National Academies book on evolution

[ricmat]

Been a long time since I did that. In the 80s, computers pretty much did it all.

snip…

I have a masters in Systems Management. Although I got the degree in 1978, PERT was a healthy and useful system then. As you see, PERT could nicely model the process.

No Barbarian. Computers don’t do it all. Man (name removed by moderator)uts the data:

1. Dependencies between “tasks”.
2. Time for each task to occur.
3. Exactly what happens in each task.

PERT only works if you have the above information, and you have none of it.

Something like “reduction in size of the jaw…” is a task composed of many smaller tasks - mutations. Exactly what mutations occurred? How long was it between mutations? How many mutations were required?

Fortunately, the evidence remains in the fossil record. But it makes functional sense, as I mentioned above. You don’t see these out of order.

“Remains in the fossil record.” This means that it’s there, but you haven’t found it yet, or you don’t understand it yet at the detail of individual mutations. Right?

As I said, we have much of that in the fossil record. Some of it, like scales to feathers, is pretty clear, since we still have animals with scutes and feathers to see. Some of it is less clear. But it you’re right, we shouldn’t see it at all

So tell me for any instance of “scales to feathers”, which you say is pretty clear, exactly which mutations occurred and how long they took. What were the dependencies? Or even just exactly which mutations occurred.

Surprise. There’s a lot more you don’t understand about biology and evolutionary theory. This is just a tiny bit of it. Can you get some appreciation for the reason scientists laugh at people who don’t know the basics, but try to lecture them on their specialties?

I’m not lecturing you on your biology. I’m lecturing you on your lack of data to support your conclusions. Time is an essential part of the basic sciences. It seems to have been ignored with regard to evolution.

There are many instances of scientific hubris and scientists laughing at people who disagree with them on their areas of expertise. And in many of those cases the “expert” scientists were wrong.

I admit to the possibility that after all the smoke clears and evidence comes to light, I might be wrong. I’m not asking you to say you’re wrong right now, based on what you know right now. But I do ask you this: Do you admit the future possibility that you might be wrong?

 

[Orogeny]

Souls are emergent properties that come with increasing neural complexity. They are not “inserted into” bodies.

Is that a statement of personal belief or a scientific statement?

Peace

Tim

 

[Orogeny]

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

You stated that you don’t believe that there has been enough time for evolution to occur without guidance. What is the basis for your belief? Incredulity? SWAG?

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.

See post 156. You don’t believe that it could have produced life in the 2-4 billion year time frame. What do you base this on?

The ball is in your court here, not mine.

Do you have any sort of proof or not?

You made the assertion, you make the case. I have made my case once before and you shot back that you weren’t obligated to read what I post and you are right. Perhaps you should do the research to support your stated belief yourself.

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

Exactly how does gravity work? Exactly how does plate tectonics work? Exactly how does quantum physics work? I guess that you would reject each of those because we don’t know exactly how they work.

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

How long does it take? You keep claiming it requires more than 2-4 billion years but you don’t give a basis for that other than your incredulity.

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

I gave you evidence of speciation and you couldn’t be bothered to read it.

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.

If I were you, I would just admit that I couldn’t possibly accept the theory of evolution and go on with my life. You want someone to convince you that your “belief” is incorrect. A “belief” that you haven’t substantiated at all (not that you have to - you can “believe” anything you want).

Peace

Tim

 

[ricmat]

You stated that you don’t believe that there has been enough time for evolution to occur without guidance. What is the basis for your belief? Incredulity? SWAG?See post 156. You don’t believe that it could have produced life in the 2-4 billion year time frame. What do you base this on? You made the assertion, you make the case. I have made my case once before and you shot back that you weren’t obligated to read what I post and you are right. Perhaps you should do the research to support your stated belief yourself.Exactly how does gravity work? Exactly how does plate tectonics work? Exactly how does quantum physics work? I guess that you would reject each of those because we don’t know exactly how they work.How long does it take? You keep claiming it requires more than 2-4 billion years but you don’t give a basis for that other than your incredulity.I gave you evidence of speciation and you couldn’t be bothered to read it. If I were you, I would just admit that I couldn’t possibly accept the theory of evolution and go on with my life. You want someone to convince you that your “belief” is incorrect. A “belief” that you haven’t substantiated at all (not that you have to - you can “believe” anything you want).

Peace

Tim

I have no “well developed theory” of my own.

