Evolution

[Peregrine]

You know, for once I actually like this no religion rule... lets see if any of you can debate the subject without falling back on bible quotes. The "intelligent design" crowd claims that evolution can be disproved on purely scientific and empirical grounds, and I know we have at least one supporter of that position here. So here's the challenge... SickleYield, lets see if you have the metaphorical balls (yes, I know you're a woman) to do this in public. Or anyone else, really... if you feel you're up to it, post your arguments.

 

 

Now then, the background...

 

SickleYield, and likely other users of this forum, claims to have university-level degrees in biology and chemistry. Despite this, she believes (casting serious doubt on those supposed degrees) that the universe is between 6-10,000 years old, evolution fails to provide an explanation of the complexity of life on earth, empiricism and science are not capable of describing the entire universe, and various other things. Against this position is essentially all of science: all of modern biology, all of astronomy, large sections of physics, large sections of chemistry (including all of organic/biochem), and significant parts of ancient history (including continuous historical records of human civilizations older than 10,000 years).

 

SickleYield, I challenge you, or any other supporters of this "theory" to present your case against evolution. The following options are available areas of discussion:

 

* The countless dating methods, based on well-known physical constants, that prove the universe (as well as the earth in general, and all life on it) is orders of magnitude older than 6-10,000 years.

 

* The overall Darwinian theory of mutation and natural selection, including the well-documented examples that have been observed happening in recent history.

 

* Any of the various claims of "irreducible complexity" that have been made. I strongly encourage these, they're a lot of fun to disprove.

 

* The origins of (primitive) life itself. Note that despite popular misconception, this is NOT a part of the Theory of Evolution, I simply include it here because it may be interesting.

 

* Any of the assorted "scientific" arguments against evolution (entropy/thermodynamics, etc).

 

* The "missing link" problem, if you believe one exists.

 

* For those of you who generally agree with me, but have questions/disagreements about the specific details (punctuated equilibrium vs. gradualism, etc) , feel free to post them.

 

* The concepts of empiricism and the scientific method, and whether they are capable (or the best method) of finding the truth of the universe.

 

RELIGION, HOWEVER, IS NOT IN ANY WAY AN ACCEPTABLE ARGUMENT. YOU WILL KEEP THIS DISCUSSION ON SCIENTIFIC TERMS, AND SUPPORT YOUR ARGUMENTS WITH FACTS AND LOGIC. ANY MENTION OF FAITH, GODS, RELIGIONS, ETC, WILL BE IGNORED AND REPORTED TO THE MODERATORS.

[Crisb92]

I agree fully, and to support evolution I would like to put forward an example from my home country, Australia.

(No, we do not all speak in that outrageous accent)

 

 

When the British first settled Australia they brought with them, to hunt, rabbits. From this several hundred or so there has evolved, if you will, a serious problem that is resulting in the destruction of several native species. To combat this problem, a virus was released into the rabbit population, called myxomatosis, that was designed to kill off a large percentage of the rabbit population. This succeeded for a while, until a new strain of naturally selected rabbits evolved with a resistance to this virus.

 

This became evident because of the relatively rapid breeding cycles of rabbits, and effectively proves that evolution occurs, and has lead to the existence of almost, if not all, highly developed creatures, including human beings.

 

Sorry I don't disagree with you, just thought an example would be nice.

 

Also, do you have much expertise (knowledge) on the beginning of life? Just out of interest really, I know it involved the random permutations of proteins and other chemical substances, but would like to know your opinion on how life began.

 

Cris

[Guest]

I am a lowly bio. undergrad and I do have some problems with evolution theory.

I don't have a problem with the time frame of the universe(much older than 10,000 yrs) or Darwin's theory on evolution.

For me is the missing link is a problem, so would please give any evidence to support this link as not missing. I would like to hear your thoughts on irreducible complexity and what you find lacking and as Crisb92 inquired i would also like to hear your thoughts on life's beginnings.

 

I also find that both religion and science can become fanatical. I'm sure Lamarck would have called anyone an idiot for disagreeing with his theory.

[Peregrine]

For me is the missing link is a problem, so would please give any evidence to support this link as not missing.

 

Copy/paste from the "year 3000 thread":

 

Even ignoring the fossil record, it's easy to trace back genetic similarities and contruct an approximate evolutionary tree for pretty much any species. We know what genes we have in common, we know the approximate mutation rate, we know the structural similarities, etc. So in that sense, there isn't a missing link, we can very accurately trace our evolution back far beyond the usual "missing link" complaints. The only "doubt" comes from creationists who reject the entire concept of science and empiricism.

