National Academies book on evolution

[The_Barbarian]

Professor Giertych introduced the subject by relating how his children had returned home from school having been taught about the theory of evolution. They were told that the proof of macroevolution - the common ancestry of biological life - was to be found in the science of genetics. This was news to Professor Giertych who had spent his life working at the highest level of genetic research. He revealed to the meeting that such proof does not exist in genetics, only disproof.

That’s rather odd, since analysis of DNA among the various phyla shows a nested heirarchy of taxa. It uses the same technique used to identify descent in humans, so we know it works. How is it your professor doesn’t know this? Every geneticist knows it.

http://www.nature.com/cr/journal/v15/n6/images/7290316f2.gif

There is no other way to interpret this genetic information, other than common descent.

This was reinforced by the speech of Professor Emeritus Joseph Mastropaolo

Mastropolo is a kinesiologist, who thinks that evolutionary theory is about the origin of life. He has a religious objection to science because he believes in a literal reading of Genesis.

Dr. Hans Zillmer, a German Palaeontologist and member of the New York Academy of Sciences, told the meeting that the fossil record holds no proof for evolution theory either. Instead of showing gradual change from one species to another, as is often claimed in the classroom, it actually reveals the stasis and stability of life forms.

Hans has never heard of horses? If you’d like to test this, we can use the evolution of horses. I’ll show you a series of different fossils, and if you think any two of them in order have more variation than exists in some species today, you’ll have an argument. Are you willing to test the assertion?

Amongst those helping to organise the historic seminar were Dr. Dominique Tassot, Director of Centre d’Etude et de Prospectives sur la Science (C.E.P). C.E.P. is an organisation consisting of 700 French speaking scientists, intellectuals and representatives of other professions, all of whom oppose evolutionary theory on scientific grounds.

Tassot is a metallurgist, with no training in biology. Have you noticed how those who are most ignorant of biology are most likely to oppose it?

Since most of your “endorsements” offered no testable objections, all we have is “I said so.” Which is pretty foolish since the vast majority of scientists don’t agree with them. But the assertion of no transitionals in the fossil record is checkable.

Are you confident enough of your beliefs to put them to a test?

 

[The_Barbarian]

I found this comment on Tassot in a Catholic publication here:
nationalcatholicreporter.org/word/pfw082506.htm

**"Last week, I interviewed Peter Schuster, president of the Austrian Academy of Sciences, who will speak at the upcoming meeting with the pope. Schuster, a microbiologist, regards the evidence for evolution as beyond dispute. Tassot, who will not be at the meeting but who hopes to influence the pope’s thinking, believes that scientists are wedded to evolution largely because they’re trapped inside a “paradigm” and are unwilling to think outside that box.

I’m obviously not competent to judge the scientific discussion, but one observation I can make is that for Catholic intellectuals such as Tassot, the debate over evolution is a stalking horse for a much larger question.

What’s at stake, as they see it, is the post-Enlightenment triumph of secular science over philosophy and theology as the dominant “frame” for construing reality. Tassot wants Catholic intellectuals to retake the initiative, so that alien worldviews do not set the borders within which Catholic thought moves.

The same concern shows up in other areas. It’s the same impulse that has led thinkers such as Robert Kraynak, for example, to critique John Paul II’s use of the vocabulary of human rights. Doing so, Kraynak worries, unintentionally smuggles a selfish Enlightenment-era assertion of one’s rights into Catholic discourse, as opposed to more properly Christian concepts such as charity and sacrificial love.

At bottom, all this is about reasserting Catholicism’s capacity to shape culture, rather than simply trying to carve out a modus Vivendi with secularity."**

If so, it’s merely reactionary, and doomed to fail, since it accepts the premise that science has become the dominant paradigm in our culture. Which is a foolish misunderstanding. It’s not even the dominant paradigm for most scientists.

It’s a method that has been spectacularly successful at explaining the physical universe. Nothing more. It is error to try to make anything more of it.

