posted
Um, what is wrong with the monkey to man posters? They may not have every detail correct, but humans certainly did evolve from an animal that, were it alive today, would be called a monkey. (By the American public, that is. An educated public would instead call it an ape.) So what is the objection?
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Here's the thing, I don't see OSC's essays (I read the Rhino one, and glanced at the one linked in World Watch -- I'll peruse that at greater length later) as being especially 'pro' ID. I think the point was that it wasn't that 'Darwinism' was wrong, but that the arguments that are typically used in support of it are usually pretty weak.
This is, in fact, somewhat true.
The bottom line is that, with the exception of the 7% [edit to add: +/- 6.9%, this was a SHAG and not a fact] or so of people who actively work as biologists, everyone's understanding of evolution (pro or con) is based on faith. For the 'con' group, the faith basis is pretty obvious. However, there is an equal degree of faith that the 'pro' groups (again, excluding those who actively work in the field) express. Yes, they are two different kinds of faiths in two completely different things. One is faith in a fixed spiritual world-view, the other is faith in a mutable naturalist process -- namely the scientific method.
Let's face it, no 'Darwinist' worships Darwin. No honest evolution supporter would insist on the truthfulness or usefulness of natural selection if a more comprhensive theory that explained all things better came along later. This is what separates the two camps. Natural Selection may be wrong. It is, currently, the best explanation we've got going. It is by no means the ULTIMATE ANSWER.
And this is the difference between the two camps. The anti-evolution side (for the most part) is based on an unshakeable faith in a particular product: a book, a church, a religion (see the note at the end). This is not something that they can change, because the product is already out there, and it is established and fixed. Other similar groups, on the other hand, have made accommodation by changing how they use the product (how they read the book or how they view the role of the church) and have no objection to any scientific findings. The 'pro' side of the debate isn't (or rather shouldn't be) so concerned about any particular finding, it is the process that is important. If completely scientific evidence were found to discredit Natural Selection and a new theory was developed to fit all of the old evidence as well as the new evidence, isn't it right and proper that such a theory should be accepted (obviously only after much evaluation and many challenges)?
However, too many 'pro' evolution arguments lose sight of this fundamental aspect of the scientific process. We, in fact, do not know that natural selection explains how evolution took place. It is simply the best explanation for what we have. I understand why it is tempting to try to phrase the debate in absolutist terms: you are either supportive of the theory of natural selection or you are an inbred toothless banjo-playing redneck moron. Part of this is because of the absolutism of the other side: you are either supportive of the truth of God's special creation of all things or you are a Satan worshiping pedophile homosexual atheist pig-dog. But science cannot afford to be absolutist, or constrained by a rigidly inflexible dogma. That is why, of all of the philosophies and religions the world has ever seen, the products of science have been so varied and useful.
NOTE: My comments regarding the fixed nature of religious faith is only applicable to those faiths where the process of revelation or prophecy is sealed. Where continuing revelation is accepted, dogmatic shifts are possible, and the faith is then primarily focused on the process of revelation and not on any one specific product of revelation.
posted
I think, unfortunately, when this gets discussed we automatically make god/devil assumptions that someone voicing an opinion not 100% ours must 100% believe the opposite viewpoint. So, I want to recap a bit:
quote:Regarding Darwinists in high schools: I'll match your hearsay and raise you a personal anecdote. The high school I attended, in the mostly-liberal Bay Area of California, made every effort to avoid mentioning the E-word. Our biology teacher even issued a disclaimer at the beginning of the evolution section of the course. Far from being a cadre of hard-core "Darwinists," our faculty were terrified of being attacked by parents who didn't want their kids learning about evolution. They ultimately did the right thing and taught it anyway, but even then, Darwin was never made out to be anything more than the originator of the concept.
First, I do believe a big part of the problem at HS level is out of date text books and inneffecual teachers, far more so then any dogmatic response to Darwin or acolyte-esque following; many teachers simply have taught the same text repeatedly, know it, and so it is delivered as rote, as several states do not spend the time or effort on retraining teachers, thus they hold fast to it as the text not because of any "super belief" in darwin, but because teaching it the exact same way every year is "easier".
Second, I am not advocating ID is on the same plane as Punctuated Equilibrium. And I tried to not make it seem as though "these critiques carry equal weight" In fact, I made sure not to say that. I am, however, saying that they are both critiques, and could be debated. I personally find a lot of merit in Punctuated Equilibrium and not so much merit in ID. But part of what makes education is to test good ideas and bad ideas and allow them to be debated for their merits and lack of merits. If a kid grows up through HS and does not learn the science of how to refute anything, they haven't been educated very well. Understanding how to debate the ideas good and bad helps everyone.
So, I get your multiple paragraphs on punctuated equilibrium and simply say: I didn't equate the two as to the level of validity, only that they share a common base of being a criticism.
