veracity of evolution

@prothero,

prothero;87046 wrote:

I simply do not know what you mean by "that which genes manifest from".
You do not think survival and reproduction have anything to do with biological diveristy?
Do you believe the earth is roughly 4.5 billion years old?
Do you believe there have been mass extinctions of life on the planet?
Do you believe many forms of life present in the past are now extinct?
Do you believe that DNA holds the "information" necessary for various life forms?

[SIZE="3"]I can say yes to all your questions, plus throw in that I am certain evolution happened, but your list doesn't add up to E-theory. In the many debates I've had, it's virtually the only sort of response I ever get to the objections I actually make to E-theory, which I will boil down to four points for you:

1. It is in the realm of possibility that random mutation and the various influences behind natural section can make minor adjustments to an extant organism (I refer to those minor changes as "simple adaption"). BUT, how do we know simple adaption developed the organism in the first place? (That is, it is equally possible that simple adaption is merely a superficial means to help an organism adapt to environmental changes, and was not the evolving force that brought the first single cell life all the way up to an organism.)

2. For an organism to pass on a trait to its offspring, genetic change must take place. So there is no doubt that genetic change is the "heart" of evolution (and in that analogy, according to E-theorists, NS would be the "brain"). BUT, how do we know what caused those genetic changes which resulted in organism-building? E-theorists say change is random (in the sense of not being consciously directed), but they can't demonstrate it really was random. (I don't mean to put words in Richrf's mouth, but this idea may be what he was referring to when he said "that which genes manifest from.")

3. Dawkins says it is a "travesty" that E-theory doubters claim the mesmerizing creativity that one finds in evolution is "random" (which, if you notice, I did not say), and goes on to state that the creative aspect is contributed by natural selection (i.e., not by mutation). BUT, no one has bothered to confirm that selection for fitness/breeding advantages alone would result in creative bio-structuring. (I mean, for example, if fitness were the only standard, why shouldn't tank-like things have evolved?)

4. And finally, if evidence is still needed to establish E-theory's evolving mechanisms (RMut + NS) as certain (at least as certain the fact that we've established life did gradually evolve), then why are prominent scientists, like Dawkins, telling the public that evolution theory is "a fact the way the Earth orbiting the Sun is a fact"? It is misleading and a disservice to the objective practice of science, to claim an entire theory is certain, when only gradual development, common descent, and simple adaption are effectively proven.

For a little more on my arguments, the last part of my answer to Aedes (#61) sums up my objections:
http://www.philosophyforum.com/philosophy-forums/branches-philosophy/philosophy-science/5583-veracity-evolution-7.html

And my answer to ACB here (#82) reinforces my point that for thinkers like me it isn't whether evolution has occurred, but rather what caused evolution to occur:
http://www.philosophyforum.com/philosophy-forums/branches-philosophy/philosophy-science/5583-veracity-evolution-9.html

As in most other debates I've had with E-theory believers, this one has gone the same way. No one takes on my objections directly, but instead E-theory believers accuse me of lacking a proper science education, provide grand theories E-theorists have for mechanisms that might solve the problems (i.e., no actual evidence), ignore my objections and answer with what is known (fossil, genetic evidence etc.), and if all that fails to shut me up, then nasty ad hominem barbs are sure to be headed my way.

But if anyone does manage to finally attempt an answer, it is something like what odenskrigare offered to my question "How do you know organism-building mutation was random," when he answered, "cuz what else would it be?"

Now there is an a priori assumption if there ever was one. Why is randomness allowed to be assumed in a debate where the vast majority of humans believe at least "something more" is behind life's development? If we infer from odenskrigare's tone in this thread, the assumption is justified because members of the "something-more" crowd are stupid (and so need not be taken seriously). Well, I say it's assumed for a different reason, and that is because the randomness/NS aspects of E-theory eliminate any need for a creator, and E-theorists are primarily physicalist/atheists. It is a mechanistic assumption, something, if true, a Godless physical universe could pull off.