 

[Sideline]

By the way, it is considered very bad form to cut and paste long sections of text without sourcing the original. I’m not entirely sure where you got this, because every version I found was dated October 11, 2006 but if people are interested in one source for the information they can look: uncommondescent.com/education/evolution-no-longer-inspiring-the-confidence-it-once-did/

October 6, 2006

Polish member of the European Parliament, Maciej Giertych…

It was that same scientific reasoning that led him to believe that the Loch Ness Monster is a dinosaur, Neanderthals are still alive today, and that Jews are biologically different from other people with a tendency to ghettoize. Why would you want him on your side?

Of course, none of that matters as much as what Barbarian pointed out. He doesn’t provide any evidence other than his say so.

This was reinforced by the speech of Professor Emeritus Joseph Mastropaolo …

He has a doctorate in kinesiology, so he’s basically a gym teacher. Which again doesn’t matter as much as the fact that he presents no evidence of his claims.

Dr. Hans Zillmer, a German Palaeontologist and member of the New York Academy of Sciences

Do you want to become a member too? All you need is $105 dollars or $125 for us foreigners.

nyas.org/membership/joinnow.asp?redirect_location=http://www.nyas.org/index.asp?

This is the biography from Dr. Zillmer’s website:

Hans-Joachim Zillmer studied civil engineering at Bergische Universität Wuppertal and the Technische Universität Berlin and completed both courses of studies as graduate engineer, proceeded to obtain his doctorate in political science, founded and managed a structural engineering company after university, an engineering office, and a construction company in Solingen and later one in Berlin (Germany) as well. Zillmer is an engineering consultant with the Chamber Of Construction Engineers NRW (North Rhine Westphalia), was a member of the board of directors of the Constructor’s Guild of Solingen and from 1991-1999 chairman of the Great Sports Club TSG Solingen (2300 members).

Please point out anything that even remotely resembles being a paleontologist. Why do you suppose they lied about his credentials?

Amongst those helping to organise the historic seminar were Dr. Dominique Tassot

I have yet to find anything on the web that suggest that this person knows anything about evolution other than that he knows he doesn’t like it.

So, is this what this thread will become. You will pull out all sorts of “experts” who disagree with evolution, and those who believe in evolution will point out that they have no evidence for their claims, and aren’t really experts?

I thought your gripe was that evolutionists didn’t really explain themselves. That they hedged their bets and played coy. If that is the issue, pull out some evidence and hold my feet to the fire with it. There is definitely stuff we don’t know, and not every facet of evolution is agreed upon. You might find some problems with the theory. If you could deliver a knock out punch there would be a Nobel Prize in it for you. Assuming you went on to provide evidence and get published in a peer reviewed journal.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

I do not have the power to predict the future. You perceptions of my statements are yours alone. The Church clearly combines science and theology all the time. You can believe what you like.

The evolution/science is my new God idea will fail in the end. Without God, neo-Darwinism makes little sense.
Ed

I don’t have to do much predicting since we both know what Benedict has said and that you have quoted him 19 times as saying that some form of evolution explains things. He and I and most others here have always said that we believe that God was the creator and moving force, using evolution as HIS choice of methodology. I agree no evolution makes sense to me either without God. But I know what I am saying. You say this and apparently still don’t get what it means.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

So now I’m trying to convince people? In Human Persons Created in the Image of God, it’s Cardinal Ratzinger that is trying to convince people that evolution that excludes divine providence cannot exist. Read it
Ed

Yes Ed you are trying to tell people that there is something intrinsically wrong with evolution. And the Vatican is not saying that at all. It says that the Church as it should, supplies the missing component to science. It doesnt ask science to supply the component itself. He said that in “IN the beginning.” READ IT.

I am dumbfounded why you can’t grasp this. Benedict states the truth. You agree with it, and then start all over again with what’s wrong with evolution. Nothing is. It’s like you go so far, hit a trip switch and bounce back to the beginning. Its a ferris wheel you sem unable to stop and get off of. What’s up?