 

But the whole "missing link" thing is just a giant appeal to ignorance fallacy. Think about it for a moment... lets take two species, modern humans and the common ape/human ancestor. There's a gap, your so-called missing link. Now lets say a record of an intermediate species is found, call it Species A. The gap-ist's response would be "now there are TWO gaps!" (instead of human-ancestor, now we have ancestor-A, A-human), considering the overall theory twice as weak, not better supported. Now lets say another species, Species B is found, filling the gap between A-human. Now we have three "missing links" (ancestor-A, A-B, B-human) to deal with. I think you can see the pattern... unless we have a record of every individual organism between the ancestor and modern humans, there's always going to be a "missing link" you can point to.

 

And this is exactly what we should expect. Fossils only form under very specific and rare conditions, the majority of organisms simply die and are lost forever. Now consider the incredibly tiny percentage of the planet's surface we've searched for fossils. How many "missing links" are somewhere in a vast wilderness waiting to be found? How many "missing links" have been paved over to build another parking lot? How many "missing links" have been imperfectly fossilized and exist only as fragments or mis-identified random bones?

I would like to hear your thoughts on irreducible complexity and what you find lacking and as Crisb92 inquired i would also like to hear your thoughts on life's beginnings.

 

In simple terms:

 

1) Every single example of irreducible complexity is just plain wrong. To say more, you'd have to tell me which example you have in mind. But so far, every one of them actually can be explained by evolution.

 

2) Even if an example could be found, it doesn't make creationism/intelligent design/whatever correct. All it would mean is that there is a feature that nobody knows the explanation for yet. Since the theory works so well in every other case, we would simply set it aside as "to be explained later" and wait for new evidence to appear.

 

 

As for the origins of life itself, I'm probably not the best person to ask. I know in general terms (but you've already said you know that), but I don't know the details. I don't think anyone does, really, there's a lot of speculation involved and I'm not qualified to say "this is the correct answer" beyond the basics.

[Vagrant0]

Personally, I think this whole issue has more to do with certain religious ideologies which say that man is created from God, has an immortal soul, and is above all creatures. Evolution challenges this because the line between man and animal is blurred. It isn't that people don't get the facts, it's just that the facts conflict with what they believe. They don't want to accept the possibility that anything other than himan has a soul, or that humanity may have developed from an apelike ancestor who was not shaped in God's image, but was shaped in response to a changing environment and basis for survival.

 

Even if aliens were to come out of the sky and show their collection of research footage of the process dating back millions of years ago, people still wouldn't accept it. For whatever people seem to need a feeling like there is some great purpose to existance. Intelligent Design is really just trying to fill that role, rather than the laws of physics being responsible (physics describe chemical processes, chemical processes describe biological processes), instead it falls into the hands of God for going through the trouble of figuring out what everything is supposed to end up like. When really, if there is a God, it would be far easier to just define the laws of physics, and let everything adjust on its own, than to define everything. The laws of physics needed to be defined anyway, why go and make the effort to factor in billions of variables to make sure that somewhere in the universe something called human is made?

 

This isn't a religious argument, God in this case merely means the unexplainable force that makes the universe possible. Since the opponents of Evolution usually cite such unexplainable things, it only makes sense to refer it this force in those terms. It is not to say that those forces cannot be explained, only that the explaination is not currently available in definite terms.

[poopgoblin]

Well you requested my input, so here it is.

 

Let's get one thing straight, I don't care that much about the evolution vs. intelligent design debate, compared to the main idea of my faith, it's not a big deal. I believe what I believe and hold it to be true, and no one can take that away from me.

 

The problem is, I can't talk about God in my explanation of what I believe, so this'll be kind of hard.

 

No, I don't think that the Earth is only 10,000 years old, but I can't talk about God, so I can't explain why.

 

You're asking me to try and disprove evolution, but I don't really disagree with it all that much to begin with. I think that evolution and creation are related some how, I don't exactly know how, and honestly, I don't care. Both sides I think take it to far saying that either there is absolutely no God or that evolution is entirely wrong.

 

So, there it is, that's a rough idea of what I believe, it could be a lot more in-depth, but I can't talk about God...

[Guest]

Thank you for your insight Peregrine.

