New Findings on Evolution

[EasyEd]

Very interesting new discoveries on evolution:

www.washingtontimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070808/NATION/108080098/1001

[StPetersburgHoya (Inactive)]

Here's another interesting study: (NSFW)

[The Stig]

That fits in better with the concept of natural selection. Multiple species come from the same common ancestor and live together for a while, but eventually the species less suited to the environment die off.

[EasyEd]

thestig said:

That fits in better with the concept of natural selection. Multiple species come from the same common ancestor and live together for a while, but eventually the species less suited to the environment die off.

Look, I don't know what these new discoveries imply, but you could use part of the same argument you use to say there is a Higher Power guiding it. I'm not saying it proves a Higher Power is guiding it only that the discovery does not imply natural selection.

[Deleted]

"All the changes to human evolutionary thought should not be considered a weakness in the theory of evolution, Kimbel said. Rather, those are the predictable results of getting more evidence, asking smarter questions and forming better theories, he said."

Which simply means: Nothing has changed significantly - we just have more info than before.

[Coast2CoastHoya]

I think this is one area where religion and science dovetail quite nicely. Who's to say with certainty that it's God's not behind it? Who's to say for certain that He is?

I think any discovery like this that gives us a greater understanding of the natural world is a good thing no matter what it implies.

Classic South Park find StPete!

[hifigator]

The more we dig around, the more questions we uncover, and the more we find out that our "answers" from before might not have been right.

In any case, this is further illustration of one of the primary criticisms of modern evolutionary theory. Without going to deeply into it, just as the article mentions, the fossil-record-driven timeline is always diagramed in cartoon style with a systematic progression from one stage of development to the next. It is then "proven" by our archaelogical finds which place certain fossils in specific periods by carbon dating and the sort. Then it is presented as certainty, just with a few unknown particulars, generally called as a group, "The Missing Link." The fact is that we don't have a systematic chain of fossils and a missing link, what we have are a few links and a missing chain. I have always likened it to the constellations in the sky. We have all seen them -- complete pictures derived from 6 or 8 points in the sky.

Regardless of predisposition towards a certain ideology, it would be patently absurd to deny that the lack of a single fossil record of an intermediary specie, should at least call into question the general basic premise of evolutionary theory. If, just if, all of the life forms that we see originated from a common ancestor of some sort, then the lack of any single record of any of the "hybrids" along the way is astonishing. The millions upon millions of times such variations must have occurred to have the speciation which we see, should certainly have left us many clues shouldn't it?
That is enough on that thinking. My point is not to deny evolution, but rather to question the certainty with which it is presented. It is taught as science alongside the laws of gravity, physics and the sort. I just don't think it has nearly earned such a place yet in the field of science. Just as the images in the nightime skies are incomplete, so is our record of just how things happened in the past.

There is nothing wrong with asking how and why. There is nothing wrong with exploration and experimentation to find answers. We just need to understand that there are many things we don't know. Heck, we might never know some of these things. The danger however is in presuming that we do know that which we don't.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Side note: Many people presume that creation and evolution are incompatable. That is to say that if evolution happened then there can's be a designer. Accordingly if there is a supreme being(s), then evolution couldn't have happened. I don't buy that. There are many Theistic Evolutionists with varying beliefs. I know issues of this nature cause problems in the eyes of many "fundamentalist" Christians/creationists. But they don't have to. I have never had a problem with such seemingly conflicting ideas. Using Christianity as the example, the Bible is the "truth." The Bible says that the God created the heavens and the earth in 6 days. Therefore all of this variation in ages must not have happened. Sorry, I just don't see it that way. The Bible is literally full of symbolism and parables. There are countless stories which are not intended to be taken literally, but rather symobolically or parabolically. So is a "day" necessarily a 24 hour period as we know it? I think not. Is a guiding hand incompatable with what we now interpret as an evolutionary progression? Again, I think not.



Lastly, I think you could draw a parallel between the way evolution is presented and the way global warming is presented. There are certainly some indications that each have happened/are happening as described, but it is far from a complete picture. That is fine and there is nothing wrong with trying to finish painting the picture. Just don't interpolate and not tell me about it.

[EasyEd]

"Many people presume that creation and evolution are incompatable".

I agree they are, in fact, compatible because what we see as varying over time, to God all is present. Maybe we need to start pondering possible meanings of that.

[hifigator]

ed said:

"Many people presume that creation and evolution are incompatable".

I agree they are, in fact, compatible because what we see as varying over time, to God all is present. Maybe we need to start pondering possible meanings of that.

That was exactly my point with regards to Theistic Evolutionists.

There are other angles as well. One argument is simply the appearance of age. If God wanted to make something with a certain look, we are incapable of viewing it as not having been there since its creation ... whenever that was. So if it looks "x" years old, in our minds it "must" be.

I don't want to get into an age debate as that is not the point. The point is that the age of the universe is compatible with a designer, and the very appearance of that age can be compatible with either a literal interpretation of the creation story or a parabolic interpretation.

[Coast2CoastHoya]

Science is a process, not a conclusion.

Anything is possible.

