The argument over evolution...

Doctor DooM

Hey people,

I read an awful lot of threads in this and the christianity forum, but would not consider myself up to the likes of scofflaw to get debating.

One thing I have noticed- when things get into the nitty gritty of proof when debating over the whole evolution thing is that the two things given as the main
evidence for evolution to me in biology in college- the pentadactyl limb theory and the shared foetus- are never mentioned. Seeing as these are pretty much the clinchers in the evolution exists argument, I was wondering if there was a reason I never see it here?

Thanks!

Pompey Magnus

SDooM wrote:

Hey people,

I read an awful lot of threads in this and the christianity forum, but would not consider myself up to the likes of scofflaw to get debating.

One thing I have noticed- when things get into the nitty gritty of proof when debating over the whole evolution thing is that the two things given as the main
evidence for evolution to me in biology in college- the pentadactyl limb theory and the shared foetus- are never mentioned. Seeing as these are pretty much the clinchers in the evolution exists argument, I was wondering if there was a reason I never see it here?

Thanks!

I like the pentadactyl limb theory alright and really is as good a proof as exists, along with the genetic similarity in species. What is "the shared foetus" though?

robindch

SDooM wrote:

Seeing as these are pretty much the clinchers in the evolution exists argument, I was wondering if there was a reason I never see it here?

Back in august, I did a short piece on five fingers in whales and other mammals, so it has appeared, but it's not much of a clincher as far as I'm concerned. Something of an interesting side-effect, really. Didn't make any difference to the creationists -- similar design implies the one designer optimizing his designs, they said. Anwyay.

The fetal similarity thing is somewhat discredited these days and isn't wheeled out very much any more. In any case, it's not all that convincing to start with as phenotypic similarity doesn't imply genetic similarity.

If you're looking for clinching arguments, you really need to look into genetics at the microscopic level, or the geographic distribution of species at the macroscopic level.

Scofflaw

Depeche_Mode wrote:

I like the pentadactyl limb theory alright and really is as good a proof as exists, along with the genetic similarity in species. What is "the shared foetus" though?

"Ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny" - the idea that the foetus of, in particular, humans, shows during its development all the evolutionary stages humans went through. In its full form it says that you can literally see the fish stage, the amphibian stage, the reptile stage, etc, as the human embryo develops - the idea was first proposed in 1866 by a guy called Haeckel.

The theory isn't accepted in its full form any more, but it's generally accepted that there are elements of truth in it, and that some of what you see in the embryo's development does echo human evolution.

As to why neither this, nor the pentadactyl ('five-fingered') limb plan shared by all land-dwelling vertebrates (amphibians, reptiles, birds, mammals - including those that have gone back to an aquatic lifestyle), or indeed the other similarities (warm-blooded, cold-blooded, three and four-chambered hearts) that allow us to group organisms into classes - well, the problem is that while it's evidence for evolution, it's not evidence against design. Nothing prevents God having designed organisms to be similar, so the creationist simply dismisses such evidence as 'open to interpretation'.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Zombrex

To me the evidence that the eye has developed approx 40 times independently would strongly suggest that there isn't any form of intelligent design or direction going one.

I mean why would a super intelligence need to design an eye 40 different times? Surely once would do.

Scofflaw

Wicknight wrote:

To me the evidence that the eye has developed approx 40 times independently would strongly suggest that there isn't any form of intelligent design or direction going one.

I mean why would a super intelligence need to design an eye 40 different times? Surely once would do.

Particularly since the same God apparently only designed the pentadactyl limb once, by way of optimising His designs...

cordially,
Scofflaw

bonkey

Firstly, I would agree with Scofflaw's position that the problem is that evidence for evolution is not necessarily evidence against design.

That aside, my favourite "clincher" in evolutionary terms is nicely summed up here, particularly when one looks at human chromosone 2 against 2p and 2q in chimps. The author sums up nicely why this is a strong argument by asking:

if the similarities of the chromosomes are due only to common design rather than common ancestry, why are the remnants of a telomere and centromere (that should never have existed) found at exactly the positions predicted by a naturalistic fusion of the chimp ancestor chromosomes 2p and 2q?

(Underlining mine)

The underlined term makes an important point. Science predicts where Creationists react. In its entire lifespan, creationism has not made one falsifiable prediction subsequently borne out to be true with the exception of cases where it agreed with established science and established scientific prediction.

