National Academies book on evolution

[Orogeny]

You assume incorrectly. I have no obligation to read everything you suggest.

You are right, you don’t have an obligation to read everything, or, for that matter, anything that I suggest. Interesting, though, you only found something to disagree with (and that at least partially because you can’t be bothered to read the actual document) to read.

Hey, it’s your theory. Prove to me that it’s feasible from a timeline perspective. Even a SWAG.

My theory (I’m not sure how it got to be my theory) doesn’t require me to “prove” your silly assertion. What are you going to demand next, that I provide a six-legged dog being birthed by a cat?

Of course it is not invalid. The prediction can be proven in a lab. And reproduced time and time again under controlled conditions. Show me evolution in the lab.

I did, but you couldn’t be bothered to read it.

I’m not debating a common ancestor. I’m not debating ANY part of the theory of evolution except “how much time it takes.”

So debate it. Give your figures and the logic you used to get them.

So if you don’t know EXACTLY what mutations are required, make some assumptions about the number of mutations needed, population sizes, times needed to reach reproductive age, etc. As it is, you’re not even coming up with a SWAG. You are just declaring “the answer is between 2 and 4 billion years.” Based on what?

Based on the fossil record and/or the estimated time free-phase water existed on the planet. Now, what is your assertion based on?

Peace

Tim

 

[ricmat]

So much for God, Christology, soteriology, pneumatology. They’ve never been observed in a lab.

You’ve jumped into the discussion rather late. Certain posters want to restrict the discussion of evolution to be Science Only. I was trying to demonstrate my own discomfort with certain aspects of the theory of evolution - primarily that as “unguided” (meaning no divine hand essentially), it cannot have resulted in complex life in only 4 billion years…

I accept religious doctrines that have not been proven in the lab.

Are you saying that evolution is a religious doctrine, and therefore should also be accepted on faith?

 

[ricmat]

Based on the fossil record and/or the estimated time free-phase water existed on the planet. Now, what is your assertion based on?

I think you missed my point.

What you say above (in slightly different words) is that we know from other evidence that life on earth is 4 billion years old (OK so far). And we know that complex life now exists (still OK). Therefore, evolution must have done it, somehow, in that time frame. Sorry, that doesn’t work for me.

It seems reasonable to ask (and it also seems like somebody must have done this before) to start with the basics. Here’s how (random) mutations take place. Here’s how long it takes to grow the next generation to maturity, and how long for the next mutation to take place, etc. This all has to happen in series (or maybe you disagree). So you add up all the times and see what you get.

It seems that the problem is that evolutionists to not know exactly what happened (the series of events, what mutated into what else). So there’s no way to calculate an overall time to completion (of complex life). But you know for a fact that evolution did it, somehow.

 

[drpmjhess]

Are you saying that evolution is a religious doctrine, and therefore should also be accepted on faith?

You demand observation of evolution in a lab as a criterion for accepting it. The virginal conception of Christ has not been replicated in a lab, but no doubt you accept it.

 

[wildleafblower]

You need to do a bit more research. Beetles are not a species, beetles are an Order (Coleoptera) comprising about 350,000 different known species. As an example, within the mammals the Artiodactyls are an Order, which includes goats, sheep, pigs, cattle, antelopes, gazelles and many others. That is obviously not “diversity within a species”.

rossum

Hi Rossum, you were responding to Wolseley. I’m not him/her but do wish to comment. Beetle groups (TAXONOMY) diversified into 350,000 species. Beetle groups are a species. The latest scientific news is that of a Polyphaga supergroup. Please refer to my previous postings:

(msg. 109) [snip]I thought it best to go to the Natural History Museum where Toby Hunt and Alfried P. Vogler of the Department of Entomology, Natural History Museum, London, UK work and share the information about the latest findings from the Natural History Museum’s website. A kid should be able to understand this:
Endurance of the beetles
21 December 2007

*What accounts for 25% of all living things on Earth? Beetles. They are some of the most successful creatures to have lived and new research published in the journal Science today suggests that they may also be the most enduring.

Scientists at the Natural History Museum and Imperial College have discovered that most modern-day beetle groups first appeared during the Jurassic Period at the time when the major groups of dinosaurs appeared too.

Six-legged survivors*
These beetle groups out-lived the dinosaurs and diversified into the 350,000 species we see today. There are probably several million more species still to be discovered.

‘The large number of beetle species existing today could very well be a direct result of this early evolution of many modern-day lineages,’ says Professor Alfried Vogler, lead scientist on the study. ‘There has been a very high rate of survival and continuous diversification of many lineages since then.’

