pz

Uh-oh. You really don't have a clue about how science works.

Scientists don't believe in evolution because they were brought up to do so. In fact, one of the things you learn as you get training in evolutionary biology is how much of the common folk wisdom about evolution is wrong -- sometimes I think that the evolution supporters who don't know much about the subject are almost as damaging as the creationists. As someone who teaches this stuff, I can tell you that 99% of the undergraduates entering biology have not been indoctrinated in evolutionary biology.

You are even more wrong when you claim that scientists are reluctant to try and 'disprove' evolution. The idea of testing hypotheses is central to the scientific method -- we dream of the great experiment with unambiguous alternative results that support or refute a major tenet of an accepted idea. When we write grant proposals, we specifically go through interpretations of all possible results.

Your claims have no basis in reality. Arguing from a foundation of profound ignorance, as you are, is no way to establish any credibility.

Oolon Colluphid

Hi Primemover, welcome!

Just out of interest, do you know what a scientific theory is?

Just so you know what we mean by it, a Theory is a bundled set of hypotheses -- some extremely well evinced, some pretty well evinced, and some a bit more tentative, with nearly all being coherent with each other -- that together explains some fundamental aspect of the world. A hypothesis is a strand of explanation that can be tested against reality, against empirical evidence. Thus elements of a theory, or indeed the whole thing, is capable of being confirmed or refuted, depending on where the evidence leads.

Science works by trying to test hypotheses -- finding ways in which they could be shown to be wrong. After 150+ years of trying, the Theory of evolution is still sound.

You should note that evolution is also a fact. Now, a scientific fact is not an absolute certainty. There is not -- cannot be -- such a thing in science, because the whole point is to find out what the world is like, so we can’t decide it at the start, and there may be some bit we don’t yet know about. No, a scientific fact is ‘merely’ something that is demonstrated to such a huge extent that it would be perverse not to (provisionally, as above) agree with it.

Therefore, that all life on earth shares a common ancestor, in the way second cousins do, or that Galapagos finches do (even Gish agrees with that), just more distantly, is a fact.

Because we know what we’re talking about, and creationists do not. And because creationists tend not to keep it to themselves; they try to get their anti-science taught at schools as science.And because spreading lies is wrong. The earth being 6,000 years old; humans not sharing a common ancestor with apes; and there being no transitional fossils -- for instance -- are lies. Tennyson did not, in fact, write the Iliad, and ancient Greek civilisation is not a Victorian fabrication, maintained because to do otherwise is to lose your job. Yet that is analogous to what creationists and the misguided (such as yourself) claim about science.

Name a couple.

You do understand the theory you see flaws in, yeah? How come working scientists cannot see such problems, yet you can? Just out of curiosity, what do you know about it? What’s your education in this? Can you, for example, define evolution?

And biologists and palaeontologists have been twiddling their thumbs the last hundred years, right? What do you think population geneticists, developmental biologists, palaeontologists and the rest actually do with themselves all day?

“but I don’t really know much about it...”?

Once again, do tell!

And one should do what, when ignoramuses attack? Roll over and play dead, perhaps?

(Note: according to my Chambers dictionary, an ignoramus is one who pretends to knowledge he does not possess. I am here not meaning it insultingly, merely stating an apparent fact. I’ve yet to encounter an anti-evolutionist who is not an ignoramus.)

Funny you should say that. I’m currently ploughing through Scott F Gilbert’s <a href="http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0878932437/qid=1029156745/sr=8-1/ref=sr_8_1/102-5540742-2760949" target="_blank">Developmental Biology</a>, alternating with Carroll’s <a href="http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/052147809X/qid=1029156930/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/102-5540742-2760949" target="_blank">Patterns and Processes of Vertebrate Evolution</a>; and Benton’s <a href="http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0632056142/qid=1029157060/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/102-5540742-2760949" target="_blank">Vertebrate Palaeontology</a> is beside the loo for dipping into. Why don’t you get hold of something pretty basic, like Dawkins’s <a href="http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0393315703/qid=1029157342/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/102-5540742-2760949" target="_blank">The Blind Watchmaker</a> or Maynard Smith’s <a href="http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0521451280/qid=1029157255/sr=2-1/ref=sr_2_1/102-5540742-2760949" target="_blank">The Theory of Evolution</a>, and “look into it and investigate” for yourself.

