Transterrestrial Musings

Comments

Doen't pass the smell test.

Saying a number of religious figures and/or faiths have accepted evolution in the Darwinian sense is hardly preferring or establishing a particular religion.

"neo-Darwinism" is just an extension of Darwin: he said natural selection occurs, the neos say it happens at the genetic/molecular level. So? The "controversy" is largely from such as panspermia.org, altough one might also point to some micro-biologists who, despite actually causing mutations, deny it can happen on a larger scale...

Posted by John Anderson at April 1, 2004 12:39 PM

Rand,

Clearly there's inconsistencies on both sides here. There are two issues that aren't being addressed, however. First, what is often forgotten is how evolution is actually taught. It is all too often taught as a FACT, to the detriment of teaching kids the scientific method. This leads to the second issue -- this manner (& attitude) of teaching evolution can violate the First Amendment. The state, through the school, forcing a child (whose belief system teaches otherwise) to subscribe to the concept of evolution as an absolute is just as repugnant as forcing a child to pray in violation of their belief system.

At least teaching evolution as a *theory* is more accurate, permits a more balanced view, provides the chance to reinforce the concept of the scientific method, and doesn't force anyone to regard what is being taught as an 'absolute'.

(And, please, nobody should try to guess anything about my beliefs from the above, other than I'm a physicist that's sick of the APS, NEA and other organizations' knee-jerk anti-religious polemic AND who is also sick of the stream of highly nonqualified science and math teachers our kids are subjected to.)

- Eric.

Posted by Eric S. at April 1, 2004 01:30 PM

Eric - I wonder if you understand the concept of a scientific "theory" - look at

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/misconceps/IIAjusttheory.shtml

There is direct evidence of evolutionary processes. Large parts of what is generally called "evolution" is known to be fact, parts are still "theory" with huge amounts of supporting evidence. Nor is there any competing scientific theory that can support this evidence. (Again, that is the PROPER use of the term "theory" - if you want to throw in space aliens, people from the far future or gods, please provide some evidence.)

Posted by VR at April 1, 2004 01:55 PM

VR, I think you miss Eric's point, which is that there's nothing wrong with theories. All scientific "laws" are theories, including gravity, Newton's laws of motion, and quantum mechanics. It is foolish to teach evolution as a "fact" in the literal sense, and there's no reason to. It is a theory that best explains a body of facts.

Posted by Rand Simberg at April 1, 2004 02:03 PM

I went back to the website to see what was actually said there. It doesn’t seem to match up to what West said. He said:

“But the strangest part of the website, by far, is the section that encourages educators to use religion to endorse evolution.”

I can’t find that at all. I see a section saying religion and evolution need not be divisive. Nothing that “encourages educators to use religion”

“Teachers are told that nearly all religious people, theologians, and scientists who hold religious beliefs endorse modern evolutionary theory…”

It says, “Most Christian and Jewish religious groups have no conflict with the theory of evolution or other scientific findings” and “in the scientific community there are thousands of scientists who are devoutly religious and also accept evolution. “ Perhaps he doesn’t know there are other religions, or that “most” means a majority, not “nearly all.” And the bit about scientists just doesn’t fit.

‘…and that indeed such a view "actually enriches their faith."’

Nope. It says, “In fact, many religious people, including theologians, feel that a deeper understanding of nature actually enriches their faith.” “Nature” isn’t quite the same thing as “evolution.”

"In fact, teachers are directed to statements by a variety of religious groups giving their theological endorsement of evolution."

Which, it should be noted, is on a different web site. And I have to say, “SO WHAT?”

Most of this is from

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/misconceps/IVAandreligion.shtml#

Posted by VR at April 1, 2004 02:21 PM

But I wonder if HE understands the term "theory" :). I have no problem with saying something is a theory as long as it is understood that the difference between a very strong theory and a "fact" as most people use the term can be very small. Eric, my apologies if I misread your statement. I'm just tired of the "It Is Only A Theory" mantra and tend to react strongly on that.

Posted by VR at April 1, 2004 02:28 PM

Mr. Simberg,
I was wondering if you would mind posting a link to the West column itself? If you posted the entire thing then never mind and sorry for the bother.

Posted by Jon Jackson at April 1, 2004 05:02 PM

D'oh!

