Evolution

[KempoGuy06]

The other thread about what to believe got me thinking about certain topics. A lot of topics involving religion/science have a lot of impact or society. There are quite a few I would like to discuss and will start more threads on them after I see the response i get here.

So...Evolution

Big topic here. Lots of contreversy (sp?). What is your take on the theory? Do you believe? Why or why not? How do you mix this in with religous beliefs?

No need to say but I will anyway. Be mindful of others beliefs. If you going to attack something do it with facts and sound arguments none of that "if you believe this you are going to hell crap" I had enough of that in grade school and high school.

B

 

[heretic888]

Okay, I'll give it a go.

What is your take on the theory?

To sum it up succinctly: random variation, natural selection, niche selection, the Baldwin Effect, punctuated equilibrium, self-organization, hierarchical emergentism, and neo-Lamarckian epigenetics.

Do you believe?

Yes.

Why or why not?

Empirical evidence, including data from genetics, morphological parallelism, fossil records, and a few experimental studies involving E Coli.

How do you mix this in with religous beliefs?

I don't.

 

[KempoGuy06]

Okay, I'll give it a go.



To sum it up succinctly: random variation, natural selection, niche selection, the Baldwin Effect, punctuated equilibrium, self-organization, hierarchical emergentism, and neo-Lamarckian epigenetics.



Yes.



Empirical evidence, including data from genetics, morphological parallelism, fossil records, and a few experimental studies involving E Coli.



I don't.

What are you views on teaching it in school? I went to Catholic schools for 12yrs and heard about it maybe once in those 12 yrs. I believe it should be taught.

B

 

[heretic888]

What are you views on teaching it in school?

It should be taught in all science classrooms and perhaps in a limited form in American history classrooms in regards to the Scopes Trial.

I have to admit, though, I find the question a little odd. Asking me if evolutionary theory should be taught in a biology classroom is asking if cell theory should be taught in a chemistry classroom, gravity should be taught in a physics classroom, or Piagetian theory should be taught in a psychology classroom.

 

[Andrew Green]

What are you views on teaching it in school? I went to Catholic schools for 12yrs and heard about it maybe once in those 12 yrs. I believe it should be taught.

B

I think that any school that dismisses well established scientific theory because it conflicts with religious ideals should not be accredited as a academic institution...

 

[tellner]

There is a lot of controversy about the theory of evolution. Heretic888 refers to some of the bigger issues.

There is no real doubt about the fact of evolution. We have so much evidence from so many different sources that it hasn't been an issue in many decades. The only "skeptics" are True Believers, the ignorant, the willfully ignorant and people who feel threatened by something that would upset their smug comfortable belief that the entire Universe was created by the Big Guy in the Sky for their benefit. In other words, the objections are irrational, emotional and based on a desire for security and feeling special rather than anything resembling facts, reason, logic or intellectual honesty.

The fact that people are even asking whether it should be taught in schools gives an idea of how deeply the Know Nothings have inserted their tentacles into our orifices. And not in a fun, kind of squishy eldritch way. It's part of the zealots' hatred of science as a concept and desperate neurotic fear of something somewhere which could prove that they aren't infallible. And yes, it really is that simple.

 

[CoryKS]

I consider evolution to be raw science in that there is no applicable use for it. If it happens, and it happens over the span of millenia, there's really nothing we can do with that information.

Well, it has one use in our society - to prove that there is no god. Evolution is important to those who champion it for the sole purpose of discrediting religion. If there's no god, there's no authority to tell us not to do the stuff we want to do. It is equally important for those who base their values on religious grounds to discredit it for the same reason. This is the only reason people give a crap about evolution.

Personally, I'd like to see them remove evolution AND creationism from the school science curriculum and replace it with electronics. Other than its propaganda value, the study of evolution is completely worthless to anyone except biologists and paleontologists. Electronics is useful for everyone.

I consider myself an atheist, but that doesn't mean I want to just scrap the moral codes without understanding what they were designed to do. Any 13-year-old can say, "there is no god." Ok, well done. Now explain to me what problem our forebears were trying to solve by outlawing the eating of pork, for example, and whether that problem has been addressed through modern food preparation. If you're walking in a field and come to a fence, it's best to find out why the fence was built before you decide to dismantle it.

 

[tahuti]

There are some who will argue that it has practical use.

