likely and supported by quite a bit of evidence, but who do not approve of the smug condescension of the statement . . . well, we'll agree with Tres, somewhat to our surprise. Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: Evidence that all organisms lie in a nested hierarchy of descent. Evidence that humans and the great apes have a common ancestor. (A subset of the above, to be sure.)
I could accept either of these as evidence of macro evolution. An entire hierarchy to me seems a complete impossibility. While we do have todays animals to work with combined with what fossils are still preserved in the earth, that by itself to me still leaves the vast majority of such a hierarchy, impossible to reconstruct. But realistically a complete hierarchy is not neccesary. Finding even just ONE species that can be completely traced back to its primordial ancestors (an incredible feat in of itself) would suffice for me. Though really one would just need to work back far enough until they found the common ancestor for an entire "family". If you could work back to family (I am speaking in terms of taxonomy) I would be almost totally convinced. If you worked back to "Order," that would clinch it for me for sure.
As for finding a common ancestor between apes and humans. Though very difficult, and I would be very skeptical of any proof of this,(scientists have several times gotten ahead of themselves in declaring the missing link found), that would show to me that macro evolution "does" take place.
I am not too happy about this post, and I might need to edit if for clarity or factual mistakes.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
That you continue to misunderstand what a scientist means (or what common usage is, for that matter) for 'fact' does not surprise me, Tres. Most people find a definition of fact appropriate that has uses outside philosophical considerations.
Other quaint things scientists would consider facts that are at best theories under your construction include the existence of a physical earth, that fish are commonly found in water, and that most humans have toes.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
All right, BlackBlade, I believe I can convince you of the human-ape common ancestry. Not with fossils, but with genetic evidence. Probably not until tomorrow, though - busy day today.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
I really didn't see the statement as smug condescension. Could you give examples of what tripped that trigger?
Tres,
I have a bit more sympathy for your position than I have expressed in the last couple of posts here. The concern of yours that I share is that these statements may not all be on as firm a footing as is implied, and so if a true debate on all the issues is held suddenly this unified scientific pronouncement could unravel in a series of precise and esoteric statements of what are, essentially, quibbles of importance mainly to other scientists.
From a lay perspective, however, that kind of thing really does make the consensus nature of scientific fact look like less than it really is, and allows some to equate it with irrational belief based on something other than empiricism mixed with logical induction.
I believe, however, that the level of debate in most school board settings is far below the level of debate here at Hatrack. The cynical side of me agrees that if both sides can bring "scientists" forward (and all "scientists" are given equal weight in the public's eye) then this is just the opening salvo in a new round of bitter feuding.
The less cynical side of me says that if the discussion is at the level of competing "experts" then there really is value in having this many national academies weighing in on the issue. That a school board would have to be acting contrary to reason to base their decision on "what the experts say" and give this statement no more weight than the contrary word of a few scientists, many not from relevant fields.
In other words, I don't think we're discussing it at that level, but I think the discussion does take place at that level in many settings where it could have a real impact on what gets taught in schools. And if that is the case, then I think this document serves a purpose that I fully support.
Whether it can be attacked from a "philosophy of science" viewpoint is going to be largely irrelevant in the places where I suspect the authors were hoping to have an impact.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
A couple of quick points, some of which I've made in other discussions in this forum.
First, knowledge doesn't have to be complete for a theory to be accepted as fact. The truth is none of our scientific knowledge is complete, but that doesn't stop us from using what we do know.
For example, you all remember the scientific model for chemistry from high school where atoms are drawn like little mini-solar systems with the nucleus in the center and electrons obiting around it. The model works well to explain chemical reactions, but it falls apart and fails to explain electricity and electronics. For that we use the 'tinker toy' model of covalent bonds; and it works just fine to explain electricity, yet it fails to explain chemical reactions.
But, and this is a very big BUT, we are perfectly able to predict chemical reations and use that knowledge to create pretty much everything around us. Despite our flawed knowledge, we are able to use chemistry effectively.
Further, we are able to apply electricity and electronic without a problem. But again, our knowledge of how and why electricity works is incomplete.
In the field of Physics, Einstein was searching for the 'unified field theory', it was the theory that explained all the unexplainable aspects of Physics. Despite our deep and ancient knowledge of Physics, our knowledge is flawed, we can't explain everything. But we know physics well enough to apply in a practical sense.
As to Evolution, it can be demonstrated in several ways. It can be demonstrated sufficiently to put it on a scientific level near chemistry, electricity, and physics. Yes, it has holes, but so does all our other science. Yet, knowing that our knowledge is incomplete does not stop us from applying the science in practical ways.
Personally, when I want to verify evolution for my self, I just look at the entire history of statistics for the Olympic competitions. There was a time when the four minute mile was thought impossible, yet now it is pretty much standard. Mark Spitz Olympic swimming records, which were phenomenal in their time, have now all been substantially broken.
When we finally find the 'Unified Theory of Everything', the theory the units all of chemistry, electricity, and physics, and once that theory has been tested and proven, then it will be accepted as fact, until some greater, grander, and if not provable, then at least demonstratable theory comes along.
That is the nature of science, to convert abstract thinking into accepted reality but a verifiable scientific method.
