Evolution - Warning: post contains scientific opinion!

Philosophy Forums Science, Technology, and Math
21

Going waaaay back to your point, Daniel, about why atheists try to “convert” believers:

I think it is much for the same reason as believers often try to convert Atheists: for someone who truly believes something, it is frustrating that other people undermine your viewpoint … most people will at least have a bash at trying to make other people see their viewpoint. And just as, from your viewpoint, it’s probably irritating that people don’t believe in God, it’s extrememly annoying to me that people believe in something which - from my perspective - has no basis at all.

22

the difference is that most believers are called to do it, it is in the law to share the gospel, whereas, non-believers are just doing it for self-gratification as far as i can see…

23

Ok time for me to put my foot in it all…to be honest as a Muslim, evolution might not necessarily go against Islamic doctrine…however that is subject to interpretation…I think as a scientific theory it doesn’t hold, I’m gonna have to agree with Dan !! There are a lot of faults with it…I think the first thing is the fossil record. Evolutionists jump up in delight and say…LOOK AT THE FOSSIL RECORD…DUH !!..CLEARLY EVOLUTION MUST HAVE HAPPENNED !!
Whenever a fossil is found, a reconstruction is made. Reconstruction can be explained as drawing a picture or constructing a model of a living thing based on a single bone-sometimes only a fragment-that has been unearthed. The ape men we see are all reconstructions.
Since fossils are disordered and incomplete, usually, any conjecture based on them is likely to be totally speculative. The reconstructions made by the evolutionist based on the fossils remains are prepared speculatively precisely to validate the evolutionary thesis. An anthropologist from Harvard David R. Pilbeam stresses this fact when he says “at least in paleoanthropology, data are still so sparse that theory heavily influences interpretations. Theories have in the past clearly reflected our current ideologies instead of the actual date.”
People are highly affected by visual information, these therefore best serve the purposes of the evolutionists.
There is tho an important point, reconstructions based on the remains can only reveal the very general characteristics of the object, since the real distinctive details are soft tissues that quickly vanish in timer. Therefore with the speculative interpretation of the soft tissues the drawings become totally dependent on the imagination of the person producing them.

Earnest A. Hooten (Harvard Uni.)

‘To attempt to restore the soft parts is an even more hazardous undertaking. The lips, the eyes, the ears, and the nasal tip leave no clues on the underlying bony parts. You can with equal facility model on a Neanderthaloid skull the features of a chimpanzee or the lineaments of a philosopher. These alleged restorations of ancient types of man have very little if any scientific value and are likely only to mislead the public…So put not your trust in reconstructions.’
A good example would be the three DIFFERENT reconstructed drawing made of the fossil named AUSTALOPITHECUS ROBUSTUS (Zinjanthropus).

Just a little post highlighting the cares which need to be taken when examining proofs FOR evolution.

24

Still waiting for some incontrovertible proof either way…
however, Daniel seems to think that neither case can be proven, therefore I am still open minded (some of us can be influenced by what we read!).

Ben: it is wrong to rubbish the Bible as having no basis when you are not fully aware from any other source that it is not at least partially true.
Also my point was not that the Creationist account and Evolutionary portrayal have equal validity, just that this must be anyone’s starting point!
We have to remember that they are alternative beliefs and theories, for which evidence must be provided.

Scientists are certainly not objective (no-one is)- they bring certain assumptions to the evidence, ask particular questions that will give them particular answers.
Even Francis Bacon, father of inductive reasoning, admitted that deduction must form a starting point- an assumption must be made before an experiment can be created.
Unfortunately, we cannot repeat the Creation!

Daniel: ‘With one exception- extremists’
These are surely extremely influential and significant exceptions?!
And what about the Crusades- were they just the result of extremism? Certainly not. Moderate religious people fought in those wars, and certainly it was harmful to them. Religious wars and conflicts inevitably affect the innocent or neutral.

Any ideology, if abused, is a weapon.

Saying that the Bible (or alternative religous text) commands you to convert people is a convenient justification for actions that are probably unwelcome.