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA215.html

Claim CA215:

The theory of evolution is useless, without practical application. Source:

Lindsey, George. 1985. Evolution -- Useful or useless? Impact 148 (Oct.). http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=252
Wieland, Carl. 1998. Evolution and practical science. Creation 20(4) (Sept.): 4. http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v20/i4/evolution.asp
Response:

1. Evolutionary theory is the framework tying together all of biology. It explains similarities and differences between organisms, fossils, biogeography, drug resistance, extreme features such as the peacock's tail, relative virulence of parasites, and much more besides. Without the theory of evolution, it would still be possible to know much about biology, but not to understand it.
   
   This explanatory framework is useful in a practical sense. First, a unified theory is easier to learn, because the facts connect together rather than being so many isolated bits of trivia. Second, having a theory makes it possible to see gaps in the theory, suggesting productive areas for new research.
   
   ...

 

[michaeledward]

The belief or disbelief in evolution has nothing to do with proving the existance of a supreme being. It is completely possible for a believer to recognize Evolution as a method by which god created man.

Evolution, and its study, allows man to understand the world around him.

If we come across an animal or plant that we have seen before, an understanding of evolution can help us understand that newly discovered plant or animal.

If we are unconcerned with the world around us, then evolution becomes unimportant.

 

[Andrew Green]

I consider evolution to be raw science in that there is no applicable use for it. If it happens, and it happens over the span of millenia, there's really nothing we can do with that information.

Evolutionary heory does have practical uses.

Not to mention that I disagree very strongly with the idea of ignoring sciences hat don't have any practical value, this is nature of the life and the universe stuff, it is intrinsically valuable IMO.

Well, it has one use in our society - to prove that there is no god. Evolution is important to those who champion it for the sole purpose of discrediting religion. If there's no god, there's no authority to tell us not to do the stuff we want to do. It is equally important for those who base their values on religious grounds to discredit it for the same reason. This is the only reason people give a crap about evolution.

No, it disproves one part of certain religious faith, it does not disprove God, I imagine a claim could even be made that our ability to evolve is one of God's greatest gifts.

Personally, I'd like to see them remove evolution AND creationism from the school science curriculum and replace it with electronics. Other than its propaganda value, the study of evolution is completely worthless to anyone except biologists and paleontologists. Electronics is useful for everyone.

Yes, and one interesting developing area in electronics as well as programming is the use of evolutionary theory within it. This sort of thing has gotten some pretty amazing results in certain things as of late.

I consider myself an atheist, but that doesn't mean I want to just scrap the moral codes without understanding what they were designed to do. Any 13-year-old can say, "there is no god." Ok, well done. Now explain to me what problem our forebears were trying to solve by outlawing the eating of pork, for example, and whether that problem has been addressed through modern food preparation. If you're walking in a field and come to a fence, it's best to find out why the fence was built before you decide to dismantle it.

Evolution != No God, just that Genesis is not literally true. Something many people that believe in God accept.

 

[Nomad]

Between them, Tellner and Tahuti have summed up my own views concisely.

The only people who consider evolution a theory, in the layman's use of the term, are those who are either unable to understand it or choose not to look at the massive volumes of evidence supporting it in order to push their own agenda (usually religious in nature).

Evolution is considered a theory in scientific terms because the meaning of the word carries different connotations than among layfolk; simply, that nothing can ever be proved in complete terms... there are always gaps in our understanding, which hopefully get smaller as scientists study the field further... hence gravity is also considered a theory, as are many other well-accepted truths.

Only to a literalist, who chooses not to believe that any part of religion could be allegorical, does evolution conflict with religion. My wife also went to catholic schools for many years, and they had no problems at all teaching evolution in her biology classes; I guess they though that God might be a little subtler than some give him credit for... or maybe that the people who recorded and guided the church through many centuries might not have had complete understanding of the world around them.

 

[thardey]

What is your take on the theory?

I believe that micro-evolution is well established, and is a very useful science for us to understand, being able to observe and modify changes at a cellular level can be extremely important.

I want to get some help in defining evolution here, what I was taught in public high school is different than what I've seen among arguments dealing with the actual process.

High School version: When a particular organism, whether plant or animal, has a need that threatens it's existence as a species, it adapts to be able to fill that need. These adaptations are a larger version, or the end result of a series of micro-evolution which is an example of adaptation of a smaller scale. I would estimate that of the people I talk to about evolution, about 90% of people who believe in evolution hold this view. Most of these people did not specifically pursue an understanding of evolution, but are content with a cursory understanding.

Do I agree? No. It smacks of intelligence and faith that should only be regulated to philosophical or theological questions. It brings in the question of "why?" which should not be allowed in modern science. "How?" is sufficient.