 

[SpiritMeadow]

Thank you for posting that.
Ed

Ed you are simply too much. Your predictable slide from one end of the spectrum to the other is getting to a point of amusement. Have you no idea what the history of your posts suggests?

 

[reggieM]

Your “evolutionary philosopher” is an IDer, touted by the likes of William Dembski.

Personally, I don’t consider the fact that someone is “touted” by one person or another is really something relevant enough to mention. Both Hitler and Margaret Sanger touted Darwin’s theory but I don’t think that is anything to comment about with regards to Darwin himself (how could he help it?).

We know that’s not right, because it’s been directly observed. Would you like an example?

Sure.

Doubters are about 0.3% of those accepting evolutionary theory.

This is not very good science at all, in my opinion. You’ve used the number 700 and matched it against the total number of scientists, thus arriving at .3%. But clearly, the number of doubters is not limited to the 700 who publicly signed the statement. It could be 100 times that number. There are many who won’t go public with their doubts about Darwinism also.

Honestly, I think your calculation here is evidence of bias on your part. You’re seeking to diminish the number of scientists who doubt Darwin’s theory and not to merely look objectively at the number and draw other conclusions.

One conclusion that should be drawn is that there are some scientists who doubt the theory.

We cannot find, for example, a list of scientists who question the law of gravity. But we do find a list (and I posted a second list from France) that doubt the claims of Darwin’s theory. So, I think that is something to consider. For myself, I find it interesting and I’d like to learn more about the skepticism on Darwinism, since I share that view myself.

There is no other way to interpret this genetic information, other than common descent.

Well, there is at least one other way – that they were all created by the same God and thus share genetic similarities. Merely having a common morphology does not prove common descent – unless you start with the notion that Darwin’s theory is correct first and then you seek common structures to prove it.

But again, the commonality could be evidence that God used common forms in creating a diversity of creatures.

Tassot is a metallurgist, with no training in biology. Have you noticed how those who are most ignorant of biology are most likely to oppose it?

No, I haven’t seen that.

Are you confident enough of your beliefs to put them to a test?

Certainly.

If so, it’s merely reactionary, and doomed to fail, since it accepts the premise that science has become the dominant paradigm in our culture.

I don’t see it as reactionary, myself. I don’t think it’s doomed to fail either. If anything, it’s gaining incredible strength. Opposition to Darwinism was predicted to fail decades ago, but there is more opposition now then there was in the past. I also find that the critiques of Darwinism are far more sophisticated now then they were in the 1970s. So again, I don’t see this as heading for a failure but rather growing to greater success.

 

[reggieM]

It was that same scientific reasoning that led him to believe that the Loch Ness Monster is a dinosaur, Neanderthals are still alive today, and that Jews are biologically different from other people with a tendency to ghettoize. Why would you want him on your side?

I don’t think that scientific reasoning necessarily leads to the things you mention. If that could be proven, then I would be very concerned and I wouldn’t want to support it.

I find it more likely that scientific positivism leads to a lack of religious faith (or starts with it).

Of course, none of that matters as much as what Barbarian pointed out. He doesn’t provide any evidence other than his say so.

It was just a brief reference to a respected scholar who objects to Darwinian theory. There are many more like him and there is a variety of evidence that leads to serious questions about the theory. I posted some evidence on another thread here – the fact that beetles have not evolved in over 350 million years. Barbarian concluded that this was so improbable to be impossible. From what I can see, the story is correct. This is very solid evidence against Darwinism. Something like the evolution of the eye from two different/separate eyeless ancestors is yet another thing. It really doesn’t need to be tested because it’s so improbable as to be impossible on the face of it (Barbarian didn’t need to do any testing to conclude that if beetles hadn’t evolved since 70 million years before the dinosaurs that it’s incredibly improbable given the claims of Darwinism).

I have yet to find anything on the web that suggest that this person knows anything about evolution other than that he knows he doesn’t like it.

He runs an organization with some scientists who question Darwinian theory. His work is supported by Pope Benedict (although that does not mean that the Holy Father endorses everything that the organization says).