[FormerHoya]

"Who taught me to live every week like it was Shark Week?"
"And who told me that nothing was impossible except for dinosaurs?"

I love 30 Rock.

[Deleted]

tothebeach said:

Anything is possible.

Like... there is no god and nobody's ever walked on water.

[The Stig]

Gaps in theories and changing facts are acceptable in science. They don't indicate that the underlying theory is false, just that it's imperfect. Changes in the theory aren't seen as refutation of the theory itself, but as fixing its imperfections.

For example, my mother is a doctor, and she told me that none of the biology she learned in high school or college was relevant to her work, since it was all outdated by the time she got through medical school. Does that mean that all of biology is useless bunk? Does that mean that all theories surrounding medicine are going to come crashing down? Of course not. It just means that the science has been refined.

Furthermore, when there's talk of 'consensus', you can be talking about a number of different levels. For example, from what I can tell there's a pretty broad (but not comprehensive) consensus in the scientific community that humans were not present at the beginning of the earth, and that we're here today because we evolved from other creatures. There's less consensus on the details of how that process happened. Even in Darwin's day some of his supporters disagreed with some pretty big aspects of his theory. That doesn't mean that the belief that underlies the entire theory (that creatures evolve from other creatures by way of natural selection) is wrong.

The problem is that evolution is constantly under attack, mostly from people outside the scientific field. These people attempt to portray any disagreement among scientists on any aspect of evolution as a sign that the entire theory is false. They may be smart people who understand that disagreements and new facts strengthen the theory instead of weakening it, but they refuse to acknowledge that because they have their own agendas. As a result, proponents of evolution are much more defensive and reluctant to acknowledge weaknesses in their theory. They feel that they have to present evolution as a complete and bulletproof history of life on Earth in order to protect the theory from those who are trying to eradicate it.

I think it's a similar case with global warming, which is leading to a lot of problems. The believers in global warming are scared that any diverging views (even those that support the underlying belief that man-made global warming is occuring) could give global warming skeptics more ammunition to use in their attacks on the global warming theory. As a result, the theory isn't being refined as much as it should. In a perfect world impartial scientists would be able to carry out research, refine the theory, and give reccomendations on what environmental policies to follow for the future. However, with all the attacks on global warming theory and the resultant pressure from global warming believers to stick to the established gospel, that simply won't happen.

As for divine influence on evolution, I think it's impossible to prove either way. I think the scientific study should focus on the facts and findings that can be proven, and that debate about any supernatural role in the process should take place beyond the realm of science among religious scholars, not scientists.

[Bando]

Look, I don't know what these new discoveries imply, but you could use part of the same argument you use to say there is a Higher Power guiding it. I'm not saying it proves a Higher Power is guiding it only that the discovery does not imply natural selection.

No, you can't. You have no evidence that a higher power exists, nor do you have any previous evidence of a higher power existing, nor is this evidence of a higher power existing. Stig explained exactly why this fits with natural selection, and even helpfully summarizing said concept. Saying "no it doesn't" is not a rebuttal.

Without going to deeply into it, just as the article mentions, the fossil-record-driven timeline is always diagramed in cartoon style with a systematic progression from one stage of development to the next. It is then "proven" by our archaelogical finds which place certain fossils in specific periods by carbon dating and the sort. Then it is presented as certainty, just with a few unknown particulars, generally called as a group, "The Missing Link." The fact is that we don't have a systematic chain of fossils and a missing link, what we have are a few links and a missing chain. I have always likened it to the constellations in the sky. We have all seen them -- complete pictures derived from 6 or 8 points in the sky.

This is a monumental misunderstanding of evolutionary theory, nay, the entire scientific method itself. First off, the cartoons you talk of are not the evidence, you silly person, they're simply the means by which said evidence is simplified for consumption by a lay audience. Are you seriously basing your objections to the diagrams in your seventh grade science book? Really? Second, the fossil record is not the sole evidence for evolution, this is just a straw man. You apparently have never heard of gene studies, nature observation, and you know, the rest of the science on evolution!!!! Third, science is about making conclusion about the world around us based on evidence we obtain through experiment and observation. If the evidence changes or become s more complete, the conclusions change too. We don't know everything, and science doesn't claim to, either. Contradictory or more complete evidence changes our conclusions. The creationists are the ones who stick to their story despite all evidence to the contrary.

If, just if, all of the life forms that we see originated from a common ancestor of some sort, then the lack of any single record of any of the "hybrids" along the way is astonishing. The millions upon millions of times such variations must have occurred to have the speciation which we see, should certainly have left us many clues shouldn't it?

Sweet Lord, this is very, very wrong. You do realize that there's not a fossil of everything that ever lived in all of history, right? This is because certain conditions must exist to make a fossil, everything that dies simply doesn't fossilize. In addition, fossils aren't made of adamantium; they can be destroyed just like anything else in this world.

It is taught as science alongside the laws of gravity, physics and the sort. I just don't think it has nearly earned such a place yet in the field of science. Just as the images in the nightime skies are incomplete, so is our record of just how things happened in the past.

You're saying that you don't understand evolutionary theory, therefore it's a weak theory. That's poppycock. Try educating yourself. Talkorigins.org is a good place to start.

