Oolon Colluphid

Well, duh! Which educational establishment awarded you your degree in Stating the Bleeding Obvious While Missing the Point Entirely?

Once more, for the slow ones at the back...

Evolution meaning ‘common descent’ is a fact. This is based on at least 200 years of accumulated evidence from a wide range of separate, mutually agreeing fields: palaeontology, geology, biogeography, comparative anatomy, genetics, ecology, and all the associated and related disciplines and subdisciplines. It is as much a fact as the earth going round the sun, probably even more supported than that. It is an overwhelmingly verified true observation. A pattern in need of explanation.

In any scientific theory, there are hundreds of explanatory hypotheses, bundled and interlinked, each individually tested and testable. There is a sliding scale of confirmedness from hypothesis to (sub)theory for each individual strand. Many are extremely well supported, some looking likely, and some more speculative, all intertwined, that together form the overarching theory; in this case, the Theory of Evolution.

Examples of hypotheses explaining the fact of evolution:

Well supported: random mutation plus (natural) selection. Confirmed by everything from field and lab population genetics (eg the Grants on Daphne Major in the Galapagos), to myxomatosis resistance in rabbits, to chloroquinine resistance in the malaria parasite Plasmodium, to breeding experiments (eg pigeons, dogs), to genetics showing the formation and spread of new genes (eg for the digestion of nylon oligomers -- which do not exist in nature -- in bacteria), to computer modelling). Blending of characteristics was thought c.1860-1920 to undermine it, until the rediscovery of Mendel’s ‘digital’ inheritance rules. A Theory in its own right.

Looking likely: Margulis’s endosymbiosis for the origins of eukaryotic cells (the ones that make up all the usual stuff you think of as plants and animals). Of course you know that some cell structures (eg chloroplasts and mitochondria) have their own, separate DNA. (The nucleus contains the recipe for building all the intricacies of the body except these organelles, which keep their little bit of the genome separate.) What you may not know is that eg mitochondrial DNA bears a very great resemblance – far far greater than chance -- to that of certain bacteria. See for instance <a href="http://www.the-scientist.com/yr2000/oct/hot1_001016.html" target="_blank">this article</a>. A hypothesis that’s almost a Theory.

More speculative: punctuated equilibrium -- that the pattern of the fossil record suggests long periods of not much change, followed by abrupt change. May be right at higher taxonomic levels, but refuted by specific examples of gradual change, and (so I hear) even with the Phacops trilobite that Gould first observed punk eek in.

So 'evolution' is both a fact and a theory.

The fact is that it has happened and continues.

The theory is our best attempts at explanation.

Yes it is.

The same principles of physics (quantum mechanics) that underlie lasers, cathode ray tubes (eg in the monitor you’re reading this on), microwave ovens and transistors, also underlie radioisotopic dating of the earth’s rocks.

The same principles of geology that tell us where to look for oil so successfully underlie palaeontology.

Chemistry is based on physics: some of physics is about how atoms work; chemistry is about how said atoms interact. The same principles of chemistry that underlie the entire plastics industry -- based on geology -- also underlie biochemistry: our understanding of proteins, nucleic acids, cellular reactions, and genetics.

The same principles of genetics that can make hardier wheat, explain diseases that run in families, and tell if your child is actually yours, are used to explain how genomes function and change, and to show that all living things are related.

The same principles of geophysics that underlie plate tectonic theory help to explain the distribution of organisms across the planet.

The same (physics) principles of spectroscopy that underlie how we can determine the composition of chemicals, eg in contaminated food, can be used to analyse starlight -- and to tell us it’s been travelling more than 6000 years. The same physics (relativity), relying on a constant speed of light, that is used in satellite navigation, is also how we know the stars really are as far away as they seem.

The same understanding of medicine that is used to design effective antibiotics against tuberculosis and drugs for HIV, to understand how bodies grow from single cells and so correct birth defects, of how hearts are designed to pump blood (link to physics) laden with haemoglobin-rich oxygen (link to biochemistry, and thence physics), that explains why sickle-cell anaemia is common in malarial regions... is based on evolution.

The same principles of selection of variation that computer programmers now use to design computational algorithms derive from the algorithm of biological natural selection. Oddly enough, they use integrated circuits -- usually including transistors.

