Darwin and Evolution

Dave!

Soul Winner what do you think of Wicknight's river analogy to explain natural selection?

Wicknight wrote: »

Pick a river. Any river, it doesn't really matter. Lets say the Nile (why not go for the 2nd longest)

The Nile is produced by rain water, rain water that falls for all intensive purposes, randomly (you can predict where rain will fall if you have a few billion super computers and about 1000 years).

So how can this random rain fall some how manage to gather into an organized stream of water that mind bogglingly makes it's way 1,000 miles to the ocean.

Lets just think about that for a minute. A rain drop that falls near the source of the Nile some how randomly travels the best route from that spot in Uganda to the Mediterranean sea. Of all the ways the rain drop could go, the odds that it would randomly travel North to the sea the correct path are mind boggling unlikely.

So that is of course totally implausible.

There must be some form of intelligence that already knows the route from the source to the sea. That is the only plausible way that this randomly falling rain drop can know the way to the sea. This intelligence (lets call him God) tells the rain drop the path to follow to get to the sea, and the rain drop follows it. That is the only plausible alternative that we have left once we realize that it is ridiculous to say that the rain drop some how randomly traveled that path.

What is that you say?

There is another way to explain it?

That the rain drop doesn't know the way to the sea, nor is there a magical intelligence directing it to the sea? That it is in fact simply non-random interactions of gravity and the environment that eventually selects the best most efficient way for the river to run to the sea.

Wow!

You could almost say that this "natural" process (gravity) is "selecting" the route that the "random" rain drop travels.

But then you would be denying the existence of God. BURN HIM!!!

I think you should also watch this short video where the astronomer Carl Sagan attempts to explain natural selection by using a type of crab as an example:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w4FqAUEEv_U

Soul Winner

Wicknight wrote: »

Well you read his book. Did you sound pro-evolutionist?

He never said once in his book that he was anti-evolutionist. That has been assumed because he doesn't tow the line of accepted neo-Darwinian evolutionary theory.

Soul Winner

Schuhart wrote: »

Is it also fair to say that evolution doesn't pretend to explain how life emerged initially, just how it subsequently developed.Have you ever seen my Uncle Festy?

In all seriousness, if you really want evidence that we share a common ancestor with apes I think this extract from a lecture by Ken Miller sets it out in a way I found accessible.

That four minutes plus monologue might have persuaded you but I need more. Do you know where I can access the whole lecture? I'd really like to hear it all.

Tell Festy I said hello

Soul Winner

Wreck wrote: »

Is this one book by a discredited author your only basis for these beliefs?

Ah but discredited by who? One man's meat is another man's poison.

Dave!

Soul Winner wrote: »

That four minutes plus monologue might have persuaded you but I need more. Do you know where I can access the whole lecture? I'd really like to hear it all.

Tell Festy I said hello

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JVRsWAjvQSg

Soul Winner

sdep wrote: »

The way it works is that you have to provide evidence demonstrating that the theory of evolution is wrong. Then the theory will be reconsidered.

That's what I thought Milton did when I read his book but in here he and I are being poo poo'd for believing it.

sdep wrote: »

Evolution doesn't predict that we'll have every transitional fossil for every species that ever lived.

But we are led to believe that there is a link between the various extinct horse like creatures and modern day horses from the fossil record when there are no transitional fossils to prove it.

sdep wrote: »

How could it, when it doesn't say anything about how, when or where fossils form?

Isn't the geologic column made up of periods of time that time stamp everything from the formation of rock sediments to modern man?

sdep wrote: »

Evolution does predict that we shouldn't find fossils that don't conform to a sequential development in morphology as we proceed through geological time.

"does predict that we shouldn’t find fossils that don't conform? A lot of negatives in there???

sdep wrote: »

It also predicts a spatial clustering of fossils of similar morphology. This is what we see for fossils on the evolutionary branch that ends in modern whales and that ending in horses, for example.

But what about Darwin's idea that given enough time and enough natural selection bears can become whales or whale-like. One species can turn into a completely different species by natural selection alone?

sdep wrote: »

You're free to give an alternative theory to account for our planet's extant and extinct species. It has to be consistent with the current data, and be able to make specific testable predictions about future discoveries. An explanation that isn't testable won't meet the standards of a theory, so won't be considered. For example, stating that God created nature in its current form, without specifying any of the details, is scientifically equivalent to saying, 'it just is'. Such an explanation is entirely unhelpful as a predictive research tool, hence unscientific.

I thought I started the post asking the questions???. At least Wicknight and others attempted to answer some of them all be it beating me up in the process. I'm a lay person when it comes to this type of thing. But I am learning and will expose myself to any evidence out there that can prove neo-Darwinian evolutionary theory. I want you to prove it to me.

pH

Soul Winner wrote: »

I thought I started the post asking the questions???. At least Wicknight and others attempted to answer some of them all be it beating me up in the process. I'm a lay person when it comes to this type of thing. But I am learning and will expose myself to any evidence out there that can prove neo-Darwinian evolutionary theory. I want you to prove it to me.

I'm sure you've been told this above but nobody can prove it to you. All we can say is that evolution by natural selection explains everything we see, from the fossil record to the way bacteria becomes immune to penicillin, much of our DNA etc etc.

No one has been able to find a contra-example in the last 150 years. No one has shown that the way our DNA codes information is incompatible with natural selection.

The chances of it being wrong at this stage are absolutely minuscule.