I can give a criticism of a movie and say "It sucks" but Roger Ebert writes up a long review and his critique has more substance to it. While both reviews share the fact that they are a review, it doesn't mean both have equal validity
Finally:
quote:Lastly, consciousness in humans and other organisms has nothing to do with the ID/ evolution debate. The "intelligent designer" of Behe isn't choosing a mate. He/she/it is creating species. Your connection between the two is akin to saying that yeast can design new types of bread just because their biochemical reactions are responsible for the release of carbon dioxide into rising dough.
*shrug* I think you missed the point of what I was saying. What I am saying is that the inherent fault I find with ID is that it makes such assumptions on Behe's part in regards to creation of species. My argument is that the species itself makes intelligent decisions on which direction the species itself evolves by it's concious chosing of partners. Behe doesn't deal with this element at all, which blends perfectly with our known theory of evolution as well as the punctuated equilibrium and macro-evolution theories; and is an "intelligent design" that comes from those other two theories rather then a god of the cracks
In other words, I think you're arguing with me as someone opposed to your viewpoint, when by and large I'm agreeing with you Posts: 202 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:So, I get your multiple paragraphs on punctuated equilibrium and simply say: I didn't equate the two as to the level of validity, only that they share a common base of being a criticism.
Okay. So do you advocate teaching ID in science classes as a means to teach critique? Because while I would agree that teaching creationism (or in a religion or cultural studies class with the express intent of analyzing them from a critical perspective is perfectly acceptable, creationism and ID have no place in a science class, because as previously stated, they are NOT scientific. If you want to use scientific theories to teach critical thinking, use punctuated equilibrium and gradualism, or relativity versus Newtonian mechanics. All of those theories are based on the principle of falsifiability, and are genuinely scientific (even if they happen to be incorrect). But don't fuzz up the definition of science by introducing non-scientific concepts into a science classroom.
quote:*shrug* I think you missed the point of what I was saying. What I am saying is that the inherent fault I find with ID is that it makes such assumptions on Behe's part in regards to creation of species. My argument is that the species itself makes intelligent decisions on which direction the species itself evolves by it's concious chosing of partners. Behe doesn't deal with this element at all, which blends perfectly with our known theory of evolution as well as the punctuated equilibrium and macro-evolution theories; and is an "intelligent design" that comes from those other two theories rather then a god of the crack.
I'm pretty sure I understood you just fine. You're making the mistake of associating intelligence in mate choice with Intelligent Design just because both concepts involve a conscious decision by some entity, when the two concepts literally have nothing to do with each other. Intelligent mate choice does not require any sort of supernatural explanation, whereas the concept of Intelligent Design specifically as promoted by people like Behe is specifically based on supernatural explanations. The only thing the two concepts share is that the word "intelligence" occurs in both, and even then, it is applied differently.
Incidentally, one could argue that human "intelligence" in mate choice is little more than a slightly less-predictable version of the sexual selection that occurs all throughout nature, and which in itself is driven by natural selection. Anyway, how does one define whether a mate choice is "intelligent" or not? If humans tend to choose mates that will lead to more fit progeny, then they're only doing what any other animal does. The only difference is that "fitness" in a human has as much to do with his or her social and mental acumen as the more traditional measures of fitness in animals.
Posts: 1321 | Registered: Sep 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
First, I think we're dancing around a point and if we were speaking to each other verbally, this would be resolved so quickly it wouldn't be funny. I'll try to phrase this as clearly as possible in my reply:
quote:Okay. So do you advocate teaching ID in science classes as a means to teach critique? Because while I would agree that teaching creationism (or in a religion or cultural studies class with the express intent of analyzing them from a critical perspective is perfectly acceptable, creationism and ID have no place in a science class, because as previously stated, they are NOT scientific. If you want to use scientific theories to teach critical thinking, use punctuated equilibrium and gradualism, or relativity versus Newtonian mechanics. All of those theories are based on the principle of falsifiability, and are genuinely scientific (even if they happen to be incorrect). But don't fuzz up the definition of science by introducing non-scientific concepts into a science classroom.
First, I think we're coming up with a difference between "teaching" ID as a means of critique and using it as a means to critique. Let me put it this way: when I took earth sciences (and yes, this is decades ago, so bear with me) I had a teacher who was willing to say "now, what really comes into play with fossil records are the way people view the world; how many in the class are familiar with the 'biblical' tale of 6 days to create the world?" And students responded, and the teacher was able to say "ok, here is why that basically is proven false.."
That is a GOOD method to use ANYTHING as a critique. If you're talking about devoting tons of class time to something, no, I don't (and I have not advocated in this thread) "teaching" or spending tons of time the form of "ID" as Behe and others posit.
quote:I'm pretty sure I understood you just fine. You're making the mistake of associating intelligence in mate choice with Intelligent Design just because both concepts involve a conscious decision by some entity, when the two concepts literally have nothing to do with each other. Intelligent mate choice does not require any sort of supernatural explanation, whereas the concept of Intelligent Design specifically as promoted by people like Behe is specifically based on supernatural explanations. The only thing the two concepts share is that the word "intelligence" occurs in both, and even then, it is applied differently.