Evolution, doesn't provide us with all the answers, but it provides us with enough to accept what we do know, and to apply what we know scientifically.
The 'Intelligent Design' crowd could just as well say that space aliens seeded the earth with the 'spark of life' or the 'spark of intelligence' at a critical stage in our development. Of course, they must be an infinitely patient and exceptionally long lived group to have observered their little bio/terra-forming experiment for a billion years or so.
By the way, scientists have actually considered that our world was created by some outside force, some 'intelligent design', however, they, as of yet, have not found a shred of evidence to support it.
Most 'Intelligent Design' theorists spend all their time telling the world why Evolution is wrong, and doing very little to prove scientifically and verifiably and demonstratably why they are instead right.
quote:A similar demonstration for the transition from non-life to life.
I know that you did not want to get into too many tangents, KoM, but this is the point that I would be most interested in learning about.
Posts: 364 | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Bob_Scopatz: MightyCow, I'm not sure what you are trying to say.
I'm trying to say that the school boards which want to teach creation in school should not call themselves educators, they should call themselves preachers. The board of religious beliefs perhaps, but not the board of education.
Maybe this paper is a good thing. The people who don't actually know much about life on earth might be swayed by a whole bunch of important people telling them what to think. Fight appeal to authority with another appeal to authority.
Posts: 3950 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
That IAP statement used phrases like “evidence-based facts” and “independently derived experimental results.” Then in statement # 1 it said, “. . . earth formed approximately 4.5 billion years ago . . .” and in #3, “. . . life appeared on Earth as least 2.5 billion years ago . . .”
These statements of the ages of things may very well be true and there might have been many many experiments done to date rocks and fossils. But the problem I’ve always had with it is that none of my teachers and none of the many things I’ve read have ever bothered to show what experiments were done. They all just glibly state these dates as facts and expect me to just take them on faith.
It is very possible that the records of those experiments and all of their dating evidence is readily available and I just have never bothered to read up on the subject. It is also possible that I wouldn’t understand it if had the data before me. But without that evidence, those dates to me are just fantasy. It is hard to imagine how anyone could possibly know how old the earth is. What “yard stick” did they use? How do they know if it is calibrated correctly?
The closest any teacher ever came to answering my question was to say that the scientists used argon dating and they also use the rock strata to determine the age of fossils. That still does not tell me very much.
Now, before anybody gets all huffy about my skepticism, let me restate that I acknowledge the possibility that these dates may be accurate. I can’t disprove them. All I’m saying is, “Show me the evidence. Have these experiments been double checked recently?”
By the way, are schools now showing the evidence to students? Because they sure didn’t bother when I was in school. Or are they still just expecting students to take this stuff on faith?
One of the reasons I question stuff like this, especially stuff that I’m expected to take on faith in some authority or other, is because I found out how Richard Feynman earned his Nobel Prize in physics.
He refused to take certain “facts” on faith like everybody else was doing. These facts were not questioned because they had been presented to the world by a respected physicist who everyone knew was so meticulous in his work that he was never wrong. But Feynman went back over that experimental data and redid the math. What he discovered was that the old and respected scientist had made a mistake. With the corrected data Feynman was then able to reconcile a couple of contradictory theories and ended up with the Nobel Prize for his work.
So whenever I see someone making statements of fact, I automatically ask, “Who says so? Who’s he? How does he know?” (Sometimes I also ask, “Who’s paying him to say it?” But I don’t think that applies in this case.)
Posts: 631 | Registered: Oct 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:hese statements of the ages of things may very well be true and there might have been many many experiments done to date rocks and fossils. But the problem I’ve always had with it is that none of my teachers and none of the many things I’ve read have ever bothered to show what experiments were done. They all just glibly state these dates as facts and expect me to just take them on faith.
No, I think the point was that they were letting people know what they believed is true based on facts that THEY WOULD LIKE TO SEE TAUGHT. That doesn't mean "accept it on faith." Quite the opposite, I think. It seems to me they are saying "teach the evidence -- we think it points to these conclusions."
I'm a little surprised by your reading of it, actually. I understand how you got there, but I really don't think that's what they were saying.
Again, I think the point of this piece was to weigh in on the debate, and to encourage decision makers to support the teaching of the real data.
If you came away not knowing the evidence, then your education is lacking something important and interesting. Fascinating, really.
And what Feynmann did is, I think, what every science course should be encouraging -- independing thinking about the core data.
This letter is as much an indictment of the method of science teaching you talk about as it is of inserting creationism into science classes. Neither is really challenging students to gain an understanding of how things work, or to make their own decisions on how things work.
I gather I was fortunate to have some good instructors and reasonably thorough text books in HS and beyond. I keep hearing people talk about how their only exposure to Evolution was a couple of days treating it as "gospel" fact. As a person who wishes everyone had a solid understanding of how science works, I find that appalling. The real story of evolution is fascinating on so many levels. One can learn so much about the world, about how science works, about human interaction and human reasoning from studying the story of the theory of evolution. Not just the evidence, but yes, especially the evidence, but also Darwin's life and times, the fights in the Royal Academy, the competing theories of the day...it's a fascinating drama.