I suggest reading "The ancestor's tale" by Richard Dawkins, if there's anything in there that you want to discuss then feel free.

And for anyone to say that there are no transitional between humans and apes is either being stupid or deceitful.

Firstly no one claims that humans descended from the apes we see today - that's plainly rubbish. What is claimed is that apes are our closest relatives, ie you find a common ancestor with a chimpanzee first then other primates, then other mammals etc.

And there are many many transitional species in the fossil record.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_evolution

robindch

Soul Winner wrote: »

But I am learning and will expose myself to any evidence out there that can prove neo-Darwinian evolutionary theory. I want you to prove it to me.

I don't know what you think you're learning, but you're certainly seem to be ignoring anything that I post. I've already pointed out that science does not do proofs -- these exist in the province of maths only.

This has also been pointed out by various other posters too and I'm curious to why you do not retain this fact.

// snap -- pH points out the same thing.

Soul Winner

DaveMcG wrote: »

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JVRsWAjvQSg

Half way through. Will reconvene in the morning and watch the rest as I am bushwhacked at this stage, look at the time??? :eek: It is very interesting and I like Mr Miller's approach on the subject and he delivers it in a well balanced and coherent manner.

Scofflaw

Soul Winner wrote: »

I thought I started the post asking the questions???. At least Wicknight and others attempted to answer some of them all be it beating me up in the process. I'm a lay person when it comes to this type of thing. But I am learning and will expose myself to any evidence out there that can prove neo-Darwinian evolutionary theory. I want you to prove it to me.

The point has already been made, but let's say it again. Scientific theories are not ever proven. They are "currently the best explanation that is not disproved".

The Theory of Evolution, then, is the best explanation for [rather a lot of evidence*] that is not yet disproved. It has been that way for 150 years, which is an enormously long time for a scientific theory to not be disproved, and for no better explanation to be presented.

*Or, to look at it another way, the best answer to certain questions. I am using evidence here in the sense of "things that are evident" for lack of a better word.

To understand why the Theory of Evolution is the best explanation of the evidence, you would first have to know what the evidence is. In a nutshell, that evidence is the diversity and similarity of life now on earth, and the diversity, similarity, and arrangement of what seems to be the remains of previous life on earth.

Does it really need to be explained? There is always, of course, what is called the "null hypothesis" - that the similarities between a spider crab from Japan, and the common Irish shore crab, are accidental and meaningless - arbitrary, in other words. This is the "base" explanation to which all others can be compared.

The 'Creationist' explanation is in fact very similar to the null hypothesis. God created things in "kinds", which look somewhat like each other, for no other reason than that God decided it arbitrarily - and any similarity between ourselves and apes is definitely accidental and meaningless.

The 'evolutionary' explanation for the similarity, is of course common descent - that crabs are part of a 'family'. I have no idea why this is considered so bizarre - after all, when you meet two people who look and sound very alike, the discovery that they are related is not a particularly profound revelation.

Essentially, all of evolutionary theory follows from that simple statement of common descent. If two animals are related, then they must have shared ancestors who looked a bit like both of them. We should be able to find at least the bones of such common ancestors - and we do. We have fossilised skeletons that have characteristics of both horse and zebra, for example (Equus simplicidens sp.).

Further, having identified a fossil skeleton that has both horse and zebra characteristics, we should also find skeletons that are "younger", and which, while very similar to the "common ancestor", have lost or gained certain features characteristic of horses or zebras - and we do. We should also find "older" skeletons that are similar to the shared ancestor, and that show features developing into the features of the common ancestor - and again, we do.

None of these skeletons belong to any living creature - we only find them as fossils buried in rock - and we do not find their purported 'descendants' as fossils. That suggests, very strongly, that the supposed 'ancestors' predate the supposed 'descendants' - just as we can assume that those members of the Murphy family buried in the old graveyard predate the living Murphys.

Can we be sure, though, that what appears to be older is actually older, when all we have to go on is fossils? Without getting too deeply into the "geological column" (which is a concept, by the way), we can , without relying on modern dating techniques, determine which rocks are older than others. When you see that a layer of red clay, for example, draped into old river valleys in a sandstone, we know that the sandstone is older than the red clay, because the river had cut into the sand or sandstone (the difference between eroding sand, and eroding sandstone, is characteristic) before the red clay was laid down. If that layer of red clay is continuous and widespread, we can use it as a marker horizon. It's like assembling a giant 3D jigsaw - there's only a certain way the pieces will fit together.

So all of that needs explaining - assuming there is an explanation. We need some way for the older forms to turn into the younger forms, and the younger forms to turn into the living forms. We can see from the fossil record that changes are sometimes gradual, sometimes quite rapid.

We can now bring in another science - that of genetics. We have known for quite some time that children inherit the characteristics of their parents - which is why family members look similar. The current best explanation is that the DNA in our cells encodes our physical features, and is passed on from generation to generation.

However, the DNA is not passed on exactly as it was in the parents, even after taking the combination of the two into account. There are copying errors, and mutations, which mean that the DNA of the child is very slightly different. Sometimes these mutations are harmful, sometimes (more rarely) they are beneficial (slightly better eyesight, say) - most of the time, they do nothing at all, because there are two copies of every gene.

So here is a mechanism for changes that can be inherited. We now have a mechanism that allows the older forms to change into the younger forms. It's random, though - there's nothing about mutation that leads in any "direction". Mutations alone would simply give us bizarre form after bizarre form in the fossil record - our current horses would simply be the latest in a long string of weird-looking horseish things.