No, I'm not saying that at all. You're missing my meaning entirely. What I am saying is that Behe manufactures intelligent design in the prescence of a supernatural power; whereas real "intelligent design" can be witnessed every day in all species in their selection pattern of mates.
I'm using the term "intelligent design" in two different ways; one to posit something which is open, provable by the scientific method of hypothesis-test-conclusion vs. an intelligent design that advocates "cannot be proven, therefore.."
I should come up with a different term for my method, I suppose, but I was trying to be a bit coy by saying "there actually IS intelligent design that we can all witness" and I think that is the tact that more teachers and others should take: show were intelligence of the species in question, whether it's bats or people, chose mates based on numerous variables beyond genetic outcome to change their species.
I've said this repeatedly. Please look above:
quote: I personally find a lot of merit in Punctuated Equilibrium and not so much merit in ID. But part of what makes education is to test good ideas and bad ideas and allow them to be debated for their merits and lack of merits. If a kid grows up through HS and does not learn the science of how to refute anything, they haven't been educated very well.
Part of what makes Science "Science" is it's ability to educate people in the means to refute mysticism. Science at some point had to make the effort to teach people that "Fire" was not "Magic" and so, there was a point at which the discussion of "magic" as an option had to be presented so it could be reasoned implausible in the face of facts.
Science is at it's best when it uses itself through the standard methodology to show itself to be the most logical, testable conclusion.
I'm very up to any science class that will take on any theory - no matter how goofy; and I'm glad I had teachers who were willing to test those. Example: during an advanced biology coursework, someone asked about "cryogenics" our teacher was more then willing to dip a butterfly in liquid hydrogen and basically posit that "yeah, this won't work" because of numerous attempts at revival which showed the inherent problems. Now, it didn't prove that it would "never happen" but what we learned was that you find the truth of something by testing it.
I think you could test Behe's ID in less then 20 minutes, and point out that real Intelligent Design (I'll think of a better term so there isn't confusion between the two at some point, but I'm drawing blanks because Natural Selection isn't quite appropriate), the kind that backs all known science theory to date, does exist and is generally supportive of currently evaluated theory.
I hope this makes a bit more sense to you now Posts: 202 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by WntrMute: We, in fact, do not know that natural selection explains how evolution took place. It is simply the best explanation for what we have. I understand why it is tempting to try to phrase the debate in absolutist terms: you are either supportive of the theory of natural selection or you are an inbred toothless banjo-playing redneck moron.
I seriously recommend you read up on the evolution/natural selection computer program called Avida. It was in the February 2005 issue of Discover Magazine if you are a subscriber, or I can post the article on here if you like, but it is fairly long...
Here is a portion of it:
quote:In the late 1990s Ofria’s former adviser, physicist Chris Adami of Caltech, set out to create the conditions in which a computer program could evolve the ability to do addition. He created some primitive digital organisms and at regular intervals presented numbers to them. At first they could do nothing. But each time a digital organism replicated, there was a small chance that one of its command lines might mutate. On a rare occasion, these mutations allowed an organism to process one of the numbers in a simple way. An organism might acquire the ability simply to read a number, for example, and then produce an identical output.
Adami rewarded the digital organisms by speeding up the time it took them to reproduce. If an organism could read two numbers at once, he would speed up its reproduction even more. And if they could add the numbers, he would give them an even bigger reward.Within six months, Adami’s organisms were addition whizzes. “We were able to get them to evolve without fail,” he says. But when he stopped to look at exactly how the organisms were adding numbers, he was more surprised. “Some of the ways were obvious, but with others I’d say, ‘What the hell is happening?’ It seemed completely insane.”
On a trip to Michigan State, Adami met microbiologist Richard Lenski, who studies the evolution of bacteria. Adami later sent Lenski a copy of the Avida software so he could try it out for himself. On a Friday, Lenski loaded the program into his computer and began to create digital worlds. By Monday he was tempted to shut down his laboratory and dedicate himself to Avida. “It just had the smell of life,” says Lenski.
It also mirrored Lenski’s own research, launched in 1988, which is now the longest continuously running experiment in evolution. He began with a single bacterium—Escherichia coli—and used its offspring to found 12 separate colonies of bacteria that he nurtured on a meager diet of glucose, which creates a strong incentive for the evolution of new ways to survive. Over the past 17 years, the colonies have passed through 35,000 generations. In the process, they’ve become one of the clearest demonstrations that natural selection is real. All 12 colonies have evolved to the point at which the bacteria can replicate almost twice as fast as their ancestors. At the same time, the bacterial cells have gotten twice as big. Surprisingly, these changes didn’t unfold in a smooth, linear process. Instead, each colony evolved in sudden jerks, followed by hundreds of generations of little change, followed by more jerks.
posted
HectorVictor, thanks for sharing that Discover blurb. Very cool. What I'd love to see is some more stimulus in that environment to see if the bacteria would actually do enough jerks to accumulate into macro-evolution. Do you think you might be able to email me the article? Just let me know via the email function and I'll reply.
