Evolution - Who wants to KNOW?

farmerman,

Does this mean intelligent design is somehow compatible with evolution theory? Does intelligent design theory accept natural selection?

The public does not have a good understanding of what "natural selection" is. Natural selection is a destructive process which weeds out anything more than an iota to the left or right of dead center for the norm for an animal species. It is an agency and guarantor of STASIS, and not change. It positively prevents change other than what is normally termed microevolution, i.e. cosmetic variation within a species.

The theory of evolution posits that new KINDS of animals arise via mutation, and then that natural selection weeds out the "unfit" from amongst the mutants.

In human affairs, that sort of thing is called a "cush job" or "easy life"; ALL mutations beyond the inevitable microevolutionary changes are unfit.

If you lived in a jar, and nothing ever changed, Natural Selection might be seen as a mechanism for keeping everything on center. But we don't live in a jar. The world is full of changing enviroments, and variation within species (which we can see) does differentiate their ability to reproduce successfully, and that is Natural Selection.



I don't know what world you're looking at Snake, but on Earth, we have a dynamic and varied environment just riddled with opportunities for species to exploit with theiir variations. And as you know, Natural Selection is inevitible; a beautiful aspect of the natural world.



Not exactly. Evolution posits that variation arises from mutation, and that natural selection causes variation to accumulate within a population. As the variation builds on itself through many many generations, and continued changes, the popoulation eventually becomes different enough from its ancestors that they represent a new KIND.

The definition of Evolution which you stated above is unworkable, and obviously doesn't exist. The real definition of evolution however, does work, and the process does exist.



See the explanation above. Your statement indicates that you don't understand the process, so it's not surprising you despise it. Whatever misinterpretation of evolution you have dreamed up obviously doesn't work, and deserves to be despised. If you will switch to an accurate understanding of the theory, then maybe you will find it more reasonable.

gungasnake claimes to be an intelligent design proponent, yet hes not quite 100% sure what their positions are. Hes really a classical Creationist , maybe a young earther also, I give up. His claims are that the theory of evolution by natural selection is incompatible with Christian belief. For the record, IT IS NOT.Wandeljw- most religions embrace evolution as the mechanism of biological change and adaptation.
( Im a skeptic that says that theres no E V I D E N C E for Intelligent design ), the upcomingcourt case will, in its terminal point, ultimately have decided for the US, whether a religious centered origins story, or a scientific one will be taught in schools..

The Catholic Church, in practice, can be a (sort of) proponent of Intelligent design, although the "extreme postions" of Irreducible complexity are todays arguments that, something like a flagellas insertion in a paramecium, is so complex as it is, that it had no earlier model from which to have issued.
My position is that , we can see many "irreducible complex " organs (such as a notochord) develop in a fossil form just at the early Cambrian and this model proceeded on through subsequent genera into vertebrates.

gunga is convinced in his positions , but in order for him to be taken seriously, hed have to post "Special Creation" at each of the major extinction periods

WOW.gunga, with all due respect ,you had better understand what youre arguing against before you yell out loud in public. Ernst Mayr, who just died this week, was the author of sympatric and allopatric speciation . Think about all the closely related genera that are separated by a sea where, before the geographic barrier became effective, were actually a single species. Youre trying to get too much implied mileage out of microevolution. If two related species do not interbreed, that becomes the building block for higher taxa

Even Darwin was uncomfortable with the term "Natural selection", for this implies some sort of "intent" from which follows the implication of design work by an intelligent entity. Darwin wanted to provide his readers with a real world example of the selection process and alluded to that of dog and horse breeders as an analogy. However, this had the unintended and unfortunate effect of introducing "intent" into the process. I am not sure whether those subscribing to ID are confused because of Darwin's somewhat wanting term "Natural Selection" or whether their intent was to somehow link the intent of an "intelligent designer" with legitimate scientific thought thereby giving the appearance of scientific proof of the existence of God. I suspect the latter.

Also, many misunderstand the concept of "survival of the most fit". Again, many feel it is the "intent" of "Natural Selection" to provide organisms with ever increasing fitness and thereby "improve" those to the point of perfection. This is not true. The sole outcome of all mutations and selections, whether "natural" or humanly imposed, is decided merely by reproductive success. That DNA that gets passed on is the winner. Success of genes, in the natural world of organisms, is measured only by whether they continue to propagate. Nature is only "interested" by what those genes have done lately and their reproductive success. To Nature the failure of genes to continue on is a "Don't Care" situation.

JM

To be fair, intelligent design is possible as we cannot prove or disprove the existence of God. But for us to be able to study evolution properly, we must ignore the existence of God and pretend he doesn't exist.

