KnifeMissile

I was just reading the The creation of the universe.. Evolution or Religion..? thread and I was shocked, disappointed and angered that it was a merged thread. It was conflating several disparate issues and everyone was taking really poorly conceived potshots at each other. It was painful and embarrassing to read. So, I am starting a new thread...

This thread will concentrate on a single issue: that biological evolution (specifically common ancestry) is incontrovertible scientific fact. It is not an exaggeration to say that Evolution is as well supported a theory as Gravitation. Here are a couple of sources to help you understand this:

For some reason, no one ever seems to notice the excellent sticky at the top of this forum, written by tecoyah. They are excellent refutations of common creationist myths. In typical TFP tradition, please go read that thread before posting any questions here.

Converging Lines of Evidence is an excellent article aimed at the layperson (that's all of you!) on why we know that evolution happened. The theme is that several different and unrelated disciplines of biology all independently confirm evolution.

If you're literate and have some free time, an indepth coverage of the scientific evidence for evolution can be found at 29 Evidences for Macroevolution, which was written by Dr. Douglas Theobald, a practicing biochemist at Brandeis University.

Now, what *I will be doing here is answering any questions you might have regarding the theory of Evolution. I may refer you to articles or youtube videos if I feel they will answer your question better than me or I feel overwhemled by questions (I don't really see this happening) but, generally, I expect to answer them personally. Particularly, I will answer questions of what evidence exists, although the sources above should do that, and how alleged flaws aren't really flaws. I may also explain how "creation science" claims aren't really science, if I've heard them before.

What I won't be doing is debating theology. Evolution, like all science, is perfectly agnostic as to the existence of God, an untestable hypothesis. This will be a strictly scientific thread. As such, it's tempting to place this in the science forum but not only is the motivational thread here but the sticky here deals with the science, so obviously some scientific discussion may happen in this forum.

So, come read, come learn and have fun!




*while I'm not a biologist (I'm a mathemagician), I do feel that I understand far more science than most of the people in this forum. Additionally, I am connected to some scientists, including biologists, and I am willing to forward any questions I can't, personally, answer...

Jinn

I don't have a question, since I too believe evolution to be an incontrovertible fact, but I'm posting here just so you don't think no one read your thread.

I did.

Bring on the questions, people!

__________________
If you struggle with something your entire life, try harder.
Awareness without action is worthless, and failure is not an accident.

Willravel

Astrophysics explains the "creation" of the universe. Abiogenesis explains the origin of life. Evolution explains why proteins are now driving Priuses.

/thread

__________________
ɯǝɥʇ ǝʌlos uɐɔ ǝʍ ʇɐɥʇ ǝɔuɐɹouƃı ɥƃnoɹɥʇ ʇou sı ʇı 'sɯǝlqoɹd ǝʇɐǝɹɔ uɐɔ ǝƃpǝlʍouʞ ɟı

KnifeMissile

Oh, the futility!

I wish I had taken a more careful look at that other thread...

The majority of that thread was posted in 2003! From a cursory glance, all but 3 members, who might have questions, are long gone...

jewels

Did you know that the schools in Florida will now be teaching evolution as a theory? I wish someone like you had been around to keep the bible belters from setting new precedents in our kids' public schools.

P.S. If you have some time, follow the link and see how adamant some of these people are in the discussion following the article.

http://www.miamiherald.com/news/flor...ry/425473.html

__________________
Politics is applesauce.


- Will Rogers

Willravel

Sometimes it's nice to live in California... still I love Miami. Second best beach sunsets in the US!

__________________
ɯǝɥʇ ǝʌlos uɐɔ ǝʍ ʇɐɥʇ ǝɔuɐɹouƃı ɥƃnoɹɥʇ ʇou sı ʇı 'sɯǝlqoɹd ǝʇɐǝɹɔ uɐɔ ǝƃpǝlʍouʞ ɟı

abaya

I'm sure there are still some Creationists wandering around the TFP... but I think we gotta be careful to not cross the line into making this an evangelical-bashing thread. Keep in mind that a lot of "religious folk" have worked out a way to believe in both God and evolution, as did all of the biology professors at my extremely Christian university.

__________________
And think not you can direct the course of Love;
for Love, if it finds you worthy, directs your course.
--Khalil Gibran

Martian

Technically evolution is a scientific theory. So is gravity. Where the confusion comes is what actually constitutes a theory in the scientific community. Most laypeople don't understand the clear and important difference between a theory and a hypothesis. The two terms are not interchangeable.