Posts: 53 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
If you would care to give a good definition of macro-evolution, specifically as applied to single-celled organisms, so that we can actually tell whether your criteria are fulfilled, that would be good. Indeed, I made a perfectly good thread on the other side some time again, for precisely that purpose. When the bacteria are twice as large, and breed twice as fast, then a refusal to call it macro-evolution certainly smells to me like 'macro is a bit more than has been demonstrated.' You must surely know that in the wild, such bacteria would certainly be labeled separate species.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by HectorVictor: I seriously recommend you read up on the evolution/natural selection computer program called Avida. It was in the February 2005 issue of Discover Magazine if you are a subscriber, or I can post the article on here if you like, but it is fairly long...
Very cool. However, I think you misunderstand my position in the ID/Evolution debate. In a post in this thread or another, I pretty much said that ID is not science. It cannot be. A theory that postulates some unique, non-testable, non-repeatable, non-verifiable event (such as the miraculous creation of life from nothing) is -- by this very contention -- placing itself outside of science. I also think that the notion of irreducible complexity is completely wrong. Here's an analogy: if you look at a fully functioning modern personal computer, without any knowledge of the history of computing, you would come to the conclusion pretty rapidly that the computer is an irreducibly complex system. Take away nearly any part, and the rest are useless. However, not a single one of those parts (except maybe the monitor if you still use a CRT monitor) existed in its present form and capabilites 20 years ago. Does that mean there were no computers 20 years ago?
And anyways, the results of the E-Coli experiment are not so much support for natural selection as they are support for punctuated equilibrium, which is a slightly different theory that builds on natural selection.
I'm just sayin'.
Posts: 218 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yes, I agree with you in complete totality. I guess a little misunderstanding was the problem. If you want, I can email you the full article as well...
Posts: 48 | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
King of Men, I posted the definitions on the other ID thread. I'm using it as Steven J. Gould uses it and described in the links provided there.
posted
I think basically what KoM was trying to say was not what other people think the definitions are, but what YOU think the definitions are, in the context of what you are writing. If he formulates an argument based on what people outside the realm of the discussion are claiming, he may totally miss the point of your opinions, and that is where heated, irrational arguments get started.
Posts: 48 | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Some scientists, such as Stephen Jay Gould, use the term macroevolution to instead describe evolutionary processes that occur at the level of species or above.
Then you need to explain quite thoroughly how this is not taking place in this experiment. The whole species is being selected on, and is changing. What more do you want?
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
It appears Card didn't raise such strawmen as some here have suggested. For another view.
quote:Carl Sagan was among the worst perpetrators of this almost ecclesiastical abuse of position, using authority and standing as cudgels against whatever he chose to call “superstition.”
King Of Men, good grief. I'm looking for big, BIG, changes. Changes that would resemble the change from something reptilian to something like a peacock. I can certainly see your confusion from the snippet, but if you read the whole article, I think the meaning is clear.
Posts: 53 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
First off, you have to understand that changes like these take time. You don't have a lizard "couple" wake up the next morning and lay eggs for a bird; that would be absurd. You have to understand that even the biggest evolutionary changes are still small ones, i.e., a human being born with six toes on one foot instead of just five. It is stuff like that that accumulates to a bigger evolutionary change.
One such example is the eye. The first eye-bearing organism wasn't conceived directly from an organism without an eye or anything like it. There were precursors of eyes among the generations preceding these organisms, and after small changes, and sometimes slightly bigger jumps of evolutionary change, eventually the first "standard" eye was formed. It did not just compile randomly out of chance millions upon millions of genetic mutations.
So in our civilization's short time on this planet, from earliest seriously recorded history, there could not have been enough time for any species to fully evolve into a different one on the order of magnitude that you suggest. But, by looking at our overwhelming evidence from fossil records, it is easy to see that smaller changes in an organism's appearance had accumulated sufficiently to procure a species that is sufficiently different from the original species to satisfy your definition.
Posts: 48 | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Carl Sagan was among the worst perpetrators of this almost ecclesiastical abuse of position, using authority and standing as cudgels against whatever he chose to call “superstition.”
This from the same man who says of Card
quote: He long ago began savaging me in public, I think perhpas because he’s irritated by the fact that we have fans in common.
(...)
What I have mostly criticized (and it is non-ad-hominem) is his apparent literary obsession with ubermenschen demigods, relentlessly returning to the trope of mutant superbeings who so-o-o-o-o regret having to impose their will on benighted/foolish humanity... for our own good, of course.