Ah, where to start...? Evolution is as self-evident fact now, because after over a hundred years of investigation we’ve gone a bit beyond merely whether it’s right or not. When unsupported rocks keep on falling, not floating off round the room, we no longer feel compelled to wonder if letting go of one will result in it heading earth-wards. Similarly, there’s simply no longer any point in wondering whether two similar-looking trilobites are related. The question now is how. And we can now do little things like comparative genetics, evo-devo and palaeoecology, and can base the development of new antibiotics on evolutionary principles. Not ‘if’ but ‘how’.

And anyway, funny how so many hypotheses which are fundamentally based on this “assumption” turn out to be right, isn’t it? Why would they, if it were wrong?

For example: we now “assume” that humans evolved from an ape-like ancestor. By comparing humans with our “assumed” closest relatives, the great apes, we can make guesses as to roughly what the ancestors should look like, and can “assume” that they started in Africa. So we look for fossils, in Africa. If these assumptions were misguided, such fossils should not exist. Their absence might go some way to disuading us from the idea.

Instead, we find fossils, fitting the rough pattern predicted. Look here for a few:
<a href="http://www.mnh.si.edu/anthro/humanorigins/ha/ances_start.html" target="_blank">www.mnh.si.edu/anthro/humanorigins/ha/ances_start.html</a>

True. The difference is, with evolution, there is evidence that it’s right. There is precisely none for the creationist story.

I notice you think there was a designer involved in biological forms. Perhaps you’d like to have a read of <a href="http://iidb.org/ubb/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic&f=58&t=000801" target="_blank">this thread</a>, and favour us with your comments. Please. I insist. If you wonder how birds got wings, maybe you should also wonder why they also have genes for making teeth and full fibulas, when no modern bird has these.

Oh yeah, and

Huh?

Do you know, I wonder, what is meant by the term ‘Hardy-Weinerg equilibrium’ for instance? Nah, biologists can't do maths at all...

TTFN, Oolon

Vanderzyden

&gt;If evolution does not occur, why do virtually all the world's biologists agree that it does?

Although it's difficult to get them to admit it, the reason for widespread agreement among many (not all) life scientists is twofold:

1. A pre-philosophical and pre-scientific commmitment to naturalism. That is, God is superfluous to the establishment, generation, and diversification of life. In the words of Stephen Jay Gould, "Before Darwin, we thought that a benevolent God had created us."

2. A refusal to closely examine the (a) poverty of evidence ("where are the bones?"), the (b) poor arguments, and the (c) incredible irreducible complexity of biological components. These all work strongly against Darwinian theories.

To naturalists, statements such as these are perfectly sensible:

"Man is the result of a purposeless and natural process that did not have him in mind."

--George Gaylord Sampson

"Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose."

--Richard Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker

A question for you: If Darwinists can't agree on the mechanism, then how can they agree so confidently that macroevolution actually occurs?

tgamble

Actually, that has nothing to do with it.
What poverty of evidence?

Such as?

[quote]and the (c) incredible irreducible complexity of biological components. These all work strongly against Darwinian theories.

The arguments of IC have in fact been examined and refuted.

They are.

Because the evidence overwhelming supports the the claim that it did. Obviously.

scombrid

Funny thing. I was raised a creationist Southern Baptist. By the time I was 12 years old I had rejected YEC just based on what we were taught about the age of the earth and such in Earth Science. I hadn’t even been introduced to the theory of evolution at the time. I was introduced to the theory of evolution in AP Biology in high school and accepted it as the best explanation for the current state of biological systems. At the time I was still a Christian as I had never thought to question the existence of god or the historicity of Jesus’ resurrection. My acceptance of evolution preceded my atheism by quite a few years and had very little to do with my deconversion. I’d wager that my experience isn’t vastly different from those of other scientists. I held on to a belief in theistic evolution for years. At least evolution is a theory and not a myth. Do you understand the difference between Just So Stories and a theory?