Wiki goodness, explaining the difference between facts, theories and hypotheses.

I still haven't mastered flying. 'Throw yourself at the ground and miss,' indeed.

I see your point, and I think this thread really has the potential to go in two directions. The first is as you describe, basically a theological bashfest. The second is as a means of providing information on what's stated above; namely the difference between facts and theories, and how evolution can be classified as a theory and still be assumed as true. We could also discuss the compatibility of evolution and Christian dogma, but I'm not sure this is the correct place for that; perhaps another thread would do better.

__________________
Some will win, some will lose
Some were born to sing the blues
Oh, the movie never ends
It goes on and on and on and on

- Journey, Don't Stop Believein'

Willravel

HALLELUJAH! HE'S SEEN THE LIGHT!

__________________
ɯǝɥʇ ǝʌlos uɐɔ ǝʍ ʇɐɥʇ ǝɔuɐɹouƃı ɥƃnoɹɥʇ ʇou sı ʇı 'sɯǝlqoɹd ǝʇɐǝɹɔ uɐɔ ǝƃpǝlʍouʞ ɟı

KnifeMissile

Did you miss this, abaya, or did you simply not believe me?

Jinn

While she might trust you, she (like me) probably doesn't trust the remainder of the respondents to adhere to the same rules set forth in the OP.

Fucking evangelicals..

__________________
If you struggle with something your entire life, try harder.
Awareness without action is worthless, and failure is not an accident.

abaya

Yep. My words weren't directed at you, KnifeMissile... they were directed at everyone else who might chance upon this thread. I'm not worried about debating theology, I'm worried about bashing people for their beliefs (even if I don't agree with them). As I think JinnKai is trying to point out, in a sarcastic way?...

__________________
And think not you can direct the course of Love;
for Love, if it finds you worthy, directs your course.
--Khalil Gibran

KnifeMissile

I'm sorry, that's my mistake. For some reason, I had the crazy idea that:
...was directed at me. I feel like Cole in Twelve Monkeys, where he thinks the radio ad is a "very special message" to him...

I suspect the point may be moot as the sound of crickets continue...

twistedmosaic

Yes. This here? This is a good way to keep dialog civil. I am actually in the process of actively trying to evaluate critically all of the evidence for evolution against a backdrop of "Evangelical" belief, and was wondering if anyone else had done the same. Ah well, nevermind, I'll take my fucking evangelical questions elsewhere.

From a strictly agnostic point of view, I still can't fully grok counterpoints to irreducible complexity, and also a lack of reproducable abiogenesis. But this is probably my own fault for not educating myself about these areas rather than a lack in the field.

__________________
☻☻☻☻☻☻☻☻☻☻
☻☻☻☻☻☻☻☻☻☻
☻☻☻☻☻☻☻☻☻☻
☻☻☻☻☻☻☻☻☻☻

Jinn

I was joking...

__________________
If you struggle with something your entire life, try harder.
Awareness without action is worthless, and failure is not an accident.

Martian

Abiogenesis has more to do with astrobiology than evolutionary theory. We have direct observable evidence that life spontaneously came into existence on our planet; the question of how is interesting and not well understood yet, but evolutionary theory deals more with what comes after. Evolution is strictly an answer to how complex life can develop from simpler organisms through the principle of natural selection. Interestingly, this creates one of those little nooks in our understanding that allow theology and modern science to co-exist peacefully. We know that life originated, and we know (more or less) what happened after that. As to what happened before, what you want to believe is your lookout. If you want to believe that God nudged a couple of amino acids in the right direction, more power to you.

Equally interesting is what happens when we combine abiogenesis with the anthropic principle. We can, essentially, state that life originated on Earth because, even though the odds of life spontaneously arising on any one particular planet are exceedingly low, life arising when taken from a Universal perspective is pretty much inevitable. It had to happen somewhere and our little rock just happened to be the one that got it right. Admittedly, this is a somewhat weak argument from a scientific standpoint due to the difficulty of obtaining proof, but it does explain why attempts to replicate spontaneous abiogenesis in the lab have so far failed. Every time we combine the right molecules in the right condition, we roll the dice. We've already won the lottery once and doing so again is going to take many more attempts than we've had time to make (assuming, of course, that we are combining the right molecules in the right environment; primoridal conditions being what they were, it's very difficult to know this with any real certainty). This would also seem to lend credence to the rare Earth hypothesis, although now we're getting on quite a tangent and I think I'll leave it there.