In bringing up the examples of "adaptation", (under the high school model) one is essentially invoking some sort of intelligence, either on the part of the individual organism, (modifying its DNA for a specific purpose, then passing that change to its offspring, who then modifies it further, etc), Evolution itself, as though the process it somehow personified, and actually cared about the survival of its "creation", or Mother Nature, again, an appeal to a "higher intelligence."

This was the door that gave "Intelligent Design" scientists hope that they could simply insert "God" for any one of these intelligences that caused the organisms to "adapt". Bad Modern Science either way.

----------

The "survival of the fittest" model: An otherwise healthy, and functioning organism basically developed a genetic deformity, which happened to improve the chances of raising offspring. This deformity, or mutation was successful enough to create a large enough population that was "more successful" than the original organism. This happens enough over the course of about 4 billion years that eventually we show up, as well as all of the other critters we know and love. Those organisms that had "defective" deformities or mutations, died without passing on their destructive genes.

Not particularly romantic, but functional, and possible, if things get very lucky.

Do I believe? No. I think that this is the best scientific theory out there to explain the fossil evidence we do have, but there are still too many missing gaps for me to put "weight" on it, so to speak. The Cambrian explosion bothers me, for instance, the evolution of the eye, not once, but twice, and with the same end result, along separate branches of the animal kindgom (I'll have to get the specifics of that later, if anybody wants it, I don't have that particular resource with me, and I don't trust my memory.) Things like that keep the theory of evolution as a theory -- probably the best theory we have, but still a theory.

Now, that being said, I do believe that the fossil record we have is fairly accurate, I'm not one of those "Evolutionists are out on a conspiracy to eliminate God!" kind of a guy anymore. As Michael pointed out, evolution is not proof against God's existence, but it could be an argument against the proof of God's existence, and that's where the true believer gets stuck.

Do you believe? Why or why not? How do you mix this in with religious beliefs?

Ah, religion. Hmm. My first answer is that in my belief system, it is not beneficial for God to prove himself. I believe that God would rather be worshiped for his character, than his external abilities. (His character has already been debated here on MT). Much like the difference between honoring a Pro Athlete for his skills, or honoring him because he is a good role model. If we get caught up in looking for a "sign" we won't get one, because we will focus on the "miracles" of God, and not the personality.

"This generation is a wicked generation; it seeks for a sign, and yet not sign will be given except the sign of Jonah" (Luke 11:29).

So the idea of God removing the indisputable proof of his existence by creating the world in such a way that it can't be proven that he created it, actually is very comforting to me, and fits quite well with my theology.

Now, as far as the Genesis question: Can Genesis be literally real if the universe is 14 billion years old?

Before I answer that, I want to make one thing clear: I am trying not to interpret science by the Bible, or vice-versa. I am trying to "overlay" my religious theories over my scientific theories, to see if there is a discrepancy. I would hope that most people here would concede that as fair.

Okay, so Genesis. Since Hawking's book A Brief History of Time has gained more acceptance, there has been a new, small, delicate movement of scientists interpreting Genesis under a new assumption: It is literal, depending on what your perspective is.

Example: When the whole Galileo thing went down, the basic problem at the time was that it went against the Ptolemaic system, which also happened to agree with verses in the Bible that described the sun "going around the earth". Now, the Copernican system is taught even in Sunday school, by the most devout religious conservatives without the slightest hesitation. Why? Because eventually the Church realized that these particular verses in the Bible were discussing not a universal truth, but a truth from particular perspective. For the purposes that the stories were told, even today, if we told the same stories, we would describe the sun "rising and setting." No big deal anymore, we just had to shift our perspective.

So how does that affect Genesis 1? Well, a new understanding of time tells us that in different situations, time travels at a different rate. What a couple of people have done, is to introduce the idea that in some situations, the universe in not really much more than a week old. Most of the Universe, however, is about 14 Billion years old. Different authors have introduced different ways of interpreting Genesis, but the important part is realizing that 6 - 24 hour days from one perspective (traveling just below the speed of light, or close to a singularity, for instance) can equal 14 billion years from another.

Considering that the center of a black hole basically contains a singularity, and that black holes seriously warp time, and that Hawking's Big Bang model starts with singularity, means that, especially at the beginning, time was a strange animal.

Now, I'm not saying that I'm a firm believer in these theories, but it is a way for me to take what I need to from Genesis, but retain my curiosity and love for physics.

So then, the only real sticking point is, who was Adam and Eve?

