Do you believe in Evolution

[Orogeny]

2shelbys:

Then we are not so far apart as it seemed. We agree that evolution as it is classically understood as happening through gradual changes through transitional species is just a theory without any conclusive proof. That was my whole point. The fact that changes occur within species or populations, what you call evolution and what others including me call adaptation is well proven.

In light of your comments below, my only problem with this response is that you seem to be using the common vernacular usage of the term “theory”. I am specifically refering to a scientific theory which, I think, you understand is different from the common usage of the term. That is why I wrote that facts are the basis for theories. Scientific theories are not just guesses - they are based on observations.

What is the point of this line of argument? Yes, as I have said several times now, there are still and always will be theories but when a theory is conclusively proven accurate and true by science it is no longer just a theory, it is a fact.

To illustrate that you are apparently using the term theory in a non-scientific sense. There are a lot of facts within nuclear theory, just as there are a lot of facts within any scientific theory.

I did not say it was a “scientific” theory.

This is the response I was refering to above. The theory of evolution is a scientific theory. Creationism, unless it has facts to back it up, is not. You seem to agree with that. Therefore, the two are not comparable in that sense.

There is no difference when no examples are offered. “Lacking” is a somewhat vague (possibly intentionally) way of saying non-existant. He did not say “scarce”, “rare”, or “infrequent”. He said “lacking”. If you “lack” something you do not have it.

I believe that in an earlier post you dismissed the fossil evidence of horses and whales. Why did you do that? What was your basis for that?

You actually expect me to provide you a bibliography of everything I have ever read? Can you do the same? I gave the reference for what I had quoted.

I don’t believe I asked for everything you ever read. You claimed that you don’t use fundamentalist sites as reference material and that, in fact, you use experts that disagree with evolution as your sources. I asked for those sources. Perhaps I should have just asked for some of those scientific sources. Can you provide that?

As for my sources, they are mostly textbooks when I was in school, but my main online source is talkorigins because it has a very easy to read and mostly non-technical presentation of the topic. I like both Ken and Keith Miller’s stuff. I have spent a considerable amount of time reading the information on numerous fundamentalist sites such as Answers in Genesis, Institute for Creation Research, the Discovery Institute’s page and Dr. Dino’s page. This is not a complete list, of course, but should give you an idea of where I get some of my ideas.

See, that wasn’t so hard, was it?

Peace

Tim

 

[2shelbys]

Orogeny:

I believe that in an earlier post you dismissed the fossil evidence of horses and whales. Why did you do that? What was your basis for that?

My basis for that is the fact that the unexplainable gaping holes in the chain leave it as not much more than speculation. The leap is far too wide and the differentiation between the specimens is far too great to be considered as connected without further evidence.

I don’t believe I asked for everything you ever read. You claimed that you don’t use fundamentalist sites as reference material and that, in fact, you use experts that disagree with evolution as your sources. I asked for those sources. Perhaps I should have just asked for some of those scientific sources. Can you provide that?

I consider Gould, Stanley, and Eldredge to be experts and they all reject the classical notion of evolution through transitional species.

As for my sources, they are mostly textbooks when I was in school, but my main online source is talkorigins because it has a very easy to read and mostly non-technical presentation of the topic. I like both Ken and Keith Miller’s stuff. I have spent a considerable amount of time reading the information on numerous fundamentalist sites such as Answers in Genesis, Institute for Creation Research, the Discovery Institute’s page and Dr. Dino’s page. This is not a complete list, of course, but should give you an idea of where I get some of my ideas.

As I said, I have spent a great deal of time on talkorigins as well and here is an example of my problem with their information:

Amphibians apparently derived from the early anthracosaurs
An incomplete fossil, apparently between the anthracosaurs and the cotylosaurs
Probably no eardrum
probably close to the ancestry of all diapsides
This is the best-documented transition between vertebrate classes. So far this series is known only as a series of genera or families; the transitions from species to species are not known.
sometimes considered to be the first mammals
Probably arose from the therocephalians
indicating possible endothermy?
possibly a sign of parental care.
suspected to have existed even earlier
This is probably a “cousin” fossil not directly ancestral
GAP of about 30 my in the late Triassic
leading to some very heated controversy about their relative placement in the chain to mammals
Probably cousin fossils (?),
These are probably “cousin” fossils, not directly ancestral
On the whole, though, this is still a gappy transition,
particular fossils listed here are are not directly ancestral, though, as they occur after Archeopteryx
These really could be ancestral.
not enough of the fossil was recovered to determine if it is definitely related to the birds
May not have been the direct ancestor
probably at the beginning of the ape lineage
probably ancestral to the great apes & humans
probably ancestral to gibbons.
There are no known fossil hominids or apes from Africa between 14 and 4 Ma. … this is when the African great apes (chimps, gorillas) diverged from hominids
Possibly bipedal (only the skull was found).