Sorry, I thought I had linked it. I had written a different version of this post in which I had, but then I accidentally deleted it before posting, and I forgot to add the link the second time.

Anyway, I've fixed it now.

Posted by Rand Simberg at April 1, 2004 05:12 PM

VR,

I quite understand, as it also irritates me to hear the words "just a theory". TV, the new opiate of the masses, has caused the general public to equate 'theory' with 'supposition'. However, as a physicist, I'd have to say that special relativity is on FAR more solid ground than evolution (and yes, I've read some on evolution as well). While we can do the molecular biology to track DNA sequences and the like, the evolutionary biologist must still state her case largely in terms of statistical projections. This is because *she cannot do the experiment*! She can resort to basic physical & chemical principles to guide her inferences, but cannot actually witness eohippus becoming a horse. Astrophysicists and cosmologists have much the same problem -- they must look at present day variation and some sort of peering back in time, along with utilizing fundamental physics and chemistry, to build inference. AND, at least in my opinion, this is one of the big exciting points that many science teachers cheat their students out of. It's a bloody miracle that evolutionary biologists and astrophysicists have learned as much as they have AND it can be very exciting to pry new information out of nature's clutches.

Also, perhaps I'm too much the purist, but I'd debate whether much of anything in evolution is actual "fact". I'd say that there are some concepts that we are pretty sure represent the way the world works, but historically such 'facts' have been disturbingly subject to change when new info is obtained. To me, at least, accepting 'conventional wisdom' is antithetical to the progress of science. (Which, btw, is why it ticks me off when some of the better trained 'creation scientists' get blown off by journals. If these folks have the guts to submit something to a peer-reviewed journal, I say let them. Honest scientists have nothing to fear.)

- Eric.

Posted by Eric S. at April 1, 2004 05:36 PM

Dr. Zubrin has written to Mars Society members and says that methane on Mars points strongly towards life. He also opines that learning whether such life is genetically related to Terran life will offer fascinating insights towards filling in the holes in the theory of evolution.

Catholics and Jews (and Mormons) will probably have little difficulty accepting such scientific findings without a loss of faith, yet the more strident creationist supporters will.

Obviously we do not yet know what we will find on Mars, but if the methane reports are confirmed and additional evidence for life and/or fossils discovered, the incentive to go sooner rather than later is greatly increased.

Posted by Bill White at April 1, 2004 09:06 PM

I dread jumping into a discussion where I probably am in possession of a small fraction of the intelligence of previous posters.
However, while far from a Creationist, and certainly not a "fundamentalist", I have never seen nor heard of any proof of the creation of a species. Much on the evolution of varying species, but nothing on the creation of same. This, in spite of the title of Darwin's seminal work. Actually, the title, I believe, goes a long way toward making what's not even theory into some sort of accepted fact.
Rather than theory of evolution, as it concerns origination of species, I'd much prefer hypothesis, which, in mid-20th Century education, was taught as a pre-cursor to theory.
Looking forward to being factually contradicted so I can get this dichotomy of thought ended prior to my personal end of days.

Posted by Mike Daley at April 1, 2004 09:51 PM

Mike, what would constitute such "proof," and how reasonable is it to expect to see it in a human lifetime? Sorry, but inference from facts and logic are the best we can do.

Posted by Rand Simberg at April 1, 2004 11:05 PM

Bill,

I'm not sure I follow your point about Fundamentalists (with a capital 'F', as constrasted with 'little-f' fundamentalists who actually try to ground their faith in the fundamentals of the Bible, rather than concoct near blasphemous malinterpretations for their own twisted moral agenda). The Bible doesn't say anything one way or the other about Earth life that may have been scattered to Mars. And if the life is independent, well God created other life forms away from Earth (angels), so that's also not inconsistent w/ the Bible.

Mike,

I believe that there's a very reasonable explanation for why we see no record of a new species arising. In a populous, well-established species, whatever might cause speciation essentially gets watered down -- a nascent species must compete against many millions of other organisms in the same niche. To succeed, the 'new & improved' must be VERY 'new & improved'. HOWEVER, when there is a very small population (either due to environmental isolation, or some great catastrophe), then an adaptation that conveys even a small advantage can translate into taking over the gene pool in only a few generations. [This, in part, accounts for the recovery of biodiversity after previous mass extinctions.] The problem is that small populations are AWFULLY hard to find in the fossil record.