Creationists may not be taking over the scientific community but they are trying pretty hard to remove science from the science curricula in our children’s schools and replace science with dogma. Our country is severely scientifically illiterate. Very few people understand what a scientific theory actually is. The popular impression of a scientific theory would be more appropriately applied to hypothesis or hunch. Scientific illiteracy leads to a population of credulous people that can’t distinguish between testimonials and clinical trials.

pz

Bullpuckey. The 19th century natural philosophers who built the foundation for, and later provided the growing evidence for evolution were on the whole religious. Many modern evolutionists still maintain a belief in god. We live in a society where most of those people who grow up to be scientists have been brought up to believe in god and religion.

Claiming that scientists favor evolution because of some mythical anti-religious bias is total nonsense.
Motes, beams, eyeballs. Any insistence that there is a poverty of evidence is indicative of a refusal to actually look at it. In another thread, I suggested a couple of books you ought to read. The "bones" are thick on the ground.

Speaking of poor arguments..."irreducible complexity" is one of them. Even Behe has admitted that IC is not a barrier to evolution.

Where, pray tell, is the conflict between those two quotes? Do you seriously believe that Dawkins, of all people, is contradicting Simpson?
Because everywhere around us is the concrete evidence that life has changed and is in a process of continuous change.

Stephen T-B

Interesting point from Albion about Primemover not answering any of those questions.
“I am neither a strict creationist... nor a (sic) evolutionist,” wrote Primemover in his side-stepping post.
What is this about “Evolutionists.”
Who is an “Evolutionist?”
If I go along with Newton, am I a “Gravitationalist?”
If I feel Relativity offers some pretty good explanations, am I a Relativitist?
If I think our astronomers and physicists and mathematicians et al are right in saying that the Earth is kind of globular in shape, does that make me a Globulist?
I suppose it might be fair to describe those who support evolution as Evolutionists if it were an hypothosis (not a Theory) and if there were a bunch of competing hypotheses.
Is Creation a Scieitfic theory? No
Is it even an hypothosis? No.
It is a religious dogma, based on an ancient myth which reflects the ignorance of a people who knew nothing except that of which the naked eye could inform them.
It only survives because of people’s need to believe in magic.
“Evolutionists” is a subtle way of elevating that myth to a status to which it is not entitled.

Camaban

Ok.

Question that's related here.

if you came across a dead person, but nobody could figure out how that person died, and you had evidence that that person was once alive, would you then either: Deny that person is dead or Deny that person was ever living? (because you don't know the mechanism that that person went through to go from being living to being dead)

Albion

I'm not too clear on this mechanism that isn't being agreed on, because I think most researchers agree that different mechanisms predominate under different conditions. However, if there was one mechanism and everybody agreed on it, would that satisfy you? Or would we be hearing from you about prejudice and dogma and inability to question things?

Quetzal

primemover: There are a couple of fundamental flaws in your argument that don't seem to have been addressed (yet, anyway). I'm going to pick one to start, not in the expectation that you will accept my argument, but rather in the interest of testing out this essay on the regulars - you just provided the impetus. This is a fairly common misunderstanding. Natural selection - Darwin's preferred mechanism for diversity - is not a tautology if by that you mean "circular". "Survival of the fittest" is an unfortunate term, originally coined by a journalist and then adopted by Darwin in later editions of his book because it was already fixed in the popular imagination. Let's take a look at what is realy meant. For example, when biologists talk of the “fittest”, what they really mean is "survival of the fit enough". IOW, an organism is fit enough relative to a given environment, including other organisms that are around in the same environment. No one, except possibly creationists invoking strawmen, believes that only a single kind of organism, the “fittest”, can survive at the expense of others. Second, biologists don’t literally mean "survival" in the sense of simply staying alive. What they mean is “survival at least to the age of successful reproduction” - this being the only known mechanism by which traits or characteristics can be passed down to subsequent generations. A sterile cat, for example, might live twenty years - thus doing a great job of surviving - but if it doesn't contribute to the existence of other cats in future generations carrying its genes, then it hasn’t survived in the sense biologists are interested in, and its fitness is actually zero by evolutionary standards. What biologists really mean, instead of “survival of the fittest”, is more like “survival to the age of successful reproduction or contribution to reproduction of organisms that are fit enough relative to the environments in which they live”. Hard to get a soundbite out of that, I admit.