To not do so would be to encourage lazy thinking, to encourage the automatic reflex of attributing anything that cannot be explained to God when there may be a perfectly good explanation for that inexplicable process.

[quote[="JamesMorrison"]Also, many misunderstand the concept of "survival of the most fit". Again, many feel it is the "intent" of "Natural Selection" to provide organisms with ever increasing fitness and thereby "improve" those to the point of perfection. This is not true. The sole outcome of all mutations and selections, whether "natural" or humanly imposed, is decided merely by reproductive success. That DNA that gets passed on is the winner. Success of genes, in the natural world of organisms, is measured only by whether they continue to propagate. Nature is only "interested" by what those genes have done lately and their reproductive success. To Nature the failure of genes to continue on is a "Don't Care" situation.
JM[/quote]

I find this fascinating, don't you? It makes you question what is life? Are we really in control of our lives or is DNA in control? Are we alive or merely a bunch of chemicals that have deluded ourselves into thinking we're alive and we're more special from the more innate and inanimate physical objects of our Universe?

But I digress.

May I add to Mr. Morrison's statements by also pointing out that natural selection does not necessarily imply every man for himself, either. Since it is more to do with survival of genes, it is possible for "altruistic" behaviour to occur where an individual who is related to another will find it in their best interest to help the other raise their offspring for in doing so, they will indirectly ensure their genes are passed on.

EDIT: I have just been reading more on the subject and have come to a startling conclusion. There is not enough literature out there to prove that macroevolution works. There is literature out there proving that macroevolution is correct, but apparently, there's not enough and it's not readily available and is poorly organised.

How can we as self-respecting scientists claim the Theory of Evolution is more true than Creationism if we don't do enough to prove it correct?

The physicists are all the time trying to prove or disprove Einstein's Theory of Relativity. Everytime now and again I pick up a copy of New Scientist, only to read about some physicists trying to prove a part of Einstein's Theories correct (the one about the speed of gravity, I think).

What's more there are far too many pieces of literature out there that just isn't available to the public. how can they learn more about evolution, how can they know about the speciation events that have been observed, how can they read about it if none of it is available to them?

I suspect it's all to do with a lack of money. In the biological sciences, all the big money is going to neurobiology, cancer and so forth. We think and say that evolution is a done deal, that its confirmed and that its a fact, but its still just a Theory and hasn't reached a Law status yet.

Chemistry and physics all have so many scientific laws, yet the biological sciences have so few. Wouldn't it be nice to change the status of evolution from scientific theory to scientific law? Sure, having it at a theory status is better than hypothesis, but is that good enough?

I say no.

There are many science professionals who have posted on this topic and can give good information on that.

However, in my opinion, even Newton's law of universal gravitation can not be completely tested. How can one get physical evidence that gravitation affects the orbit of planets?

macroevolution is just a name weve given to describe changes at species level or higher. To prove that it HAS worked, we look at the fossil record and decide when the boundaries are broken between species and higher taxa. As far as Im concerned, the ability to NOT INTERBREED on two closely related species is proof enough.
Whenever time is the crucible , we always demand an answer now.

Farmerman, how do you speak about the fact that man seems to have, in some parts of the world, popped onto the planet complete with body beautiful, while man also seems to have already been present as a "cave" man in other areas.
Then we have those part animal, part bird, part reptile, part ? that someone here says existed also.

Bring back the centaur, Pegasus, the unicorn. Interesting characters.

Does any of this really matter? Well, yes, it does. Science should continue on, but creationism should be left in churches and in people's homes as spirituality and religion as there are NO answers there. Just my opinion.

Wolf_ODonnell, Welcome to A2K. If I might make some more comments:



This statement shows that you are more fair then the ID (Intelligent Design) camp. Herbert Spencer, a nineteenth-century social scientist, has written: "Those who cavalierly reject the Theory of Evolution, as not adequately supported by facts, seem quite to forget that their own theory is supported by no facts at all."
The ID people are also disingenuous, for they demand "transitional fossils" as proof of evolution, then, when confronted with such examples as archaeopteryx or Ambulocetus natans, demand ever finer examples. This is, of course, a clever debate strategy but merely shows their intent is not to enlighten but to obfuscate the waters of knowledge. However, your observation that the existence of an Intelligent Designer (God) must be ignored is spot on.

This conceptual use of Occam's razor is what ultimately separates scientist from those that would have us believe that biological "complexity" needs ID. That is, if we can find a simpler explanation for life and its march towards complexity it will enable us to throw off the yoke of mysticism and ignorance that enables a select few to control the majority. There is nothing wrong with faith in a higher power. What annoys me is the constant never ending effort of those in the religious camp to disallow others, especially the young, their right to make up their own minds given all the evidence.