But if one is ignorant of a field, one is quite likely to not have the full details from which the inferences are drawn by those who do. Therefore it may be impossible for you to know whether the inferences are valid or not. If I knew nothing about seventeenth-century optical science and painting, would I not be a fool to argue with those who say the evidence indicates Vermeer used a camera obscura?

For example:

We can be pretty certain that dogs do not meow either, and we have good reasons for thinking this. Stating that junk DNA has no known function, despite all the studying of it, means just that. Everyone who’s looked at it can find no function. It is pretty certain that satellite DNA, three groups of which make up 40% of the Drosophila fruitfly genome with eleven million and two lots of 3.6 million repeats each of about seven base pairs, which do not code for any protein, has no function. Unless you’re in the habit of seeing faces in clouds and thinking they are faces, the default position is that it doesn’t have one, until such time as it is shown otherwise. You are the one claiming that this dog might meow. The burden of proof is therefore on you to give even a hint that it might.

If you want an example of someone using faulty logic, find a mirror.

TTFN, Oolon

hezekiah jones

Raising so-called "logical" objections (such as they are) doesn't do a damn thing to support either of the Bible's creation myths or either of the Bible's flood myths anyway.

Oolon Colluphid

Ooh yes! I'm just dying for Douglas to bring up the Ark...

Douglas, you need to realise that there’s two halves to the problem. You need to show that evolution is flawed, yes, but doing so would then leave us in a ‘don’t know’ position. You also need to propose an alternative that explains everything evolution does, and explains it better / more simply and explains more. When the Newtonian system was replaced by general relativity, Newton wasn’t shown to be wrong, just incomplete. And your hypothesis needs to have coherence with the rest of science.

Just so you are aware of the magnitude of the task you have set yourself. If you can do it, the world is both financially and intellectually the mollusc of your choosing.

TTFN, Oolon

DougI

This formal debate is a joke. Scigirl presents mountains of empirical evidence and Douglas just looks at it as says, "No it isn't." I was shocked by the vast numbers of one or two-line responses to the evolutionary thesis of scigirl.

There are two possible reasons for such a lack of intellectual discourse from the cretinist. One: He doesn't understand what is being discussed and replies with the typical apologistic response Two: There is nothing to validate the creationist viewpoint and refute the scientific facts of evolution. Either way scigirl and evolution have triumphed and the debate (if it can be called that) stands as a monument of intellectual and scientific superiority over the pseudoscientific myth of creationism.

Jesse

Scigirl posted these graphs:





Douglas responded:

From these rough images it may look like the groups are "sufficiently close", but if you examine the fossil record as documented by evolutionists you find the degree of sorting is very, very high. For example, every single dinosaur fossil ever found has been from the Mesozoic era. Every single fossil member of the large modern mammal groups (primates, elephants, hooved mammals, whales, canines, felines, etc.) has been found in the Cenezoic layers. There are no exceptions among the thousands or hundreds of thousands of fossils of these various groups.

Here are some more fossil history charts I've found, if other people know of more, please point them out...

From Patrick's excellent page <a href="http://www.geocities.com/earthhistory/" target="_blank">Creation Science and Earth History</a>, from the sub-page on <a href="http://www.geocities.com/earthhistory/tran.htm" target="_blank">transitional forms</a>:



Again, these bars cover every single fossil member of each group, no exceptions--for example, you won't find a single reptile fossil before the Carboniferous, or a single mammal prior to the triassic (although the <a href="http://ii-f.ws/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=3&t=001511" target="_blank">mammal-like reptiles</a> extend back to the Permian).

And the sorting is not just at the broad level, with dinosaurs randomly mixed throughout the Mesozoic, mammals randomly mixed throughout the Cenezoic, etc. There is very precise sorting at lower taxonomic levels as well.

From <a href="http://cas.bellarmine.edu/tietjen/Evolution/Dinos/evolution_of_dinosaurs.htm" target="_blank">this</a> article on dinosaur evolution, the ranges of various groups of dinosaurs:



(Click <a href="http://cas.bellarmine.edu/tietjen/Evolution/Dinos/fig1.htm" target="_blank">here</a> for full-sized image)

In this diagram, the black bars show the ranges of all known fossils from each group, while the gray bars represent the suspected ranges based on the group's position on what is believed to be the dinosaur "family tree" (also shown in the diagram). You can see quite a lot of sorting here too--for example, all known ceratopsian fossils (horned dinos like Triceratops) date from the late Cretaceous, while all known prosauropods (suspected ancestors of the long-necked sauropod dinosaurs) date from the late Triassic and early Jurassic. And I think that if you looked at sub-groups within each of these groups you'd find a fair amount of temporal sorting as well.