To see it robbed of all that and treated like some sort of oracular utterance just makes me angry. And sad.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:A similar demonstration for the transition from non-life to life.
I know that you did not want to get into too many tangents, KoM, but this is the point that I would be most interested in learning about.
Well, it must be admitted that this is the area science knows least about. I'll give it a try at some point, though. However, my girlfriend's parents are coming to visit today, and I may not be able to post as I'd like.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Don't be so gullible. This is propaganda, nothing more. It is nothing new. We have always known that the mainstream science establishment is dominated by evolutionists. What comes next? Authorizing an Inquisition against heretics who question the majority views, and maintain that Creationism fits all the evidence better?
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:the mainstream science establishment is dominated by evolutionists
You know, I find this a very unsurprising statement. It's like saying, "science is dominated by scientists" or "forests are dominated by trees" or something equally blatant.
Evolution is science. The other options cannot be part of 'mainstream' (by which I assume you mean the general scientific community as represented in the above article) science because they are simply not scientific. Sure, you can theorize and discuss, write out and argue opposite points as much as you want, but without scientific evidence, it's simply not science.
Posts: 8473 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Put up or shut up, Ron....go ahead and prove Creationism.
Prove anything other than you don't like evolution.
Evolution never claimed have THE definitive answer to how life started in the first place, but it does show us how things have progressed since then. Perhaps the beginning of life had more to do with chemistry, or even creationism...we probably will never know.
However, large parts of evolution are demonstrable here and now. Perhaps they can't prove everything, or show every single step, but as far as I know they haven't claimed to be able to.
A 4,000 year old book that has been translated/transcribed by hand more times then is possible to count isn't proof.....not in the scientific fields, anyway.
Believe what you want, Ron. Just stop trying to force it to be taught in science classes.
At least until you can PROVE it, scientifically.
Posts: 15082 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
All right, humans and monkeys. First, a quick note on terminology. It is sometimes asserted that humans are not descended from monkeys, we share a common ancestor with them; while this is true in the strict sense, it is not really relevant. The common ancestor of, say, humans and chimpanzees would certainly have been classified as a monkey (well, an ape, technically) by any zoologist encountering it in the wild. I shall therefore use 'monkey' indiscriminately to mean ape, monkey, primate, and human ancestors.
With that out of the way, let me get to the evidence. First, know that an ERV is an 'endogenous retrovirus', that is to say, it is the genetic code of a virus, pasted into the DNA of an organism. This sometimes occurs when a virus attacks a host, and the host survives : The virus DNA gets incorporated into the host's chromosomes. What the virus would like to happen is for the virus DNA to get to the host's transcription mechanism, and get copied as new viruses; but we don't always get what we want. The host, of course, doesn't really care to have virus DNA lying about, but it's harmless enough since it doesn't get activated. (As I understand it, this is due to the subtle differences between DNA and RNA; I could be wrong on this point, though. Also, there are exceptions to the rule; some ERVs do get activated.) At any rate, if the cell in question is a sex cell that happens to become offspring, every descendant of the original host will carry that ERV, at least until it mutates into un-recognisability.
As an incidental aside, this is the technique used during gene therapies : A virus is taken apart, the gene you want is inserted into its genetic code, and it is reassembled. It is then let loose on the patient, and transcribes itself into his genes. Unlike usual ERVs, the artificially inserted gene has DNA characteristics and gets activated, thereby plugging some deficiency of the patient's own DNA. Usually, however, this is not applied to sperm or eggs.
Now then, using ERVs one may trace ancestries. One needs to find the 'homologous location' in two sets of DNA; this requires a bit of explanation. Suppose we have a monkey, A, that starts with this bit of DNA :
AAA AAA AAA *ERV* CCC CCC CCC
Now, much later, some of his descendants, call them B, have mutated a bit, with insertions to their DNA. They therefore have this sequence :
AAA AAA GGG AAA *ERV* CCC CCC CCC
Another group, C, has mutated a different way, with replacements, and has
AAA AAA TTT *ERV* CCC CCC CCC
These sequences still occur at approximately the same place in the chromosome. Now, I should note that in reality the sequences are hundreds of bases long, so the changes I've made here are actually unrealistically large in comparison to the bases that remain identical. We can then say with some confidence that these two critters have a common ancestor. Of course, the more ERVs you find, the better the confidence. Conversely, those monkeys descended from the brother of the original A, whom we'll call D, do not have this particular ERV - D never caught the flu when his brother did. We can therefore say that the descendants of D, though they may have a common ancestor with groups B and C, diverged before the particular ERV we are talking about. (One generation before, in this case. Of course, such accuracy is not usually to be hoped for!) In this way, we can build up a family tree showing who has common ancestors with whom, and when (relative to each other, not absolute datings) the branchings took place. This kind of evidence is, if you like, the equivalent of paternity testing for species; it establishes family trees.
I don't suppose it'll come as a surprise by now when I tell you that humans and chimps share lots and lots of ERVs. Indeed, this method of analysis is how we know that gorillas diverged from the human-chimp line before humans and chimps diverged, and baboons before that, and so on.