You have what is claimed to be a well developed theory. And I’m trying to understand it better.

I accept evidence of speciation, that change occurred over time, and even the ages of the fossils. But what remains to be proven is that the underlying mechanism which evolution claims, random mutations and natural selection, can account for the speed with which those changes occurred.

This is because the theory of evolution seems to lack (and I admit that it may be out there, but I haven’t seen it) the details of exactly which mutation occurred going from A to B to C… and also lacks a time line based on these mutations.

Asking to see such a time line is not unreasonable.

Gravity has a time line (drop a ball to the earth from distance X, and you can successfully predict how long it takes to hit the ground).

Plate tectonics actually has a similar time line to how evolution is proposed. The continents seem to match up geographically “here and here”, and we know the current distance from each other, therefore on average, the continents must have shifted X centimeters per year. But getting a few continents to match up is a much simpler situation than DNA mutations.

Quantum mechanics – well, I think it was Feynman (who got the Nobel for his quantum physics work) who said (paraphrasing here) that anybody who thinks they understand quantum physics is wrong. Darn, I wish I remembered the quote exactly.

You are right about one thing, however. I joined CAF mainly to talk religion, and here I am caught up in a couple of evolution threads. I guess I’d like to convince the atheists that God is involved somehow, and that makes some people angry. And my wife is complaining that I’ve forgotten she exists. So I’ll just move along…

 

[wildleafblower]

. And my wife is complaining that I’ve forgotten she exists. So I’ll just move along…

Wise decision! God would be proud of you for listening to her.

 

[drpmjhess]

Is that a statement of personal belief or a scientific statement?Peace Tim

It’s a theological exploration.

 

[drpmjhess]

I don’t know that humans are the only ones to have immortal souls. I would not, for example, kill an ape unless it was absolutely necessary. I just don’t know. Moreover, I don’t know how body and soul are together, except that I believe that each person is given a soul by God. Dualism isn’t quite what I believe, but then I’m not a theologian or a philosopher.

Barbarian and rtconstant, Thomas Aquinas followed Aristotelian psychology in ascribing three levels of souls to living organisms: vegetative, animate, and rational. Of course, he presupposed a static pre-evolutionary paradigm. My concern is how to articulate theology in light of what we now know about the dynamic and evolving character of life on earth. This presents several intriguing challenges:

(1) dualism: if God simply pops immortal souls into human bodies, we have a serious problem of body-soul dualism. Where are they connected – in the pineal gland?

(2) continuity: if God pops immortal souls into human bodies, at what point during hominid evolutionary history did this occur? Was there a generation of humans with not-human parents? How is this theologically or scientifically coherent?

(3) genetic basis for ensoulment: is ensoulment based on genetics, so that all and only creatures possessed of human DNA are endowed with immortal souls?

(4) Who’s in the “soul club” and who is not? We know that twin parasitism runs across a spectrum from only mildly conjoined twins who can be separated without difficulty, to more difficult cases where one twin might not survive, to severe cases like the Indian girl who recently had her twin’s arms and legs amputated, to extreme cases of teratomism, where it would be exceedingly problematic to ascribe personhood to the tumor that is the parasitic twin.

None of these cases are easily solved, but an evolutionary model of the soul – in which God works “in, with, and under” the evolving genome – stands a better chance of offering a coherent explanation than an old-style “miraculous dualism.”

Prayerfully yours,
Petrus

 

[rossum]

It appears that what you have located seems to suggest that Darwin believed in a Creator.

Darwin believed in a creator at some points in his life. The death of his daughter affected him greatly and from that point on he may not have done so, or at least not believed in the specifically Christian version of the creator.

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

Alec’s quote is correct as is mine. Alex is quoting from the First edition, I was quoting from the Sixth edition. Darwin added the words “by the Creator” himself.

My point was not about Darwin’s belief or not in a creator, it was that his book was not about the origin of life but about the origin of species as its title indicates. The origin of life is a separate subject.

rossum

 

[rtconstant]

Barbarian and rtconstant, Thomas Aquinas followed Aristotelian psychology in ascribing three levels of souls to living organisms: vegetative, animate, and rational. Of course, he presupposed a static pre-evolutionary paradigm. My concern is how to articulate theology in light of what we now know about the dynamic and evolving character of life on earth. This presents several intriguing challenges:

Indeed.