Evolutionary study
The team studied the DNA of 1,880 species of beetles and was able to produce an evolutionary family tree. This helped them look at the relationship between different species and identify common ancestors.
[snip]nhm.ac.uk/about-us/news/2007/december/news_13195.html
http://www.nhm.ac.uk/about-us/news/2007/december/news_13195.html

AND

(msg.104)
[snip]

Here is this that I can share with you from 1: Science. 2007 Dec 21;318(5858):1913-6 :A comprehensive phylogeny of beetles reveals the evolutionary origins of a superradiation.Hunt T, Bergsten J, Levkanicova Z, Papadopoulou A, John OS, Wild R, Hammond PM, Ahrens D, Balke M, Caterino MS, Gómez-Zurita J, Ribera I, Barraclough TG, Bocakova M, Bocak L, Vogler AP. Department of Entomology, Natural History Museum, Cromwell Road, London SW7 5BD, UK.

Beetles represent almost one-fourth of all described species, and knowledge about their relationships and evolution adds to our understanding of biodiversity. We performed a comprehensive phylogenetic analysis of Coleoptera inferred from three genes and nearly 1900 species, representing more than 80% of the world’s recognized beetle families. We defined basal relationships in the Polyphaga supergroup, which contains over 300,000 species, and established five families as the earliest branching lineages. By dating the phylogeny, we found that the success of beetles is explained neither by exceptional net diversification rates nor by a predominant role of herbivory and the Cretaceous rise of angiosperms. Instead, the pre-Cretaceous origin of more than 100 present-day lineages suggests that beetle species richness is due to high survival of lineages and sustained diversification in a variety of niches.

ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18096805?ordinalpos=1&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/...ez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum

The TAXONOMY (Groups) of species includes their Kindgom, Phylum, Class, Order, Family, and Subfamily. An example would be Lawrence & Brittons 1994.(1)

The evolutionary ‘family tree’ of beetles has diversified due to the latest scientific research. The following will not change:
Kindgom: Animalia
Phylum: Arthropoda
Class: Insecta

1. collections2.eeb.uconn.edu/collections/insects/CTBnew/about.htm
   http://collections2.eeb.uconn.edu/collections/insects/CTBnew/about.htm

 

[ricmat]

You demand observation of evolution in a lab as a criterion for accepting it. The virginal conception of Christ has not been replicated in a lab, but no doubt you accept it.

Almost - to be a bit more specific, before I accept evolution as an explains everything sort of theory, as scientists demand, I want to see proof that the time line works. Merely mutating a virus to another virus or a bacterium to another bacterium in the lab hardly inspires confidence in the overall scheme of the evolution of dirt to man, or even simple life to man.

Yes, I accept the virginal conception of Christ based on faith. I do not accept evolution based on faith.

 

[rtconstant]

All that matters is that, at some point, God added a soul to humans.

OK, here is where we begin to have a problem. That is a ghost in a shell. Which Church teaching clearly teaches is wrong. Man is both body and soul unified necessary for the whole. If Man was once something else and then by introduction of the soul became Man then the Soul is Man the body is a shell.

In order for current evolutinary model to be correct then Man had to have had the soul all along. Which is possible. Though there is some clunkiness from the concept of single origin. But science will catch up eventually.

Another problem I have with this strange mix of objective science with the occasional supernatual event thrown in is that it is supernatural. God by His nature cannot be supernatual. He defines the parameters of the natural universe as such God is possibly the most “natural” being in existance. Just because Humanity with its narrow perspect, limit experience, and general ignorance arrogantly assumes that about a 200 years of focused study should be enough to unlock the mysteries of the universe doesn’t mean that we have.

So if you’re needing to add magic moments to your science then your science is flawed.

 

[Orogeny]

I think you missed my point.

What you say above (in slightly different words) is that we know from other evidence that life on earth is 4 billion years old (OK so far). And we know that complex life now exists (still OK). Therefore, evolution must have done it, somehow, in that time frame. Sorry, that doesn’t work for me.

It seems reasonable to ask (and it also seems like somebody must have done this before) to start with the basics. Here’s how (random) mutations take place. Here’s how long it takes to grow the next generation to maturity, and how long for the next mutation to take place, etc. This all has to happen in series (or maybe you disagree). So you add up all the times and see what you get.

Well, here’s your chance to stick a dagger into the heart of evolution. You state as a certainty that evolution could not have produced life in the 2-4 billion year timeframe I mentioned. That must mean that you have done at least a SWAG and there must be something you based your SWAG on.