In other words, that assumption suits a mechanistic/atheistic/physicalistic/scientism belief system . . . not the actual facts. I will add that as a science lover, I find it especially upsetting to see a group's belief system cause some of its members to not only violate the primary rule of empirical epistemology (objectivity) for personal reasons, but also violates the public trust, a public who wants to believe what is labeled "scientific" has actually been verified according to the rules of science. That life gradually evolved is a fact, but what caused that evolution is far from settled . . . that would be the truthful statement to get from scientists.[/SIZE]

2 Replies

@LWSleeth,

LWSleeth;87156 wrote:

That life gradually evolved is a fact

I agree with everything that you have stated in your post, except for the above statement.

I would say that life changes. No problem.

But to say that it gradually evolved, I would ask, what does one mean by gradual and evolved from what to what? From what it once was (whatever that may be) to what it is now (what is it now?)? All of this is pretty slippery for me.

I kind of like the simple statements of Heraclitus and Daoists - All is in constant change, and just leave it at that. Though one can always speculate that humans emerged from cosmic dust or whatever. I have my own speculations, but I observe them as such.

Rich

1 Reply

@richrf,

richrf;87161 wrote:

But to say that it gradually evolved, I would ask, what does one mean by gradual and evolved from what to what?

[SIZE="3"]It means, over time and step-by-step, not in a miraculous instant. That is abundantly supported by fossil evidence, carbon dating, etc., as is the fact that however a "creator" works (if there is one), it must work naturally in a step-by-step fashion and obey some set of fundamental rules (i.e., not supernaturally).

As far as "from what to what" is concerned, that is irrelevant to gradual development (not that it isn't an interesting question).[/SIZE]

1 Reply

@LWSleeth,

LWSleeth;87168 wrote:

It means, over time and step-by-step, not in a miraculous instant. That is abundantly supported by fossil evidence, carbon dating, etc., as is the fact that however a "creator" works (if there is one), it must work naturally in a step-by-step fashion and obey some set of fundamental rules (i.e., not supernaturally).

As far as "from what to what" is concerned, that is irrelevant to gradual development (not that it isn't an interesting question).

Well if the creator works step by step then the creator may also have inspiration - create something completely new.

The evidence is put together as a very nice neat story, but given the same evidence, I can write a completely different story. I use to do this all the time in Improv Comedy classes. It is easy. We can do with stuff what we want to do with it. It is called inspiration.

Rich

1 Reply

@odenskrigare,

rich would you feel competent to debate your opinions in a lecture hall

informed person: "well we find ape telomeres in the middle of this human chromosome which is what should be expected from common ancestry with the apes and bla bla bla"

rich: "b-b-but the cost of health care in America! quantum mechanics!"

---------- Post added 08-31-2009 at 02:57 PM ----------

I swear to god that is what you are doing in this thread. I'd like to see how well you debate in public against an expert

0 Replies

@LWSleeth,

LWSleeth;87156 wrote:

And my answer to ACB here (#82) reinforces my point that for thinkers like me it isn't whether evolution has occurred, but rather what caused evolution to occur:
http://www.philosophyforum.com/philosophy-forums/branches-philosophy/philosophy-science/5583-veracity-evolution-9.html

I addressed some of your points in my post #90. Can you let me have your comments on this, please.

1 Reply

@ACB,

ACB;87172 wrote:

I addressed some of your points in my post #90. Can you let me have your comments on this, please.

Sorry, I missed that you were addressing me. I am headed out of town for a day, I'll look at it when I get back.

---------- Post added 08-31-2009 at 12:25 PM ----------

richrf;87169 wrote:

Well if the creator works step by step then the creator may also have inspiration - create something completely new.

The evidence is put together as a very nice neat story, but given the same evidence, I can write a completely different story. I use to do this all the time in Improv Comedy classes. It is easy. We can do with stuff what we want to do with it. It is called inspiration.

Rich

He/she/it may have an inspiration . . . it's just that you disputed my assertion that is a fact (as much as anything can be established as a fact) that evolution happened gradually over time. I don't see what purpose or inspiration has to do with that.

Also, yes you can write any story you want, but then why bother to debate, or to rely on reason and evidence? At a science area in a philosophy forum, reason and evidence is key to any meaningful discussion.