I thought your gripe was that evolutionists didn’t really explain themselves. That they hedged their bets and played coy.

That’s just one small issue. I was speaking about the people on CAF who were not upfront about their beliefs. But this is not the major issue.

There is definitely stuff we don’t know, and not every facet of evolution is agreed upon. You might find some problems with the theory. If you could deliver a knock out punch there would be a Nobel Prize in it for you. Assuming you went on to provide evidence and get published in a peer reviewed journal.

Well, I would agree that if there was a knock-out punch then it would be a major development. But as I see it, the objections to Darwin’s theory are looking at some of the things that don’t line up well – some of the gaps in the knowledge and some things that appear (to some) to be impossible.

I think we have to agree also that there is a culture of support for evolution and not all of the people who are in that culture really want to accept a criticial view to the theory.

But I see the criticisms of Darwinism as happening in a cumulative way. Several different angles are being explored and, as I see it, there are major problems which don’t seem to be given very convincing answers at this point.

I don’t think the majority of scientists are as ready to admit that there are areas of uncertainty as you’ve mentioned also. Perhaps if this was made more clear there would be less hostility from people to the theory itself.

Among the people who reject Darwinism there are a variety of beliefs and sometimes contradictory ideas as well. But I think the common element is that they believe that Darwinism alone is not sufficient as an explanation for nature and the origin of species (certainly not of the universe or life itself).

 

[ricmat]

Merely having a common morphology does not prove common descent – unless you start with the notion that Darwin’s theory is correct first and then you seek common structures to prove it.

I had to jump in here. Nothing profound…but it reminded me of something.

Back in the old days Chrysler and Plymouth used to make cars that when inspected, turned out to be virtually identical to each other. Except one nameplate said “Chrysler” and the other said “Plymouth”.

I always wondered what would happen if an alien “scientist” landed on earth, and observed these 2 cars. Would he say that it was obvious that one evolved from the other because they had so much in common, and there was but 1 observable mutation?

I suspect he would have said “Those are really cruddy designs…”



NOTE: This post is not intended to incite any riots, fistfights, etc. It is an admittedly poor attempt to inject some humor into the forum. And yes, I do have a day job which is not comedy.

 

[reggieM]

I suspect he would have said “Those are really cruddy designs…”

LOL – you’ve got a good start on a standup routine.

… it was a good example also. The cars can appear similar in structure but this doesn’t mean that one evolved from the other.

 

[Sideline]

I don’t think that scientific reasoning necessarily leads to the things you mention. If that could be proven, then I would be very concerned and I wouldn’t want to support it.

The fellow that the quote mentions believes that science supports those positions, that’s why I mention it. It suggests that his concept of what is scientific is, at least at times, highly suspect and occasionally offensive.

I’m not saying that all of his opinions are out to lunch. He seems to know a lot about trees. But when talking about evolution, what he says makes very little sense, and contradicts the evidence.

I posted some evidence on another thread here – the fact that beetles have not evolved in over 350 million years.

Where did you get that information?

From everything I’ve read, beetles first show up in the fossil record 265-300 million years ago. I haven’t read anything that puts it 350 million years old. From what I’ve read, beetles branched into the major suborders in the Permian and early Triassic (The Triassic started about 251 million years ago.)

There are 350, 000 described species of beetles, they make up 40% of all insects. They haven’t even finished naming all of the species yet, and yet you claim that it has been discovered that they haven’t adapted in 350 million years? You’re going to have to produce some compelling evidence of your claim.

This is very solid evidence against Darwinism.

It would be impressive if true. Can you link to it, or let me know where you discovered this?

Something like the evolution of the eye from two different/separate eyeless ancestors is yet another thing.

You are going to have to be a bit more clear on this one.

He runs an organization with some scientists who question Darwinian theory.

Yes, I caught that. I just haven’t discovered what his credentials to be doing that are.