ID is the latest insidious form of this, which basically seeks to remove this entire line of weakness by saying evolution can be true, because evolution is (mystically) guided. Again, however, its a non-falsifiable, non-predictive stance.

(I have to admit I particularly like this one because in my opinion it is exactly the question of man sharing common ancestry with beast which drives almost all but the young-earth creationists to have issue with evolution. This example deals directly with that area of contention)

Scofflaw

bonkey wrote:

Firstly, I would agree with Scofflaw's position that the problem is that evidence for evolution is not necessarily evidence against design.

That aside, my favourite "clincher" in evolutionary terms is nicely summed up here, particularly when one looks at human chromosone 2 against 2p and 2q in chimps. The author sums up nicely why this is a strong argument by asking:

if the similarities of the chromosomes are due only to common design rather than common ancestry, why are the remnants of a telomere and centromere (that should never have existed) found at exactly the positions predicted by a naturalistic fusion of the chimp ancestor chromosomes 2p and 2q?

(Underlining mine)

The underlined term makes an important point. Science predicts where Creationists react. In its entire lifespan, creationism has not made one falsifiable prediction subsequently borne out to be true with the exception of cases where it agreed with established science and established scientific prediction.

ID is the latest insidious form of this, which basically seeks to remove this entire line of weakness by saying evolution can be true, because evolution is (mystically) guided. Again, however, its a non-falsifiable, non-predictive stance.

(I have to admit I particularly like this one because in my opinion it is exactly the question of man sharing common ancestry with beast which drives almost all but the young-earth creationists to have issue with evolution. This example deals directly with that area of contention)

It's a very good example, and I hope bonkey doesn't mind if I clarify the terminology a little, since otherwise the most probable counter-argument will be "telo-what? You're making it up!".

The telomere and centromere are bits of chromosomes. The centromere would be the bit that joins the arms of an X chromosome together. The telomere is the 'cap' at the end of the arm of a chromosome.

One of our chromosomes looks genetically as if it's the result of the fusion of two chimpanzee chromosomes - or, to put it another way, it looks like one of the things that made humans separate from chimpanzees was that at some point two chimpanzee chromosomes stuck together.

Now, if that happened, and relatively recently in evolutionary terms, you might expect to find bits of ends and middles stuck awkwardly in the resulting human chromosome - and you do.

Now if this is design, it is fraudulent design - God has designed a human chromosome to look as if the two chimp chromosomes got fused together.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Doctor DooM

Thanks for all the replies.

One thing- The shared foetus theory IS still talked about in college (well, it was 6 years ago). However, it seems to be different from what everyone is discussing here- in the first few days after conception, a bird, fish, human, dog, chimp etc. all have a virtually identical foetuses (foetii? ). Beyond that differentiation occurs. I mean nothing about other stages.

The argument against the pentadactly limb- that god picked it as its a good design- seems weak to me, but I see your point. Surely there are much more efficient designs for flippers, etc. "God did it cos he did it" isn't as persuasive argument to me, but then I did the whole biology thing in college.

Scofflaw

SDooM wrote:

Thanks for all the replies.

One thing- The shared foetus theory IS still talked about in college (well, it was 6 years ago). However, it seems to be different from what everyone is discussing here- in the first few days after conception, a bird, fish, human, dog, chimp etc. all have a virtually identical foetuses (foetii? ). Beyond that differentiation occurs. I mean nothing about other stages.

Ah - you mean that at the earliest stages (blastocyst etc) all embryos of vertebrates resemble each other. Yes, that's true, and taken as evidence of shared evolutionary origins, as you say. Unfortunately, it suffers from the same problem as the pentadactyl limb - the theist can simply claim it's evidence of God reusing design - or, for fun, they could claim that it's a moral effect designed to remind us of our distant kinship with all life.

SDooM wrote:

The argument against the pentadactly limb- that god picked it as its a good design- seems weak to me, but I see your point. Surely there are much more efficient designs for flippers, etc. "God did it cos he did it" isn't as persuasive argument to me, but then I did the whole biology thing in college.

Also, there's no argument so weak it doesn't persuade those who are already convinced.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Doctor DooM

Scofflaw wrote:

Also, there's no argument so weak it doesn't persuade those who are already convinced.

Never a more true word spoken. Thank you for your attention!