Yes it is fascinating. If you haven't already, you might want to read Richard Dawkins' The Selfish Gene who expounds more on this subject even discussing the altruism "gene". This concept makes sense. One can see how there might be a direct relationship between the degree of altruism and the closeness of DNA similarity (biological relationship). Who would you favor more your son, nephew, or a stranger? This may be anecdotal but a scientific analysis might be interesting. But being scientists we would have to prepare ourselves for results that might surprise and change our minds. True altruism may or may not exist and is certainly arguable either way. The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation: Altruism, Good PR, or just a good Tax dodge? Those who answer all three dilute the argument in favor of the first, perhaps to homeopathic proportions.

Are we just a bunch of chemicals? Yes we are chemicals but not just. These every day chemicals using just ordinary laws of physics (These are the basis of all laws: chemical, biological, or whatever) have afforded life on earth biological processes, enzymes, reproduction, senses of taste, touch, sight, emotions, thoughts, mathematical modeling, and even the question of free will that you mention. (For evolution questions see Daniel Dennett's Darwin's Dangerous Idea, for the question of Free Will see his Freedom Evolves) All these simple chemicals form the building blocks of the biological complexity we witness presently, even our thoughts and concepts. Speaking of humans Carl Sagan made a wonderful statement that is both eloquent and relevant: "We are a way for the universe to know itself". These building blocks form the everyday cranes that are used to explain today's complex biological systems. The "Sky Hooks" of mysticism need not be employed.



This is, of course, what Scientists do: Propose questions, gather data, analyze it and form conclusions, which might question accepted tenets and paradigms, then confirm or deny the premise of the original question. Those who hide behind such concepts as ID may pose questions but they are loath to change opinions even if they bother to gather and analyze data.

wandeljw



It would seem that successful deployment of various military and civilian satellites would demonstrate that Newton's Laws of gravitation are "close enough" for their practical application. Einstein's are better yet. If not proof of Newton's Laws, their practical application surely is a strong argument for their validation. Accepted science and its offspring, technology, like Iraqi elections, need not be perfect, they just need to work well enough to get the job done.

JM

JM,

I agree with what you say on gravitation. I did not expand on my statement because I do not have enough background in science.

I mentioned Newton's law because it is very credible. Evolution by natural selection is also credible.

It seems people sometimes ask for too much physical evidence when it comes to controversial scientific theories.

I accept theories that explain their subject well and are in agreement with available data.

Some critics of evolution are asking for evidence that is unobtainable.

Evolution




Scientists who study evolutionary theory have never claimed that humans came from apes. They do claim that apes and humans share a common ancestral line, separating a million or more years ago.

excellent points James. Spencer gets all the credit and blame for cutting to the core of many statements about organic evolution.

Sunlover, We generally agree that first Savannah dwelling hominids appeared almost 11 MY ago and upright walkers maybe 5. Human evolution is mostly a function of our ability to walk and populate new areas in an almost communal fashion.

All the genetic differences that separate all races and populations of humans are less than .03 percent of the entire planets human genome. So its easy to trace the wanderings of our ancestors as they left Africa (twice) and moved about the planet.

Just an update.





Ira Block © National Geographic
A new report seems to support the idea of a human dwarf species marooned for eons while modern man spread across the planet.


Dwarf Species Might Have Been Human Ancestor, Scientists Say
By JOHN NOBLE WILFORD

Published: March 3, 2005


ne of the extinct little people of the Indonesian island of Flores, who were accorded a separate status in the early human family after their discovery was announced last October, has undergone its first intelligence test.

In a study of the shape and contours of its tiny braincase, the 18,000-year-old adult female, who was barely three feet tall, was found to have anatomical attributes suggesting a capability for higher thinking processes, a significant memory bank and ability to plan ahead. Not bad for a species with a brain one-third the size of a contemporary human's.


A research team, led by Dr. Dean Falk of Florida State University, reported today that casts made of the interior cranium walls revealed that the brain had had enlarged lobes and prominent ridges associated with higher cognitive processing. The results, described in a teleconference and interviews, are being published in the journal Science on Friday.

Other scientists said they were impressed by the research, but cautiously withheld judgment on the interpretations. A few disputed the conclusions, contending that the diminutive individual was more likely a genetically maldeveloped modern human, possibly a kind of small-brained midget.

The findings, said Dr. Falk and Dr. Michael J. Morwood of the University of New England in Australia, appeared to be consistent with the stone tools and other traces of advanced technology and behavior left by the little people of Flores, all of which had seemed inconceivable in ones with such tiny brains. If this were supported by further investigations, scientists say, it could overturn conventional evolutionary thinking on the relationship of brain size to intelligence.