So, let me recap. Humans and chimpanzees share long stretches of genes, in locations that do not code for anything useful. (In other words, it can't be because humans and chimps need the same kinds of proteins; these things do not produce proteins.) Some of these locations are also shared with gorillas; but, and this is crucial, there is no ERV we share with gorillas, which we do not also share with chimpanzees. I repeat : If humans have an ERV, and gorillas have the same ERV, then we know that chimpanzees also share it. Conversely, there exist some ERVs shared by humans and chimps, but not by gorillas, indicating that humans are closer cousins to chimps than to gorillas - the divergence is more recent.
A note on the limitations of the technique : Eventually, the DNA does mutate so much that it's hard to establish homologous locations, or even to recognise the ERV. (They are much longer than three bases! Replace a sufficient number of the bases, and it becomes hard to distinguish them from noise.) This takes time, though. I'm not sure just how far back the ERV technique can be used, but I don't think I'd care to establish the common ancestor of humans and cabbages in this way. Humans and horses, maybe. Humans and lemurs, I should think. Humans and chimps, very definitely.
So. ERVs are passed from parent to child. They persist for some tens of millions of years. They show in exactly the fashion you would expect if evolution is true; and the species that shares the most ERVs with us is the chimpanzee. Gentlemen, I give you our cousins, the monkeys.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hum, it seems to me that I did not quite explain how to find a homologous location. Basically, you look for long sequences that 'would match if I inserted a GGG here'. Obviously, this is computer work, and pretty much brute force. It might seem that you could find some of these by sheer random chance, and that's true, but the chance decreases dramatically with every base you add to the sequence. Obviously, you don't get published unless the probability of your homologous location candidate being random is rather below 1%. (Well, I'm not sure of the exact number; for particle physics, we'd go for five sigma - a few hundredths of a percent.) By the time you get done exponentiating that into several dozen locations, well, you have a much better chance of going home a millionaire from Vegas.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I once took a genomics class where we did some analysis similar to what KOM describes. NCBI has a free tool that allows you to input strings of bases and find a match in their database.
I might post more on the whole genomics thing later, but I'm in an internet cafe in Edinburgh and I'm more interested in getting back out to see the city.
posted
As I tried to point out, nothing in science is a fact, that is, nothing is an absolute fact; most of what we know would fall into the catagory of 'applied facts'.
This is also true of Evolution, it is sufficiently known to be considered an applied fact until such evidence comes along to prove it wrong, or more likely rather than prove it wrong, simply modify and improve our knowledge base of applied fact regarding evolution.
As I pointed out, we don't know how electricity works. Our knowledge of the physics and chemistry of electricity and light are hopelessly flawed and incomplete, yet that does not lead us to conclude 'Divine Intervention' when we step in the house and click the light switch on.
As flawed, false, and incomplete as our knowledge of electricity is, that does not stop us from considering what we do know to be 'applied facts'. It is sufficiently factual that we can accurately and effectively apply 'electricity'. We have a working understanding, even though we don't have a complete understanding.
The same is true of evolution, our knowledge is incomplete and flawed, but that does not erase the very substantial archaeological and anthropological evidence we have. It does not change the fact that we have artifacts that show human and human-like creatures at varous stages of development.
So, even though evolutions is flawed science, just as all science is flawed, it is sufficiently known with ample evidence and sufficient demonstration that we can accept it as 'applied fact'.
I've never really seen the conflict between science and religion. Personally, I've always considered that science simply documents God's methods. God set into motion the natural world with a set of rules for its operation. Whatever science discovers, simply documents those rules that God set out.
Our limited understanding of the rules of the natural order of God, which we now refer to as science, says that faster than light speed travel can not exist. If we do discover faster than light travel theories and later practical application, I'm sure the religious right will be quick to condemn it as either flat out wrong, or the work of the devil until such time as the science become so clear and irrefutable that the religious right will have no choice but to say we knew it all along and we told you so. (He said with a sarcastic and devilish grin.)
There is nothing inconsistent between God and the evolution of man. God set into place a natural order in which genetic mutation occurs at an extremely high rate. A natural order in which survival and success are insured by creating so many divergant and variant species that some of them are bound to survive. Further, with such great numbers and variation, some species are bound to be able to adapt after natural upheaval in the environment.
At some point, the natural order of God created the genetic variation that evolved into mankind. In the process, it created a creature that was both supremely intelligent so as to be very adaptable, and also supremely distructive to the evironment that surrounds him. The human experiment has so far been very short lived on the grand scale of the natural order. Our pathetic few thousand years are nothing on the scale of the billions of years of earth's existance. The Human Experiment VERY MUCH has the chance to both succeed and fail.
We could be our own ruin and the ruin of the earth. Yet, the natural order is very adaptable. If we wipe ourselves out due to nuclear war or massive environmental changes, some aspect of the natural order will survive and carry on. Though very likely it will carry on without mankind as we know it.
Perhaps the time will come when we look back on Homo sapiens the way modern man looks back on Cro-Magnon and Homo erectus, as barbaric selfish self-destructive and war-like creature who only survive by blind luck and the grace of God.
The problem with the 'Intelligent Design' crowd is that they can not accept mankind coming into being through the natural process of God natural order. They want God to wave his magic wand and poof! God-fearing Republicans appeared on the earth. If God personally took the time to create us by instantaneous miracle, then aren't we oh so very special. However, if we evolved out of God's natural order then there is nothing special about us, we are just intelligent chimps.