All of these vague quotes are from talkorigins. None of this supports any valid scientific conclusions. This is commonplace in all evolutionary chains to date. We simply can not make any connections with the currently available evidence.

 

[Orogeny]

2shelbys:

I consider Gould, Stanley, and Eldredge to be experts and they all reject the classical notion of evolution through transitional species.

Stephen J. Gould:
"The anatomical transition from reptiles to mammals is particularly well documented in the key anatomical change of jaw articulation to hearing bones. Only one bone, called the dentary, builds the mammalian jaw, while reptiles retain several small bones in the rear portion of the jaw. We can trace, through a lovely sequence of intermediates, the reduction of these small reptilian bones, and their eventual disappearance or exclusion from the jaw, including the remarkable passage of the reptilian articulation bones into the mammalian middle ear (where they became our malleus and incus, or hammer and anvil). We have even found the transitional form that creationists often proclaim inconceivable in theory—for how can jawbones become ear bones if intermediaries must live with an unhinged jaw before the new joint forms? The transitional species maintains a double jaw joint, with both the old articulation of reptiles (quadrate to articular bones) and the new connection of mammals (squamosal to dentary) already in place! Thus, one joint could be lost, with passage of its bones into the ear, while the other articulation continued to guarantee a properly hinged jaw. Still, our creationist incubi, who would never let facts spoil a favorite argument, refuse to yield, and **continue to assert the absence of all transitional forms **by ignoring those that have been found, and continuing to taunt us with admittedly frequent examples of absence.”
— “Hooking Leviathan by Its Past,” Dinosaur in a Haystack, New York: Crown Trade Paperbacks, 1997, pp. 360-361.

(emphasis added by me)

Me thinks Dr. Gould would have disagreed with you.

Peace

Tim

 

[Orogeny]

2shelbys:

All of these vague quotes are from talkorigins. None of this supports any valid scientific conclusions. This is commonplace in all evolutionary chains to date. We simply can not make any connections with the currently available evidence.

What makes those quotes unscientific? Why are the conclusions unscientific?

I have a question and I really, sincerely don’t mean this as an insult, but have you actually studied fossils? Have you taken any paleontology classes? I am truly curious.

Peace

Tim

 

[Achatius]

2shelbys:

Whether you talk about the ape-to-human chain, or the land animal-to-whale chain, or any other supposed evolutionary chain they all have gaps (usually huge ones) that leave them as no more scientifically proven than alien abductions.

Not true. There are a number of skeletal fossils that enable us to look upon the skeleton of many stages of early human. From Ardipithecus Ramidus through 11 other developmental species to Homo sapiens, the species of modern human.

The same is found with many animal species.

 

[Orogeny]

2shelbys,

I found this interesting tidbit in Steven Stanley’s research interest section on his faculty page at the Johns Hopkins page.

Two other projects involve Cenozoic mammals. One is an analysis of the classic trend in horse evolution toward species with strongly hypsodont teeth. I have found that this trend, driven by climatic drying that caused grasslands to expand, resulted from species selection entailing differential rates of speciation. The second mammalian project attributes a major extinction of horses and other mammals about 6-7 million years ago to the spread of C4 grasses out of the tropical-subtropical zone, a sudden transition, documented by carbon isotopes that apparently resulted from drying of climates at the time of the Messinian crisis. Species that were not extremely hypsodont died out preferentially. I am also nearing the end of a large project on the taxonomy, paleoecology, biogeography, and extinction pattern of Pliocene bivalve faunas of southern Florida that lived before the onset of the modern ice age.

Kinda sounds like natural selection to me. What do you think?

Just in case you want to check it out yourself, here is the link:
jhu.edu/~eps/faculty/stanley/

Peace

Tim

 

[2shelbys]

Orogeny:

Me thinks Dr. Gould would have disagreed with you.

Peace

Tim

And me thinks that places him in direct contradiction with his own theory which clearly rejected transitional species. I will have to read that one in it’s entirety one day.

 

[2shelbys]

Orogeny:

What makes those quotes unscientific? Why are the conclusions unscientific?

I did not say they were unscientific, I said they are too incomplete to support any definite scientific conclusions and they are.

I have a question and I really, sincerely don’t mean this as an insult, but have you actually studied fossils? Have you taken any paleontology classes? I am truly curious.

Once long ago in college but you do not have to have studied in great depth to know that definite scientific conclusions are never based on so many uncertainties.

 

[2shelbys]

2shelbys,

I found this interesting tidbit in Steven Stanley’s research interest section on his faculty page at the Johns Hopkins page.

Kinda sounds like natural selection to me. What do you think?

