I was actually preparing a post where I was answering primarily Eminem's but also SS questions. The post addresses the evidence from molecular genetics, Modern Synthesis, transitional fossile record and description of the evolution of the eye and the brain etc, but I drop this now since Carbolnyl seems quite upset, and I thus believe this is more urgent. Sorry SS and MM! (Also, I was also going to urge you all to present an alternative to evolution, but I'll return to this later in this post.)
@Carbolyl and all others: I'm sorry if you feel upset about evolution and the theory of evolution. Every statement I have written about evolution in this thread, is reflecting the current consensus standing of the issue of evolution in the scientific community. The material is exclusively taken from taken from textbooks used at universities worldwide, essays with references to peer-reviewed primary literature* only and the theasarus Brittanica Encyclopedia. I've also discussed with people who are experts in the field, and checked references they have recommended. I'll post references if you wish.
(*To non scientists: peer-review is an international scientific standard. It means that when you want to publish scientific discoveries, you submit a paper to a scientific journal. The journal will then forward you paper to at least 2 experts in the field, ie your peers, for a critical review. To reduce bias, the review is double blind ? you will not know who made the review of your artice (maybe your article was turned down) and the reviewer will not now the authors of the paper until after the review, if the journal decides to publish your paper. The most well known peer-reviewed journals are Nature and Science. Journals and magazines with no peer-review, is not regarded as "scientific journals", since they have no external control of the quality of the works presented.)
Carbonyl, SS and MM, since you are all residents of the US, I assume you are familiar with the National Academies of Science (NAS). NAS was created in 1863 by the US Congress, in order to provide advice to the goverment in scientific and techinal issues. NAS presently has about 2200 members, elected on merit in science. (Check their member list ? you will recognise many famous names from many fields.) Thus, the NAS is an expert organ, and is reflecting mainstream (as opposed to highly unusual or highly controversial) science. Since NAS is the official scientific organ advicing the government, it has presented several official statements about science in general, definition of science, evolution, and the evolution v creationsim conflict. NAS has recommended the US government not to teach creationism as an alternative to evolution. The Kansas Science Education Standards were dissociated from the Academy for not wanting to teach the "macroevolution" part of the theory of evolution.
A quote from their official writings about evolution v creation:
"Nevertheless, the teaching of evolution in our schools remains controversial. Some object to it on the grounds that evolution contradicts the accounts of origins given in the first two chapters of Genesis. Some wish to see "creation science"--which posits that scientific evidence exists to prove that the universe and living things were specially created in their present form--taught together with evolution as two alternative scientific theories.
Scientists have considered the hypotheses proposed by creation science and have rejected them because of a lack of evidence. Furthermore, the claims of creation science do not refer to natural causes and cannot be subject to meaningful tests, so they do not qualify as scientific hypotheses. In 1987 the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that creationism is religion, not science, and cannot be advocated in public school classrooms. And most major religious groups have concluded that the concept of evolution is not at odds with their descriptions of creation and human origins."
Please read the whole document about evolution and creationism here. It's quite short.
[url="http://books.nap.edu/html/creationism/"]http://books.nap.edu/html/creationism/[/url]
If you think my reasoning about evolution and science in general differs from what is stated in their writing, point it out since this is not my intention.
Also check out their website with their official statements and recommended links:
[url="http://www4.nas.edu/opus/evolve.nsf"]http://www4.nas.edu/opus/evolve.nsf[/url]
If you don't think NAS reflects mainstream science, please explain why and suggest what does.
I'm not posting this because I'm trying to make you change your minds about creation or evolution, I'm posting it to show my posts indeed do reflect the mainstream consensus. But don't take my word for it. Don't take NAS word for it. Go ahead and contact other science academies, look in scientific journals, textbooks, lexicons/theusaurus, etc.
<STRONG>Originally posted by Carbonyl:
All theories requires faith. Aka speculation. You should know this CE: what is your education?.
</STRONG>
Hypothesis generation is fundamental to all science. Science could not progress without speculation and belief that lead to testable hypothesis. The central difference between scientific speculation and other speculations or believes, is that scientific speculation must make predictions that can be tested. Otherwise it's not defined as science. Whether we regard science as a better way to gain knowledge and understanding that other ways is another discussion (very interesting though).