So what IS meant by "fitness"? First off, there’s no such thing as “absolute fitness”. Since fitness is relative to an environment, the fitness of an organism can change because of physical changes in the environment, because of changes in the distribution of a population, or even changes in the relative presence or absence of other unrelated organisms. Second, fitness refers to only to the heritable traits of an organism. There may be other traits that make a difference to whether an organism reproduces that are acquired during its lifetime, such as learned skills. Similarly, there may be things other than traits of organisms, such as accidents, that also make a difference to reproductive success. As an example, suppose two identical butterflies have the most marvelous genetic makeup (genotype) on the planet - perfectly adapted (fit) for their environment. If one of those butterflies is eaten before it reproduces, it is an evolutionary failure even though it is just as "fit" in a biological sense as its surviving congenere. Since luck and learned skills are not transmitted through heredity, they aren't counted as part of an organism’s fitness. What the fitness of an organism refers to (relative to an environment) is not the set of properties that results in its actual survival and reproduction, but the set of heritable, phenotypical properties that tends to promote its survival and reproduction.

Survival of the fittest, therefore, is neither tautological nor circular. Fitness refers to the heritable properties that tend to result in successful reproduction (there are other tests for fitness than actual successful reproduction - eusocial insects being a case in point). The whole question is, of course, a statement about tendencies, not about what happens in every case. The other part of the equation is that fitness refers to actual properties - the combination of genotype and phenotype - that organisms have. Biologists examining an organism and its lineage, don't just say, “well, it survived and reproduced, therefore it ‘must’ be fit (or more fit).” They can offer specific, independently checkable explanations of why particular properties, like hollow bones, keels, and wings in flying creatures, may increase the likelihood that organisms with those features would tend to out-reproduce otherwise similar organisms without those features. In fact, it's precisely because it is possible to independently check whether given traits promote fitness that biologists have had to admit that some evolutionary change is fitness-neutral. IOW, that sometimes traits can spread through, or be retained in, a population without improving (or harming) the fitness of their bearers, thus explaining the presence of vestigial traits, among other things.

The second flaw in the quoted section relates specifically to a significant misunderstanding of how science works. There's a double misunderstanding here: on the nature of science AND on evolutionary theory.

As far as science goes, in general, you are partially correct: science does have to have evidence and there must be some connection to experience (the root of the word experiment). However, the connection DOESN'T have to be via direct observation. There’s nothing wrong with theoretical arguments in science that talk about what we don't or can't directly observe. In fact, science is full of such things – think of atoms and molecular structure, theories about the shape of the world or the solar system, gravity, the processes at the heart of the sun, black holes, etc. What’s important is that it must be possible in principle to test, whether directly or not, the claims we make. The general pattern is: "If such-and-such a theory is true, then we should expect to observe thus-and-so, all other things being equal*. If we find what we expect, that confirms the theory. If we don’t, that counts against the theory.

Evolutionary theory has been subjected to numerous tests and I can imagine any number of discoveries – like unquestionably human remains in the Cambrian – that would completely upset the theory. To date, the theory has invariably passed the tests. The discoveries that would falsify it have not been made. The discoveries that HAVE been made are of just the sort we would expect if the evolutionary theory is a valid explanation for the diversity of life.

*["All other things being equal..." is the tricky part. In science, there have to be ways to eliminate or discount interference (confounding variables) that don't depend on the validity or falsehood of the theory we're testing. In evolutionary theory, these would be the myriad of independent lines of evidence from such disciplines as geology (geological column, radiometric dating methods), cosmology (speed of light etc), physics (decay constants, etc), and other - non-evolutionary - sciences. If all of these disparate investigations DO NOT CONFLICT with a theory, then it can provisionally be accepted that the theory is NOT falsified.]