I agree they are, in fact, compatible because what we see as varying over time, to God all is present. Maybe we need to start pondering possible meanings of that.

What?!? Please provide evidence of God's existence, and then provide any evidence of His nature or manner of observing time. I'm not denying God's existence here, I'm just saying that it's impossible to say anything at all about His nature or perception, and I think it's presumptuous to do so. Nevertheless, posting some platitude about the way God sees time does nothing to contradict over a hundred years of scientific inquiry into evolutionary theory.

If God wanted to make something with a certain look, we are incapable of viewing it as not having been there since its creation ... whenever that was. So if it looks "x" years old, in our minds it "must" be.

So how can you possibly know any of this, if it's beyond all human observation? Wouldn't then learning by our observations be the best way to go, as all other ways of knowing are unavailable to us? I would think we should base our conclusions off of solid evidence, rather than things we can't know.

To wrap up:

Anything is possible.

But everything is not probable or plausible. And all things aren't equally plausible or probable.

[The Stig]

It's impossible to prove or disprove the existence of God. Your beliefs there are an article of faith, not science.

[Coast2CoastHoya]

Quote:
Anything is possible.

Quote:
But everything is not probable or plausible. And all things aren't equally plausible or probable.

Thanks for rounding out my point, bigdaddy!

Great points, Stig.

[EasyEd]

The purpose of research, including scientific research, is to discover the truth. Yet, you would have evolution science make a scientific assumption there is no God, ultimately leading to the conclusion that it proceeds through natural selection. This, despite the "consensus" (there goes that term again) in the world that there is a God of some sort; and, despite the fact that a majority of scientists also believe in some God. When you make such an assumption, it is possible you are compromising the results.

I'd like to repeat my statement that led to reactions: "I agree they are, in fact, compatible because what we see as varying over time, to God all is present", referring to the compatibility of evolution theory and religious belief. I was saying that religion can accept evolution and not violate its beliefs. Why does this statement require that I prove that God exists, as Bando and Stig seem to say?

As for proving that God exists, I can't even prove that Bando and Stig exist. Who know, they may be only in my imagination. But many people much smarter than I, such as Thomas Aquinas and Augustine, made the case with as much certainty as you can prove the theory of evolution or of man-made global warming. How did they do it? They advanced a theory and used observations and their intellect to support their theory.

[Coast2CoastHoya]

Trust me ed - if you've ever spent time in a room with Bando, you know he exists. No offense bigdaddy

Science and religion are not competing for "truth" because science and religion do not define truth the same way.

I see scientific research not as a search for truth, but rather as a means by which we observe and gain a better understanding of the physical world in which we live. Science and religion are similar in that they both involve systematized study, but the former seeks knowledge and the latter seeks meaning or telos. "Knowing" God and "knowing" science are very different things. If truth is "established fact" (so says Websters), then in my mind it exists somewhere between what we can/have/do/will observe in the natural world and what we feel/believe/assume/perceive of the supernatural.

To a colorblind man, there is no green, even though most of our eyes perceive the reflection of a certain wavelength of the electromagnetic spectrum as "green." Some see God in the "green flash" at sunset; some see science. Hopefully most see something beautiful; the colorblind man cannot see it at all, but he might accept that the green flash exists either on faith or in reliance on the data.

In science something can be proved and thereby be elevated to established fact, "law", or "truth," like heliocentrism or gravity, by observing natural phenomena and conducting experiments/research to establish the facts as truth. A scientific "theory" - as a paleontologist colleague of mine said - is our best approximation of the actual situation.

Science is a system and process by which fact is established or disestablished. Relgion is a system and process by which faith is established (or disestablished, in some cases!). Fact requires acceptance of physical observation; faith requires acceptance of metaphysical revelation. They're not incompatible (I tend to think they go together really well actually) but they're not after the same thing.

[Bando]

Yet, you would have evolution science make a scientific assumption there is no God, ultimately leading to the conclusion that it proceeds through natural selection. This, despite the "consensus" (there goes that term again) in the world that there is a God of some sort; and, despite the fact that a majority of scientists also believe in some God.

This is not at all true. Evolution says nothing about how life on earth started, you're thinking of the less supported hypotheses of abiogenesis. Evolution simply shows how life, once created (or whatever), changed into the species we know today. It neither requires nor denies the possibility of a creator.

In addition, popularity is not evidence. You haven't proven the existence of God by saying "a lot of people believe in God".

I see scientific research not as a search for truth, but rather as a means by which we observe and gain a better understanding of the physical world in which we live.

And how is that not searching for truth?

[EasyEd]

"This is not at all true. Evolution says nothing about how life on earth started, you're thinking of the less supported hypotheses of abiogenesis. Evolution simply shows how life, once created (or whatever), changed into the species we know today. It neither requires nor denies the possibility of a creator. "

Maybe we are partially debating semantics but, as I see it, the theory of evolution says that the species evolved based on natural selection. If you are saying that natural selection allows for the possibility that it is guided by a Higher Power, I agree with you. I am talking about how the species evolved, not how it was created.