Have we learned anything of value from the "science" of evolution?

[Woyzeck]

WoW:

Did I chill this thread out? Because I thought it was getting interesting with Dr. T's remarks about not claiming that evolutionary theory really addresses questions of creation.

Who believes that evolutionary principles are all we need to explain our origins in slime mold? Because that is the NUT of the problem with what's being taught as science.

The Scopes trial just didn't go far enough.. Because I can conceed the connection to the Great Apes.. But that doesn't mean "the science is solved" for your great great great ancestor "ole slimy"...

Evolution claims that there is a common origin of life. It does not make specific claims to how life started, that's an entirely different field of science called abiogenesis. We don't know much about how life started one earth and there are several theories. I've never heard the 'slime mold' one you speak of, though.

 

[SFC Ollie]

Did rdean run away from his own thread again?

 

[flacaltenn]

WoW:

Did I chill this thread out? Because I thought it was getting interesting with Dr. T's remarks about not claiming that evolutionary theory really addresses questions of creation.

Who believes that evolutionary principles are all we need to explain our origins in slime mold? Because that is the NUT of the problem with what's being taught as science.

The Scopes trial just didn't go far enough.. Because I can conceed the connection to the Great Apes.. But that doesn't mean "the science is solved" for your great great great ancestor "ole slimy"...

Evolution claims that there is a common origin of life. It does not make specific claims to how life started, that's an entirely different field of science called abiogenesis. We don't know much about how life started one earth and there are several theories. I've never heard the 'slime mold' one you speak of, though.

Ole Slimy comes from the exact fairy tale I remember being taught in grade school about our human origin. Not the INITIAL spark of life (abiogenesis).. I have no problem with converting elements to protein building blocks of life. The science basis for that is pretty clear.

I'm referring to all life on Earth having it's roots in single cell (primarily plants as we know them) which is Ole Slimy. Clear as the old AV film I remember seeing it on.

And Science begot life as one cell plants growing and spending life in the early marine seas. And then came mobile simple cells like turbo versions of ole slimy and like the opening to The Big Bang TV show it all went from there to me and you..

Our whole universe was in a hot dense state,
Then nearly fourteen billion years ago expansion started--Wait!
The Earth began to cool,
The autotrophs began to drool,
Neanderthals developed tools,
We built a wall (we built the pyramids),Math, science, history,
Unraveling the mystery,
That all started with the Big Bang! BANG!

 

[Dr.Traveler]

Dr. Traveler:

The biggest misunderstanding about Evolution is applying it to the origin of life, something it truly doesn't address. What it does is describe the mechanism by which life adapts and survives. The analogy with Gravity is that the Law of Gravity doesn't tell you how the solar system was formed, but it does tell you how it will act, what form it will take, and what it's in for in the future.

I happen to agree with that statement. It's pretty brilliant analogy.. But you're copping out here. Since I DISTINCTLY REMEMBER my public school indoctrination telling me that we clearly descended from slime mold. ((Tortures me to this day)). If we could just get all the religion-bashering leftists to conceed this point -- rainbows would form and there would be no more tantrum rooms on USMB.

It takes HUGE leaps of faith to accept the slime mold theory. Especially in light of the multiple mass extinctions that refused to take out our ancestral lines. Just like it takes immense faith to accept the Big Bang theory even for folks who recognize the evidence for it..

The slime mold thing is just sloppy reasoning. I've seen this mistake before. It's called the principle of uniformity and it's a personal pet peeve. Namely folks assume that a process runs in reverse in the same way barring evidence to the contrary. In addition you have the human tendacy to want to plug holes in a theory. I know that in Newton's Days once Gravity locked down the hows and whys about how the solar system worked, some truly awful theories started coming about to try to explain the origin of it.

 

[Woyzeck]

WoW:

Did I chill this thread out? Because I thought it was getting interesting with Dr. T's remarks about not claiming that evolutionary theory really addresses questions of creation.

Who believes that evolutionary principles are all we need to explain our origins in slime mold? Because that is the NUT of the problem with what's being taught as science.

The Scopes trial just didn't go far enough.. Because I can conceed the connection to the Great Apes.. But that doesn't mean "the science is solved" for your great great great ancestor "ole slimy"...

Evolution claims that there is a common origin of life. It does not make specific claims to how life started, that's an entirely different field of science called abiogenesis. We don't know much about how life started one earth and there are several theories. I've never heard the 'slime mold' one you speak of, though.