If you are taking his word on Sagan, will you also take it on Card?
And as for your BIG changes, again, can you please tell us just how to apply this to bacteria? It seems you do not like changes in size or efficiency. How about the chemical structure of the cell wall, will that do? The proteins used to digest glucose - and how large a change do you want? Perhaps if they grew to be visible to the naked eye, like these guys, would that satisfy you? Definitions! We cannot be arguing with this wishy-washy 'big changes' meme; science requires precision.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think there's an assumption here that the people attempting to suppress ID are scientists. THey may be, in some cases, but the ones I have heard of doing this are activists, not scientists.
The thing about ID being Creation Science in a new suit: ID and Creation Science are incompatible. ID says complex organisms developed from earlier, simpler forms, over billions of years; Creation Science says they came into existence fully formed over a course of a few days. You might as well say that rationalism and empiricism are the same viewpoint, on the grounds that philosophers discuss both.
Posts: 1877 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Claiming that two diametrically opposed viewpoints are really the same is outrageous...
Not when memos exist from Creation Scientists explaining that they intend to use ID to promote creationism in schools. Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
HectorVictor, your comments make sense. My comment on the E-coli experiements was simply that given the number of generations in the experiment, wouldn't it be neat to actually see some macroevolution take place? Macro as in MACRO. And that's all I was saying.
You suggest that such experiments with e-coli or fruit flies can't run enough generations to get to macroevolution. This is an interesting claim. I'd like to see the periods described in the fossil record and see if any happened over a relatively short time. 35,000 generations (I think that's what it was), seems like plenty of generations to change things. That's why I was thinking that perhaps if he had made a richer environment he might have gotten something else. It looks like a very simple environment with only one pressure.
King Of Men, you seem to seek arguments and find them everywhere, even when there are none raised.
Brin's a guy with a PhD, mentioning Sagan as an example of exactly what Card suggests, agreeing with Card's assement of some in the scientific community. I do remember Sagan's book--Demon Haunted World--that took these thoughts as a theme. What is it that you want to argue about concerning Brin?
As far as change goes, weren't we all supposed to have evolved from single-cell organisms? So let's start with something big. Instead of trying to define the line of "species," (a definition, it appears from comments and links in this thread is fuzzy, not precise, as you suggest all science must be) just go far enough beyond that there's no question. Show me bacteria going to multiple celled organisms. Or show me multi-celled organisms going into something of a higher order of complexity. That would be cool. But the E-coli experiment didn't do that. It took a species of bacteria and they grew bigger (Americans versus Pygmies) and cut their reproduction time in half (getting perhaps a bigger umbilical cord http://www.applet-magic.com/gestation.htm ), certainly a big change, but not a new order of complexity.
Posts: 53 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Excellent question. The great thing about the theory of punctuated equilibrium is that it means we have absolutely no idea. *grin*
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Now that I think about it, that means it could happen in just a few, couldn't it? There's nothing saying it couldn't. So perhaps we don't need hundreds of thousands of generations. Perhaps we just need the right environmental stimuli.
Posts: 53 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
The thing about the 'punctuation' in punctuated equilibrium is that it still takes place over several million years. It just doesn't take place continuously.
quote:Brin's a guy with a PhD, mentioning Sagan as an example of exactly what Card suggests, agreeing with Card's assement of some in the scientific community. I do remember Sagan's book--Demon Haunted World--that took these thoughts as a theme. What is it that you want to argue about concerning Brin?
This is an aside, but in what way, exactly, does Brin's PhD make him more likely to be accurate? I am pointing out that he is being quite inaccurate about Card, so why take his word for Sagan?
quote:Or show me multi-celled organisms going into something of a higher order of complexity.
Sure thing. Just as soon as you define 'complexity'. In a way we can measure, if you please.
Incidentally, would proof that humans and chimpanzees have a common ancestor satisfy this? I know of a really nice smoking gun on this one, but possibly that's not macro enough? After all, we're all bipeds. Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:As far as change goes, weren't we all supposed to have evolved from single-cell organisms? So let's start with something big. Instead of trying to define the line of "species," (a definition, it appears from comments and links in this thread is fuzzy, not precise, as you suggest all science must be) just go far enough beyond that there's no question. Show me bacteria going to multiple celled organisms. Or show me multi-celled organisms going into something of a higher order of complexity. That would be cool.
You go straight for the toughies, don't you?