25

There is no proof for evolution in the same way that there is no proof for any other scientific fact. The whole point of science is that it shows things BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT. We lazily use the word proof to describe things that are taken as true because there is so much evidence for it.

Take for example the secondary school chemistry experiment where you heat blue copper sulphate and it turns white. It is impossible for us to prove that it will always turn white because that would mean heating EVERY bit of copper sulphate on the planet. However, because it has turned white on EVERY SINGLE OCCASION we take it as fact because it is BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT that it is going to turn white.

Take a bigger example. No-one can PROVE that the sun will rise every morning because we only make the assumption based on the fact that is has done so for the past billions of years. However, would ANY SANE PERSON say that the sun rising is only a theory and there’s as much argument for the fact that in fact the sun WON’T RISE tomorrow morning? Of course not, the notion is ridiculous.

THAT is how science works because there is no such thing as absolute proof in science. For that reason there is no proof of evolution and I have never said there was. However, there is an OVERWHELMING amount of evidence that supports the theory of evolution.

There is NO WAY that evolution and creation
have equal standing because there is not even 1% of evidence for creation as there is for evolution. The ONLY ARGUMENT a Creationist has it pointing out how evolution is wrong. EVIDENCE AGAINST EVOLUTION IS NOT EVIDENCE FOR CREATION. The usual 5 questions get asked by creationists as arguments against evolution. These are:

(1)Evolution has never been observed.
(2)Evolution violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics.
(3)There are no transitional fossils.
(4)The theory of evolution says that life originated, and evolution proceeds, by random chance.
(5)Evolution is only a theory; it hasn’t been proved.

Number 5 I have dealt with here and the rest of these arguments are shot down on this website and others
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-misconceptions.htm

If you wish to believe that evolution and creationism have equal validity then let me propose MY THEORY on the origin of life where a huge blue eagle created the world from some pasta. I have no evidence for it but YOU MUST ACCEPT IT because it is a theory like evolution! Notice how nonsensical this line of arugment is.

The Bible cannot be used to prove itself and there is no other non-religious text that backs up the creation of the world. For that reason, the account cannot be trusted as a reliable historical or literal document. What about the other religions that have different versions of the creation story, do you accept them as valid too? Or do you just go for “7 day Creation vs Evolution” because that is the most popular one?

Individual scientists may not be objective but science IS objective because it does not have hidden agendas and does have a goal that it is setting out to prove. If a rogue scientist does have a chip on his/her shoulder and proclaims something that isn’t scientificially true, then during the rigorous process of testing the claim, he will be found out as a fraud. All major scientific claims, including evolution, have undergone endless amounts of scrutiny but the top scientists of the world. As a result, the scientific world now accepts that natural selection does occur without a doubt and the theory that we came from a common ancestor is considered to be the best model we have at the moment. The Creation story is not even given a second thought because there is not substantial scientific evidence to support it.

26

‘the scientific world now accepts that natural selection does occur without a doubt’… no it doesnt rubbish!

‘EVIDENCE AGAINST EVOLUTION IS NOT EVIDENCE FOR CREATION’ if you look at my last post you will read a similar thing, but not in those words… 'you seem to think that to disprove evolution there must be evidence for creation… well there doesnt have to be… and as you said, here we are discussing evolution! '

i dont have to prove creation, there is no need for me to do so… however, ben still seems to think that to disprove evolution i must prove creation? well, i believe that creation happened, through God. And now that i know that i can see the faults with evolution and all this evidence that ben says there is but does not show! And as faisal (muslim representative) says all the evidence is subjective, which ben conviniently passed by saying ‘science is objective’ well no its not! there must be an idea before the proof can be found to support it, and then the scientists are looking for any clue to support that, which makes them automatically subjective by definition! As in these cases we are too! As if ben for example read a anti-evolution book, he would dismiss it as subjective (i remember him calling a book i was reading subjective in this context) as it has some thing to prove… well it works both ways!