This is where "natural selection" comes in. In most natural situations, resources (food, water, shelter, breeding partners) are limited. Similar organisms must compete for resources. This is not usually some kind of fight, as people seem to imagine - but a camel who can survive on 1 pint of water a day is going to survive better than a camel who needs 2 pints a day, if there's not much water.

Now, in times of plenty, these little differences aren't going to matter, so in times of plenty all kinds of diversity can build up, but if our two camels can only find an average of 1.5 pints of water a day, one of them will die, and the other will not. If the hard times go on for long enough, the 2-pint camels will all have died - only 1-pint camels will be left. An evolutionary step has been taken, due to "selection pressure" (in this case, lack of water).

How did that step come about? Water is used in metabolic processes. All that is necessary is that the 1-pint camel is the beneficiary of a mutation that makes some protein or other more efficient in its job, so that it requires less water to get things done - and voila.

So evolution is a process of mutations making random changes, and selection pressure weeding out some individuals but not others, depending on their characteristics. If the selection pressure is provided by predators, then the slow and weak will go to the wall - if the selection pressure is provided by famine, then the big and strong will die out.

Accidentally, this process "fits" organisms to their environment, by killing those who are least good at surviving in that particular place and time. Natural selection is a Procrustean bed - chopping off the bits that don't fit until you've got an organism that suits where it lives.

This is why people use the 'puddle' analogy - puddles fit the shape of the hole they're in - organisms have been fitted to their environments.

So, organisms' "families" go through periods of diversity, where selection pressure is low, and periods of high selection pressure, where that diversity is whittled back, and only the best fitted survive. A good analogy might be sticks going through pools and rapids - in the pools they meander about any which way, in the rapids they are confined to a narrow channel.

The combination of all these things - random mutations, inheritance of changes, selection pressure - is sufficient to explain the evidence we described above. Crabs in Japan and crabs in Ireland look like they're related because they are related - horses and zebras look like they're related because they are related. We find their ancestors in the rocks, looking more and more distantly related the older they are. We find common ancestors that show features of all their descendants. We find things that have the characteristic teeth of whales but the body plan of a hippo.

By the way, all of the above has been done without any need to drag in modern radioisotope dating techniques, the bete noire of Creationists. It's all based on relative ages, taken from the relationships between rocks in the field. We know, in Ireland, that the Old Red Sandstone of Kerry is younger than the Dalradian of Mayo because we find boulders and pebbles of Dalradian rock in the ORS river sandstones - and the Dalradian rocks were already rocks by that time. So we know that a fossil in Dalradian rock is older than a fossil found in the Old Red Sandstone.

Anyway, enough for the moment!

cordially,
Scofflaw

daveyjoe

Soul Winner wrote: »

I beg to differ there is plenty debate about the age of the earth and not all species are accounted for in the fossil record. Where is the transitional link between apes and man for instance?

Why should there be...

Humans never descended from apes we are from the same common ancestor of both apes and humans.

Have a look here, this shows evidence of the evolution of the skull into a modern day human skull:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/compare.html

Scofflaw

daveyjoe wrote: »

Soul Winner wrote:

I beg to differ there is plenty debate about the age of the earth and not all species are accounted for in the fossil record. Where is the transitional link between apes and man for instance?

Why should there be...

Humans never descended from apes we are from the same common ancestor of both apes and humans.

Have a look here, this shows evidence of the evolution of the skull into a modern day human skull:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/compare.html

Soul Winner may also not be aware that this is a matter of definition. By classifying every mixture of red and blue as either "red" or "blue", we can easily create the "missing purple" problem.


cordially,
Scofflaw

Zombrex

Soul Winner wrote: »

I thought I started the post asking the questions???.

Well no offense Soul Winner but you don't seem to be really paying attention to the answers, which would suggest you have already made up your mind ....

[EDIT]Along with Wreck I would also be interested to hear if you have read other books on these subjects. Your understand of neo-Darwinian evolution seems rather muddled. It becomes difficult to assess the merits of a scientific theory if one doesn't first understand said theory[/EDiT]

Wreck

Wreck wrote: »

Is this one book by a discredited author your only basis for these beliefs?

Galvasean wrote: »

Ah sweet cherry-picking

Soul Winner wrote: »

Ah but discredited by who? One man's meat is another man's poison.

Sorry, I didn't put this too well. Forget the word discredited. What I meant to ask was have you read anyone else's work on these subjects?

robindch

Scofflaw wrote: »

By classifying every mixture of red and blue as either "red" or "blue", we can easily create the "missing purple" problem.

Excellent simile!

Soul Winner

Scofflaw wrote: »

The point has already been made, but let's say it again. Scientific theories are not ever proven. They are "currently the best explanation that is not disproved".

The Theory of Evolution, then, is the best explanation for [rather a lot of evidence*] that is not yet disproved. It has been that way for 150 years, which is an enormously long time for a scientific theory to not be disproved, and for no better explanation to be presented.

But they aren’t the best explanation that is not disproved. When someone comes along and even tries to disprove them they are met with hostility. They are immediately put into the category of ‘creationists’ or ‘anti-evolutionist’ even though they profess not to be as is the case for Richard Milton. I’ve read his book and I see no hidden agenda. I see him tearing down strongholds of evolutionary theory that have held sway for over 150 years. There are posters here that have not even read his book for themselves and who rely on the opinions of others (who probably haven’t red it either) for their own opinion. That goes against what I understand science to be which as Ken Miller says is empirical study of the facts.