1 Reply

@odenskrigare,

odenskrigare;85278 wrote:

I don't even know why I'm dignifying this but discussion concerning the scientific status of evolution should be taken up here

is it falsifiable, is it factual, etc.

what makes this an issue is that the very premise of evolution stands at the crossroads of western society. We are still in the period of history that includes the Reformation and the Enlightenment, and, as such, any issue that props up or tears down the Biblical notions of the world and mankind will become controversial. The problem I have always had with the debate is that most people I've seen debating miss the fact that the argument can be boiled down to 'empiricism' v. 'faith'. Some have tried to bring the faith part into the other with ID, but it still doesn't make the fundamental shift needed. Science is science, and religion is religion. Religious people can be scientists, and scientists can believe in any number of religious systems, but faith cannot be put under a scope, and lab results are not to be accepted just because someone believes the results to be true.

Personally... I believe that, in science, not only evolution, or cosmology, or chemistry (etc) is always open to question and change, but the method of science itself must also remain open to change. (philosophical point following) I don't even believe that we can say that we understand a respectable percentage of what the universe consists of. Why should we assume that our few senses give us the ability to study the entirety of reality? With all our advancements over the past few hundred years, have we really come much farther in understanding than the Sumerians, Egyptians, Greeks.... ? Most of the progress in technology is really just different, and better(?) ways of working with principles that were known of decades or centuries ago...

1 Reply

@richrf,

richrf;87169 wrote:

The evidence is put together as a very nice neat story, but given the same evidence, I can write a completely different story. I use to do this all the time in Improv Comedy classes. It is easy. We can do with stuff what we want to do with it. It is called inspiration.

Except that example doesn't really get at how science works.

0 Replies

@LWSleeth,

LWSleeth;87173 wrote:

He/she/it may have an inspiration . . . it's just that you disputed my assertion that is a fact (as much as anything can be established as a fact) that evolution happened gradually over time. I don't see what purpose or inspiration has to do with that.

I personally find labeling anything as a fact very difficult. It does not allow that which is named a fact to evolve, and since everything evolves ...

This is more problematic for me, for something that has occurred in the past and therefore impossible to verify. Whether specific events happened gradually or instantaneously is also something that I have no idea how one might know as a fact - but my guess is that there was both gradual and instantaneous events.

BrightNoon;87190 wrote:

Also, yes you can write any story you want, but then why bother to debate, or to rely on reason and evidence? At a science area in a philosophy forum, reason and evidence is key to any meaningful discussion.

Because it helps create new ideas. I have no problems with stories. However, I have problems with facts. They sometimes lead to some very problematic conclusions such as eugenics.

I hope this better explains my viewpoint. I understand yours.

Rich

1 Reply

@richrf,

richrf;87228 wrote:

I have no problems with stories. However, I have problems with facts.

new signature right here

0 Replies

@Phredderikk,

Phredderikk;87176 wrote:

We are still in the period of history that includes the Reformation and the Enlightenment

I think the Somme, Auschwitz, and Hiroshima (among other things) killed the Enlightenment. We may still hold Hume's general opinion that we're brilliant and the world is there for us to figure out -- but on the other hand we also know that we're as self-destructive as we are god's gift to the planet.

0 Replies

@odenskrigare,

idk I can harbor only jaded ambivalence towards the human race as a whole but still I pretty much believe in Enlightenment-esque ideals

1 Reply

@odenskrigare,

To LWSleuth

Fundamentally the essentials of evolution are only three

Time- This is a slow process which takes place over large spans of time. The current scientific estimate for the age of the universe about 14 billion years, for the age of the earth about 4.5 billion years, for life on earth about 2 to 3 billion years.

Genetic variation or mutation- Genetic variation may or may not be entirely random. There are hot spots in genes which are more susceptible to mistranslation. There are some genes which have been preserved through out almost all the history of life. Some environmental events may increase the rate of genetic mutation., etc.

Natural selection- in order for evolution to work, those phenotypic or behavioral traits which result in procreative advantage, (you only have to survive long enough to procreate). will over time predominate in the population. Notice several things here, taking about populations not just individuals, taking about phenotypic traits and behavioral traits as well as genetics. Natural selection is anything but blind and indifferent.

What is the evolving force as you see it?
Where does the notion that genetic variation is entirely random come from?
What would be blind or irrational about natural selection?