 

On irreducible complexity the general argument against is that it actually remove evolution from the equation seeing how life would reach this point only thru design. My question was only about the general idea of IC and ID, and whether or not you had any unique outlook on the matter.

 

Creationism and evolution on a philosophical level both look to find the why in which humans came about, be it the 1 in 10^9 change in nucleotide pairs over time or the slow crafting of an intellegence. As Vagrant0 said "people seem to need a feeling like there is some great purpose to existance", i think this is true for most.

Because out of all creatures on earth we are the weirdos, the only creatures that spend hours looking into space hoping we find our reflections or in search of a greater force that wanted us to be like this. Most would probably find it rather sad that humans are just one of nature's "accidents".

 

On the side of poopgoblin i too have no problem with having both God and evolution as i take both from the viewpoint of deism.

[Vagrant0]

Most would probably find it rather sad that humans are just one of nature's "accidents".

If we were, what would it really change for the worse? If the accident happened once, it's likely that it'll happen again elsewhere. Given that humanity seems bent on destroying itself, I feel more comfortable knowing that even if we should be destroyed, at some point another race will come along and gain something, if only something to laugh at, from our efforts here. If humanity was this one unique thing, once we're gone that would be it, and any accomplishments we may have made anywhere would be meaningless. To me that stands out as being more important than anything else. If it was intelligent design, you would assume the designer wouldn't have made us quite so greedy and suicidal.

[Guest]

True, humans being fukes of nature wouldn't change anything, we would still be as we are and have always been. Although if an alien race similar to our species or just similar in thought, i would hope not for laughter on their part but a curiousity to understand us.

I don't see humianity as "bent on destroying itself", which falls more into understanding the nature of man and probably should have its own topic. And further discussion of design and designer would take us out too far into the swamp of no return on this board.

 

Addendum: If it could happen elsewhere would it not also be in the realm of possibility that another species on our blue and green marble be able to advance to a similar point as we are now, with our without our destruction?

[Vagrant0]

Addendum: If it could happen elsewhere would it not also be in the realm of possibility that another species on our blue and green marble be able to advance to a similar point as we are now, with our without our destruction?

I havn't had a really good anthropology course in a while (not at all really) but I believe Neanderthals (sp) could have possibly been such a thing. They were a species which was developing parallel with humans, except with more development toward living in an iceage climate, more importance on brute force than developing tools. They were the ultimate iceage hunter, built for strength and surviving the cold, but not as well mentally developed. Humans could build better tools and organize better, so as the environment changed, we had the advanatge. I think it was possible that humans either intentionally (through conflicts over hunting areas) or unintentionally (killing off game, causing Neanderthals to have a harder time getting enough food and starving), caused the extinction of the species. Likewise, since then virtually every species has been hunted by humans, or their ancestors, if there was much potential for another race to develop on this planet, we likely interrupted it. If another is capable of developing in the next million years or so, it would likely depend on what the environment is like, and if that environment allows a fairly intelligent species a niche to develop. Since our destruction would likely cause mass extinction, such a niche may even be created in the aftermath. The question is if such a species would also survive that event.

 

Naturally, there would have to be some things in place for anything to be able to move beyond merely being able to survive and propigate well. Humans evolved first because there were already a number of things present in our ancestors to allow those steps. First would be the spot on the foodchain, being at the top would mean few things giving advantage to smarter, or more organized members of the species since capability is assured, meanwhile being a prey animal would require spending most of their energy merely staying alive. While in both cases intelligence does allow slightly longer survivability, it wouldn't make it certain. Somewhere near the middle is where the sweet spot would be since it would require adjusting between being prey and being predator. The food chain is important since larger brains require eating meat, and larger brains mean more to work with. This would lead to greater problem solving ability, and in turn basic language to help multiple members of the species to coordinate. Coordination between members of the species allows social groups to form, and older members the ability to share knowledge with younger ones. There are several species of mamals, birds, and even insects which show evidence of such abilities. However it is the ability to use tools that sets primates apart from most of those species. Since tool usage allows for bypassing various biological limitations, as well as requires a greater complexity of language to not only create them, but also impart their usage onto other members, it would be one of the final requirements of any species developing like we have. Tool ussage unfortunately requires an ability to manually move the tool in a specific way, which means that anything without a suitable appendage, or biological capactiy would be unable to develop in that manner. As uasge of tools, and the creation of new ones forces greater and greater demands on the mental abilities of the species, a species developing as much mentally as humanity would probably require tools.