 

[CoryKS]

tahuti, you've made many excellent points about the study of evolution. I just don't see how they apply at the high school level or below. The cases you listed: bioinformatics; epidemiology; disease research; are highly specialized fields requiring advanced study. People elect to go into those fields. Public school should focus on the general skills that all students need.

Sorry, I just don't think that the majority of people who are so adamant about keeping evolution in public school are thinking about its applications in bioinformatics. It's like how the young go-getters trying to legalize marijuana always cite its use in treating glaucoma. It may be true, but I'm cynical enough not to think that that many college-age kids are concerned about glaucoma.

This, on the other hand, is science I can get behind. If I can't have a flying car, at least lemme have a teleporter.

 

[Andrew Green]

tahuti, you've made many excellent points about the study of evolution. I just don't see how they apply at the high school level or below. The cases you listed: bioinformatics; epidemiology; disease research; are highly specialized fields requiring advanced study. People elect to go into those fields. Public school should focus on the general skills that all students need.

Most people will also have no need for much of the math taught in schools, atomic structure, cell reproduction theory, physics, chemistry, woodworking, electronics, and countless other things that are taught in school.

School should go beyond "what you need to survive" and place a high value on knowledge, not devalue anything beyond basic math and cubical farm skills.

Evolution is a pretty fundamental theory in how our universe works, where we came from, and where we might go from here. It has nothing to do with religion and should most definitely be taught in schools, right in there with why the sky is blue.

 

[CoryKS]

Most people will also have no need for much of the math taught in schools, atomic structure, cell reproduction theory, physics, chemistry, woodworking, electronics, and countless other things that are taught in school.

School should go beyond "what you need to survive" and place a high value on knowledge, not devalue anything beyond basic math and cubical farm skills.

Evolution is a pretty fundamental theory in how our universe works, where we came from, and where we might go from here. It has nothing to do with religion and should most definitely be taught in schools, right in there with why the sky is blue.

Who said anything about devaluing anything beyond basic math? Is it "you get evolution or you get Factoring Polynomials for Eedjits"? I suggested electronics as one alternative. Hell, replace it with a good economics course which, at the heart of it, is all natural selection is really about. There are many possible subjects which are sufficiently complex that have better real-world application.

 

[tahuti]

Don't credit me, credit authors of the website. Here are 2 more links for non biological use of evolution theory.

http://www.sciencecodex.com/harvard_scientists_predict_the_future_of_the_past_tense
http://www.economist.com/science/tq/displaystory.cfm?story_id=9896323&retitled

Remember abiogenesis (origin of life) is not same as evolution (simply said origin of species).

 

[Blotan Hunka]

The fight over evolution in schools is more about politics and religion than anything else. We MUST teach evolution even if it offends some. But we cant put up a nativity in the school yard at Christmas because it offends some. It all astounds me.

 

[heretic888]

I believe that micro-evolution is well established, and is a very useful science for us to understand, being able to observe and modify changes at a cellular level can be extremely important.

Not to belabor the point, but macro-evolution is pretty well established, too. Everything from genetic analysis to the fossil record to experimental studies involving E Coli support macro-evolutionary models.

I want to get some help in defining evolution here, what I was taught in public high school is different than what I've seen among arguments dealing with the actual process.

Ok. I'll give it a shot.

High School version: When a particular organism, whether plant or animal, has a need that threatens it's existence as a species, it adapts to be able to fill that need. These adaptations are a larger version, or the end result of a series of micro-evolution which is an example of adaptation of a smaller scale. I would estimate that of the people I talk to about evolution, about 90% of people who believe in evolution hold this view. Most of these people did not specifically pursue an understanding of evolution, but are content with a cursory understanding.

If this is what you were taught in high school, then your teachers are to blame for an inadequate understanding of biology.

The conventional neo-Darwinian model or synthetic model (called so because it integrates, or synthesizes, the evolutionary theories of Charles Darwin with the genetic discoveries of Gregor Mendel) of evolution does not work the way your high school explanation dictates. To put it in a nutshell, this model argues for random variation and natural selection.

In essence, neo-Darwinian evolution postulates that within any given generation of a population there is a natural random variation of traits, features, and talents within that population and, furthermore, this variance is due to the randomness of genetic inheritance. Among this variety of traits within the population generation, some traits will be better suited to allow the individuals that possess them to survive or thrive within the population's environmental niche. Those that are better suited to survive are more likely to reproduce and, therefore, become more commonplace among future generations of the population. Eventually, assuming relatively stable niche conditions, the traits best suited to survival will replace other less suitable traits.