Scofflaw wrote: »

*Or, to look at it another way, the best answer to certain questions. I am using evidence here in the sense of "things that are evident" for lack of a better word.

To understand why the Theory of Evolution is the best explanation of the evidence, you would first have to know what the evidence is. In a nutshell, that evidence is the diversity and similarity of life now on earth, and the diversity, similarity, and arrangement of what seems to be the remains of previous life on earth.

Does it really need to be explained? There is always, of course, what is called the "null hypothesis" - that the similarities between a spider crab from Japan, and the common Irish shore crab, are accidental and meaningless - arbitrary, in other words. This is the "base" explanation to which all others can be compared.

The 'Creationist' explanation is in fact very similar to the null hypothesis. God created things in "kinds", which look somewhat like each other, for no other reason than that God decided it arbitrarily - and any similarity between ourselves and apes is definitely accidental and meaningless.

The 'evolutionary' explanation for the similarity, is of course common descent - that crabs are part of a 'family'. I have no idea why this is considered so bizarre - after all, when you meet two people who look and sound very alike, the discovery that they are related is not a particularly profound revelation.

Essentially, all of evolutionary theory follows from that simple statement of common descent. If two animals are related, then they must have shared ancestors who looked a bit like both of them. We should be able to find at least the bones of such common ancestors - and we do. We have fossilised skeletons that have characteristics of both horse and zebra, for example (Equus simplicidens sp.).



Further, having identified a fossil skeleton that has both horse and zebra characteristics, we should also find skeletons that are "younger", and which, while very similar to the "common ancestor", have lost or gained certain features characteristic of horses or zebras - and we do. We should also find "older" skeletons that are similar to the shared ancestor, and that show features developing into the features of the common ancestor - and again, we do.

None of these skeletons belong to any living creature - we only find them as fossils buried in rock - and we do not find their purported 'descendants' as fossils. That suggests, very strongly, that the supposed 'ancestors' predate the supposed 'descendants' - just as we can assume that those members of the Murphy family buried in the old graveyard predate the living Murphys.

So how do you reconcile that with Milton’s ascertains regarding “the concept of convergence”? Milton points out that “the concept of convergence highlights one of the greatest weaknesses in the synthetic theory and one which though raised before, has yet to be satisfactorily addressed – unless it is to become a suitable candidate for Kuhn’s global paradigm shift. The weakness has to do with the geological break-up of the original super-continent of Pangaea into the present day land masses, thus separating the plant and animal populations of those continents and – according to Darwinists – allowing them to evolve in isolation. Uniformitarian’s place this event toward the close of the Mesozoic era, that is somewhere in the region of 65 million years ago, according to current accepted geo-chronometry. At the time the present continents were formed, the life they contained was very different from life today. The dominant life forms where the dinosaurs. The only representative of the mammals (our own branch of the animal kingdom) then alive were tiny shrew like creatures. It has been proposed that the reptiles dominated every available ecological niche so efficiently that the mammals were hardly able to get a toehold (Harvard’s Stephen Jay Gould describes them as living in the nooks and crannies of the reptilian world). It was only after the mysterious mass extinction of dinosaurs and thousands of other species at the end of the Mesozoic era that mammals were able to begin their rise to dominance, culminating in the appearance of humans. Practically all the mammals that have appeared either placental (bearing young until fully developed, like humans) or marsupial (giving birth prematurely and nurturing the young in a pouch, like kangaroos). The marsupial mammals are confined to Australia and South America, and are said to have evolved uniquely in those environments, while at the same time placental mammals were evolving elsewhere. The key factor about the evolution of the marsupials is that a large number of modern marsupial animals exist which – apart from the pouch and child rearing habits – are identical with placental mammals to an extraordinary degree. This is no general similarity of anatomical detail, but an almost perfect duplication of distinct species like cats, rats, wolves, moles, flying squirrels, ant eaters, and others. In addition there are distinctive marsupials that exist only in Australia, such as the Koala and the Kangaroo. How does it come about that in widely separated environments the same shrew like ancestral mammal of 65 million years ago should evolve on strictly parallel lines to produce virtually the same range of large mammals today? The Tasmanian marsupial wolf is a virtually carbon copy of the European timber wolf. The marsupial flying phalanger is practically identical to the placental flying squirrel, as are the marsupial jerboa and the placental jerboa. When the skulls of the two wolves are placed side by side it would take an experienced professional zoologist to tell them apart.

The question for Darwinist is: How can a mouse-like creature have evolved into two identical wolf-like creatures (and two identical moles, etc.) on two different continents? Doesn’t this coincidence demand not merely highly improbable random mutations, but miraculous ones?” Chapter 17 "Paradigm Lost" page 191-192

sdep

Here's a run-through of the kinds of evidence we're talking about in relation to evolution.

There's a mass of evidence for mutation causing biological change in organisms. From artificially-mutated fruit flies to people affected with genetic disease, scientists have repeatedly shown that mutations in genes lead directly to biological upset with life-changing effects.