As to irreducible complexity, that is from my understanding an argument from ignorance. The prime example I've seen is the human eye, but the argument fails to grasp that an eye wasn't always necessarily such; simple photoreceptors may have simply been a small cluster of light-sensitive cells (in turn possibly adapted from heat-sensitive cells). Once we have a starting point, however primitive, natural selection takes over and gives rise to organs and devices that seem inexplicably complex. It may help to point out that evolution can be a device that removes unnecessary components as well as adding necessary ones, which can lead to an end result that seems to be impossible to reach from a simple starting point (due to intermediate steps that arose and subsequently became redundant and atrophied).

__________________
Some will win, some will lose
Some were born to sing the blues
Oh, the movie never ends
It goes on and on and on and on

- Journey, Don't Stop Believein'

KnifeMissile

Interestingly enough, even if there were no explanation for either "irriducible complexity" or abiogenesis, that still wouldn't counter either evolution or common ancestry. This might be hard for you to see, especially if you have an "evangelical backdrop" with which to contend...

Biological origins is a very difficult problem to solve and we haven't been working on it for very long. They have some compelling evidence of plausibility but no comprehensive theory or demonstration. However, this is entirely irrelevant. Evolution is about how life forms change over time and has nothing to do with biological origins. As such, this is a non sequitur and has no bearing on whether evolution happened; it did...

Irreducible Complexity is an argument from ignorance. Despite Dr. Michael Behe's protestations to the contrary (by the way, he accepts evolution as fact), there are no clear examples of irreducible complexity. That a theory cannot explain everything we'd like to know doesn't make a theory false. For instance, gravitational theory doesn't explain exactly how each of the planets formed. Does that mean gravity is not true? Does it even make sense to be agnostic about gravity?

Furthermore, Irreducible Complexity doesn't even falsify evolution, as can be evidenced by the theory's creator's own confession (Dr. Behe) that evolution is a biological fact. It would simply change the mechanism from strictly random mutation and natural selection to mostly mutation and selection with the help of a couple miracles. Common ancestry is still true...

abaya

Oh. I take it by your bolding of my quote that you are one of the "religious folk?"... is that why you heard it as being directed towards you? That would make sense, but I actually have very little idea about who is or isn't "religious" here on TFP... there are only 1-2 individuals that stand out to me, and you were nowhere on my radar, in that respect!! So yes, indeed, it was not intended towards you at all. Carry on!!

__________________
And think not you can direct the course of Love;
for Love, if it finds you worthy, directs your course.
--Khalil Gibran

pig

I can say two things at present:

1. Knifemissile is not one of the religious folk. Ha!
2. I'm glad Knifemissile is back on the boards.

Aside from that, I'll have to review the information he has posted. Regardless, I agree with his basic position. Greetings to you sir - good to see you back. I trust you'll be as ascerbic as I recall?

__________________
You don't love me, you just love my piggy style

Baraka_Guru

I'm often baffled at the application of evolutionary theory to human behaviour. Try this on:

How significant was the loss of estrous in humans in male/female relationships? Does this encourage pair bonding, or does it complicate it, thus jeopardizing the idea of monogamy?

Meh. Humans are confusing.

__________________
"The great enemy of clear language is insincerity. [...] In our age there is no such thing as 'keeping out of politics.' All issues are political issues, and politics itself is a mass of lies, evasions, folly, hatred, and schizophrenia. When the general atmosphere is bad, language must suffer."

—"Politics and the English Language," George Orwell

"Humankind cannot bear very much reality."

—"Burnt Norton," Four Quartets, T. S. Eliot

MSD

I'd say that expanding sex to a full-time recreational activity encourages pair-bonding. Sexual compatibility is a major factor in keeping relationships together, and a couple that stays together is not only more likely to reproduce, but more likely to effectively socialize a child and bring him up in an environment that will increase his likelihood of being able to prosper in society and find someone to reproduce with, then do the same for his offspring that his parents did for him. If human reproduction were a fuck-and-forget affair, the family connections that lead to socialization would be weak and I doubt that we could have evolved as far as we have.

archetypal fool