Ole Slimy comes from the exact fairy tale I remember being taught in grade school about our human origin. Not the INITIAL spark of life (abiogenesis).. I have no problem with converting elements to protein building blocks of life. The science basis for that is pretty clear.

I'm referring to all life on Earth having it's roots in single cell (primarily plants as we know them) which is Ole Slimy. Clear as the old AV film I remember seeing it on.

And Science begot life as one cell plants growing and spending life in the early marine seas. And then came mobile simple cells like turbo versions of ole slimy and like the opening to The Big Bang TV show it all went from there to me and you..

Our whole universe was in a hot dense state,
Then nearly fourteen billion years ago expansion started--Wait!
The Earth began to cool,
The autotrophs began to drool,
Neanderthals developed tools,
We built a wall (we built the pyramids),Math, science, history,
Unraveling the mystery,
That all started with the Big Bang! BANG!

I'm not really sure what you're objecting to. Do you find fault in the common descent of all organisms on the planet?

 

[flacaltenn]

WoyZeck:

I'm not really sure what you're objecting to. Do you find fault in the common descent of all organisms on the planet?

Actually I do.. And it's not because of "sloppy reasoning" or your pet peeves. I've told you that accept the actual "spark of life" theory and the fact that our ancestral lines run thru the Great Apes. But I find it completely unsatifying to not know WHICH Pleioscene fish line hosted my ancestral roots.

Draw a line at any ancient period and there is one root ancestor to us and Great Ape existing at that time. I see it as a huge incomplete assumption. We've CLAIMED that the long windy path (back to the common primordial goo) only contains transistions explanable thru evolution. Yet -- to MY knowledge, that exact path is not known and MAY BE unknowable.

With the transistion to the root of the mammals --- were we the FIRST mammalian instance? Or a 2nd or 3rd wave? Since I have NEVER seen a complete tracing back thru say the Jurassic period -- which reptile species was the one that carried our flag thru THAT period?

Yes I find fault.. We're handwaving at the 280Mill years of evolution preceeding the Apes...

 

[Old Rocks]

Amniote Paleobiology: Perspectives on the Evolution of Mammals, Birds, and Reptiles, Carrano, Gaudin, Blob

 

[Old Rocks]

Search Results - Asterpix Searchlight

 

[CrusaderFrank]

If Evolution is a real force why are Libs stuck on stupid?

 

[rdean]

So you think that all Christians and any other religious people are ignorant and do not believe in science? So well over half of your precious Democrats to include Mr. Obama and family. are ignorant and think science is stupid? Really? That's what you want us to believe?

Why do you keep "imagining" what I believe?

What do you believe?

In case you haven't noticed I do not, and have never discussed my religion in an open forum.......

I believe that a man's religion is his own business, that it should be between him and his God, whatever he deems that to be........

But you believe that anyone who believes in a God is a fool......... So therefore you believe Obama is a fool.....

Is that what I said? You can quote that, I'm sure.

 

[rdean]

If Evolution is a real force why are Libs stuck on stupid?

You just assume they're stupid because you have no understanding.

 

[flacaltenn]

Gee OleRocks:

Thanks for the book review.. If you assure me that our geneological ancestry is traced back to Ole Slimy, I'd CERTAINTLY buy it and read it.. But I doubt it.

I was just enthralled with Dr. T's analogy:

The biggest misunderstanding about Evolution is applying it to the origin of life, something it truly doesn't address. What it does is describe the mechanism by which life adapts and survives. The analogy with Gravity is that the Law of Gravity doesn't tell you how the solar system was formed, but it does tell you how it will act, what form it will take, and what it's in for in the future.

Because all of the debate I've seen qualified folks engaged in is usually an all or none proposition. Either the entire winding path of human development from slimy goo to today is explained by evolution -- or it isnt.. And this more pragmatic statement above, sure is a safer position given the actual scientific ability to acquire evidence for the COMPLETE family tree.

What I'm thinking is that we don't actually know what the prime genealogical movers were over all those milleniums. Isn't it just as likely that there were instances of massive mutations due to cosmic rays or chemical exposure? It's a reality of life in this galaxy that a collapsing star on the same arm of our Milky Way could literally frickassee and stew our DNA. Of course, what happens after such an event is again handled by natural selection and adaptation.. But in the parlance of the insurance industry -- interventions like that could be considered "acts of God" in a very legal sense. What if those those events were masked by one of the great extinctions? Wouldn't it APPEAR in the fossil record that mammals just POPPED UP in mass after the Dinos died? Even tho the two appear to overlap in the fossil record, the major shift could be more complex than natural selection and adaptation.