I fear the opposition to Evolution has far more to do with the self-important arrogance of man than with any flaws of science.
posted
I don't think the erectus and Cro-Magnon were particularly warlike; large-scale warfare is a perversion of agricultural societies. Hunter-gatherers don't have the surplus for it.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, there's a difference between warlike and violent. One is the product of the organized tendancies of the other, but they come from the same place.
Posts: 8473 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Evolution cannot be science, because evolution is not true. It is impossible for such complex DNA code as witnessed in all life forms to be written by any means other than intelligent direction. No natural processes or combination of natural processes, even operating over trillions of years, could write the genome for an amoeba, let alone for a man.
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, since the discussion is now apparently at the level of assertions...
Oh yeah? Sez you! Prove it!
I'm going to start a pool on when the word 'information' first makes an appearance in Ron's posts. I've got a dollar that says it will be before post number fifty of this thread. I've also got ten dollars that says he'll never define the word in this thread.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: Evolution cannot be science, because evolution is not true. It is impossible for such complex DNA code as witnessed in all life forms to be written by any means other than intelligent direction. No natural processes or combination of natural processes, even operating over trillions of years, could write the genome for an amoeba, let alone for a man.
Well, that is a strong assertion which seems to be backed up by nothing other than the fact that you've decided it's true and that's that.
You say that complex DNA can't exist or evolve yet it did. How do you explain that? How is what you said that much different than what I said?
I've always considered that science simply documents God's methods. God set into motion the natural world with a set of rules for its operation. Whatever science discovers, simply documents those rules that God set out.
Evolution as we know it simply documents how God set about creating the world.
If not, then exactly when did God intervene to create the world? At what stage did this miraculoulsly impossible DNA occur? 10,000 years ago? A million years ago? A billion years ago? Four billion years ago? Even if God did miraculously and spontaneously create the magically impossible DNA chain, it still seems that DNA chain took billions of year to evolve into the present day world. How does God intervening billions of years ago in any way disprove evolution?
At the risk of repeating myself... I will repeat myself.
The problem with the 'Intelligent Design' crowd is that they can not accept mankind coming into being through the natural process of God natural order. They want God to wave his magic wand and poof! God-fearing Republicans appeared on the earth. If God personally took the time to create us by instantaneous miracle, then aren't we oh so very special. However, if we evolved out of God's natural order then there is nothing special about us, we are just intelligent chimps.
I fear the opposition to Evolution has far more to do with the self-important arrogance of man than with any flaws of science.
So, once again, exactly when did God intervene to create this magically impossible DNA chain of which you speak? And if it's anything more than 100,000 years, then doesn't that pretty much confirm evolution? Remember it's a long way from a magically complex DNA code to all the many many forms of life that have ever existed on earth.
posted
- The usage of the word "fact" in the document is correct.
- The DNA code witnessed in all life forms is not impossible to have been 'written' (assembled) by any means other than intelligent direction. In most cases, use of this argument is an argument from ignorance, assuming that one's inability to find an answer to a question means that the question has no answer (other than a designer, conveniently enough).
- Intelligent design is not science.
- It's 2006. People are still trying to deny, outright, a wide-reaching and massively massively evidenced scientific finding, and the capacity of some people to do this depresses me.
- No, I'm serious. It makes me want to cry.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I found that post on genetics fascinating, KoM. Thank you. Admitting my massive ignorance on the subject, I have a few questions.
quote:First, know that an ERV is an 'endogenous retrovirus', that is to say, it is the genetic code of a virus, pasted into the DNA of an organism. This sometimes occurs when a virus attacks a host, and the host survives : The virus DNA gets incorporated into the host's chromosomes. What the virus would like to happen is for the virus DNA to get to the host's transcription mechanism, and get copied as new viruses; but we don't always get what we want. The host, of course, doesn't really care to have virus DNA lying about, but it's harmless enough since it doesn't get activated. (As I understand it, this is due to the subtle differences between DNA and RNA; I could be wrong on this point, though. Also, there are exceptions to the rule; some ERVs do get activated.) At any rate, if the cell in question is a sex cell that happens to become offspring, every descendant of the original host will carry that ERV, at least until it mutates into un-recognisability.
Is it this mechanism that makes you immune to viruses once you catch them? Or is it more like the reason why, once you catch the herpes virus, you are liable to get cankers every time you are particularly stressed out? Or are those both totally different effects of viruses and completely unrelated to DNA?
quote: Conversely, those monkeys descended from the brother of the original A, whom we'll call D, do not have this particular ERV - D never caught the flu when his brother did. We can therefore say that the descendants of D, though they may have a common ancestor with groups B and C, diverged before the particular ERV we are talking about. (One generation before, in this case. Of course, such accuracy is not usually to be hoped for!) In this way, we can build up a family tree showing who has common ancestors with whom, and when (relative to each other, not absolute datings) the branchings took place. This kind of evidence is, if you like, the equivalent of paternity testing for species; it establishes family trees.