Does natural selection act to filter these mutations? The most famous studies on this are of the peppered moth in Britain. There are two forms, one light, one dark. Genetically, the difference is down to one gene: two copies of the light form makes you a light, mottled moth; one or two copies of the dark form makes you dark. With industrialisation, in soot-blackened cities, the better-camouflaged dark moths came from nowhere to dominance. In the 50's, Bernard Kettlewell showed that, in polluted areas, dark moths were less likely to be eaten by birds than light ones; in clean areas, the reverse. Mike Majerus' recent repeat of the experiments found the same.

Look also at changes in organisms subjected to recent strong selection by humans: antibiotic resistance in bacteria, drug resistance in malarial parasites, DDT insecticide resistance in mosquitoes and fruit flies. Look at the startling differences between our breeds of domesticated animals. All of this is consistent with the prediction that selection, acting to filter biological variation, can cause substantial change in populations.

Much of the evidence Darwin looked at related to where animals lived (biogeography). Taking a single example, there are tens of species of lemurs alive today. All of them live on Madagascar. If we also found lemurs living wild on the Isle of Man, with no evidence they'd ever lived anywhere between, that would mean that the same comprehensive series of adaptations would have appeared independently in different places, posing a problem for evolution. However, we don't find this in lemurs, or in other species.

Of course we do see superficially similar adaptations occurring more than once. Whales and dolphins, like fish, have fins. But because they breathe air, bear and suckle live young, and have common skeletal and DNA features we know that they are closely related to land mammals. They have to get around in the same environment as fish, and fins are an evolutionary adaptation to that environment. This 'convergent evolution' due to similar environment can lead to similar features in otherwise very different and unrelated organisms. Look more closely, though, and in particular at the DNA, and we see the true relationships revealed.

For fossils, I'll defer to Scofflaw, who's summed it up. Try the Florida Nat Hist Museum 'Fossil Horse Cybermuseum' for a load more info on fossil horses and their kin.

DNA is great for comparing modern species but degrades over time, so it's very hard to get usable DNA out of old samples. Maximum age depends on the conditions the sample has been in, but tens of thousands of years is generally very exceptional. For modern species, we find those predicted from fossils to be closely related also share more features in their DNA, as we'd expect from evolution. Within species, individuals living nearby also tend to share more features in common. We can, using fossils to calibrate, date species' divergence by looking at how similar or different their DNA is. A 2007 Nature overview comparing DNA sequences of the placental mammals - including rodents, whales, carnivores, primates - suggests we could all have a common ancestor around 80 or 90 million years ago.

We can now look at gene sequences and detect, through anomalies in DNA, which genes are under strong selection. To take one example, European humans are unusual in being able to drink milk into adulthood. Unlike many other groups of humans, we keep making an enzyme needed to digest the sugar lactose. Prior to agriculture, it's hard to see a need for this trait. When we look at the DNA around the lactase gene, we see a signature of strong, recent selection. This fits with the evolutionary idea that agriculture made it advantageous for us to drink milk as adults, and selection did the rest.

As for contrasting theories, the young-earth creationist model, which puts earth at a few thousand years old, has been demolished scientifically. Historically, it's where science started out, but it soon turned out to be wrong. See the extensive creationism thread for details. The 'intelligent design' idea seems, to my mind, not to make any specific testable predictions, so isn't a scientific theory.

Critics of evolution often resort to emotional appeal. They cast themselves as heroes who are battling some evil monolithic belief system. Yet, in science, established ideas have frequently been overturned by radical new ones - take plate tectonics, only adopted in the 60's, as a recent example. If any scientist could convincingly disprove evolution they'd be a sensation, so there's a good incentive. The multinational drug companies developing new medicines use the evolutionary model in their research. Would they allow ideology stand in the way of profit?

Each time we find something new, we can see if it squares with evolution. We'd stop accepting evolution if we found, in the example of geneticist J.B.S. Haldane, "fossil rabbits in the Precambrian", but we don't. And finally, to quote biologist Theodosius Dobzhansky, 'Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution'.

Zombrex

Soul Winner wrote: »

But they aren’t the best explanation that is not disproved. When someone comes along and even tries to disprove them they are met with hostility.

If that was the case science would have died about 250 years ago. :rolleyes:

It is not only a good thing that scientists attempt to disprove theories, it is in fact a fundamental part of science. It is the only way that theories develop, through the elimation of elements of the theory (or even the whole theory itself) that have been shown to not correspond to reality.

If you look at the history of any theory in science, include Darwinian evolution, it is a history of scientists disproving hypothesis, shaping the theory to fit what is happening and removing elements of the theory that have been demonstrated to not be happen.

Soul Winner wrote: »

They are immediately put into the category of ‘creationists’ or ‘anti-evolutionist’ even though they profess not to be as is the case for Richard Milton.

People who have an agenda to "disprove" a theory are put into these categories, because they are interested in pushing this agenda at the expense of the science

If Milton had really disproved evolution he would have been given a Nobel prize. The fact is he didn't disprove evolution, he just claimed to to sell books. From reading some samples of his work he appears to not know the first thing about biology, let alone evolution. I would be interested to see his qualifications.

Remember Soul Winner just because someone claims to have disproved something doesn't mean they actually have.

Soul Winner wrote: »

I’ve read his book and I see no hidden agenda.

How much did his book cost? :rolleyes:

If Milton has disproved evolution why is he doing so in a popular science book, rather than a scientific paper?

Soul Winner wrote: »

I see him tearing down strongholds of evolutionary theory that have held sway for over 150 years.