Remember that the biblical version in Genesis acknowledges that man derived from an ecology already rich in biodiversity. What part of that would not jive with short intense periods of non-Darwinian mutatation? Why does this debate always have to be all or none?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

If Evolution is a real force why are Libs stuck on stupid?

You just assume they're stupid because you have no understanding.

6% Deany

 

[SFC Ollie]

Why do you keep "imagining" what I believe?

What do you believe?

In case you haven't noticed I do not, and have never discussed my religion in an open forum.......

I believe that a man's religion is his own business, that it should be between him and his God, whatever he deems that to be........

But you believe that anyone who believes in a God is a fool......... So therefore you believe Obama is a fool.....

Is that what I said? You can quote that, I'm sure.

We can only go upon your countless posts about the Christian right. So since you hate the Christian right so much, and you always seem to be talking shit about those who believe in a supreme being........ Well tell us rdean, just what is the difference between a christian Republican and a Christian Democrat. You are the one who likes to mix religion and politics, so please enlighten us here.....

I believe you're full of crap and got caught talking shit again.

 

[Iridescence]

I find it amazing how sects of supposedly like-minded individuals can boast to be the more witty and focused within intelligence's elite and yet still have to resort to belittling, undermining, slinging shit in the face of their supposed opponent(s). Their faulty presumptuous nature seems to only prove their lowly spiritual estate, which is the best evidence of evolution's link to creationism. Or, perhaps it is better said 'devolution'. Biblical ranting aside... human behavior only proves the psychological fundamentals in which biblical literalists affirm.

 

[Dr.Traveler]

Remember that the biblical version in Genesis acknowledges that man derived from an ecology already rich in biodiversity. What part of that would not jive with short intense periods of non-Darwinian mutatation? Why does this debate always have to be all or none?

I've never seen it as an all or none. I don't think most truly rigorous scientists do either. A theory makes predictions once certain conditions are met. It's the folks with an agenda that tend to apply theory to places it doesn't belong in a goal to validate their world view.

Personally, I think the evolutionary process jives pretty well with the Biblical account. Evolution plugs a major hole in the Noah story. It also lines up with New Testament teachings about the value God puts on even the sparrows.

There is always someone out there that wants to try to use a theory to disprove God. But if you really read what Evolution states, the actual theory itself is about life's ability to adapt to changes and the mechanism it uses to do that. This debate about the origin of life should be an entirely separate conversation. That is entirely open to debate. The evolutionary mechanism has enough evidence that it's as far past "debatable" as Gravity is.

 

[Dr.Traveler]

If Evolution is a real force why are Libs stuck on stupid?

Tossing out the Libs v. Cons part of your quote, stupid people outbreed smart people. It's why Idiocracy is probably a pretty accurate picture of our future. I've got two beautiful kids and that's probably going to be all I have because I'm smart enough to think ahead and figure out what I can afford. I've seen folks with 6-8 who will keep having kids forever, whether they can afford them or not.

 

[Woyzeck]

WoyZeck:

I'm not really sure what you're objecting to. Do you find fault in the common descent of all organisms on the planet?

Actually I do.. And it's not because of "sloppy reasoning" or your pet peeves. I've told you that accept the actual "spark of life" theory and the fact that our ancestral lines run thru the Great Apes. But I find it completely unsatifying to not know WHICH Pleioscene fish line hosted my ancestral roots.

Draw a line at any ancient period and there is one root ancestor to us and Great Ape existing at that time. I see it as a huge incomplete assumption. We've CLAIMED that the long windy path (back to the common primordial goo) only contains transistions explanable thru evolution. Yet -- to MY knowledge, that exact path is not known and MAY BE unknowable.

With the transistion to the root of the mammals --- were we the FIRST mammalian instance? Or a 2nd or 3rd wave? Since I have NEVER seen a complete tracing back thru say the Jurassic period -- which reptile species was the one that carried our flag thru THAT period?

Yes I find fault.. We're handwaving at the 280Mill years of evolution preceeding the Apes...

Um, what? What do you mean who carried 'our flag?'

Biologists don't' handwave' the evolution before apes. We have a pretty good idea of our life evolved one earth. Here's an interactive family tree of life on earth, where you can start with Eukaryote and end with homo sapiens.

 

[flacaltenn]

WoyZeck:

I'm not really sure what you're objecting to. Do you find fault in the common descent of all organisms on the planet?

Actually I do.. And it's not because of "sloppy reasoning" or your pet peeves. I've told you that accept the actual "spark of life" theory and the fact that our ancestral lines run thru the Great Apes. But I find it completely unsatifying to not know WHICH Pleioscene fish line hosted my ancestral roots.