(1) dualism: if God simply pops immortal souls into human bodies, we have a serious problem of body-soul dualism. Where are they connected – in the pineal gland?

I completely agree.

(2) continuity: if God pops immortal souls into human bodies, at what point during hominid evolutionary history did this occur? Was there a generation of humans with not-human parents? How is this theologically or scientifically coherent?

Again I agree. This approach creates problems from both a theological and scientific position.

(3) genetic basis for ensoulment: is ensoulment based on genetics, so that all and only creatures possessed of human DNA are endowed with immortal souls?

A good question. I’m sure that many would fall on either side of this. I like the concept behind genetic ensoulment in as much as it implies a natural origin for the soul and indeed attempts to create an inherent connection between body and soul. The only weak link I see in this idea is common origin.

Now, I want to understand your position better. Is it your belief that “ensoulment” has been present from the begining and has (for lack of a better term) evolved along with the various species? The end result being that every species alive today has a soul unique to itself?

Following those lines then man became human once his body and his soul jointly evolved into being that was in the image of God? Is that correct or at least the general idea?

(4) Who’s in the “soul club” and who is not? We know that twin parasitism runs across a spectrum from only mildly conjoined twins who can be separated without difficulty, to more difficult cases where one twin might not survive, to severe cases like the Indian girl who recently had her twin’s arms and legs amputated, to extreme cases of teratomism, where it would be exceedingly problematic to ascribe personhood to the tumor that is the parasitic twin.

None of these cases are easily solved, but an evolutionary model of the soul – in which God works “in, with, and under” the evolving genome – stands a better chance of offering a coherent explanation than an old-style “miraculous dualism.”

Again I agree and this was my original point. There is a natural method for everything. We may not understand all of these methods yet but it is there to learn and understand. Though with our current level of knowledge I think genetic ensoulment would be tough to demonstrate.

I’m curious, have you mentioned this concept to any non-theistic friends, or colleagues?

 

[wildleafblower]

Darwin believed in a creator at some points in his life.
[snip]
rossum

Rossum, I’m limited on time though I wish to return to your other comments later. I did some research and am still not totally satisfied by your comment, " Darwin believed in a creator at some points in his life." Please understand that I need to satisfy my own curiosity foremost by further investigating the man, DARWIN. And Darwin’s book on The Origin of Species has been published in the 1900’s. Now, here is what I did find:

Letter 12041 — Darwin, C. R. to Fordyce, John, 7 May 1879
Summary

*Dear Sir
It seems to me absurd to doubt that a man may be an ardent Theist & an evolutionist.— You are right about Kingsley. Asa Gray, the eminent botanist, is another case in point— What my own views may be is a question of no consequence to any one except myself.— But as you ask, I may state that my judgment often fluctuates. Moreover whether a man deserves to be called a theist depends on the definition of the term: which is much too large a subject for a note. In my most extreme fluctuations I have never been an atheist in the sense of denying the existence of a God.— I think that generally (& more and more so as I grow older) but not always, that an agnostic would be the most correct description of my state of mind.
*[darw(name removed by moderator)roject.ac.uk/darwinletters/calendar/entry-12041.html](http://www.darw(name removed by moderator)roject.ac.uk/darwinletters/calendar/entry-12041.html)
http://www.darw(name removed by moderator)roject.ac.uk/darwinletters/calendar/entry-12041.html

Darwin’s faith
Did the great scientist, who changed the way we see the world, believe in God?
July 27, 2007
blogs.guardian.co.uk/science/2007/07/darwins_faith.html
http://blogs.guardian.co.uk/science/2007/07/darwins_faith.html

**Darwin’s doubts revealed in his letters to friends **
Intelligent design? I cannot believe in it, wrote scientist to Christian correspondents
By Anthony Barnes, Arts and Media Correspondent
Published: 08 April 2007
news.independent.co.uk/uk/this_britain/article2432460.ece
http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/this_britain/article2432460.ece

Charles Darwin didn’t believe in Intelligent Design!

 

[SpiritMeadow]

My question always comes down to this: why would a non-scientist argue with scientists about the efficacy of evolution unless they are against it for religious purposes? I simply don’t get it.

 

[The_Barbarian]

1. Who’s in the “soul club” and who is not? We know that twin parasitism runs across a spectrum from only mildly conjoined twins who can be separated without difficulty, to more difficult cases where one twin might not survive, to severe cases like the Indian girl who recently had her twin’s arms and legs amputated, to extreme cases of teratomism, where it would be exceedingly problematic to ascribe personhood to the tumor that is the parasitic twin.