It is important to keep in mind that major cosmetic changes do not equal large-scale evolution. Everything ultimately comes from the genetics, and one of the basic principles of modern biology is that minor genetic changes can lead to HUGE morphological, physiological, and developmental alterations, whereas TINY changes in basic cellular processes can require huge changes in the genetics (read: more time needed). It's somewhat counter-intuitive, but that's how it works. In the former case, multicellular eukaryotic molecular systems are so incredibly complex that minute genetic alterations will have massive ramifications throughout the rest of the system. For example, a single mutation in the oxygen carrier protein hemoglobin leads to sickle-cell anemia. That one mutation causes the protein to polymerize into long strands, which in turn forces red blood cells to assume a distended sickle shape. This altered morphology causes these blood cells to get stuck in blood vessels, resulting in oxygen deprivation of anything past that point in the circulatory system. Not an insignificant effect from such a tiny change, I think you'll agree. But there's more! It turns out that sufferers of sickle-cell anemia gain resistance to malaria, because the sickled cells are filtered out by the spleen automatically, along with the malarial pathogen, before they can do too much damage. The importance of this example is that its large effect comes from its modification of an existing gene, rather than the generation of entirely new molecular machinery, which requires the accumulation of anywhere from hundreds to millions of beneficial mutations.
Back to your suggested cases of macro-evolution. All of these cases happened over far longer time spans than, say, the speciation of ancestral apes into chimpanzees, humans, and bonobos (which IIRC only required a few million years). The primate case is really just a matter of altering gene expression during development so that certain organs grow in different sizes and shapes. That's not a simple change by any means, but it's ultimately a case of altering genes that already exist. Moving from unicellularity to multicellularity, or evolving cell differentiation (that is, the ability of a cell to become physically different from a genetically identical clone, which is what the move from colonies of identical cells to true multicellular organisms requires) from scratch required tens to hundreds of millions of years of gene duplications and the evolution of entire new families of genes. And all of this in the extremely rapid generation time of bacteria and single-celled eukaryotes!
Think of speciation in animals as the development of the various Romance languages from Italic Latin. Each language is clearly distinct, and native speakers of one cannot instinctively understand another. But in the roots of each language are many, many similar structures, so that a speaker of French can frequently guess at the meaning of Spanish words even if grammar and actual conversation are completely beyond his ability to understand. Under this analogy, French and Spanish are different "species," which share a clear common point of origin, but can no longer readily intermix.
The evolution of multicellularity and cell differentiation is more like comparing French to Chinese. The two languages undoubtedly share some common origin in the extremely distant prehistory of our species, but they have come so far since then that they are mutually unrecognizable. The most basic structures of the languages have changed, gradually, to an extraordinary degree. And so it is in those evolutionary cases. We're talking millions of mutations in loci all over the genome, massive restructuring of very basic cellular machinery, and a complete reorganization of cell development. While this is no challenge for natural selection, since the mechanism of gene duplication followed by independent evolution of the resultant identical genes is well-established as a mechanism for the evolution of new genes (and is in itself analogous to speciation versus "microevolution"), this type of restructuring requires incredible spans of time. There's a reason that nothing more complex than a bacterium existed on Earth for more than two billion years after life first appeared. Primitive life wasn't just sitting around, taking up space. Natural selection was already in full effect, and probably taking place extremely quickly due to the aforementioned rapid generation times of such single-celled organisms. That time was spent building up the basic forms of what would eventually become the building blocks of multicellular life as we know it.
quote:hundreds of millions of years of gene duplications and the evolution of entire new families of genes. And all of this in the extremely rapid generation time of bacteria and single-celled eukaryotes!
Interesting, Tarrsk.
It still sounds like Gould's theory should allow faster changes. I guess I'll have to go read his book to see if that's what he's really suggesting. I don't know all the details, but wasn't the cambrian explosion and explosion--huge changes? Didn't we see major macroevolutionary changes of the type I'm thinking of there? And this was not with bacteria but more complex forms? I'll have to dig into this.
Posts: 53 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:I don't know all the details, but wasn't the cambrian explosion and explosion--huge changes? Didn't we see major macroevolutionary changes of the type I'm thinking of there? And this was not with bacteria but more complex forms? I'll have to dig into this.
Yes, this is true. And it happened over the course of, IIRC, about twenty million years. So 'explosion' is a relative term. In this case, it is relative to the next two hundred million years, when nothing much (comparatively) happened. But twenty million is not exactly a short period of time.
The thing is, evolutionary biologists use words like 'short' to describe periods of several million years, because that is short compared to the entire geological history of the earth. Punctuated equilibrium does not postulate change over a few centuries or even decades. It contrasts, rather, with the old view that change was constant : In any given million years, you'd see some amount of evolution. Now we think that evolution happens in bursts : This million years you have new species coming out, the next ten million you see minor changes. But the 'bursts' are still taking place in geological time.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
This time, he's dropped the sniping at OSC for whatever differences they have/had (and retracted the word "savage" as a characterization), and offers a couple of really intriguing strategies to use in countering the Wedge approach and so forth.
I commend it to y'all. There's little there I don't completely agree with.