It seems that the problem is that evolutionists to not know exactly what happened (the series of events, what mutated into what else). So there’s no way to calculate an overall time to completion (of complex life). But you know for a fact that evolution did it, somehow.

Sorry, but we do know what evolved into what, at least generally. We know roughly when life first appeared and we know that there were no humans in that first group of living things. We know that 2-4 billion years later, humans are here along with a large number of other types of living things. We know evolution occurs since we can observe it happening as well as observing the fossil record.

Now, you say it is impossible. Show us the numbers that back that assertion.

Peace

Tim

 

[drpmjhess]

In order for current evolutinary model to be correct then Man had to have had the soul all along. Which is possible. Though there is some clunkiness from the concept of single origin. But science will catch up eventually.

Yes – it is a cogent view to argue that the soul has existed since the formation of the first living organism.

 

[wildleafblower]

[snip]

Charles Darwin, On the Origin of Species, 6th Edition, Chapter Fifteen[/indent]
Notice that “by the Creator” in there. Darwin did not deal with the origin of life, he left that to the Creator.

rossum

Hi Rossum,

It appears that what you have located seems to suggest that Darwin believed in a Creator. My research seems to suggest otherwise, thinking it best to present it and review it for further discussion:

1. From Alec’s website: " *There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being, evolved." *- The Origin of Species, Charles Darwin

With these inspiring words, Charles Darwin concluded his book, ‘The Origin of Species’, and from that date in 1859, nothing in science would ever be the same again. Darwin’s concept of Natural Selection was the keystone in an edifice which explains the diversity and nested relationships of species. It is a beautiful and powerful concept, and, as the famous biologist Theodosius Dobzhansky said: “Nothing in Biology makes sense except in the light of Evolution”
evolutionpages.com/
http://www.evolutionpages.com/

1. From Talk Origins: "Rachels [in his book, Created from Animals] presents brief and powerful arguments against natural theodicy `natural theodicy’ being the attempt to justify the ways of a good creator God in a world containing naturally painful and hideous aspects], rather discomfiting to those of us who have published articles on this subject (see Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith 39:150-157)…

"It was the amount, rather than the fact, of evil in the world that made Darwin reject God: `There seems to me too much misery in the world…’ both human and nonhuman…(to what purpose all this suffering?)…

“Rachels has done the best job I have seen of drawing Darwinian evolutionary principles to their ultimate moral conclusions. The results are objectionable to the Christian, but not as horrible as we might have feared. It does not lead, as some preachers warn, to totalitarianism and a complete devaluing of human life. Rachels’ excellent book gives intelligent readers a chance to sharpen their minds and examine their beliefs.”
talkorigins.org/faqs/ce/4/part4.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/ce/4/part4.html

1. —to arrange and present the facts and to draw the deductions therefrom. Ever a close observer, practised in many lands, student of all nature—especially skilled as a geologist, a botanist, and a zoologist— endowed with a severely judicial mind, honest above all, none like him had ever grappled with the mystery of creation. For more than twenty years he had pondered on the subject; with impartial severity he had weighed the evidence. He was, perforce, led to the conclusion that all the living had been derived from past forms, with modifications incident to individuality ; the sums of the divergences, small in themselves, became large in the aggregate, became enormous in time. The increasing beings, crowding upon each other, invading each other’s domains, struggled for the life into which they were born. Happy were those possessing some slight advantage—strength, swiftness, dexterity, or adaptability resulting from modification of structure— for they could procure place or food at the expense of their competitors, and the characters that gave them victory secured, likewise, the temporary ascendancy of their kind. How great is this variability our domesticated animals attest; how ancient is our globe geology teaches ; that the race is to the strong or the cunning observation of inferior nature assures. With known variability, time, and space, what could not result ? Which, then, was the more probable, that Nature—or, if you will, the Creator —had always operated under law, or that there had been constant interference. [implying that NATURE created](Charles Frederick. 1892. Charles Darwin: his life and work. New York: G. P. Putnam’s sons.)
2. “The mystery of the beginning of all things is insoluble by us, and I for one must be content to remain an agnostic.”– Charles Darwin, Life and Letters, cited in Peter’s Quotations, by Lawrence J Peter (1977), p. 45, quoted from James A Haught, “Breaking the Last Taboo” (1996)

 

[ricmat]

Well, here’s your chance to stick a dagger into the heart of evolution. You state as a certainty that evolution could not have produced life in the 2-4 billion year timeframe I mentioned. That must mean that you have done at least a SWAG and there must be something you based your SWAG on.