Lets say D did catch the flu at the same time as A. Would the ERV insinuate itself at the same point in his genes as it did in A's genes? Would we be able to tell his decendants from A's decendants by where the ERV occured rather than whether or not it occured?
Posts: 364 | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Is it this mechanism that makes you immune to viruses once you catch them? Or is it more like the reason why, once you catch the herpes virus, you are liable to get cankers every time you are particularly stressed out? Or are those both totally different effects of viruses and completely unrelated to DNA?
Interesting question! We are reaching the limits of my knowledge, here; but I believe that immunity is separate from this mechanism. The immune system needs to react rather faster than genetics would allow for. And I think the herpes virus flares up by hiding in the body at low concentrations, rather than hiding in the DNA as genes. I could be mistaken on either or both, though.
quote:Lets say D did catch the flu at the same time as A. Would the ERV insinuate itself at the same point in his genes as it did in A's genes? Would we be able to tell his decendants from A's decendants by where the ERV occured rather than whether or not it occured?
Probably, yes. There are effects going both ways. Given that D is going to catch the flu, there are certain locations in the DNA that are more susceptible to retrovirus insertion. So the location is not as unlikely to be in the same place as it would be if you just chose randomly from the whole genetic code. (Indeed, if the virus inserted itself in the middle of the code for an important protein, all of D's offspring would die!) You should note, though, that a fairly unlikely chain of events has to occur just for the virus to have a chance at confusing us like that. First, D has to both catch and survive the flu. (Well, that's not so unlikely.) Then the virus has to insert itself, not just in a random cell, but in a somatic cell of D, that is, one of the factories producing sperm. If this doesn't happen, then the ERV won't be passed on to his offspring. Finally, one of the changed somatic cells has to be the one that produces the sperm that makes D's offspring. Only when all this has happened is the location of the ERV important.
This forum has a lot of biologists who know more about this kind of thing than I do, if you are still curious. Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Is it this mechanism that makes you immune to viruses once you catch them? Or is it more like the reason why, once you catch the herpes virus, you are liable to get cankers every time you are particularly stressed out? Or are those both totally different effects of viruses and completely unrelated to DNA?
Interesting question! We are reaching the limits of my knowledge, here; but I believe that immunity is separate from this mechanism. The immune system needs to react rather faster than genetics would allow for. And I think the herpes virus flares up by hiding in the body at low concentrations, rather than hiding in the DNA as genes. I could be mistaken on either or both, though.
quote:Lets say D did catch the flu at the same time as A. Would the ERV insinuate itself at the same point in his genes as it did in A's genes? Would we be able to tell his decendants from A's decendants by where the ERV occured rather than whether or not it occured?
Probably, yes. There are effects going both ways. Given that D is going to catch the flu, there are certain locations in the DNA that are more susceptible to retrovirus insertion. So the location is not as unlikely to be in the same place as it would be if you just chose randomly from the whole genetic code. (Indeed, if the virus inserted itself in the middle of the code for an important protein, all of D's offspring would die!) You should note, though, that a fairly unlikely chain of events has to occur just for the virus to have a chance at confusing us like that. First, D has to both catch and survive the flu. (Well, that's not so unlikely.) Then the virus has to insert itself, not just in a random cell, but in a somatic cell of D, that is, one of the factories producing sperm. If this doesn't happen, then the ERV won't be passed on to his offspring. Finally, one of the changed somatic cells has to be the one that produces the sperm that makes D's offspring. Only when all this has happened is the location of the ERV important.
This forum has a lot of biologists who know more about this kind of thing than I do, if you are still curious.
You made an interesting post earlier KOM, and I must confess I do not posess the knowledge to refute it at this time. Kudos to you. How possible is it that Apes, Monkeys, etc are actually humans that migrated to certain locations, and then evolved smaller brains and stronger bodies in order to survive the harsh conditions of the places they lived in? Not so much a step up but a modification in order to survive in environments where larger brains would have impaired that ability? It does not sound too plausible but hey its up in the air.
For me, I have found a strong support for evolution in the observation of fetal development. I walked into my freshman biology class in high school and the teacher asked us, "Does Ontageny recapitulate phylogeny?" Our homework was to go home, research that question and find the answer. The question in laymans terms is "Does a human being as it develops in the womb cycle through all the phylums before becoming mature?"
The evidence points to a MAYBE. As the fetus develops it starts out as a single celled organism and becomes a multi celled organism. It starts out as an invertebrate It skin for a period of time develops scales and gills (though the gills are never functioning and all of them close except the ear opening.) Its hands and feet start out webbed, and there are a few other similarities. While the literalism of the theory is disputed, still I cannot help but see at least a hinting at evolution in the formation of a fetus.
But again while I have no problem with the idea that God used evolution to create the world. And perhaps God took only 7000 years to create the world, and simply understood how to speed up evolution in such a way that it appears to have taken billions of years. I really am not bothered by either side as I am sure that when I am dead I am going to be corrected about alot of things I was absolutely sure were true.