The idea you have put forward, that individual organisms "adapt" to specific environmental needs and these individual "adaptations" are then inherited by their offspring is not Darwinism. It is the largely discredited evolutionary model of Lamarckism, which has not been a significant part of evolutionary theory since the end of the 19th century. It has received something of a resurgence in recent years due to the new field of epigenetics, but that is a whole other can of worms unto itself.

The "survival of the fittest" model: An otherwise healthy, and functioning organism basically developed a genetic deformity, which happened to improve the chances of raising offspring. This deformity, or mutation was successful enough to create a large enough population that was "more successful" than the original organism. This happens enough over the course of about 4 billion years that eventually we show up, as well as all of the other critters we know and love. Those organisms that had "defective" deformities or mutations, died without passing on their destructive genes.

Not particularly romantic, but functional, and possible, if things get very lucky.

Okay, this is vaguely reminiscent of the neo-Darwinian model, but it definitely confuses a lot of the information up.

For one thing, there is a natural random variation of genetically heritable traits among any given population --- one need not appeal to "deformities" or "mutations" to explain them, although these do commonly occur. The traits that are better suited for survival (natural selection) or reproduction (sexual selection) in the population's niche will naturally become more pervasive among future generations of the population, assuming the niche has not changed to any significant degree.

Also, as a minor quibble, "survival of the fittest" does not directly come from biological Darwinism. It comes from the failed sociological school of Social Darwinism, which is also its own can of worms.

Things like that keep the theory of evolution as a theory -- probably the best theory we have, but still a theory.

Another minor point. Anyone who uses language like "just a theory" should really brush up on their scientific terminology. A theory is actually quite a big deal in science.

So how does that affect Genesis 1? Well, a new understanding of time tells us that in different situations, time travels at a different rate. What a couple of people have done, is to introduce the idea that in some situations, the universe in not really much more than a week old. Most of the Universe, however, is about 14 Billion years old. Different authors have introduced different ways of interpreting Genesis, but the important part is realizing that 6 - 24 hour days from one perspective (traveling just below the speed of light, or close to a singularity, for instance) can equal 14 billion years from another.

Unfortunately, this is just Special Pleading. There is no indication the authors of Genesis meant anything other than 7 solar days in their prose.

So then, the only real sticking point is, who was Adam and Eve?

Jewish adaptations of Babylonian and Mesopotamian mythological figures.

 

[heretic888]

The fight over evolution in schools is more about politics and religion than anything else. We MUST teach evolution even if it offends some. But we cant put up a nativity in the school yard at Christmas because it offends some. It all astounds me.

Apparently, it astounds you because you do not understand the distinction between the two.

Evolution is a fundamental paradigm of understanding across all the sciences. This indignation about teachers who "MUST teach" evolution makes about as much since as how we "MUST teach" cell theory or how we "MUST teach" Mendelian genetics. Any child who is not taught all these things in biology is not really learning biology, but an anemic faux science that would leave them totally and utterly unprepared for life science and biology coursework at any state university.

By contrast, putting a nativity scene in "the school yard" (whatever that is supposed to be) is using publicly financed school funds to celebrate a particular religious group's holiday. It has no academic value and risks the possibility of offending members of other religious groups (or even those who don't want to waste their tax dollars on such decorations).

That one cannot see the distinction between these two is beyond me.

 

[tellner]

thardey, I don't have time to do a complete discussion of your post. But two things stand out. First, you talk about the "survival of the fittest" model. That is a red flag right there. It almost always betokens serious ignorance of the subject. Second, the whole "microevolution is fine, but there is some undefined macroevolutionary limit that we don't have any evidence of passing" shows again either ignorance or outright dishonesty. It comes straight from the creationists and their pre-literate, pre-scientific myths about divinely ordained "kinds".

The evidence is there. It's been there for decades. We can show how thecodonts became dinosaurs and how tyrannosaurs became birds. One of the most common creationist natterings is "what use is half an eye?" Science can demonstrate pretty much the entire history from light-sensitive molecules to the best eyes in the animal kingdom - octopuses and some birds. We have a darned good set of models with predictive power for how life survived the Oxygen Revolution and why it has made such a kludge of cellular respiration.

Science takes the world as it is and tries to find out what and why.

Religious zealots assume their conclusions, ignore any evidence that doesn't support them desperately hate anyone who isn't in lock step with them. Their view of the world is fundamentally and radically incompatible with science every step of the way.

And they are the only, I repeat only, faction which is unhappy with teaching evolutionary biology. They are also against physics, astronomy, geology, anthropology, linguistics, most of psychology and anything else which might challenge the models they've built in their heads.