Scofflaw

Creationism continues to grow as a problem: the teaching of evolution is becoming increasingly difficult in UK schools because of the rise of creationism, a leading scientist is warning. BBC

cordially,
Scofflaw

PDN

Scofflaw wrote:

Creationism continues to grow as a problem: the teaching of evolution is becoming increasingly difficult in UK schools because of the rise of creationism, a leading scientist is warning. BBC

Interesting that the 'leading scientist' is a Church of England clergyman. I bet that messes up a few people's stereotypes (on both sides of the religious divide).

Dave!

I don't think there is an argument over evolution... Certainly not in scientific circles.

Scofflaw

PDN wrote:

Interesting that the 'leading scientist' is a Church of England clergyman. I bet that messes up a few people's stereotypes (on both sides of the religious divide).

Actually I suspect it reinforces everybody's views about the Church of England...seriously, though, I hope not too many people need to be reminded that Creationists constitute only a small fringe of Christianity.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Doctor DooM

I remember our biology text books in school contained a disclaimer to the effect that it was ok to be christian and study evolution. that used to strike me as slightly creepy, that it was deemed necessary to put that in.

stereoroid

Scofflaw wrote:

Actually I suspect it reinforces everybody's views about the Church of England...seriously, though, I hope not too many people need to be reminded that Creationists constitute only a small fringe of Christianity.

I hope not too many people need to be reminded of the Nicene Creed, which is a statement of the fundamentals of Christian belief, and is used by Catholics, Anglicans and Orthodox Churches in slightly different versions. All those versions start with the following or a slight variation thereof:

We believe in one God,
the Father, the Almighty,
maker of heaven and earth,
of all that is, seen and unseen.

Isn't this recited during every service? It's as official as it gets, a formal statement of the creationist beliefs held by all those Churches. Minority? :rolleyes:

Anyway, I don't see much substantive argument about evolution. The "teach the controversy" idea came from the Discovery Institute's Wedge Strategy, with the aim of portraying the scientific community as split over the idea of evolution. Well, there have been some disagreements over details - e.g. Dawkins vs Gould on the "level" at which evolution operates (genes vs organisms) - but general agreement on the basics of evolution, the timescales, etc.

The Christian beliefs of e.g. Francis Collins are very much an exception to this - and in his view "god" only kicked things off, then left us to our own devices. He rejects any "creationism" or "intelligent design" in shaping the results of evolution.

Scofflaw

stereoroid wrote:

I hope not too many people need to be reminded of the Nicene Creed, which is a statement of the fundamentals of Christian belief, and is used by Catholics, Anglicans and Orthodox Churches in slightly different versions. All those versions start with the following or a slight variation thereof:


Isn't this recited during every service? It's as official as it gets, a formal statement of the creationist beliefs held by all those Churches. Minority? :rolleyes:

Certainly the Nicene Creed is regularly cited by Creationists as evidence that all Christians are Creationists really. By the same logic, of course, they're also cannibals.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Red Hand

PDN wrote:

Interesting that the 'leading scientist' is a Church of England clergyman. I bet that messes up a few people's stereotypes (on both sides of the religious divide).

Wasn't Darwin a Church of England curate, or was intended by his family to become a clerrgyman?

PDN

stereoroid wrote:

I hope not too many people need to be reminded of the Nicene Creed, which is a statement of the fundamentals of Christian belief, and is used by Catholics, Anglicans and Orthodox Churches in slightly different versions. All those versions start with the following or a slight variation thereof:


Isn't this recited during every service? It's as official as it gets, a formal statement of the creationist beliefs held by all those Churches. Minority? :rolleyes:

If you want to use the word 'creationist' to simply denote belief that God created the world (irrespective of how he did it) then most Christians would be both creationists and evolutionists.

PDN

Jeremiah 16:1 wrote:

Wasn't Darwin a Church of England curate, or was intended by his family to become a clerrgyman?

That was his family's intention, but he found something more useful to do.

stereoroid

PDN wrote:

If you want to use the word 'creationist' to simply denote belief that God created the world (irrespective of how he did it) then most Christians would be both creationists and evolutionists.

I suppose you'd need to ask them about that - doesn't change the point. It's not like I want to use any particular word, it's just that that one fits.

Fanny Cradock

Scofflaw wrote:

Actually I suspect it reinforces everybody's views about the Church of England...seriously, though, I hope not too many people need to be reminded that Creationists constitute only a small fringe of Christianity.

cordially,
Scofflaw

In my experience, albeit anecdotal, that is exactly what many people (yes, including some Christians) need to be reminded of.