Richard Dawkins has a political and social agenda as well as a scientific one. Dawkins direct attacks on organized religion and belief in god in general have reinforced the notion of theists that evolution is a direct attack on all forms of "natural religion". In this sense he has done a disservice to both science and religion in general.

Supernatural religion is not compatible with the basic tenets of science but the traditional notion of "natural theology" a conception of God working through nature and natural process is entirely tenable in an evolutionary process. How else does God create in your view?

If there is a God he is surely the creator of the universe more than the author of the Bible. Any rational conception "natural theology"of God must take into account natural science.

As with any complex historical process taking place over vast spans of time, the exact details of evolution will never be known but the theory is compatible with all the available evidence and facts. There is no comparable competing theory.

To Phederrik:

Science is limited in scope, and the view of the world it gives us is partial and incomplete. Science is the study of objects, particularly the spatial and temporal properties of matter. Science does not yield a comprehensive world view especially in the areas of subjective experience (values and aesthetics).

Having said that
In the effort to construct a comprehensive world view (philosophy), one should seek to integrate science (objective experience) with values and aesthetics (subjective truth) not to force a false choice between the truth of science (empiricism) and the truth of religion.(faith). Your religion should be compatible with the objective empirical evidence not in direct conflict with it. No religion which pits itself squarely against the popular conception of (how the world really is) can hope to long survive.

Supernatural theology must and is giving way to natural theologies (Conceptions of the divine working through nature and natural law process). This is much more of a problem in traditional Western (particularly Christian) theologies than in Eastern theology. It has to do with the traditional Christian dualism of (earthly versus divine) not too dissimilar from Cartesian dualism (both of which are rationally untenable). This splitting of the world has never been a feature of Eastern monistic theologies.

To Richrf

Intuition, inspiration and imagination all have their place in the formulation of scientific theories, metaphysical theories and intellectual breakthroughs. The final test of any such theory is in its correspondence to observations and facts. Your can construct an alternative to the theory of evolution but it must accord with observations and facts to be "scientific".

Metaphysical theories are fine also but the pursuit of both metaphysics and science is presumptively "truth". Truth in general must also correspond with experience (objective and subjective). Your theory corresponds with your subjective metaphysical notions but very little with objective scientific fact and empirical observation.

Science does not provide a comprehensive philosophy of life or worldview but in constructing your personal worldview you ignore the facts, observations and theories of science at your own peril. Metaphysics is not entirely empirical or scientific but it should at least be rational, coherent and correspond to reality.

2 Replies

@prothero,

prothero;87240 wrote:

To Richrf

Intuition, inspiration and imagination all have their place in the formulation of scientific theories, metaphysical theories and intellectual breakthroughs. The final test of any such theory is in its correspondence to observations and facts. Your can construct an alternative to the theory of evolution but it must accord with observations and facts to be "scientific".

I just think that Evolutionary Theory, whatever it is in its totality, is just a very fine story that pieces together some evidence. Besides the observation that things evolve, everything else I feel is the most spectacular kind of speculation. But to each his own. Science had to have a counter story to religious stories, and they created one. I think it is a nice story, but I would be embarrassed to call it anything but.

One should note that just as Biblical stories has had unintended consequences (e.g. religious persecution) so has science stories (people persecution, eugenics).

Rich

0 Replies

@odenskrigare,

odenskrigare;87236 wrote:

idk I can harbor only jaded ambivalence towards the human race as a whole but still I pretty much believe in Enlightenment-esque ideals

That's sort of a contradiction in terms. I also pretty much believe in Enlightenment-esque ideals; but I also take progress with a grain of salt. The main reason is that we're more powerful than we are smart.

---------- Post added 08-31-2009 at 11:55 PM ----------

richrf;87246 wrote:

I just think that Evolutionary Theory, whatever it is in its totality, is just a very fine story that pieces together some evidence.

