Motorcycle Mama

In a post on Sept. 01,2002 at 07:43PM Albion raised the question if anyone rejects evolution. This, to me, raises an important point, the relationship between evolution and Darwin. Most tie them together so the metion of one implies the other. That is a mistake, the first evolutionist was Lamarck, and it is a mistake exploited by many anti-evolutionists, Philip Johnson comes to mind. The basic argument used by anti-evolutionists is Darwinian evolution is evolution by natural selection, natural selection is inadequate to account for evolution, therefore evolution has not occurred.
This is my first attempt to contribute. I request the forebearance of those more sophisticated in such electronic discussion.

Peez

This is a very good point. It was becoming more and more obvious that evolution of some sort had occurred, and Lamark published the first important work that proposed a pattern (linear evolution up the Scala Naturae) and an explanation (an inherent drive to evolve "up", plus the inheritance of acquired characteristics). Darwin later proposed a different pattern (common descent) and a different explanation (natural selection), but the idea of evolution certainly did not start with him. As I have argued before, one can accept the fact that all life here has evolved from a common ancestor without accepting that the theory of evolution is the explanation, and one can accept that evolution by mutation, natural selection, and genetic drift occurs while not accepting that we share common ancestors with other species.

One other thing that creationists like to do is throw in the origin of life (and even the origin of the universe) with evolution, even though one can easily believe that (for example) a god created the universe and even life on this planet, and still accept that present species evolved from a common ancestor through mutation, natural selection, and genetic drift. Welcome! No "forebearance" seems to be required: good post. Stick around.


Peez

scigirl

Welcome to infidels,Motorcycle Mama!

Love the name, btw.

You can introduce yourself <a href="http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=forum&f=43" target="_blank">here</a> if you so desire.

scigirl

ps418

Howdy Motorcycle Mama! Welcome to the forum.

On a related note that I've been thinking about. . .

Many critics of evolution seem to conflate the reality of evolution (descent with modification) and the natural processes which are proposed to explain evolution, and assume that if some set of natural processes (e.g. mutations and natural selection) were shown to be insufficient to produce this or that result (e.g. the vertebrate eye or the avian lung), then evolution would somehow be falsified.

But this is wrong. Even if you believe that a supernatural agent was involved in some way in the production and diversification of life on earth, the evidence would still support an evolving 'creation' rather than a fiat creation of life on earth as it exists today.

By analogy, whether you think that Gondwana was fragmented by the hammer of Thor or by a mantle plume, the evidence that Gondwana once existed and was subsequently fragmented is still compelling.

Albion

Hello, Motorcycle Mama! I think one of the problems is that creationists seem to believe that science works the same way religion does (although at a far inferior level, of course!). So they're always trying to attach the theory to the person because they're used to the system of argument from authority. That's partly why we see all these attempts to say that Darwin recanted or that he was wrong about something else, with the implication thta a fallible authority can't possibly formulate a valid theory. Strikes me as a fairly good example of people unclear on the concept.

Wyz_sub10

I think this is bang-on. This is why we always hear about what Einstein thought about evolution, or what some Communist thought. We seen this all the time, of course, but your observation of fingering "an authority" is a good one.

seanie

I don't think we should downgrade Darwin's role too much. There was lot's he didn't know and stuff he got wrong but he's still a pretty important figure in scientific history.

And Darwinian evolution is (primarily though not exclusively) evolution by natural selection. The idea of natural selection is what made evolution comprehensible. And (i think) it's the only mechanism that can account for complexity.

As an idea it's proved more than adequate in explaining much of the world around us.

Peez

Absolutely. The point is not that Darwin was not important, it is that evolution stands or falls on the evidence and not on Darwin's reputation. Certainly it is the only scientific explanation, and having such an explanation is a good thing. However, common descent with modification stands on its own just as gravity stands without any explanation for masses being attracted to each other. Agreed.

Peez

Duvenoy

Hi MM! Great to see ya here!

I can't add a lot to what's already been said. The theory has become far more refined and indeed, complex since Darwin's day. Now, the white-coat kids are studying it on the molecular level, somethin' I don't know nuthin' 'bout.

So, I'll just say: Welcome! And I hope you'll enjoy the ride!

doov ('46 HD, 'U' Model. The big Flathead)

Oolon Colluphid

They prefer scientists generally though. Preferably in something really difficult-sounding, like physics (hell, anyone can do biology, but you’ve got to do maths for physics! ).

(Similarly, I saw a programme a few days back about a psychic / spiritualist, and some professor of astronomy was wheeled out to say how he was sure the guy had a channel to the afterworld. Astronomy being the study of departed souls, of course.)

Hence know-nothings (about biology) with axes to grind like Hoyle are popular with cretinists. Best of all though are actual biologists.

This is of course the basis of their quote mining: if they can find Gould or Dawkins saying something that can be construed or misquoted as denying evolution, they’ll loudly proclaim that 'even so-and-so evolutionist knows the theory (it’s only a theory, of course) is crumbling...'

See <a href="http://www.pathlights.com/ce_encyclopedia/01-evol1.htm" target="_blank">here</a> for some examples. My favourite is this one:

It’s a favourite because it comes from the author of the standard university textbook ‘Evolutionary Biology’; it’s taken from a book that systematically dismantles creationist claptrap (one wonders how they found it, yet remained impervious to what it says); and because it doesn’t even make any point in their favour!

Cheers, Oolon