Posts: 89 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm not convinced that the ID movement is as conceding of evolutionary theory outside of Behe's and Dembski's respective pet hypotheses as Brin claims. Certainly (as Brin himself admits) the vast majority of the political backers of ID remain steadfast believers in young-Earth creationism. This particular demographic stuck with old-style Creationism of the sort that Brin claims is no longer at all popular long after scientists made public fools of its most vocal proponents. They only jumped on the ID bandwagon because it appeared to actually gain political traction for some time.
I agree that the real problems here are the public perception of science as the new Establishment and the polarization of politics in this country, and that a populist response by the scientific community is the best answer, but I'm not convinced that extending an olive branch Discovery Institute-ward would help. If anything, I suspect that it would give the IDers more ammunition ("Look, the scientists AGREED with us!"), and provide a certain amount of undeserved credibility for the group, even though none of their real arguments have been accepted.
But it's a very tough issue. How do you deal with the realities of modern politics without making a mockery of what science is? How do you argue when data is no longer admissable as valid evidence, and when the mere act of dialogue is twisted into the appearance of acceptance or concession?
Posts: 1321 | Registered: Sep 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
You know how you make this whole thing go away?
It's easy.
You simply give the movement a forum to speak. Include classes or even a unit on cosmology and creation. Say how science doesn't, by definition, look at supernatural means. Admit the limits of science, then look at a good representative sample of views on creation. In fact, have a unit on faith and science, a balanced unit. Let everyone have their moment to speak. Show how science and faith can be at odds and how some straddle both worlds.
And why not? This is obviously an important part of our society. You could have it as a separate class or part of the science class. As long as you don't teach ONE religious view, you'd have a marvelous discussion on epistemology. How to know the truth? What could be better than that as an intro to the scientific method?
This is how you end the problem once and for all. Give everyone a chance to say their peace in a reasonable forum. Let everyone state arguments for and against. Epistemology as a subject would be just as important, I think, as anything else in the curriculum.
Posts: 53 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Here are the standard epistemological methods. You simply define each and discuss its strengths and limitations.
1. Authority. 2. Observation (anecdotal and empirical) 3. Personal experience (of all sorts including revelation and mysticism) 4. Reason (logic, assumptions, premises, etc.) 5. Feeling
This provides all sorts of good material for examining advertisements, medical advice, stats abuse, knowing truth, science versus religion, etc. In short, it's a key part of critical thinking. So why not explain each?
Posts: 53 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Explain them, by all means. But not in a science class. Everything you just described would fit perfectly in a course on philosophy- indeed, I would strongly support the teaching of such a class, so long as it presented a multitude of viewpoints and analyzed them all critically. But science is strictly founded on one very specific epistemology, a combination of numbers 2 and 4 in your list, and therefore anything based on the others does not belong in a science class. You do not teach Intelligent Design in a science class any more than you teach Hemingway in a mathematics class.
Posts: 1321 | Registered: Sep 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote: As long as you don't teach ONE religious view, you'd have a marvelous discussion on epistemology.
I imagine that most ID proponents would have real problems with their "theory" being included in a comparative religions class and given equal weight with, say, "the world is an egg laid by a giant turtle."
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Tarrsk, you overstate the difference between epistemology and science. I'm just not convinced that epistemology can't work very well in a science class. Nobody is going to have a semester-long philosophy class because it's not on the standardized tests. So you can't have a separate class. Besides, it's not the history of philosophy that's important--it's epistemology. So the thing to do is find out where it best belongs: PE, shop, history, English, math, science, etc. You could put it with history or science. I don't think it would matter. But I think it would be best in science because it's about discovering truth while the other is focused on events. I think it would frame learning all the theories of science quite nicely. Insisting that we must not muddy the waters of the science class by discussing other modes of knowledge is niggling and pedantic and ignores the fact that we already do that in a few different ways.
What we don't want to do is legislate the teaching of one religious view. I can heartily agree with that sentiment. But that's not what I suggested. Talking about epistemology is a very different matter as is opening the forum.
Posts: 53 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Again, let me suggest that ID advocates would not be happy if schools were to start using Intelligent Design as an example of how to not do science. Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Teaching epistemology and in fact the current "gaps" in evolutionary theory have nothing to do with ID. They are entirely separate. I have no problem saying that we should change the way that we teach science in this country. Heck, I have no problem saying we should change the way we teach nearly everything in this country. But this doesn't automatically mean we should insert "Or possibly God did it." whenever there is a complex issue.
For that matter, ID, by itself, is not actually opposed to evolution. It's both acceptable and widely accepted (even among people who don't believe in ID) that these two can be consistent. On it's own, all ID says is that God is behind whatever processes, such as evolution, that we observe. You have to add something to ID before it becomes the natural opponent to evolution that the ID movement seems to treat it as. You have to add creationism.