- Eric.

Posted by Eric S. at April 2, 2004 06:23 AM

Eric - check out the talk.origins speciation FAQ for observed instances of new species arising. The talkorigins.org site is an excellent resource on the evolution/creation controversy.

Posted by Andrew Case at April 2, 2004 06:45 AM

Andrew,

Thanks for the link. I stand corrected. All but one of the speciations I'd ever heard of were human-induced (either in the lab or through hortaculture) and thus not (IMHO) a fair example of the process as it would occur in nature. Oddly, in the list carried by that FAQ, I didn't see the one instance I'd heard of 'in the field'. In the early '80s, there was a report on NPR radio of a new species of wheat that suddenly arose in the midwest US and which contained nitrogen fixing that seemed to be spliced in (recombinant DNA style) from soybeans. Apparently there was a virus that would infect any number of plants and part of its operation (whether a vital or merely incidental part I'm not sure) was to transport DNA 'snippets' about and splice them (at random I'm guessing).

Regardless, though, the mechanism I mentioned still (I think) applies and explains why its so hard to find "missing links" in the fossil record.

- Eric.

Posted by Eric S. at April 2, 2004 07:43 AM

Thanks to everybody responding to my "question". Especially Eric's comments and Andrew's link.
I, in fact, do think there was/is an evolutionary process causing the origination of species. But reading the faq's etc., it seems much depends on how narrow a definition of a species is being used to claim proof.

However, as a layman I still go with my concept that currently it's a hypothesis rather than a theory. Using the following as definitions.

Theory:
A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.

Hypothesis:
A supposition; a proposition or principle which is supposed or taken for granted, in order to draw a conclusion or inference for proof of the point in question; something not proved, but assumed for the purpose of argument, or to account for a fact or an occurrence; as, the hypothesis that head winds detain an overdue steamer.

Mike

Posted by Mike Daley at April 2, 2004 09:27 AM

Mike, you said:

“I have never seen nor heard of any proof of the creation of a species. Much on the evolution of varying species, but nothing on the creation of same.”

Well, of course! Because there is no claim of species “creation” in evolution. There is direct evidence of speciation through evolutionary processes – that is, real world observation. Also, scientists talk of “evidence” not “proof” for things like this. It isn’t mathematics.

“Rather than theory of evolution, as it concerns origination of species …”

“…it seems much depends on how narrow a definition of a species is being used to claim proof.

You’re making your own assumptions and definitions and holding others to them. Evolution is NOT focused on speciation (and, by the way, it has come along a bit since Darwin wrote his well-known book). “Species” is a term of convenience, like “planet” or “asteroid.” It isn’t anything like a pure, mathematically abstract designation, there are no absolute lines of separation, as you seem to be suggesting. The human genetic pattern is very similar to most of the mammals of the planet. Genetic variation is surprisingly small between all species and human genes can even work in bacteria that branched off at least half a billion years ago.

There is direct observation, fossil, physiological and genetic evidence for evolutionary processes, evidence from direct experiments for many of the important processes, evolution in other modes (such as computer programs) and so on. That makes for extremely strong theory.

Posted by VR at April 2, 2004 06:06 PM

So as not to clog this post with my comments on comments I've put some observations here.

Posted by ken anthony at April 4, 2004 11:51 AM

I've revised my post to include a response to VR's statement that refers to evolution as an "extremely strong theory."

Posted by ken anthony at April 4, 2004 04:21 PM

Ken, with all due respect, your posts indicate that you do not understand evolution. Rather than posting and asking us questions about it, why don't you go out and read a book or two?

I'd recommend The Blind Watchmaker by Dawkins, and Darwin's Dangerous Idea by Dennett. If you have arguments with them, then we might have a more productive discussion.

Posted by Rand Simberg at April 4, 2004 05:01 PM

I trust you believe these two books will provide the enlightenment I need. I will do as you suggest and buy these books. I don't expect I will be able to claim to understand evolution after reading these books, but being a reasonably intelligent person, I'm sure I will be able to respond to some of the issues they present.

Thanks for the recommendation. You've mentioned these books before, but I never did get around to looking them up. I realize it's an attempt to avoid a fruitless discussion and I'm certainly with you on that score. I am curious as to what aspect of my post indicates my misunderstanding of evolution, but that can wait until I've had a chance to review the books.