Well again Soul Winner you don't seem to understand these "strongholds of evolution" (neither does Milton based on samples of his work) so how exactly would you know if he was tearing these down or just claiming to?

Soul Winner wrote: »

There are posters here that have not even read his book for themselves and who rely on the opinions of others (who probably haven’t red it either) for their own opinion.

Well having solely read Milton's book you seem confident that he is tearing down 150 years of evolution. What books on evolution have you read to gain such an understanding of evolution that you could make that judgment?

Or are you also here with an agenda?

Soul Winner wrote: »

The question for Darwinist is: How can a mouse-like creature have evolved into two identical wolf-like creatures (and two identical moles, etc.) on two different continents?

Simple. It didn't.

Nor does evolution claim it did. That is a mis-representation of convergent evolution.

A far better example would be how did the eye ball develop 40 different times over the space of 1 billion years of evolution.

I do find it hilarious that Milton would claim that a Thylacine is "nearly identical" to a European wolf though. Does that look like a wolf to you?

I haven't read Milton's book, but if this is understand of evolution (or biology or geology for that matter) I won't loose any sleep over not reading it :rolleyes:

Soul Winner wrote: »

Doesn’t this coincidence demand not merely highly improbable random mutations, but miraculous ones?

Or the option behind door number 3 - Darwinian evolution by natural selection (see my post about the Nile)

Scofflaw

Soul Winner wrote: »

But they aren’t the best explanation that is not disproved. When someone comes along and even tries to disprove them they are met with hostility. They are immediately put into the category of ‘creationists’ or ‘anti-evolutionist’ even though they profess not to be as is the case for Richard Milton.

No, scientists "attack" the Theory of Evolution every day. Even forcing a minor modification of such a long-standing theory is regarded as impressive. Genuinely tearing it up and replacing it with something else would win you a Nobel Prize.

Soul Winner wrote: »

I’ve read his book and I see no hidden agenda. I see him tearing down strongholds of evolutionary theory that have held sway for over 150 years. There are posters here that have not even read his book for themselves and who rely on the opinions of others (who probably haven’t red it either) for their own opinion. That goes against what I understand science to be which as Ken Miller says is empirical study of the facts.

Well, you're talking about one of a hundred books in any given year that "rewrite history", or "blow theory X out of the water". You don't actually disprove a scientific theory by writing a book.

Soul Winner wrote: »

So how do you reconcile that with Milton’s ascertains regarding “the concept of convergence”? Milton points out that “the concept of convergence highlights one of the greatest weaknesses in the synthetic theory and one which though raised before, has yet to be satisfactorily addressed – unless it is to become a suitable candidate for Kuhn’s global paradigm shift. The weakness has to do with the geological break-up of the original super-continent of Pangaea into the present day land masses, thus separating the plant and animal populations of those continents and – according to Darwinists – allowing them to evolve in isolation. Uniformitarian’s place this event toward the close of the Mesozoic era, that is somewhere in the region of 65 million years ago, according to current accepted geo-chronometry. At the time the present continents were formed, the life they contained was very different from life today. The dominant life forms where the dinosaurs. The only representative of the mammals (our own branch of the animal kingdom) then alive were tiny shrew like creatures. It has been proposed that the reptiles dominated every available ecological niche so efficiently that the mammals were hardly able to get a toehold (Harvard’s Stephen Jay Gould describes them as living in the nooks and crannies of the reptilian world). It was only after the mysterious mass extinction of dinosaurs and thousands of other species at the end of the Mesozoic era that mammals were able to begin their rise to dominance, culminating in the appearance of humans. Practically all the mammals that have appeared either placental (bearing young until fully developed, like humans) or marsupial (giving birth prematurely and nurturing the young in a pouch, like kangaroos). The marsupial mammals are confined to Australia and South America, and are said to have evolved uniquely in those environments, while at the same time placental mammals were evolving elsewhere. The key factor about the evolution of the marsupials is that a large number of modern marsupial animals exist which – apart from the pouch and child rearing habits – are identical with placental mammals to an extraordinary degree. This is no general similarity of anatomical detail, but an almost perfect duplication of distinct species like cats, rats, wolves, moles, flying squirrels, ant eaters, and others. In addition there are distinctive marsupials that exist only in Australia, such as the Koala and the Kangaroo. How does it come about that in widely separated environments the same shrew like ancestral mammal of 65 million years ago should evolve on strictly parallel lines to produce virtually the same range of large mammals today? The Tasmanian marsupial wolf is a virtually carbon copy of the European timber wolf. The marsupial flying phalanger is practically identical to the placental flying squirrel, as are the marsupial jerboa and the placental jerboa. When the skulls of the two wolves are placed side by side it would take an experienced professional zoologist to tell them apart.

The question for Darwinist is: How can a mouse-like creature have evolved into two identical wolf-like creatures (and two identical moles, etc.) on two different continents? Doesn’t this coincidence demand not merely highly improbable random mutations, but miraculous ones?” Chapter 17 "Paradigm Lost" page 191-192

There's two major things there. First, Milton's information is quite out of date. Mammals in the age of the dinosaurs were not, it turns out, all small shrew-like creatures - they competed with (and ate) dinosaurs. Article.

Second, convergent evolution is an extremely well-known and well-studied phenomenon. Animals that have similar habits evolve similar features. As to how alike they are to wolves:




Identical? Not really. Plus the thylacine's problem is that apparently its jaws weren't strong enough to allow it to attack large prey - see here - which is not a problem wolves have.