I do think there is merit to the arguement that alot of creationists spurn evolution because they think it makes man just like the animals. It does remind me of how the central earth theory was more pleasing to the average person then an earth that rotates around the sun. It made people feel less important in the grand scheme of things. Are we just like any other animal? I do not think so. If you want to take all the works that have been wrought by human hands and call them (the result of a minor genetic advantage) well thats one hell of a genetic trait that is just so visable. Our inteligence almost totally eclipses everything else about us.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:How possible is it that Apes, Monkeys, etc are actually humans that migrated to certain locations, and then evolved smaller brains and stronger bodies in order to survive the harsh conditions of the places they lived in?
It's unlikely, I'm afraid. For one thing, the genetic markers we see in these populations indicate that this happened in the other direction. We might be misreading those, but they seem reliable so far in other species.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
speaking of apes and monkeys, humans and higher apes have lived side by side for a long time. They live in pretty much exactly the same environment, particularly in the case of African pygmies.
Posts: 48 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
The immune system is completely separate for this, and a good thing too.
There is a little bit of this involved over time though.
Sickle cell anemia is the perfect example. It is the most common blood disorder disease in humans, and has some horrible complications, but it is one form of how natural selection encouraged the disease to become a significant part of human DNA:
quote: he genetic selective scenario in which a heterozygote for two alleles of a gene has an advantage over either of the homozyous states is called "balanced polymorphism". A key concept to keep in mind is that the selection is for sickle cell trait. A common misstatement is that malaria selects for sickle cell disease. This is not true. A person with sickle cell disease is at an extreme survival disadvantage because of the ravages of the disease process. This means that a negative selection exists for sickle cell disease. Sickle cell trait is the genetic condition selected for in regions of endemic malaria. Sickle cell disease is a necessary consequence of the existence of the trait condition because of the genetics of reproduction.
The precise mechanism by which sickle cell trait imparts resistance to malaria is unknown. A number of factors likely are involved and contribute in varying degrees to the defense against malaria.
It was evolution that selected the sickle cell disease to survive, because sickle cell anemia provides a much higher chance of survival from malaria. In areas where malaria is rampant people with sickle cell anemia were more likely to survive malaria, and more likely to reproduce. Therefore the genetic marker for SCA was reproduced for generations, and became part of human DNA.
Posts: 15082 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:How possible is it that Apes, Monkeys, etc are actually humans that migrated to certain locations, and then evolved smaller brains and stronger bodies in order to survive the harsh conditions of the places they lived in?
Well, in principle. I do not think it matters, because evolution from human to ape is just as much 'macro-evolution' as the other way around, surely! But in any case, there are a few features of human anatomy that indicate otherwise, chiefly the tail. Specifically, we have an attachment point and some muscles that could be used for wagging a tail, and sometimes people are born with one. This indicates a loss of an old feature; whatever else, it's pretty certain that human ancestors had tails. That makes them monkeys, in my opinion. There is also the question of thumbs : I could see devolved humans losing their brains, which are pretty expensive to support, but opposable thumbs? Surely a useful attribute even for a tree-climbing species, especially when you consider that chimpanzees do have rudimentary toolmaking.
As for the accelerated bit, again, in principle yes. I believe it's called the Omphalos hypothesis. But if you're going to postulate that kind of thing, then it's just as likely to assume that we are all living in a Matrix machine that was turned on three seconds ago, complete with all our memories. (And Bibles.) There is no way of distinguishing these two scenarios; personally, I would not choose to reduce my religion to the level of a crackpot theory if I could avoid it. Nor, indeed, would I worship so deceptive a god.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:How possible is it that Apes, Monkeys, etc are actually humans that migrated to certain locations, and then evolved smaller brains and stronger bodies in order to survive the harsh conditions of the places they lived in?
Well, in principle. I do not think it matters, because evolution from human to ape is just as much 'macro-evolution' as the other way around, surely! But in any case, there are a few features of human anatomy that indicate otherwise, chiefly the tail. Specifically, we have an attachment point and some muscles that could be used for wagging a tail, and sometimes people are born with one. This indicates a loss of an old feature; whatever else, it's pretty certain that human ancestors had tails. That makes them monkeys, in my opinion. There is also the question of thumbs : I could see devolved humans losing their brains, which are pretty expensive to support, but opposable thumbs? Surely a useful attribute even for a tree-climbing species, especially when you consider that chimpanzees do have rudimentary toolmaking.
As for the accelerated bit, again, in principle yes. I believe it's called the Omphalos hypothesis. But if you're going to postulate that kind of thing, then it's just as likely to assume that we are all living in a Matrix machine that was turned on three seconds ago, complete with all our memories. (And Bibles.) There is no way of distinguishing these two scenarios; personally, I would not choose to reduce my religion to the level of a crackpot theory if I could avoid it. Nor, indeed, would I worship so deceptive a god.
