National Academies book on evolution

[wildleafblower]

Ed, the topic is about the National Academies book on evolution. I provided our readers with documention from The National Academy of Sciences (NAS) and Institute of Medicine (IOM) release of the book SCIENCE, EVOLUTION, AND CREATIONISM.

I thought it would be an act of charity by presenting it so everyone viewing this topic can read the book online for free.

 

[edwest2]

OK. Thanks.

God bless,
Ed

 

[wildleafblower]

A significant note of interest I neglected to mention is that Peter H. Raven is an Academician for the PONTIFICAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES (1) and was a member of the Committee on Revising Science and Creationism: A View from the National Academy of Sciences. (2)

Peter, thanks for keeping the garden green and the tropical flora blooming! Us Catholics appreciate your keen insight and applaud your loyalty to the Church. You’re a phenomenal human being devoted to the progress of mankind.

1. vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_academies/acdscien/own/documents/raven.html
   http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_academies/acdscien/own/documents/raven.html
2. www8.nationalacademies.org/onpinews/newsitem.aspx?RecordID=11876
   http://www8.nationalacademies.org/onpinews/newsitem.aspx?RecordID=11876

 

[reggieM]

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.
.

news.google.com/news?hl=en&tab=wn&q=beetles+evolution+dinosaurs&btnG=Search

New research hints that modern-day versions of the insects are far older than any tyrannosaur that trod the Earth.

This was mentioned on the Talk Origins forum:

groups.google.ge/group/talk.origins/browse_thread/thread/d0ee0ab72f12a3e2

Note the comment from the first person who posted it:

“No doubt some creationist somewhere is using this as ‘evidence’ of how species don’t evolve.”

The story states that “modern beetles” are older than the dinosaurs by 70 million years.

They have not evolved since then.

Again, Barbarian found this to be “impossible”. If Darwinism is correct, then this scientific fact would be “so improbable as to be impossible”.

The news story states it. Ardent evolutionists (you can’t get much more strident than Talk Origins) affirm it.

There are 350, 000 described species

As the news story states (read any of the many links), there is “no consensus from scientists” on how this could have happened (that we have 350,000 species).

That in itself is a major gap and problem in evolutionary theory.

 

[Sideline]

news.google.com/news?hl=en&tab=wn&q=beetles+evolution+dinosaurs&btnG=Search

So, that site actually confirms just about everything I told you. I
They put the common ancestor back to about 300 million years ago, which is what I said, and it puts the major period of diversification during the Permian and Early Triassic, which is what I said. You might note, that the quote from the researcher, Alfried Vogler, says:

“The large number of beetle species existing today could very well be a direct result of this early evolution,” Vogler said, “and the fact that there has been a very high rate of survival and continuous diversification of many lineages since then (emphasis mine).”

Points out that the species have evolved and that they have been further diversified.

The story states that “modern beetles” are older than the dinosaurs by 70 million years.

Many species of beetles are a direct result of that early evolution, yes.

They have not evolved since then.

Didn’t say that. Said the opposite. See above.

Again, Barbarian found this to be “impossible”.

Barbarian’s incredulity does not constitute a failure of evolutionary theory. Nice guy, but he doesn’t have that kind of clout. Also, I think if he were to see that the article that you cited, he would be less skeptical of the findings, as they actually agree with Evolutionary Theory.

If Darwinism is correct, then this scientific fact would be “so improbable as to be impossible”.

Not really. It means that we were wrong about when they evolved, and now we know better. Actually, it’s kind of odd. I’ve found articles as far back as 2003 that say the exact same thing. I’m not even sure why this paper hit the mainstream media.

It would have been strange if all species of beetle popped onto the scene 300 million years ago and not one species changed. But that’s not what the article says.

As the news story states (read any of the many links), there is “no consensus from scientists” on how this could have happened (that we have 350,000 species).

You seem to think this is significant. What does it mean to you?

That in itself is a major gap and problem in evolutionary theory.

That not all scientists agree on something? Put it this way, pundits disagree about why George Bush got into office. It doesn’t change the fact he did.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

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.”