A scientific theory must fulfil some criteria. You'll find these criteria in any textbook at many university web sites etc, but I post a brief summery here for conveniece:
- it must have internal consistency
- it must be testable and falsifiable
- it must make testable predictions
- it must have a higher explanatory power that the currently dominant theory (ie it must explain at least those phenomena that the dominant theory is explaining)
Why do you ask for my education? If it's out of personal curiosity, I'll post it to you in a PM. As you might have seen around the board I'm not secretive about my profession, but I don't think it's a good idea to post it in this context. I'm part of the science community, which may be viewed either as an automathic bias, or as if I'm trying to prove my points by showing off my degrees and professional achivements.
I'm not an expert on neither evolutionary biology nor molecular genetics. That's why I stick to using mainstream science references and only post consensus statements supported by well established, mainstream science. Any user on this board could have posted the same stuff as I have done, with a little patience, some textbooks, and an internet connection.
<STRONG>
Your argueing the theory of evolution as fact is hypocritical in light of you opionion of those who argue creationism. And yes I know the differences with a BS in biochem and ABT M.S., but I'm not going to argue either way since your so closed minded and insensitive to others *theories*.
</STRONG>
What is hypocritical with having the same demands on creationism as I have on the theory of evolution? The NAS is also arguing evolution is a fact. The consenus in the area is that evolution is a fact and a theory, according to my post where I describe the 3 parts of the The theory of evolution. Is it me personally you find hypocritical, insensitive and close-minded, or evolutionary biology in general?
<STRONG>
Examples:
1. CE: "Evolution is simply defined as a change in the gene pool of a population"
Ca: You conviently forgot and "resulting in the development of new species."
</STRONG>
I took this definition from a scientific paper, and I also found it in several univerity websites. If you have references that say otherwise, please post them.
<STRONG>
2. CE: "Evolution is a fact in the same sense that gravity is a fact. "
Ca: LOL- Please do replicate trials for us. I can with newtons laws can you?
</STRONG>
You quote me out of context. In my post, I clearly defined what part of the evolution was considered a fact, and I also defined what a "scientific fact" is. You might wonder why a common ancestor of all life on earth is considered a fact? It's not because it can be replicated in vivo, we can replicate this in vivo, it's because we can study the result of it. The fossile record, comparative morphology and anatomy, molecular biology and molecular genetics all tell the same story. Again, I refer you the NAS. If you have references that common ancenstry is
not regarded as a "fact" by the scientific community, please post them.
<STRONG>3. CE: "actually gives me the creeps, it's very scary. "
</STRONG>
Yes, I think it is scary. Young earth creationism believes the earth is about 6000 years old, and that species were created separately. Cosmology and astronomy shows that the universe is at least about 20 billion years old. The earth sciences like geology show that the earth is 4.5 billion years old. Biology and genetics shows that life has been around for a much longer time and that humans have been around for a much longer time that 6000 years. I think it's scary that people neglect all of this for the sake of a literal and "absolute" interpretation of the bible.
<STRONG>4. CE: "OMG - you are actually a "young earth" creationist? " ...... "I should have guessed it,".
Ca: Why not just say he is a total idiot? Or would that be going overboard even for you?
</STRONG>
This comment was a personal joke to Eminem, which is indicated by the smiley in the original post. You might not now this, but Eminen and I almost always take opposite stance in any issue that is discussed, and this was a joke referring to the observation that it's usually so.
Please do not put words in my mouth. Where in my post do you see indications that my comment means Eminem is a "total idiot"? That interpretation of my words are yours, not mine.
<STRONG>5. CE: "I'ts obvious from you posts that you haven't fully understood the Theory of evolution, which is indeed not surprising since it's a complex and multidisciplinary subject."
Ca: to whom? you? LOL dismiss his arguements by calling him ignorant that's healty. Thoeries are open to multiple interpretations not just your view.
</STRONG>
I was going to post specifically to SS (a she, btw) about this, but since you bring it up, I'll post some comments here: (hope you excuse me for this, SS, I'll address you personally later, but you don't seem as upset as Carbonyl, that's why I'm addressing his post first. You are of course welcome to comment further on my comments.).
My statement is based on comments SS (a she, btw) has posted previously in this thread. She has posted some conclusion that are very far from what evolutionary theory actually proposes. IMO SS indeed shows she is familiar with many terms and ideas in classic evolutionary theory, but she also makes some rather basic errors.