Posted by ken anthony at April 4, 2004 05:25 PM

Among other things, this:

However, when you randomly add letters, you are not likely to produce many words and the words you do produce are not likely to arrange themselves into sentences; but if by some miracle they did arrange themselves into even a single sentence, they would probably not convey a coherent thought. Many people have applied probability to this question and the results are not good for the theory of evolution.

No one has applied probability to that question in a way that has any relevance to the theory of evolution, since natural selection is not a random process. Again, read Dennett and Dawkins. I suspect, based on much of what you post, that most of your knowledge of evolution comes from flawed criticism of it, not from evolutionary theory itself, because you use the same flawed arguments as the critics.

Also, the Galapagos finches were geographically isolated enough, and had short enough generation time, to provide enough isolated generations to allow them to speciate. Humans have never seen similar conditions, despite the differences in "races."

Posted by Rand Simberg at April 4, 2004 05:33 PM

Ken:

I’ve seen identical arguments to yours many times. They are older than either of us. You can find plenty of discussion on them in an internet search, I won’t repeat them here. Bias or not, it is difficult to understand how a conspiracy could last this long, ignoring arguments like that. And of course, they haven’t been. There IS direct, and vast indirect, evidence for speciation. There is a vast amount of evidence for environmentally induced genetic changes. It is far from "just breeding." And, of course, the process is far from random.

But these are all issues regarding complaints against evolutionary theory. The proper, non-biased, scientific way to dethrone an established theory is to develop another one that explains the evidence BETTER. When and if somebody does that we’ll have something to discuss.

Posted by VR at April 4, 2004 10:00 PM

VR, your post deserves a reply. I don't believe the theory of Evolution to be a conspiracy, not by my understanding of the word anyway. However, I think you do agree with me that how evidence is collected and interpreted is often subject to the bias of the person doing it. This isn't necessarily bad, just human. Part of what the scientific method works to do is to eliminate that bias as much as is possible.

When you say there is direct evidence of speciation, that begs the question, what exactly is a species? I'm sure you are well aware that whole branches of the tree of life have been rearranged at times because some discovery makes it embarrassingly obvious that they got it wrong somehow. I'm not criticizing that, just noting it. Speciation is basically a cataloging issue, in my mind not rigorous in the sense that hard science is. Asking what species something is, is a little like asking what are planets. I grew up with nine, but depending on who you ask, they might reply that in our system there are up to fifty or only eight. It can't be argued intelligently until you agree on definitions that make the distinction. Some of which are quite arbitrary. Is Pluto a planet?

Is radiation part of the environment? Viruses? Well then of course the environment can produce genetic change and these changes are random (unless you know of another definition?)

To your last point... What does falsifiable mean? Is this like the lefts version of truth? If you pick apart an argument, they just ignore it and move on to something else?

Ok, you want a replacement for evolution? How about de-evolution, I say there are fewer species today then yesterday and the rate is growing. I say we are stupider today than when we had one room school houses and latin and calculus was taught to all grade schoolers along with the ability to reason clearly... like our founding fathers that created simple documents that have endured... how's that for a replacement theory?

But seriously, if it's wrong, it's wrong, regardless of whether or not I've a theory to replace it.

Stephen Hawking says that inside a black hole the rules don't apply... literally anything is possible. Yes, leprecauns and santa claus. Is he crazy or what? The presumption of science is that everything is knowable. My understanding is that reality is an onion with infinite levels. Ok, it's not science... I strongly believe in science, perhaps even more than you, but I think you have too much faith in something that has definite limits. I apologize if this seems too harsh. The ironic thing is, I think it's a really bad idea to be too sure of one's self... but I also believe that people should stand for what they believe. I applaude you for what you believe, I just disagree with it. You know, this was going to be a nice quiet day for me, but it's turned into such a rant... sorry folks, but I have a couple of books to read.

Posted by ken anthony at April 4, 2004 10:54 PM

I finally started my review of those books. Here, Saturday, April 17, 2004,is my first installment. I don't know how to make the exact correct link yet, but I'll figure it out when I get a chance.

Posted by ken anthony at April 17, 2004 04:05 AM

Post a comment