Sounds exactly like what I referred to as adaptation. Creatures that can adapt to changing enviromental conditions survive, those that can not do not.

Just in case you want to check it out yourself, here is the link:
jhu.edu/~eps/faculty/stanley/

Yes, I have been to it. In fact, my first child will be born at Hopkins in a few weeks.

 

[2shelbys]

Achatius:

Not true. There are a number of skeletal fossils that enable us to look upon the skeleton of many stages of early human. From Ardipithecus Ramidus through 11 other developmental species to Homo sapiens, the species of modern human.

The same is found with many animal species.

Sorry but as I demonstrated from talkorigins (one of the top evolution sites) these chains you refer to are full of uncertainties and gaping holes. Maybe you missed this: There are no known fossil hominids or apes from Africa between 14 and 4 Ma. … this is when the African great apes (chimps, gorillas) diverged from hominids.

 

[Agricola]

Wow, it seems like people have gained seniority on this thread alone!

I’ve always been fond of ID threads… that is what this is about right? There seem to be arguments about this kind of evolution or that one, and whether evolution is fact or mere theory. Personally, I thought the most interesting topic brought up was the suggested violation fo the 2nd law of thermodynamics. I’ll address each of these very briefly… since I enjoyed reading the thread as a while. Hey, why not!

I voted for guided evolution. Why? I believe in God’s providence. He created the universe and all that is in it with foreknowledge of its history and participates, at the very least in power, in its day to day workings. However he determined that the laws of nature follow their course, so they have, and so they shall… it makes little difference to me. I will leave the finding of those patterns of evidence that we first call theories, and then (with time and lack of credible opposition) laws to the scientists. I believe in evolution, yes, by Intelligent Design.

Can science prove anything? No. It can’t. But that’s not what its for. Science is inductive, not deductive. We observe nature, form hypotheses, collect data, and infer conclusions from the patterns that result. Its a system that works. If a theory is not a good one, it will be supplanted by a more viable theory. In this way we improve our knowledge by collective experience. Science is a great aid to the Faith. It shows us the magnificence of God’s material masterpiece.

I don’t believe that there is any problem with evolution and the 2nd law of thermodynamics. Entropy is a degration of energy. This does not limit complexity of being. In fact, the degration of biological forms can add to their complexity. You might say that we aren’t the most advanced life form… we’re the most degraded. Kidding of course, but you get my point. Talking about entropy in relation to biological complexity is like talking about cross-polination between orcas and daisies. Its mixing one funky solution.

Anyway, those are my thoughts. They may not be as well referenced as other posts, but they’re good enough for me.

God bless,

Agricola

 

[Orogeny]

2shelbys:

Sounds exactly like what I referred to as adaptation. Creatures that can adapt to changing enviromental conditions survive, those that can not do not.

That, of course, is natural selection.

Yes, I have been to it. In fact, my first child will be born at Hopkins in a few weeks.

Congratulations! That should make for a very memorable Christmas season.

Peace

Tim

 

[Melchior]

Orogeny:

Any source that takes a position is biased. That doesn’t make it invalid. CA is biased toward Catholicism. Would you consider CA an un-credible source for questions regarding the Church because it is biased toward the Church?

Peace

Tim

Course not. But I would not post a link to a Presbyterian site to prove something to a Catholic.

Mel

 

[Orogeny]

Melchior:

Course not. But I would not post a link to a Presbyterian site to prove something to a Catholic.

Mel

Well, since evolution is the topic of talkorigins, why would you not link to that site regarding questions about evolution?

Peace

Tim

 

[Orogeny]

2shelbys:

The fossil record still shows exactly what it showed in Darwin’s day-that species appear suddenly in a fully developed state and change little or not at all before disappearing… Paleontologist Stephen Stanley writes that “the fossil record does not convincingly demonstrate a single transition from one species to another.” The scientific evidence shows that “Evolution” (meaning macro-evolution) has never occurred, not even once, ever.

Ok, I have had a chance to do a little research regarding this quote. As you mentioned, I was not able to find the paper on-line, but there is a book by the same name. Is that your source?

At any rate, I actually found this quote on the talkorigins site. Here is what I found.
talkorigins:

A more complete quote would be:

Superb fossil data have recently been gathered from deposits of early Cenozoic Age in the Bighorn Basin of Wyoming. These deposits represent the first part of the Eocene Epoch, a critical interval when many types of modern mammals came into being. The Bighorn Basin, in the shadow of the Rocky Mountains, received large volumes of sediment from the Rockies when they were being uplifted, early in the Age of Mammals. In its remarkable degree of completeness, the fossil record here for the Early Eocene is unmatched by contemporary deposits exposed elsewhere in the world. The deposits of the Bighorn Basin provide a nearly continuous local depositional record for this interval, which lasted some five million years. It used to be assumed that certain populations of the basin could be linked together in such a way as to illustrate continuous evolution. Careful collecting has now shown otherwise. Species that were once thought to have turned into others have been found to overlap in time with these alleged descendants. In fact, the fossil record does not convincingly document a single transition from one species to another. Furthermore, species lasted for astoundingly long periods of time. David M. Schankler has recently gathered data for about eighty mammal species that are known from more than two stratigraphic levels in the Bighorn Basin. Very few of these species existed for less than half a million years, and their average duration was greater than a million years.