From <a href="http://www.wits.ac.za/gssa/publ/fossil/pagereviews.htm" target="_blank">this</a> online book about the fossils of south africa, a chart showing the relative abundance of all major plant groups through time:



(Click <a href="http://www.wits.ac.za/gssa/publ/fossil/page144.jpg" target="_blank">here</a> for full-sized image)

And from the <a href="http://www.mdgekko.com/devonian/" target="_blank">Devonian times</a> page, on the sub-page on <a href="http://www.mdgekko.com/devonian/neighborhood/Placoderms/placoderm.html" target="_blank">Placoderms</a>, a chart showing the relative abundance of the major fish groups through time:



Again, within all these groups there would be a high degree of sorting as well (I've already covered some of this within the 'tetrapods,' a term for all the land-dwelling vertebrate groups).

And there are other kinds of sorting as well. For example, there is the perfect sorting of microfossils like pollen and plankton by geologic layer, a fact which is used by the oil industry to help them locate oil deposits. From <a href="http://www.glenn.morton.btinternet.co.uk/dmd.htm" target="_blank">Glenn Morton's</a> site (Morton is a former YEC who stopped finding young-earthism credible after working in the oil industry--see <a href="http://www.glenn.morton.btinternet.co.uk/gstory.htm" target="_blank">Glenn Morton's story</a>), here's a good article on microfossil sorting:

<a href="http://www.glenn.morton.btinternet.co.uk/micro.htm" target="_blank">http://www.glenn.morton.btinternet.co.uk/micro.htm</a>

These sorts of consistent, detailed patterns are pretty much impossible for YECs to explain, unless they conclude paleontologists and geologists are simply making the whole thing up.

[ December 12, 2001: Message edited by: Jesse ]</p>

hyzer

Douglas, you said (in your debate with Scigirl) :

“I don't know - they're "ill-defined". I think it has to do with leaving God out of "environment and resources". Again, the statement assumes God is not "involved".”

And you said:

“I don't know - they're "ill-defined". I think it has to do with leaving God out of "environment and resources". Again, the statement assumes God is not "involved".”

Please tell me, Douglas, how you distinguish when “god” is “involved.” How can you tell? Everyday, every one of us, whether we believe in an “involved god” or not, makes decisions based on the assumption that he is NOT INVOLVED. When you cross a road, do you walk blindly across because you believe that an “involved god” is looking out for you and will prevent the next car over the hill from creaming your pedestrian butt? NO, you and I both look both ways before we cross the road. And we do so FOR the SAME reason that a scientist, when looking at the world and trying to figure something out, starts by assuming that God is not "involved.”

Assume god is “involved” and you’ll end up as road-kill.

Peez

<a href="http://www.serve.com/bonzai/monty/classics/TheArgumentClinicSketch" target="_blank"> Argument</a>

Peez

The Lone Ranger

scigirl wrote,

So far, as best I can tell, the debate has followed this format: scigirl presents lots of facts and evidence, then Douglas replies along the lines of "I don't really understand this very well, but maybe God was responsible."

The point of this debate, is "whether microevolution on a large scale is enough to cause macroevolution", isn't it? Dragging God into it is utterly and completely irrelevant.

Douglas, if you have some actual evidence for your claim, then would you please present it already?

Keep in mind that in a formal debate (as in science), a "supernatural explanation" is a contradiction in terms. Either you can provide actual evidence to support your case, or you have no case. Period. End of statement.

Cheers,

Michael

hezekiah jones

Yes, well, we've been through this several times already. I for one was somewhat chagrined that Douglas' attention was being diverted towards the "formal" debate, which relieved him of the responsibility of replying to numerous other similar requests in various threads for evidence to support his wild claims.

Now in fact, as has been observed above, not only is Douglas not providing evidence, he's not even properly addressing scigirl's mountain of information. scigirl's efforts are to be commended however, and, as usual, the only folks who appreciate those efforts are the bystanders, and not, apparently, the individual to whom they are directed. The creationist modus operandi is typical, but at least with Douglas one gets both good grammar and good manners. Other than that: Same old, same old.

ex-preacher

I'm not a science guy. Could someone tell me - using the scientific definition of "theory," is creationism a theory?