I think we have to agree also that there is a culture of support for evolution and not all of the people who are in that culture really want to accept a criticial view to the theory.

On the contrary, if someone could prove it wrong, and come up with a better theory, they would jump on the opportunity. Who wouldn’t want to be the next Newton or Einstein?

But I see the criticisms of Darwinism as happening in a cumulative way. Several different angles are being explored and, as I see it, there are major problems which don’t seem to be given very convincing answers at this point.

Well, until I see some of those problems I can’t really comment. If you would be good enough to elaborate on your first two examples, I’ll give an explanation a shot.

I don’t think the majority of scientists are as ready to admit that there are areas of uncertainty as you’ve mentioned also. Perhaps if this was made more clear there would be less hostility from people to the theory itself.

That’s what I was hoping when I mentioned it. I don’t want to give a false impression though, it is one of the best supported theories in the history of science. And there are many areas in which the theory just can’t rationally be denied. For instance, there are now bacteria that feed on nylon. They could not have existed before the 1900’s because they wouldn’t have been able to eat.

Among the people who reject Darwinism there are a variety of beliefs and sometimes contradictory ideas as well. But I think the common element is that they believe that Darwinism alone is not sufficient as an explanation for nature and the origin of species (certainly not of the universe or life itself).

You know what all the non-Catholics in the world have in common? They don’t believe Catholicism is an adequate explanation. They actually make up the bulk of the world, and range from the least to the most educated people on Earth. You see where I’m going with that?

Neo-Darwinism certainly can’t explain the origin of the universe because it doesn’t talk about the origin of the universe. It doesn’t even talk about the origin of life, that’s abiogenesis. All the Theory of Evolution explains is common descent.

 

[Sideline]

NOTE: This post is not intended to incite any riots, fistfights, etc. It is an admittedly poor attempt to inject some humor into the forum. And yes, I do have a day job which is not comedy.

Does that mean I don’t get to use my torch and pick axe?

 

[wildleafblower]

Does that mean I don’t get to use my torch and pick axe?

That is incredibly funny! Tell me please what is that symbolic of? I’m trying to envision it for artistic means. Burning wood in the forest after cutting down a tree? maybe

 

[edwest2]

Yes Ed you are trying to tell people that there is something intrinsically wrong with evolution. And the Vatican is not saying that at all. It says that the Church as it should, supplies the missing component to science. It doesnt ask science to supply the component itself. He said that in “IN the beginning.” READ IT.

I am dumbfounded why you can’t grasp this. Benedict states the truth. You agree with it, and then start all over again with what’s wrong with evolution. Nothing is. It’s like you go so far, hit a trip switch and bounce back to the beginning. Its a ferris wheel you sem unable to stop and get off of. What’s up?

Nothing is wrong with evolution? As one who follows my comments closely, did you miss the one where I quoted Pope Benedict? Referring to Pope John Paul II’s ‘evolution is more than a hypothesis’ statement, he said, “But it is also true that the theory of evolution is not a complete, scientifically proven theory.”

currentworldnews.net/2007/04/11/according-to-pope-evolution-can-not-be-proven/

God bless,
Ed

 

[Sideline]

That is incredibly funny! Tell me please what is that symbolic of? I’m trying to envision it for artistic means. Burning wood in the forest after cutting down a tree? maybe

I was sort of thinking of the mob chasing Frankenstein through the forest.

Thanks! :tiphat:

 

[ricmat]

Does that mean I don’t get to use my torch and pick axe?

Torch and pick axe was never a viable combination.

Torch and pitchfork work much better.

 

[wildleafblower]

I was sort of thinking of the mob chasing Frankenstein through the forest.

Thanks! :tiphat:

(I can’t catch my breath!) Best laugh I’ve had this New Year. Merci.

 

[Sideline]

Torch and pick axe was never a viable combination.

Torch and pitchfork work much better.

Oh I disagree!!! One can easily tie a torch to a pick axe, and then they can er… swing and…

I noticed that I put pick axe after it was too late to change it. uch:

I’ve always been more of a scythe man anyway.