So, they're certainly not actually identical, merely similar. You may find this page enlightening. However, since it is anti-Creationist in tone (pointing out, for example, that a Creationist lecturer demonstrated how hard it was to tell the difference between wolves and thylacines by showing the audience two pictures of thylacines), you may simply find this comparison of wolf and thylacine skulls illuminating.

Moral: go and look at the evidence yourself. Don't just take the word of the author of a book. It's very easy to find a comparison between wolf and thylacine skulls online.

Now, I shall be interested to see whether you prefer to defend Morris, or to admit the evidence.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Myksyk

Soul Winner wrote: »

Where is the transitional link between apes and man for instance?

Hi Soul Winner. This stood out for me as I don't think anyone who has a grasp of the theory of evolution by natural selection would ever ask this question. Why not? Because anyone who understands the theory knows that the nature of genetically based evolutionary transition means that there is no one transitional link (implied in you use of the word 'the'). They would further understand that apes and man have a common ancestor but that man is not descended from apes. They would grasp the idea that the transition, by its nature, is likely to be exceedingly incremental and difficult to see in the fossil record. They would also understand that the claim regarding a link is based on much more evidence than reliance on digging up 'the' transitional link out of the Kenyan forest floors. They would understand that the claim being made would produce obvious testable theses that should be verifiable (and are) ... for example, if man and apes are closer to each other on the evolutionary tree their genetic codes should reflect this by being more similar than those claimed to be further away from them on the tree - this is the case. I'm sure there are many more reasons why your question can be said to reflect a seriously naive view of the theory you are questioning. If this thread is an attempt by you to become more familiar with the actual facts of the theory then fair dues to you.

Zillah

Scofflaw wrote: »

However, since it is anti-Creationist in tone (pointing out, for example, that a Creationist lecturer demonstrated how hard it was to tell the difference between wolves and thylacines by showing the audience two pictures of thylacines)

Haha! Bloody typical.

Soul Winner

Wicknight wrote: »

If that was the case science would have died about 250 years ago. :rolleyes:

It is not only a good thing that scientists attempt to disprove theories, it is in fact a fundamental part of science. It is the only way that theories develop, through the elimation of elements of the theory (or even the whole theory itself) that have been shown to not correspond to reality.

If you look at the history of any theory in science, include Darwinian evolution, it is a history of scientists disproving hypothesis, shaping the theory to fit what is happening and removing elements of the theory that have been demonstrated to not be happen.

And behind door number 4 is: Piltdown man! That is actually a good example of what you're talkig about isn't it?

Wicknight wrote: »

People who have an agenda to "disprove" a theory are put into these categories, because they are interested in pushing this agenda at the expense of the science.

He’s not against science; he’s a Science Journalist for crying out loud. He is also a member of Mensa and writes a column for their magazine. I suppose they all have an agenda too? Even Jonathan Wells who wrote ‘Icons of Evolution’ is put into the same camp and he has 2 PhDs one in Religious Studies at Yale University and one in Molecular and Cell Biology from UC Berkeley.

Wicknight wrote: »

If Milton had really disproved evolution he would have been given a Nobel prize. The fact is he didn't disprove evolution, he just claimed to to sell books. From reading some samples of his work he appears to not know the first thing about biology, let alone evolution. I would be interested to see his qualifications.

He doesn’t claim to disprove evolution, just some of its major theories that hold sway over the whole scientific community until nobody can even write a paper on a sample of rock they’ve dated using carbon 14 dating supposedly from the Cambrian era to only 30000 years old. They must throw out the paper because they don’t want to loose cred with the University for going against the accepted and held dear dates for those rocks.

Wicknight wrote: »

Remember Soul Winner just because someone claims to have disproved something doesn't mean they actually have.

I agree.

Wicknight wrote: »

How much did his book cost? :rolleyes:

It retails at around $16 say €12 but I got it from a library

Wicknight wrote: »

If Milton has disproved evolution why is he doing so in a popular science book, rather than a scientific paper?

I think they would take away his funding.

Wicknight wrote: »

Well again Soul Winner you don't seem to understand these "strongholds of evolution" (neither does Milton based on samples of his work) so how exactly would you know if he was tearing these down or just claiming to?


Well having solely read Milton's book you seem confident that he is tearing down 150 years of evolution. What books on evolution have you read to gain such an understanding of evolution that you could make that judgment?

About the same amount that you’ve read in relation to the Bible.

Wicknight wrote: »

Or are you also here with an agenda?

No agenda here. Just a good way to pass a dull day.

Wicknight wrote: »

Simple. It didn't.

Nor does evolution claim it did. That is a mis-representation of convergent evolution.

A far better example would be how did the eye ball develop 40 different times over the space of 1 billion years of evolution.

I do find it hilarious that Milton would claim that a Thylacine is "nearly identical" to a European wolf though. Does that look like a wolf to you?