Additionally, the ID movement is not about teaching better, especially not about teaching science better. Their basic idea, that we should not try to understand things and instead wave our hands and say "It's magic...err...God magic." goes against the very concept of education, especially science education. Also, no one needs to be taught ID. Those who believe it, already know all about it. Those who don't aren't going to care. It's not about education, it's about religious people marking their territory.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Citing examples of how not to do something is...
...a legitimate teaching method. Kindergarten teachers use it. My high school Chemistry teacher used it. The only thing that makes it inappropriate for ID to be used as a "how not to" is the numbers of people who would take it entirely the wrong way if you did.
Posts: 89 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Part of the method of citing "bad" examples is to show clearly what the problem with them is. As such, there are literally thousands of better, clearer examples than the currently active and politically contentious ID thing. Of course, if your objective is to get ID into the classroom by any means necessary and possibly use it as a "wedge" to get creationism in too, then I could see how you'd want to pretend that it's not a really poor choice for that lesson.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Johnbrown: Tarrsk is right when s/he says we don't have any "direct" evidence for evolution, but it is still accepted. In the field of astronomy (my background), we do the same with stellar evolution - how stars are born, live, and die. We cannot watch one star for millions or billions of years, but we can compare millions or billions of individual stars.
It's similar to how you judge the ages of new people that you meet. You've met hundreds or thousands of people in your life, some of whose ages you do know, and when you meet a new person you mentally compare his/her age to what you've seen with the other people. You weren't there when the person was born and followed them for their whole life, but you have indirect evidence of their age. Even if you asked their age and they told you, that would still be indirect since you weren't there the whole time, but you accept it as the truth.
Posts: 1 | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Being a citizen of Utah now and in response to Utah's SB96 http://deseretnews.com/dn/view/0,1249,635178409,00.html , I'm putting my money where my mouth is. Or it's that I'm putting my mouth where my mouth is. Anyway, I just sent this to my Govenor, State Representative, and the State Board of Education memebers responsible for curriculumn.
--------- Subject: SB96 is either an example of gross micromanagement or an inadequate attempt to ensure we teach critical thinking and epistemology
Dear Representative Hunsaker:
I would ask you to please vote against SB96. I am a devout member of the LDS church, and, of course, believe that the current theories of evolution conflict in some points with what I believe about the origin of life. However, I do not believe we should legislate that teachers must state that the theories of evolution are indeed theories or that some scientists disagree with some or all of them. What will we need to legislate next?—mandatory statements about plate tectonics, quantum mechanics, and global warming? Are we going to set up a committee to go through every science book so we can vote on statements on each of the theories presented in them? SB96 is an example of gross micromanagement of the classroom.
If the intent of SB96 truly is to teach our children the limits of science as an epistemology, then I would say it falls short in its scope because of its narrow focus. I can certainly see the need for a discussion of epistemology. In fact, I think this is one thing our schools are lacking. If the following are the main epistemological methods we use to determine truth, then I think our children would benefit immensely by discussing the strengths and limitations of each.
1. Authority. 2. Observation (anecdotal and empirical). 3. Personal experience (of all sorts including revelation and mysticism). 4. Reason (logic, assumptions, premises, etc.). 5. Feeling.
Having studied epistemology, our children will not only be able to approach science (methods 2 and 4) with a knowledge of what it is and its limits, but they’ll be able to also think critically about all the other methods as they respond to advertisements, medical advice, statistics, law, religion, etc. Epistemology would make a perfect introduction to science. This I would whole-heartedly support. But using legislation to mandate statements on each theory that arises in the scientific community that may conflict with a citizen’s personal views will only lead us into a quagmire. I ask you to please vote against SB96 and instead sponsor a change in the state education objectives that would include a brief (1 or 2 week) study of epistemology.
Sincerely,
John Brown
PS If you want I can furnish you sample chapters of what this would look like. I took a physical science class as an undergrad at BYU that used a text which started with a brilliant discussion of epistemology.
Posts: 53 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Great letter, John. We clearly still disagree on various important points, but I have nothing but admiration for someone who does something that could have a real, positive effect. Let us hope that your representative pays your letter the attention it deserves.
Posts: 1321 | Registered: Sep 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Zandperl, welcome to the forums. Clod, can you perchance find something a little more illuminating to say? If not, you may find a different forum more suited to your tastes. We are generally not big on one-word posts.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I just scanned this thread, so this might be a little out of place.
I recently attended a colloquium by a computational biologist from Harvard/MIT who has found evidence for a genetic method for huge leaps in the genome (say fish to amphibian). I am not a computation biologist, so this is a little hand wavy. His publications are at http://web.mit.edu/manoli/www/publications.html. They are written for the computational biology community, so are pretty technical.
They have found evidence that the entire genome of an animal can duplicate in the sex cells (the way it does now in a normal cell before it divides). Obviously, an individual with double the chromosomes is very "sick." However, in very rich environments, the individual can survive and constitutes a huge jump in "evolution."
It was the first real evidence for macro-evolution that I had seen.
Posts: 289 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