As for secondary school chemistry experiment… the proof there comes from the same thing happening over and over again in front of our eyes, as with the sun, whereas evolution hasnt ever happened in front of our eyes… so therefore, by that proof it cant happen? the evidence for evolution is much more like a courtcase and as yet the evidence is inconclusive to this member of the jury! but at least when the jury is called they receive all the facts… whereas obviously we in here dont… (even though ben likes to think he does)… and programs such as walking with beasts dont help anyone at all as they show things on prime time tv that have little if any evidence.

flammin red (sorry dont know your name) you are right to be open minded, i like to think i am still open minded, it doesnt affect my faith, and i have looked into this matter greatly, but as yet there is no conclusive evidence to turn me to the evolution side and make me believe i heard God wrongly. i think the most telling person, who can be truely objective is Faisal (muslim…) as his faith even has some verses in the quaran that may support evolution if interpreted that way, and yet he still sees inclonclusive evidence… i think that says a lot more than either myself or ben ever could!

(as for the crusades and extemists, thats another topic… start it and i may contribute! )

27

This argument is infuriating me just reading it! There is proof for evolution. People say well we havent observed it therefore there is no proof. Considering that evolution must take place in a lot of organisms (not inculding bacteria) very very slowly, just because of the time it takes to procreate etc, and considering we’ve had less than 200 years to study the theory since its quite new in terms of science, then of course we havent been able to see it in dynamics!

I think the Galapagos islands gives enough proof in itself. I can’t be bothered to go into it, just read a biology text book and hey presto.

Also, I don’t get why evolution should necessarily oppose religious groups. If you take the big bang theory - surely any god has enough work to do just giving order for the big bang to take place.

28

obviously you didnt read the whole arguement, i was only using bens logical arguement for proof that the sun comes up and copper sulphate turns blue to illustrate that these are things we see everyday, whereas evolution isnt and thus the reasoning for their proof is not the same.

to the galapagos islands… well done for being on the ball yet again! if you had read above you would see that i said way back in my first post that change within species is obviously accepted and does not constitute nor prove evolution in the ‘coming from sludge’ context… but repeating myself is fine!

and lastly, another statement to repeat… oh joy! religious beliefs dont necessarily conflict with evolution, there are many theories on the interpretation of creation; whether it is a symbol of God having a hand in it or not… as said above. Another thing said above is that the quaran actually has verses that could be interpreted as evolutionary… hence they are not really in conflict, but as i have said all along it is my personal feelings.

lastly for those of you still wondering about the Galapogos islands (ben! ) it invloves a type of pigeon only found there, and a different varriation on each island that has changed to fit its environment and isnt found anywhere else. Although still similar to other pigeons they can not breed together successfully. Another example of this would be the scottish islands, where the field mice differ by size, colour etc… variation within a species to suit the conditions we live… note the important bit ‘to suit the conditions we live’ which came first the conditons or the variation… (just a thought)

ps. its always good repeating ones self, a little recap for clara! well worthwhile… valid points!

29

No dan, you weren’t using my logical argument. The argument runs like this. The creationist says, “evolution cannot be proved therefore that means it didn’t happen”. The reply then is, NOTHING in science can be proven because that is the nature of science. However, it is possible to show some things as beyond reasonable doubt. Evolution is the best theory for explaining the origins or life that we have so far.

Radical Statement
Regardless of whether evolution is true or not, SCIENCE DOES POINT TO EVOLUTION AS THE MOST PROBABLY THEORY FOR THE ORIGIN OF LIFE. If you wish to rubbish science, be my guest, I have no quibbles with you there. But I will not rest with the idea that science doesn’t point to evolution, when it clearly does. You can believe in the creation from a faith perspective fair enough, i don’t with to argue that. All I am saying is that the evidence of science, whether it is true or not, points to evolution.

“lastly for those of you still wondering about the Galapogos islands (ben! )”

Your arrogance astonishes me sometimes dan. I do believe you are thinking of the Galapagos finches, which is the famous example that is used when quoting Darwin and evolution. And yes, thanks, I know about them.