I haven't read Milton's book, but if this is understand of evolution (or biology or geology for that matter) I won't loose any sleep over not reading it :rolleyes:

He was referring to the skulls of both animals read it again, and Alister Hardy seems to share the same view as Milton or vice versa: “From Sir Alister Hardy's work, The Living Stream, the following illustrations will show how remarkably close in structural detail such parallels may be. The desert rat and the Jerboa are dearly responding to environmental pressures by developing the same exceptional overall form, which enables them to move quickly in loose sand by jumping like a kangaroo rather than by running. The Tasmanian wolf skull cannot be told apart from the skull of the North American or European wolf . The range of variability in both overlaps. Even more remarkable is the close similarity between the placental and marsupial moles, which have developed almost identical "digging" feet, nose and mouth configuration, eye structure, and ear openings designed to prevent particles entering the ear hole.”

http://custance.org/Library/Volume4/Part_III/wolf.gif

Wicknight wrote: »

Or the option behind door number 3 - Darwinian evolution by natural selection (see my post about the Nile)

I already read it and it is complete an utter nonsense if you ask me. You’re flimsy analogy has nothing to do with natural selection couple with random mutations only gravity and water.

Soul Winner

Myksyk wrote: »

Hi Soul Winner. This stood out for me as I don't think anyone who has a grasp of the theory of evolution by natural selection would ever ask this question. Why not? Because anyone who understands the theory knows that the nature of genetically based evolutionary transition means that there is no one transitional link (implied in you use of the word 'the'). They would further understand that apes and man have a common ancestor but that man is not descended from apes. They would grasp the idea that the transition, by its nature, is likely to be exceedingly incremental and difficult to see in the fossil record. They would also understand that the claim regarding a link is based on much more evidence than reliance on digging up 'the' transitional link out of the Kenyan forest floors. They would understand that the claim being made would produce obvious testable theses that should be verifiable (and are) ... for example, if man and apes are closer to each other on the evolutionary tree their genetic codes should reflect this by being more similar than those claimed to be further away from them on the tree - this is the case. I'm sure there are many more reasons why your question can be said to reflect a seriously naive view of the theory you are questioning. If this thread is an attempt by you to become more familiar with the actual facts of the theory then fair dues to you.

It's the squeaking hinge that gets the oil. You're onto me aren't you?

No in all honesty that is not what I was doing. If humans are not decended from apes then what does this picture mean?

http://www.detectingdesign.com/images/DefiningEvolution/Ape%20to%20Man.jpg

Scofflaw

Soul Winner wrote: »

He’s not against science; he’s a Science Journalist for crying out loud.

Soul Winner wrote: »

If Milton has disproved evolution why is he doing so in a popular science book, rather than a scientific paper?

I think they would take away his funding.

How does one take away a science journalist's funding, exactly? Should we ask JC, perhaps?

cordially,
Scofflaw

sdep

Soul Winner wrote: »

He was referring to the skulls of both animals read it again, and Alister Hardy seems to share the same view as Milton or vice versa: “From Sir Alister Hardy's work, The Living Stream, the following illustrations will show how remarkably close in structural detail such parallels may be. The desert rat and the Jerboa are dearly responding to environmental pressures by developing the same exceptional overall form, which enables them to move quickly in loose sand by jumping like a kangaroo rather than by running. The Tasmanian wolf skull cannot be told apart from the skull of the North American or European wolf . The range of variability in both overlaps. Even more remarkable is the close similarity between the placental and marsupial moles, which have developed almost identical "digging" feet, nose and mouth configuration, eye structure, and ear openings designed to prevent particles entering the ear hole.”

This paper shows, using DNA evidence, that the thylacine is more closely related to Australasian marsupial mammals than the Western hemisphere marsupials, and still further from the placental mammals.

This diagram shows, using DNA evidence, that the carnivora, including canids, are evolutionarily very distinct from the marsupials.

So wolves and thylacines look fairly alike - because they've been subject to similar selection pressures - but when you look at the DNA, they're different.

I think I've said quite enough in this thread by now.

Scofflaw

sdep wrote: »

This paper shows, using DNA evidence, that the thylacine is more closely related to Australasian marsupial mammals than the Western hemisphere marsupials, and still further from the placental mammals.

This diagram shows, using DNA evidence, that the carnivora, including canids, are evolutionarily very distinct from the marsupials.

So wolves and thylacines look fairly alike - because they've been subject to similar selection pressures - but when you look at the DNA, they're different.

I think I've said quite enough in this thread by now.

I think at this stage the evidence points firmly in the direction of Soul Winner not being interested in evidence. He should join us on the Creationism thread, really.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Myksyk

Soul Winner wrote: »

It's the squeaking hinge that gets the oil. You're onto me aren't you?

No in all honesty that is not what I was doing. If humans are not decended from apes then what does this picture mean?

http://www.detectingdesign.com/images/DefiningEvolution/Ape%20to%20Man.jpg

Simple ... it's the 'march of man' icon which unfortunately was dreamed up by someone with a simplistic understandiong of evolution. Be careful not to base your ideas about substantial scientific theories on artist's impressions.

Was it Gould or Dawkins who was driven demented by the confusing message of this picture?

sdep

Scofflaw wrote: »

I think at this stage the evidence points firmly in the direction of Soul Winner not being interested in evidence. He should join us on the Creationism thread, really.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Agreed.

Scofflaw

Myksyk wrote: »

Simple ... it's the 'march of man' icon which unfortunately was dreamed up by someone with a simplistic understandiong of evolution. Be careful not to base your ideas about substantial scientific theories on artist's impressions.

Was it Gould or Dawkins who was driven demented by the confusing message of this picture?

So at this stage it's a book by a scientific journalist (and engineer, and Mensa member) and an artist's impression - versus 150 years of scientific inquiry...

cordially,
Scofflaw

Myksyk

I like this response by Weisenberg to Jonathan Wells. An F indeed!