 

[wildleafblower]

Let’s get serious!

Date: Jan. 3, 2008
Contact: Maureen O’Leary, Director of Public Information
Office of News and Public Information
202-334-2138; e-mail news@nas.edu

Scientific Evidence Supporting Evolution Continues To Grow; Nonscientific Approaches Do Not Belong In Science Classrooms

WASHINGTON – The National Academy of Sciences (NAS) and Institute of Medicine (IOM) today released SCIENCE, EVOLUTION, AND CREATIONISM, a book designed to give the public a comprehensive and up-to-date picture of the current scientific understanding of evolution and its importance in the science classroom. Recent advances in science and medicine, along with an abundance of observations and experiments over the past 150 years, have reinforced evolution’s role as the central organizing principle of modern biology, said the committee that wrote the book.

“SCIENCE, EVOLUTION, AND CREATIONISM provides the public with coherent explanations and concrete examples of the science of evolution,” said NAS President Ralph Cicerone. “The study of evolution remains one of the most active, robust, and useful fields in science.”

“Understanding evolution is essential to identifying and treating disease,” said Harvey Fineberg, president of IOM. “For example, the SARS virus evolved from an ancestor virus that was discovered by DNA sequencing. Learning about SARS’ genetic similarities and mutations has helped scientists understand how the virus evolved. This kind of knowledge can help us anticipate and contain infections that emerge in the future.”

DNA sequencing and molecular biology have provided a wealth of information about evolutionary relationships among species. As existing infectious agents evolve into new and more dangerous forms, scientists track the changes so they can detect, treat, and vaccinate to prevent the spread of disease.

Biological evolution refers to changes in the traits of populations of organisms, usually over multiple generations. One recent example highlighted in the book is the 2004 fossil discovery in Canada of fish with “intermediate” features – four finlike legs – that allowed the creature to pull itself through shallow water onto land. Scientists around the world cite this evidence as an important discovery in identifying the transition from ocean-dwelling creatures to land animals. By understanding and employing the principles of evolution, the discoverers of this fossil focused their search on layers of the Earth that are approximately 375 million years old and in a region that would have been much warmer during that period. Evolution not only best explains the biodiversity on Earth, it also helps scientists predict what they are likely to discover in the future.

Over very long periods of time, the same processes that enable evolution to occur within species also can result in the appearance of new species. The formation of a new species generally takes place when one subgroup within a species mates for an extended period largely within that subgroup, often following geographical separation from other members of the species. If such reproductive isolation continues, members of the subgroup may no longer respond to courtship from members of the original population. Eventually, genetic changes become so substantial that members of different subgroups can no longer produce viable offspring. In this way, new species can continually “bud off” of existing species.

Despite the overwhelming evidence supporting evolution, opponents have repeatedly tried to introduce nonscientific views into public school science classes through the teaching of various forms of creationism or intelligent design. In 2005, a federal judge in Dover, Pennsylvania, concluded that the teaching of intelligent design is unconstitutional because it is based on religious conviction, not science (Kitzmiller et al. v. Dover Area School District). NAS and IOM strongly maintain that only scientifically based explanations and evidence for the diversity of life should be included in public school science courses. “Teaching creationist ideas in science class confuses students about what constitutes science and what does not,” the committee stated.

[snip]

www8.nationalacademies.org/onpinews/newsitem.aspx?RecordID=11876
http://www8.nationalacademies.org/onpinews/newsitem.aspx?RecordID=11876

A summary of the book Science, Evolution, and Creationism by the NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES and INSTITUE OF MEDICINE in pdf form:
books.nap.edu/html/11876/SECbrochure.pdf
http://books.nap.edu/html/11876/SECbrochure.pdf

THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES PRESS has made available online
**Science, Evolution, and Creationism **(2008)
books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=11876&page=R1

https://www.nap.edu/read/11876/chapter/1#R1

 

[edwest2]

What was your reason for posting this?

God bless,
Ed