Draw a line at any ancient period and there is one root ancestor to us and Great Ape existing at that time. I see it as a huge incomplete assumption. We've CLAIMED that the long windy path (back to the common primordial goo) only contains transistions explanable thru evolution. Yet -- to MY knowledge, that exact path is not known and MAY BE unknowable.

With the transistion to the root of the mammals --- were we the FIRST mammalian instance? Or a 2nd or 3rd wave? Since I have NEVER seen a complete tracing back thru say the Jurassic period -- which reptile species was the one that carried our flag thru THAT period?

Yes I find fault.. We're handwaving at the 280Mill years of evolution preceeding the Apes...

Um, what? What do you mean who carried 'our flag?'

Biologists don't' handwave' the evolution before apes. We have a pretty good idea of our life evolved one earth. Here's an interactive family tree of life on earth, where you can start with Eukaryote and end with homo sapiens.

Thanks very much for that great link.. It distracted me for hours from more important topics like "why are only 6% of scientists Republicans" or "is Michelle Bachmann clinically crazy".

What I meant by "carried our flag" is to employ the DNA and observational tools that we have to make CERTAIN and DISTINCT claims to knowledge of the lineage of our species. In fact, to trace the lineage in attempts such as the Tree of Life website. I now know that I can confidently buy Sturgeon at the fish counter without any guilt whatsoever of consuming a direct ancestor. That's worth a lot of inner calmness.

However -- after intial enjoyment and perusal of that site -- I still doubt that we can assume that simple natural selection or evolution as taught to me in school can be touted as the SOLE and ONLY cause of growth on the Tree o'Life.

First things I ran into at about the Eukaryotes level were statements like:

The current view of eukaryotic phylogeny is of a small number of large ‘supergroups’, each comprising a spectacular diversity of structures, nutritional modes, and behaviours (Adl et al., 2005; Keeling, 2004; Keeling et al., 2005; Simpson and Roger, 2002). Some of these supergroup hypotheses are well supported, while others remain the subject of vigorous debate (see (Keeling et al., 2005) for a discussion of evidence). Furthermore the relationships between supergroups are poorly understood. Below we summarise the main members of each supergroup, the evidence for its monophyly, and emerging hypotheses for inter-supergroup relationships.

No way -- by any sophisticated measure -- is this early portion of the tree of life "settled science". There MIGHT be enough evidence to PROPOSE a tree structure and even occasionally opportunistically prove a relational branch. But that's far from showing the CAUSE of that branch was mere "natural selection". To do that would imply not only understanding the genetic and observational similiarities, but would assume you had enough ENVIRONMENTAL and COMPETITIVE species information to suggest that ONLY natural selection was at work.. Don't think anyone is that bold about reconstructing the "scene of the crime" at the time that mutation was "selected".

Then -- I got to:

The rooting of the Tree of Life, and the relationships of the major lineages, are controversial. The monophyly of Archaea is uncertain, and recent evidence for ancient lateral transfers of genes indicates that a highly complex model is needed to adequately represent the phylogenetic relationships among the major lineages of Life. We hope to provide a comprehensive discussion of these issues on this page soon. For the time being, please refer to the papers listed in the References section.

In other words --- this page is under construction STILL!!!! Come back later. Not "hand-waving" as I asserted before, but certainly enough honest confusion to doubt that we can attribute "evolution thru natural selection" as the SOLE and ONLY motivating source for a tree of life that we can't accurately draw yet.

Look -- I'm on board with evolution in the way that Dr. Traveler described it's UTILITY. But it's a TOOL that should be used more sparingly when you can "set the scene" for an adaptation and verify it's effect. And to use that tool to EXCLUDE other perfectly good scientific explanations for WHY the branching and diversity in the TOL happened -- is just not plausible to me..

 

[natepro]

The thing of it is Dean that we don't live in the utopian world (thank God) of radical academic one sided restrictive liberalism. Americans should be free to consider Creationism while the academic world concentrates on genetic mutations in lower life forms and the origin of the species. Teaching Creationism in schools is not a threat to the world of liberalism as we know it. Kids will still be learning how to put a condom on a cucumber. Relax lefties.

Wait.. why are we teaching Creationism? Why not any of the hundreds of other creation myths from the other world religions? Is there something that gives Judeo-Christian Creationism a higher probability of being correct than any of the other creation myths have? That seems rather discriminatory of us to only teach the one, don't you think?