[

Dear ed…no I have missed nothing. You continue to confuse things. No theory in science is ever stated as complete or proven. We have gone over this a hundred times now. What exactly are you waiting for? I am still trying to figure out how or why someone would profess a YEC with a “some limited form of evolution, guided by God” in the first place. Its beyond illogical. They are so in opposition from any common sense place that I am stuck even trying to set out the respective logical lines of how this would proceed and impact each other. It’s near akin to one of those famous mathmatical paradoxes.](http://currentworldnews.net/2007/04/11/according-to-pope-evolution-can-not-be-proven/)

 

[SpiritMeadow]

What was your reason for posting this?
Ed

TRUTH ED

 

[SpiritMeadow]

The problem as I see it is this:

Most of us are not scientists. As I told someone who urged me privately to read ID material, how can I evaluate it? It will of course sound perfectly reasonable to me as I have no science background to even draw from.

Most scientists especially the ones who are deeply involved in research that depends on evolutionary theory, believe it is the best model available today. If they didn’t they would discard it. Otherwise they waste their time. Most scientists I assume dream of making a significant discovery that leads to public accolades and hopefully betterment for society. Wasting time protecting a theory they know is no good wouldn’t make much sense to me.

Most ID or creation proponents are not scientists or at least not scientists in the field of evolutionary biology. They make assertions that seem to be refuttable by mainstream long honored scientific groups such as the NAS, The Smithsonian, The Natural History Museum etc.

A number of people here have scientific training in fields akin to evoltionary biology, but at least can help us negociate through some of the definitions and so for.

My question is…why do people like me fall into two categories? 1.those who figure the people in science know what they are doing, much as others might conclude I know something about law and would look to me to help them there. or 2…those who reject out of hand the real scientists and join forces with the ID creation “scientists” when they have no means of evaluating whether anything they say is accurate?

It suggests that the second group desires a particular outcome and so goes to the only group that supports them, and thus just mouths their arguments, blithely unaware if there is any actual validity to their accusations or not.

Sorry but thats the way I see this thing split. The second group of YEC creationists/ID believers will not seek the answers provided by the professionals and even bother to evaluate them, even though of course they really cannot, but simply cut and paste arguments they seem to have no real understanding of in the first place. As soon as real evidence is produced to the contrary, they simply move to the next set of “arguments” …A new thread starts and we begin at the beginning …and do it all over again.

 

[hecd2]

news.google.com/news?hl=en&tab=wn&q=beetles+evolution+dinosaurs&btnG=Search

New research hints that modern-day versions of the insects are far older than any tyrannosaur that trod the Earth.

This was mentioned on the Talk Origins forum:

groups.google.ge/group/talk.origins/browse_thread/thread/d0ee0ab72f12a3e2

Note the comment from the first person who posted it:

“No doubt some creationist somewhere is using this as ‘evidence’ of how species don’t evolve.”

The story states that “modern beetles” are older than the dinosaurs by 70 million years.

They have not evolved since then.

Again, Barbarian found this to be “impossible”. If Darwinism is correct, then this scientific fact would be “so improbable as to be impossible”.

Barbarian was absolutely correct.

Let’s analyse this a little. This is a paper published in Science (I have it in front of me).
Hunt et al, *A Comprehensive Phylogeny of Beetles Reveals the Evolutionary Origins of a Superradiation, *Science 318, 1913 - 1916 (2007)

The paper is a phylogenetic molecular study of beetles, seeking to understand why beetles are so diverse. If you were to read the paper, you would find the answer - that beetles diverged early and that (unlike, say mammals) early lineages did not become extinct but continued to diverge (ie they have continued to evolve). You only have to look at the phylogenetic trees in the paper to understand this clearly. For the hard of understanding, this does not claim, and the authors of the paper do not in any way claim that extant species have been unchanged over hundreds of millions or even millions of years. No-one who has read and understood the paper could possibly honestly claim that.

Those who have an axe to grind egregiously misinterpret the paper to claim that species of beetle have been unchanged for 300 million years. Note that this is a misinterpretation of the paper, either through ignorance (didn’t read it), stupidity (read it, but failed to understand it) or dishonesty (read it, understood it and deliberately misrepresented it). And you have swallowed the nonsense produced by these people hook line and sinker, because you are not interested in truth, but in supporting your preconceived ideas.