I have no theory of my own, I’m merely commenting on the theory of evolution, and asking for information.

I do not state with certainty that evolution could not have produced life in the 2-4 billion year time frame. You stated that it could, and I asked to see some sort of evidence for this before I accept this well developed theory as true.

The ball is in your court here, not mine.

Do you have any sort of proof or not?

Sorry, but we do know what evolved into what, at least generally.

But I didn’t say “generally”, I said “exactly”.

We know roughly when life first appeared and we know that there were no humans in that first group of living things. We know that 2-4 billion years later, humans are here along with a large number of other types of living things.

Yes, that’s what I said above too.

We know evolution occurs since we can observe it happening as well as observing the fossil record.

I agree.

Where we disagree is how long it takes due to random (unguided) processes.

Now, you say it is impossible. Show us the numbers that back that assertion.

What I said was that to convince me that this is a good theory, give me some evidence that the time line works.

You have not provided any evidence to prove it. If this theory is so well developed, it should be able to come up with something. I realize that you may not have the information at your fingertips, but if this theory really works, I can’t be the first person to have ever asked this question. I’m not even saying that such evidence cannot be found, I’m just saying that I haven’t seen it.

 

[drpmjhess]

God by His nature cannot be supernatual. He defines the parameters of the natural universe as such God is possibly the most “natural” being in existance.

God is supernatural in the sense that God is above nature. Nature exists within the all-encompassing divine reality, as one small facet of that reality. To say that God is nature is to equate God with the universe in a pantheistic way.

 

[rtconstant]

Yes – it is a cogent view to argue that the soul has existed since the formation of the first living organism.

As I said it is a possiblity. However, it does beg the question as to why animals don’t have human souls.

 

[drpmjhess]

As I said it is a possiblity. However, it does beg the question as to why animals don’t have human souls.

What do you mean by “beg the question as to why animals don’t have human souls”?

 

[rtconstant]

God is supernatural in the sense that God is above nature. Nature exists within the all-encompassing divine reality, as one small facet of that reality. To say that God is nature is to equate God with the universe in a pantheistic way.

Never suggested that God is nature. Simply that the rules of nature were defined by God. Further I would venture that it would be unlikely of God to define a system of operation that is alien to Himself. If the Universe works in “such and such way” then this method must be one in which God finds favor. It is clear that God while seperate from His creation still sees Himself in it and desires us to do the same. Indeed His highest creation was made directly in His image. I don’t think the image of God would contradictory to Him.

 

[drpmjhess]

Never suggested that God is nature. Simply that the rules of nature were defined by God. Further I would venture that it would be unlikely of God to define a system of operation that is alien to Himself. If the Universe works in “such and such way” then this method must be one in which God finds favor. It is clear that God while seperate from His creation still sees Himself in it and desires us to do the same. Indeed His highest creation was made directly in His image. I don’t think the image of God would contradictory to Him.

Is it true that God is in nature, or is it rather that nature is in God? If God is in nature, nature must be ontologically greater than God.

 

[rtconstant]

What do you mean by “beg the question as to why animals don’t have human souls”?

As evidenced in DNA, commonality of cellular life, dominance of water, commonality of: carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen, oxygen, phosphorus and sulfur, universal set of small molecules etc.,etc., all life on Earth is built upon a physical model that is very much alike between species. This (amongst other things) has been the basis for the thought of common origin. However, if the soul was present from the start then all decendants of that original organism(s) should have at least the potential for souls themselves. At the very least every creature would have “souled” ancestors.

So then at one point all life was human.

 

[rtconstant]

Is it true that God is in nature, or is it rather that nature is in God? If God is in nature, nature must be ontologically greater than God.

I’d say you answered your own question.

 

[drpmjhess]

I’d say you answered your own question.

No – you said God is in nature; I did not.

 

[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.”

[snip]

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
http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=11876&page=R1

Complementary to the above which I posted a while back, read:

**The dangers of creationism in education **
Report by Committee on Culture, Science and Education
from the Parliamentary Assembly, Council of Europe:
[snip]
assembly.coe.int/Main.asp?
link=/Documents/WorkingDocs/Doc07/EDOC11297.htm#P362_70012
http://assembly.coe.int/Main.asp?link=/Documents/WorkingDocs/Doc07/EDOC11297.htm#P362_70012

Best to read both documents in their entirety to better understand the full scope of the dangers of creationism in education and about creationists.
Thank you.