That is a true statement. Where you go wrong is in your underestimation of just how voluminous this evidence is and how it crosses all kinds of scientific disciplines. Oh, and it is quite consistent with physics, if that makes you happy Surprised

2 Replies

@Aedes,

Aedes;87247 wrote:

That's sort of a contradiction in terms. I also pretty much believe in Enlightenment-esque ideals; but I also take progress with a grain of salt. The main reason is that we're more powerful than we are smart.

we can eventually be made as smart as we are powerful though

that is why I like neuroscience

"four, five! ... how to stay alive!
six, seven! ... go to hell or go to heaven!"

Aedes;87247 wrote:

That is a true statement. Where you go wrong is in your underestimation of just how voluminous this evidence is and how it crosses all kinds of scientific disciplines. Oh, and it is quite consistent with physics, if that makes you happy

ITT: rich makes appeals to the consequences of a belief

0 Replies

@Aedes,

Aedes;87247 wrote:

That is a true statement. Where you go wrong is in your underestimation of just how voluminous this evidence is and how it crosses all kinds of scientific disciplines. Oh, and it is quite consistent with physics, if that makes you happy

To be consistent with something does not make it a fact.

In a recent Zogby Poll only 33% of the U.S. public believed the Darwin's Evolutionary story. And for good reason. Science has not made its case.

Evolution News & Views: In Darwin Anniversary Year, New Zogby Poll Reveals Majority Support for Intelligent Design

Science cannot even predict the weather tomorrow with any accurracy much less facts:

Internet Weather Forecast Accuracy - OmniNerd

And yet, we have scientists coming out in mass and telling us it is a fact that what they say happened millions of years ago. It may be that scientists have convinced themselves, but this dog doesn't hunt.

I think that it would be far more believable if scientists simply said that this is what they believe happened millions of years ago. But, it is something that apparently isn't allowed within the scientific vernacular to suggest that they aren't sure, so they convince themselves and no one else.

I for one don't buy the story at all. It stretches credulity to the utmost to suggest to someone that science knows what happened millions of years. It is really speculation, but scientists apparently don't speculate. They only theorize and present facts - or at least they suggest that they do.

When someone asks me, I say this is what science suggests happened. I can't even say for sure what happened yesterday much less at the dawn of evolution.

Rich

3 Replies

@richrf,

richrf;87254 wrote:

To be consistent with something does not make it a fact.

In a recent Zogby Poll only 33% of the U.S. public believed the Darwin's Evolutionary story. And for good reason. Science has not made its case.

Evolution News & Views: In Darwin Anniversary Year, New Zogby Poll Reveals Majority Support for Intelligent Design

why are you so US-centric rich

http://prometheusongebonde.files.wordpress.com/2009/03/public-acceptance-of-evolution1.jpg

behind Cyprus, just ahead of Turkey

USA! USA! USA! USA!

richrf;87254 wrote:

Science cannot even predict the weather tomorrow with any accurracy much less facts:

Internet Weather Forecast Accuracy - OmniNerd

And yet, we have scientists coming out in mass and telling us it is a fact that what they say happened millions of years ago. It may be that scientists have convinced themselves, but this dog doesn't hunt.

could that be because the weather is a wonderfully chaotic dynamic system whereas fossils just kind of sit there until people find them

are you going to say nobody knows for a fact whether Washington crossed the Delaware now?

richrf;87254 wrote:

I think that it would be far more believable if scientists simply said that this is what they believe happened millions of years ago. But, it is something that apparently isn't allowed within the scientific vernacular to suggest that they aren't sure, so they convince themselves and no one else

bzzt! wrong

richrf;87254 wrote:

When someone asks me, I say this is what science suggests happened. I can't even say for sure what happened yesterday much less at the dawn of evolution.

then stop smoking so much weed

0 Replies

@richrf,

richrf;87254 wrote:

In a recent Zogby Poll only 33% of the U.S. public believed the Darwin's Evolutionary story. And for good reason. Science has not made its case.

Science education in this country is abominable, it's the worst in the developed world. So if you're going to pass judgement on state of the art science with popular opinion polls, I think you've got a grossly unrealistic opinion of how well our educational system is doing.

richrf;87254 wrote:

I can't even say for sure what happened yesterday much less at the dawn of evolution.

You could if you knew how to read the underlying science, or at least would make the effort to do so. You can't if you are going to be impressionistic about it. Science is about details.

0 Replies

veracity of evolution

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know