Alec
evolutionpages.com

 

[hecd2]

Barbarian was absolutely correct.

Let’s analyse this a little. This is a paper published in Science (I have it in front of me).
Hunt et al, *A Comprehensive Phylogeny of Beetles Reveals the Evolutionary Origins of a Superradiation, *Science 318, 1913 - 1916 (2007)

The paper is a phylogenetic molecular study of beetles, seeking to understand why beetles are so diverse. If you were to read the paper, you would find the answer - that beetles diverged early and that (unlike, say mammals) early lineages did not become extinct but continued to diverge (ie they have continued to evolve). You only have to look at the phylogenetic trees in the paper to understand this clearly. For the hard of understanding, this does not claim, and the authors of the paper do not in any way claim that extant species have been unchanged over hundreds of millions or even millions of years. No-one who has read and understood the paper could possibly honestly claim that.

Those who have an axe to grind egregiously misinterpret the paper to claim that species of beetle have been unchanged for 300 million years. Note that this is a misinterpretation of the paper, either through ignorance (didn’t read it), stupidity (read it, but failed to understand it) or dishonesty (read it, understood it and deliberately misrepresented it). And you have swallowed the nonsense produced by these people hook line and sinker, because you are not interested in truth, but in supporting your preconceived ideas.

Alec
evolutionpages.com

I take this opportunity to point out that Reggie has failed to retract his claims about the beetle paper, which if he was actually interested in truth rather than rhetoric he would have done; and to report this short editorial referring to the National Academy book in tomorrow’s edition of Nature:

“Evolution is a scientific fact, and every organization whose research depends on it should explain why.Three cheers for the US National Academy of Sciences for publishing an updated version of its booklet Science, Evolution, and Creationism (see nap.edu/sec). The document succinctly summarizes what is and isn’t science, provides an overview of evidence for evolution by natural selection, and highlights how, time and again, leading religious figures have upheld evolution as consistent with their view of the world.
For a more specific and also entertaining account of evolutionary knowledge, see palaeontologist Kevin Padian’s evidence given at the Kitzmiller v. Dover trial (see tinyurl.com/2nlgar). Padian destroys the false assertions by creationists that there are critical gaps in the fossil record. He illustrates the fossil-rich paths from fish to land-based tetrapod, from crocodile to dinosaur to feathered dinosaur to bird, from terrestrial quadruped to the whale, and more besides…”

Alec
evolutionpages.com

 

[reggieM]

thaindian.com/newsportal/health/how-the-tiny-beetle-survived-when-the-mighty-dinosaur-couldnt_1009677.html

Now, a research team has shown that large numbers of modern-day beetle lineages evolved very soon after the first beetles originated, and have persisted ever since. Many modern-day lineages first appeared during the Jurassic period, when the major groups of dinosaurs appeared too.

When the a number of newspapers who published this story issue a retraction, I will do the same.

Until then, I see the quote above. “Large numbers of modern-day beetle lineages” – have “persisted” ever since.

 

[reggieM]

Perhaps the U.K. Telegraph will issue a correction also.

telegraph.co.uk/earth/main.jhtml?xml=/earth/2007/12/20/eabeetle120.xml

**Beetles have been scrabbling around since Jurassic times **and now account for one in every four creatures on earth.

They probably died in their millions under the feet of dinosaurs but it was the beetle who proved to be smarter and the better survivor.

It was the six-legged insect’s ability to adapt that has seen it safely through the last 300m years, according to a new scientific study.

Although the ancestors of **modern-day beetles **emerged at roughly the same time they took a very different path to the lumbering dinosaurs.

Professor Alfried Vogler from the Natural History Museum’s Department of Entomology and Imperial College London’s Department of Life Sciences said: "The **large number of beetle species existing today could very well be a direct result of this early evolution **

 

[reggieM]

Science Daily said …

that large numbers of modern-day beetle lineages evolved very soon after the first beetles originated, and have persisted ever since. Many modern-day lineages first appeared during the Jurassic period, when the major groups of dinosaurs appeared too

**Most modern-day groups of beetles have been around since the time of the dinosaurs **

sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/12/071220140810.htm

 

[reggieM]

the authors of the paper do not in any way claim that extant species have been unchanged over hundreds of millions or even millions of years

Modern day lineages “evolved early” and have “persisted since”-- that’s what news stories said across the world. Modern day beetles are claimed to be 70 million years older than dinosaurs.