In an article accompanying the report, Dr. Fred Spoor, an evolutionary anatomist at University College London, was quoted as saying the new study "upsets one of our main concepts of human evolution, that brain size has to increase for humans to become clever."

A large modern humanlike brain is not necessarily required for some advanced behavior and skills, Dr. Spoor noted. "It can be done by reorganizing a small brain, with convolutions and rewiring, and this goes to the heart of our understanding of human evolution," he added.

The brain study further seemed to confirm earlier conclusions that these people belonged to a separate human species, designated Homo floresiensis, that may be closely related to Homo erectus, the predecessor species of modern Homo sapiens.

Another possibility raised by Dr. Falk's group is that Homo erectus and the little people may have shared a common ancestor, an unknown small-bodied and small-brained creature that lived two million or possibly three million years ago.

"I started out skeptical," Dr. Falk said in the teleconference, arranged by the National Geographic Society. "I thought we would see something like a chimpanzee's brain, but nothing like this has been seen before."

Speaking from Jakarta, Dr. Morwood, an archaeologist and a leader of the original discovery team with Dr. Peter Brown, also of Australia, said the brain findings "fit very well with other findings," namely the people's apparent ability to hunt pygmy elephants, use controlled fire and make advanced stone tools.

Dr. Morwood said that fragments of eight separate specimens had been collected in the discovery cave on the remote island of Flores. There is no single complete skeleton, and only one skull. Some of the jaws and pelvic bones are especially primitive, he said. Several of the specimens appear to be of individuals that are even smaller than the one that underwent the brain test.

The fossils and artifacts are kept in Jakarta, where CT scans of the skull interior were taken for creating latex casts showing the brain's configuration. The casts were produced and analyzed at the Mallinckrodt Institute of Radiology at Washington University in St. Louis.

Dr. Falk, an anthropologist, who specializes in studies of archaic brains, compared the Homo floresiensis cast to those of an adult female chimpanzee, an adult female Homo erectus, a contemporary woman and a microcephalic human, one born with an abnormally small skull. She also broadened the study to include the skulls of gorillas and other chimpanzees in addition to hominid skulls even earlier than Homo erectus.

Pretty cool article cicerone. Pygmy humans already exist i thought?

O and how do they determine if a specimen is a valid different species than another? Can they tell genetically its not a modern human?

El-Diablo, I think they superimpose the specimen by computer to human and primate brains, and make an educated guess as to what they can speculate as to the possibilities. Pygmy humans live in Africa, but the skull was discovered in Indonesia. Since humans and chimps have DNA that is 98 percent similar, I'm not sure if they can use genetic tests for this purpose from bones that are 18,000 years old.

I'm years behind the ball on this, but I'd just like to respond to the initial question posed by Biblio.

Why on earth would anyone want to spell evolution with a capital E ?

Perhaps...(and I'm serious here, not taking snipes) the only reason it would even come up that way is if people with religious beliefs saw it as an alternative faith or belief system, comparable to "The Creation".

It isn't. It's just a theory, a scientifically developed theory just like gravity, or radiation, or thermodynamics.

People who are in the habit of seeing the universe in a religious way would naturally expect a similar "thought process" even in those they consider to have an "opposite" view.

Africans who can run fast are more likely to survive a lion plague. Those surviving fast running men and women will most likely have children who run fast. (The slow running men and women didn't get to have any kids) There's nothing magical about survival of the fittest, and that's all evolution is.

Eorl,

Bibliophile has asserted more than once that he believes the theory of evolution represents a "religious worldview". We have all tried to talk him out of this assertion.

Those pushing equal time for "creationism" argue on the basis that evolution represents a religious or atheistic worldview.

wandeljw and Eorl

I have often said let the creationist have what they ask for: equal time. So perhaps a day or week of grade school instruction could be set aside that would mandate the juxtaposition of both camps. A side by side, argument by argument, evidence against evidence comparison where open and closed minds are required to examine both sides of the issue.

But this requires a non biased construct. Has anyone here ever seen this? I have seen either one side or the other pick away at each other but have never experienced such a side by side comparison. Can this be done? Perhaps this might be like comparing apples and oranges, for scientists are busy obtaining and grinding up evidence in pursuit of legitimate conclusions while Creationists, with conclusions firmly in hand, are busy manning the ramparts against the perceived atheistic onslaught trying to throw sand on the slippery slope that, in their minds, leads to the unthinkable.

But such a side by side comparison, if existing or constructed, would be useful in an academic setting and provide the equal time the creationists seem to want.

JM