Deceptive seems a bit strong of a word. If some scientist found out that our method for dating materials had a critical flaw, eventually we would accept that, science would not apologize for any mistakes or conclusions it had made previous to this discovery and life would go on (A luxury not afforded to religion I am afraid, such is the price of speaking in terms of absolute truth.) The story of science seems to be a repetition of this pattern. I really do not think it means God is trying to fool us, only that sometimes we (people) jump to conclusions.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, ok, in principle that could happen. I feel it is rather less likely than some completely critical flaw being found in general relativity, indeed it would probably require such a thing. The thing is, those dating methods do not stand in isolation; they depend on other parts of science, and other parts depend on them. It's all connected. If there's a problem with radioactive dating, then we also need to take a good close look at our models of solar fusion and stellar evolution (which, before Ron jumps all over me, has nothing to with biological evolution), which is in its turn a very successful model in astrophysics - it explains lots of stuff. And, lest this seem a bit by-the-by, a lot of geology also depends on radioactive dating; geology is of course extremely important in finding oil. (Yes, Ron, I know, God put the oil there and is constantly regenerating it. Go tell it to the oil companies, you can know doubt make a fortune by praying to figure out where the oil is, and leading people to it. Just like Moses bringing water from the stones!)
Then, consider also that carbon dating is constantly calibrated against other methods of dating. If carbon dating is off, then tree rings are also behaving very oddly for some periods of time. Then there are the varves of Lake Suigetsu. You can Google for the details, but basically, every winter, a certain kind of plant dies off in this lake, forming a layer of white deposits; then in the summer, something else happens which forms a black layer. We can actually watch this happening, it's as clear as tree rings. Lake Suigetsu is highly stable, and people have counted 18000 of these yearly layers! (Some poor grad student did the actual counting, no doubt.) This then is an excellent method of calibrating your carbon dating; you date the varve by counting, then by carbon dating, and now you know how much you need to adjust to compensate for varying CO2 levels in the atmosphere. You should also note that before they used Suigetsu, there were other calibration methods; and they agreed just fine with what Suigetsu said! So any flaw in carbon dating is going to have to explain how it matches up so well with these other dating methods. It's not jumping to conclusions when you have several different methods of dating, and they all agree!
You should note that the first geologists to doubt the Flood story were actually Christians who set out to look for evidence of it. They believed in a literal Flood, and wanted to find it written in the rocks. They didn't. And, being honest scientists, published what they had found. (This was even before Darwin.) How's that for an agenda? They set out to prove the Flood story true, and found themselves convinced otherwise!
Finally, about deception. Would it be deceptive to create an adult from whole cloth, with a memory of having lived for twenty years? Because our Universe very clearly has the 'memory' of having lived for 12 billion years.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
oh I was not saying that I actually BELIEVED our dating methods were off. Merely that such a thing is not beyond the realm of possibility, and that were it to happen it would change everything. There are many things that could happen that could happen that would make the whole evolution picture suddenly make sense, or else be seen in an entirely different light. I am just cautious about taking any theory so seriously that I forget that it is still a theory, and theories, historically speaking, are fragile things.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
The immune system is completey different from the system that sees viral DNA camp out in human DNA. Immunity basically occurs because the body creates cells to fight the invasion by guess-and-check, and when it finds one that works it keeps it around for the rest of your life. But viruses are fought by killing cells that give off "I've been infected" signals before the viruses completely hijack it, and tagging free viruses in the system with a variety of different things, usually resulting in their being tagged for white blood cell consumption.
The repetative DNA sections in the human genome almost, dare I say always self-replicate when first introduced as they carry the genes for their own replication with them when the paste into the human genome (the reasons for the loss of virulence are generally because they get inserted improperly). The fact that they don't all still have the ability to reproduce is because they've been in the genome for 10s to 100s of millions of years, which is plenty of time for mutations to crop up and render them inactive. (Yes, we have an approximate idea of how old each one is by tracing them back through the fossil record. Yes, it is possible to take the mutations that occur over this vast time into account. No, I don't understand the math involved.)
Because they don't have an impact in any way shape and form on your every day life, when a mutation occurs that renders one of these inactive it's not nearly so severe as losing the ability to, say, use glucose as energy. So the offspring with an inactive repetative section survives, but the offspring on a permanent atkins diet tends not to make it. The opposite, however, where one of these repetative DNA fragments self-replicates into a necessary human gene and disrupts it, happens relatively often. ~1 in 600 of all gene disruptions in humans.
This process continues today, and since our divergence from chimps (~6 million years ago) there is one element (discovered so far) that is not present in all humans. Which is kind of neat.
It's important to note that this is all quite different from Kwea's section on sickle cell anemia, because that is controlled by selective pressure where this is (as a general rule) not.
Posts: 3243 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yes, well, evolution has lasted 150 years so far. That's rather longer than general relativity, twice as long as quantum mechanics, a bit more than the Maxwellian synthesis, and about the same age as thermodynamics. And during that time it has been under much heavier attack than any of the others, largely for ideological reasons; but it's not as though people haven't tried to knock it over. Fragile, I think, is not the right word. It works; it explains things about how the world is; and it meshes well with every other part of science. There may be adjustments to our understanding of how and why evolution happens, but that it has occurred and is the source of all species is just not in doubt. You might as well doubt that the Earth orbits the Sun. I mean, quite literally - this is the same level of certainty. Evolution is as much a theory as Newtonian orbital mechanics.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
For some of our dating methods to be off would require fundamental constants of the universe to be different in ways that would either show up with incredible obviousness or not leave us here to notice the difference. Our estimates of the age of the earth rely on several independently conceived, independently operating methods of dating.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Indeed, this method of analysis is how we know that gorillas diverged from the human-chimp line before humans and chimps diverged, and baboons before that, and so on. ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