 

[reggieM]

As the news story states (read any of the many links), there is “no consensus from scientists” on how this could have happened (that we have 350,000 species).

You seem to think this is significant. What does it mean to you?

Why is there no consensus from the scientists on why we have 350,000 species of beetles?

Isn’t the answer always just: “they evolved that way”?

What is your opinion on that question and why is your opinion disputed by other scientists who have “not reached a consensus”?

 

[Wolseley]

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…”

Given the quality control usually found in products of the Chrysler Corporation, none of those models would even exist any more—they would have all been reduced to large piles of rust long, long ago.

You might say they were victims of natural selection…GM and Toyota were the more adaptable species…

 

[The_Barbarian]

Why is there no consensus from the scientists on why we have 350,000 species of beetles?

One of the things left to find out about evolution. Like all sciences, there are many things left to learn. This is one of the interesting ones.

Isn’t the answer always just: “they evolved that way”?

That would be a parody of the IDer mantra: “Godmustadunnit.” Answers like that are not satisfactory in science. One has to find evidence to show what happened.

What is your opinion on that question

Having taken a few courses in entomology, and having some interest in the subject, I’d have to say that beetles combine a rather well-armored and (because of quinones in the armor) generally unpalatable body with pretty good mobility. Pretty good combination, not found in other small arthropods. And it permits the exploitation of more niches than any other order of insect I know.

and why is your opinion disputed by other scientists who have “not reached a consensus”?

That is the opinion of most entomologists I know. BTW, “lineages” does not mean “species.” No beetle species I know about has existed even a large fraction of that time. It is like saying that since primates date back to around the end of the Cretaceous, Homo sapiens hasn’t evolved since then.

 

[Sideline]

When the a number of newspapers who published this story issue a retraction, I will do the same.

Why would they retract your interpretation of the findings?

You know, first off you tell me “beetles haven’t evolved in 350 million years”, which is completely off. I tell you everything I know about beetles, which all fits within the evolutionary framework. You pull out an article that confirms everything I said, and you still believe that it challenges evolution. That’s impressive.

Until then, I see the quote above. “Large numbers of modern-day beetle lineages” – have “persisted” ever since.

“Lineages have persisted.” Yes, I imagine they have, or the only beetles we’d be studying would be fossils. What this article means, is that the beetles came on to the scene really early, before the dinosaurs. Then they diverged into four major subgroups. Then lived for a long time, continuing to spread without the origninal successful forms dying off. (Forms, not necessarily species the way that primates have been around longer than hominids, which have been around longer than humans.)

How does this in anyway challenge the notion of evolution?

Edit: I hadn’t read Barbabian’s post before responding, or I wouldn’t have used the exact same example. (Well, I might of. Being an anthropologist by training I tend to cluster my arguments around primates.)

 

[Sideline]

**Beetles have been scrabbling around since Jurassic times **and now account for one in every four creatures on earth.

They’ve been around for about 300 million years and they have huge numbers. Pretty much what we’ve all been saying. Nobody has denied this fact.

They probably died in their millions under the feet of dinosaurs but it was the beetle who proved to be smarter and the better survivor.

Beetles are still around and dinosaurs arent’. Not a contentious statement that.

It was the six-legged insect’s ability to adapt that has seen it safely through the last 300m years, according to a new scientific study.

So this article is a little more clear on what the paper was about than the first one. It’s saying that it appears that the beetle had a head start and was well adapted.

"The **large number of beetle species existing today could very well be a direct result of ***this early evolution *****

You did notice that part didn’t you?

 

[Sideline]

that large numbers of modern-day beetle lineages evolved very soon after the first beetles originated, and have persisted ever since. Many modern-day lineages first appeared during the Jurassic period, when the major groups of dinosaurs appeared too

**Most modern-day groups of beetles have been around since the time of the dinosaurs **

Third post that says exactly the same thing as the other two, and exactly the same thing as we’ve been telling you.