And so where have we got to? Well, we’ve had mostly rude comments from dan saying that science is rubbish and the he doesn’t need to show any evidence for creation. I still don’t find any reason to doubt the theory of evolution. I know it is not proof but I also know that it is the best theory we have got because it is constantly being backed up by more and more evidence every single day. I don’t wish to post every single bit of evolutionary evidence on this website but if I am asked I am happy to send it all to individuals via e-mail. My hunch is, they won’t read it anyway.

I have still not seen one shred of evidence to back up the Creation story so I don’t see why i should even consider accepting it. If I don’t accept evolution, what else have I got? I am content with accepting evolution as an explanation because I understand that it is not proof and i understand that there are problems with it. But even after all that it, it has an endless amount of more substance than the Creation argument will EVER have.

My argument once more is that science give evidence for evolution and there is no debating about it. Perhaps science is wrong, but there is no way that science points towards the Creation. That is my point which I’m desperately trying to hit home without much success.

30

‘Evolution, for me, is an inescapable fact. It happened!’ Ben’s initial feelings on the matter…

‘I am content with accepting evolution as an explanation because I understand that it is not proof and i understand that there are problems with it.’ Seems like a slight change here… but i agree with what he says in the last post, for the most part…

athough i dont believe it happened, it is at this moment in time the scientists favourite theory (until the next one comes along) and there is some evidence to support it, as i have said all along, however myself and ben both agreed this morning that it is not conclusive!

(its been emotional!)

31

Okay, firstly, sorry, but this is going to be painfully long post. For you as well as me. But someone’s gotta do it, and I happen to be the one with a whole friday night on my hands. I’m am going to summarize for each argument why the statement is incorrect and hopefully provide links. I’m taking on purely the scientific questions, philosophical ones aren’t my strong point. And I don’t even want to have to argue about scientists objectivity in this post. I am unabashedly someone who believes in evolution, but I will attempt not to be prejudiced. This is aimed solely at daniel, but if anyone else wants to make a point i’d be happy to try and answer it. It’s only a shame i’ve gotten here so late, the entire text of this message is running into a small book.

For this argument you have to look at catastrophe and chaos theory, which are particularly well explained in two books, The Collapse of Chaos by Ian Stewart and Jack Cohen, and The Blind Watchmaker by Richard Dawkins. Both go to considerable length to explain exactly why it's possible for organized life to develop, and then explain the apparent complexity we see. The idea of a species "changing" from one to two separate, non-interbreedable ones is quite clearly explained in terms of differing adaptations, and as mentioned above, the Galapogos Islands provide a particularly well studied example of how a single species is able to split this way. This isn't just diversity within a species, it is entirely new ones. Diversity within a species is the different colours of human hair, or skin colour, which are entirely explained by hereditary genetics.

[quote] <font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2[/IMG]take for example our anncestors... these are originally tree dwelling creatures... now for this they walked on all fours and had an arched back, no when they decided to come down from the trees... they would be picked off easily by prediators and eaten... so consequently no advantage, hence does not comply with natural selection, further, if by some chance they did come down from the trees and move to the plains... it would not be an advantage to walk upright... firstly it would cause great back pain, secondally it would make them more visible to preditors... although they would also be able to see them earlier, their leg muscles would not be sufficiently developed to run away fast enough. Also being crouched over in the long grass provides more cover and protection than standing upright! [/quote] <P>Erm, orangutans and gibbons are both exceptional tree dwellers, but walk on the ground on two legs... They don't seem to have such a problem with it. In the plains of Africa (where life supposedly developed), moving out of the trees is actually a clear advantage, you will be able to cross to the distant forest you see across the grassland, with all the spare food it has. Now, knuckle walking (as gorillas and chimpanzees do) will get you across, but walking, and running is far more efficient. The relative visibility argument is useless, as there is little cover anyway in the hypothetical plain.<P> [quote] another would be the hypothalomus in the fore brain just above the pituitary body. Now life could not survive without this... so when did this vital thing evolve? as without it the body would die before reproductive age. also say the body evolved without it in a simpler form... it can not predict that is might be a benefit in the future so it wouldnt evolve it and if it NEEDED it in the first place, it would die straight away.. [/quote]

32

Jesus Christ. Whoever was saying we haven’t had time to observe evolution taking place, you’re wrong. I’d imagine several thriving species mutated, evolved, or even reached extinction in the time that it took to write the previous post.