SS:
"One problem posed here is that there would be transitional forms leading up to our eyes that would be blind. How did they survive accordingly?"
SS is making a common error here, overlooking the basic fact that this is not at all what evolution says. Evolution says the evolution of vision begins with photoreceptive cells, clustering to an eye-spot, developing into a pinhole eye...etc. That transitional forms eventually resulting in the human eye, must have been blind, is a conclusion that tells me SS does not fully understand, or is not fully familiar with, the theory of evolution. Nothing wrong with this ? but I wanted to point out to SS that some more reading on the subject would be beneficial for her and make discussions easier.
SS:
"mutation, because of entropy, is maladaptive more often than benificial."
It was many years ago I took physic's classes, but IIRC "entropy" is a thermodynamic property, a basic concepts in the thermodynamic laws that is not applicable to open systems. Sometimes the word is used in a popular sense, usually to indicate that a closed system will disorder or decay over time. In any case, a living organism and the earth itself is an open system (the sun provides energy influx to earth), so entropy is not applicable here. To me, the above statement suggests that SS has indeed misunderstood either the concept "entropy", or basic biology, or both. Or did SS again, like with the words "scientist" and "science" refer to something different from what mainstream science mean with the word? If so, please explain what you mean.
@Carbonyl, do you suggest I dismiss SS arguments because she's misunderstanding some things about evolution and about scientific terminology? Are you presuming I was not going to respond to SS arguments? If so, you are mistaken, but my time is limited, so I've only started to reply to SS many arguments, and I also stated I would post more later.
I'm suggesting to SS that for instance some basic reading about theories in science is good if one is to discuss the definition of science and the meaning of scientific jargon. (And if a person want to be taken seriously by the scientific community or wants to participate in a scientific debate, such reading is not only good but essential.)
Also, I like all involved parties to know not only what they are arguing for, but what they are arguing against. SS, as well as MM, makes some erranous assumptions what the theory of evolution says, predicts or means. However, MM is not claiming to be a scientist, that's why I'm not picking at him about scientific terminology.
<STRONG>6. CE: "If you're looking for everlasting truths, science can't help you. Static systems like religion are much better suited for that. "
CA: Really? LOL...
</STRONG>
Yes, science is by definition in constant self revision. Thus, it's very inept in providing everlasting truths. Now, there are systems of gaining understanding and interpreation of our world and ourselves, that do not change constantly with new discoveries. Religion is a very good example of such "static" systems. What's so funny with this?
OK, finally
my proposition to all of you:
I have repeated many times in this post, that evolution is the current consensus in the scientific community. Again, don't take my word for this, check it out. I've also repeated many times what the definition of a scientific theory is. Check this out also.
I have said science is self revising. Once it was considered a fact that the earth was flat. This has, as we all know, been thorougly revised
If you can present a scientific theory that is equal to or better, than evolution, and I promise you I will abandon evolution the same minute. Not only will I personally abandon evolution, I will start spreading the word. As a scientist, it's a part of my job to spread information to peers and other people. Should you wish, I can also advice you on how to publish in scientific journals, etc, or, put you in contact with people who can advice you better than I.
Remember though, that
a scientific Theory of Creation must fulfil the same criterion and withstand the same tests as any other scientific theory (and evolution has done so far). A scientific theory is not revised by statements of personal opinions or untestable speculation. The same rules apply as everywhere in science:
1. Disproving/falsifying evolution is not enough. You have to present evidence that supports your own theory and make testable predictions from your theory.
2. References to studies or observations that support your theory may be taken from peer-reviewed scientific journals only. (Everybody knows Nature and Science, but there are many, many such journals. Lists of scientific journals are available on the net.)
3. Statements referring to gods will not be considered scientific data, and thus not evidence. A statement like "the shared errors in pseudogenes are there because god made it that way" will not be considerered evidence.
(@SS, you said in an earlier post you could easily become more famous that president GW Bush. Now, here's a golden opportunity! If you can present a theory that has better explanatory power and predictions than evolution, you will indeed be more famous than Bush, you will be regarded as a Galileo or Einstein of the 21st century.
)
Anyone game?
[ 09-08-2001: Message edited by: C Elegans ]