So we see that Stanley wasn’t talking about the fossil record in general, but the fossil record in the Bighorn Basin.

• Jon (Augray) Barber

Do you agree with that assessment? If so, the quote is out of context. If not, why not?

Peace

Tim

 

[dkward2]

Thermo and Entropy:
I really enjoyed Thermo in college. My favorite part was entropy. Most of what has been said on the forum has been correct, yet has missed the point.

In any closed system, the entropy increases. In open systems (the earth is one), it is possible for entropy to decrease. The sun brings energy into our system, and that energy escapes through heat into the universe. Therefore, it is possible for order to increase on earth because disorder is increasing elsewhere.

However, as I said, the point was missed. Let me draw an analogy. The universe is a closed system (as far as anyone knows). Nothing comes in, and nothing goes out.

Another closed system is a box. Let’s say this box has a thin membrane which separates oxygen from nitrogen. The system is ordered. When the membrane is removed, the Second Law says that the oxygen and nitrogen will mix, and that they will never be separated like they were.

Now, apply that knowledge to a universe which began with a big bang. At the beginning, there are atoms and particulate interspersed, much like the oxygen and nitrogen. The second law states that those atoms will not organize themselves unless acted upon (an (name removed by moderator)ut of energy). Thus, where did the planets and orbits come from? Our universe is pristinely ordered.

Something had to act on the universe in order to create the order we see today. To me, it is reasonable to assume that if G-d created the heaven and earth, and He said he did, that he also created us if he said he did.

To the argument that nothing is proven in science:
Technically true. Science is not math; no one does proofs. However, there is a big difference between demonstrable law (gravity), and unproven theory (evolution). The Law of Gravity is used to predict the motion of planets to an astoundingly exact degree.

The theory of evolution does nothing except cause debates. It is neither demonstrable nor useful. Instead of saying it is unproven, I would say it is undemonstrated. Trying to place evolution on the same plane with gravity is a fallacy.

 

[Orogeny]

To the argument that nothing is proven in science:
Technically true. Science is not math; no one does proofs.

Thank you.

However, there is a big difference between demonstrable law (gravity), and unproven theory (evolution).

It is interesting that it only took you one sentence to note that evolution is not “proven” after noting that nothing is proven in science.

The Law of Gravity is used to predict the motion of planets to an astoundingly exact degree.

Perhaps that is because that is what scientific laws do - they describe. They don’t explain. That is what scientific theories are for.

The theory of evolution does nothing except cause debates. It is neither demonstrable nor useful. Instead of saying it is unproven, I would say it is undemonstrated. Trying to place evolution on the same plane with gravity is a fallacy.

I would say that there are many, many biologists that would disagree with you.

Peace

Tim

 

[dkward2]

Actually, I only used ‘unproven’ because I think ‘indemonstrable’ sounds funny. Basically, I am equating unproven and indemonstrable. I think that your technicality is merely a distraction from the real argument. You, and many biologists, are saying there is as much evidence for evolution as gravity. I, and as many other scientists from various fields, disagree.

What say you concerning taking the universe as a closed system?

 

[Orogeny]

dkward2:

Actually, I only used ‘unproven’ because I think ‘indemonstrable’ sounds funny. Basically, I am equating unproven and indemonstrable. I think that your technicality is merely a distraction from the real argument.

I do not use it as a technicality. I use it to be more precise since all too often the argument against evolution is that it is “unproven”. That, as you may or may not admit, is not a valid argument since things are not proven in science.

You, and many biologists, are saying there is as much evidence for evolution as gravity. I, and as many other scientists from various fields, disagree.

First off, I am a geologist, not a biologist. Second, since evolution is a biological concept, I will rely on biologists to tell me if it is valid. Is there more evidence for gravity than evolution? I don’t know, but I don’t see the relevance. Is that how we determine if a theory is valid in science? Do you think the majority of scientists in other disciplines feel that evolution is invalid or indemonstrable? I can tell you that most geologists accept evolution based on the fossil evidence.

What say you concerning taking the universe as a closed system?

I don’t have anything to say about it. You could be right. I don’t know.

Peace

Tim