33

yes we have observed evolution, just look at viruses and bacteria, it has been observed in them, (that was from the programm about jellyfish monkeys.)

34

The “fact” of evolution does not require abiogenesis anymore than the theory of gravity requires “objects” to be around in order to fall.

Evolution is not extricably linked with the creation of life, many “liberial” Christians are happy with the idea of evolution, simply believing it to be another of god’s “wonders”. Evolution is perfectly self-consistant. As I stated before, complexity is not a problem, after you have self-replicators it’s easy to see how evolution can manifest itself.

Simpliest of the non-creationist arguments for the creation of life, these replicators, could, for instance (and I’m not trying to seriously argue this point here) be pure random lucky-lucky chance. As per the anthropic principle) we are simply here to argue about this point exactly because it happened, as you stated. This may seem like a philsophical argument, but if you read the whole article, it really isn’t, this is hard science.

Evolution is a fact, the beginning of life is a fact. Evolution is not open to debate, though the method by which the very first life forms developed is.

[This message has been edited by Archie (edited 12 March 2002).]

35

Evolution works perfectly fine assuming you already have replicating organisms that compete for resources, with the possibilty of mutation. This kind of sandbox evolution works very well on computers, so called game of life simulators…

36

You’re making the huge mistake talking about evolution as a explaination for how life started. Evolution is exactly about that… evolution, it does not dictate how life started, mearly how life can develop from a very simple starting point.

Is simply not true in terms of the “Theory Of Evolution”. Darwins original theory had little to say on the matter. You may be interested to look at http://atheism.about.com/library/glossary/evolution/bldef_abiogenesis.htm and specifically the link “Evolution And Creationism…” on that page.

37

Both Dan and Ben have earlier said that Evolution can run alongside creationism. Surely if two people with completely opposing views agree on this, it seems to be the best answer?

38

I believe Ben, and certainly me, simply said that in order to separate evolution from simplistic attacks suggesting it the opposite of creationism. The theory of gravity (yes, personal favourite) can “run alongside” creationism, but nobody in their right mind takes this as an indication this might be the “best answer”.

39

Yet again i got bored reading the posts :blush: sorry. its just all the arguments have been done so many times that they lose their potency after the 3rd or 4th time you’ve looked at them. I personally have done a debate at college twice over whether or not God created the universe and was met by a suprisingly scientific argument on one occasion by the christian union. this is evidence that religion and science are interchangeable to an extent and do not cancel each other out (if the scinece is used selectively and often incorrectly i hasten to add… :astonished: ) anyway onto the main point i was posting. Did anybody get dialogues this morning through the post? maybe im just sad to have subscribed but ah well. in it theres an article about a school in Gateshead and several other places teaching Creationism as “scientifically plausible” i was almost sick. i recommend reading this article as i cant remember the arguments word for word, but basically the auther scrapped the teacing programme as teaching children “twisted logic” and “how to be gullible idiots for the remainder of their lives”

40

just a thought for the guy talking about our ancestors being tree dwelling with no advantage in coming from the trees due to predator threat etc. it is now held that our ancestors were not mainly tree dwelling but were in fact “the aquatic ape” and spent most of our time in or around watery areas such as lakes. this is the reason (supposedly) for our nose being protuding, that when lay in water our proboscis was above the water level allowing us to breathe, also the reason for our slightly webbed hands and why we, more so than other apes developed excess aft deposits and less hair. to make us mosr suitable for an aquatic existence. another propostion in the same theme is that whales and dolphins are what we would have ended up like if we hadnt have vacated from the aquatic environment but thats incredibly theoretical and even im not prepared to take that at face value.