More difficult than that, perhaps, are human chimeras, who have one body, but made up of parts from two different fertilized eggs.

telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2003/11/13/nivf113.xml

None of these cases are easily solved, but an evolutionary model of the soul – in which God works “in, with, and under” the evolving genome – stands a better chance of offering a coherent explanation than an old-style “miraculous dualism.”

Sounds reasonable, but I haven’t thought that one through, yet.

 

[drpmjhess]

I’m curious, have you mentioned this concept to any non-theistic friends, or colleagues?

rtconstant, I’ll have to postpone my reply as I leave shortly to deliver a talk on theology and evolution in another city. But I will carry your interesting questions with me.

Petrus

 

[reggieM]

Darwinists, by and large, are like people sitting in a big room with a mountain of evidence in front of them. They take one piece at a time, and try to make it fit into a test board in front of them with pre-drilled holes, which is Darwinian evolution. If the evidence fits the holes, that’s a keeper, because it doesn’t challenge evolution. If it doesn’t fit the holes, it’s thrown out, because well, obviously, since everyone knows that Darwinism is the only truth, this must be a fraud, an explainable anomoly (even if the “explanation” has to be fabricated from whole cloth), or otherwise airily dismissed…

I’d call that explanation a keeper. Very good!

Frankly, I couldn’t care less. But just remember that every time you cheerlead for Darwinism, you’re cheerleading for people who have come to court with only half the evidence available to them to try to prove their case. They’ve fooled the universities; they’ve fooled themselves; and they’ve fooled quite a lot of the public at large.

But they haven’t fooled everybody

For some reason, I was randomly mutated and naturally selected to fully agree with that also.

 

[The_Barbarian]

Darwinists, by and large, are like people sitting in a big room with a mountain of evidence in front of them. They take one piece at a time, and try to make it fit into a test board in front of them with pre-drilled holes, which is Darwinian evolution. If the evidence fits the holes, that’s a keeper, because it doesn’t challenge evolution. If it doesn’t fit the holes, it’s thrown out,

You have it backwards. Darwinism has been repeatedly changed because evidence has shown that some aspect or another of it was not right, and needed to be changed. Evolutionary theory, like all scientific theories, changes the holes (theories) not the evidence. If you were right, none of those changes would have happened.

This is the primary difference between science and ID/creationism. Science adjusts theories to fit the evidence. Creationists try to change the evidence to fit their beliefs.

As usual, it is ignorance that is the enemy.

 

[drpmjhess]

Darwinists, by and large, are like people sitting in a big room with a mountain of evidence in front of them. They take one piece at a time, and try to make it fit into a test board in front of them with pre-drilled holes, which is Darwinian evolution. If the evidence fits the holes, that’s a keeper, because it doesn’t challenge evolution. If it doesn’t fit the holes, it’s thrown out, because well, obviously, since everyone knows that Darwinism is the only truth, this must be a fraud, an explainable anomoly (even if the “explanation” has to be fabricated from whole cloth), or otherwise airily dismissed…

Are you a high school graduate? If so, did your school offer a basic biology course? Did you take it? Your post displays not a shred of evidence that you’ve studied the scientific method. Your version of science would be a mystery to the 100,000 or so professional biologists who work with evolution every day. And to those biologists who are Catholic (as I am) such as Francisco Ayala and Ken Miller, your understanding of Catholic doctrine would seen sadly untutored.

 

[reggieM]

The veiled agenda of Intelligent Design bleeds through its empty rhetoric like a gushing chest wound staining a freshly bleached T-shirt. ID is a fascist politico-religious movement that masquerades as science and attempts to force a wedge between the scientific community and the wider culture. The ultimate goal of this wedgie is to establish a theocracy in which the Bible becomes federal law and the Biblical creation account in the book of Guinness is taught as fact.

Although most of the details about evolution remain to be worked out, there is no debate among real scientists about the fundamentalist facts of evolution. Real scientists have neither the time nor inclination to be bothered with evidence of Intelligent Design, nor the stomach to dialog with its vile practitioners. Evolution is as well established a fact as global warming and the CIA plot to assassinate Kennedy.

The accumulated evidence for evolution is more overwhelming than vigorously chewing a mouthful of Altoids, and to reject or challenge it is not just to abjure science but to place society at a risk more grave than a sarin nerve gas baloon drifting towards a porcupine. Many diseases, including disjunctive conjunctivitis and neuromuscular arachnophobia, are the result of natural selection in action, and those who minimize or question evolution are, like medieval plague-rat breeders, endangering public health and, in all likelihood, are already complicit in the deaths of countless people.

The BRITES therefore urges all genuine scientists to use all legal means to oppose and overthrow this creationist pseudoscience that, unlike us Darwinists, refuses to listen to all sides of the issue. Some Intelligent Design practitioners have advanced degrees in the sciences. In every known case they obtain these advanced degrees for the express purpose of injecting themselves into the academic and scientific communities like heroin into the veins of an innocent virgin.

Similar to an Salvation Army member with a ringing bell in one hand and a hand gun in the other, proponents of ID have only one goal: take our grant money and make us all go to church. They seek to substitute supernatural causes for natural causes and thereby destroy science and, like an intellectual equivalent to a pillaging army of Genghis Khan, taking over society at any cost. They should not be considered genuine scientists in any sense of the word. Nor should their work be interpreted as facilitating the proper understanding of science. Their transparent agenda is a frontal attack on the methods and outcomes of science over the last several hundred years. Their work, their snide demeanor, their personal hygiene, and, indeed, their very presence among real scientists are so offensive and disturbing to the progress of science that only one solution remains: SCIENTIFIC CLEANSING.

Yes, science must be cleansed from the oozing cancerous tumor of Intelligent Design. Like amputating a leg infected with festering gangrene, only radical surgery will do. The BRITES therefore calls on the scientific, academic, and professional communities to institute the following emergency policies.

(1) RE-EDUCATION: Any scientist caught sympathizing with Intelligent Design needs to either take part in intensive re-education workshops on the nature of science and the evidence for evolution, or be forced to repetitively listen to selected passages of Richard Dawkins audio books.

(2) EXCOMMUNICATION: Scientists who remain recalcitrant and refuse to be re-integrated into the community of real scientists must by all legal means be removed from that community like a stubborn rotting tooth yanked from an otherwise healthy mouth.

(3) ACCREDITATION: Academic institutions that employ Intelligent Design sympathizers that in any way give Intelligent Design legitimacy must have their accreditation revoked more quickly that the driver’s licence of a blind man on his fifth DUI conviction. Accrediting bodies need to ensure that only real science, like Darwinian evolution, ozone depletion and the environmental impact of SUV’s, is taught at accredited institutions.

Academic freedom of professors does not apply to ID because, as scientists who are smarter than everyone else, we know that ID is wrong.

**Some might conclude these are gestapo tactics. They are not. This has nothing to do with the Jews. **

(4) DEFERENCE: The mark of real science is to respect the principles of absolute truths without which advancement in science would be impossible.

Evolution has now become the universal governing principle of science. Scientists whose writings betray less than full enthusiasm for evolution need to be reprimanded like a school boy caught free basing cocaine behind the barn.

We must take immediate action to stop this infestation before it slips through our fingers like a smooth hot Russet potato in a lard barrel.

 

[drpmjhess]

You have it backwards…

Barbarian, to illustrate your point:

 

[reggieM]

**The ultimate goal of this wedgie is to establish a theocracy in which the Bible becomes federal law and the Biblical creation account in the book of Guinness is taught as fact.

The accumulated evidence for evolution is more overwhelming than vigorously chewing a mouthful of Altoids

Similar to an Salvation Army member with a ringing bell in one hand and a hand gun in the other, proponents of ID have only one goal: take our grant money and make us all go to church.

Their work, their snide demeanor, their personal hygiene, and, indeed, their very presence among real scientists are so offensive and disturbing to the progress of science that only one solution remains: SCIENTIFIC CLEANSING.

Academic freedom of professors does not apply to ID because, as scientists who are smarter than everyone else, we know that ID is wrong.

Some might conclude these are gestapo tactics. They are not. This has nothing to do with the Jews. **

 

[edwest2]

I’d call that explanation a keeper. Very good!

For some reason, I was randomly mutated and naturally selected to fully agree with that also.

You too?! I was randomly mutated and naturally selected to agree with you! Wow! Small, uncaring universe we live in.

Peace,
Ed West (organism number 29655449833060701)