| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Iain" |
| Date: |
26 Jan 2005 03:11:43 PM |
| Object: |
"Teach evolution" |
People of these groups often talk about the teaching of evolution in schools
as if it is something dislocateable. I went to a British school, and
evolution wasn't taught as a sub-topic, but as an integrated theme to
biology, just as spelling is an integrated theme to English. I expect this
applies to science classes worldwide. It is important to remember how
integrated the theory of evolution is with modern biology and how incredibly
backwardsly revised and uncohesive the lessons would need to be to even try
to have a fruitful science course without it.
~Iain
.
|
|
| User: "Dave Oldridge" |
|
| Title: Re: "Teach evolution" |
26 Jan 2005 03:55:49 PM |
|
|
"Iain" <iain_ink_remove_ster@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:ct8bvf$h3k$1@titan.btinternet.com:
People of these groups often talk about the teaching of evolution in
schools as if it is something dislocateable. I went to a British
school, and evolution wasn't taught as a sub-topic, but as an
integrated theme to biology, just as spelling is an integrated theme
to English. I expect this applies to science classes worldwide. It is
important to remember how integrated the theory of evolution is with
modern biology and how incredibly backwardsly revised and uncohesive
the lessons would need to be to even try to have a fruitful science
course without it.
Yet, when I went to school here in the 50's that's exactly what they
tried to do. I think evolution got some coverage in the final year if
you took a biology major (wouldn't know, though, as I was so turned off
by the treatment in earlier years I opted for chem and physics).
Now, when I took his Bio 101 and 102 courses at SFU in the 60's, Fulton
Fisher made no bones about it. The course was about evolution.
--
Dave Oldridge+
ICQ 1800667
A false witness is worse than no witness at all.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Jonathan Bartlett" |
|
| Title: Re: "Teach evolution" |
26 Jan 2005 09:07:12 PM |
|
|
Iain wrote:
It is important to remember how
integrated the theory of evolution is with modern biology and how incredibly
backwardsly revised and uncohesive the lessons would need to be to even try
to have a fruitful science course without it.
In what way? What, besides evolution, requires evolution to understand?
Jon
.
|
|
|
| User: "Richard Forrest" |
|
| Title: Re: "Teach evolution" |
27 Jan 2005 03:14:34 PM |
|
|
Biology
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Joe Shelby" |
|
| Title: Re: "Teach evolution" |
27 Jan 2005 01:27:43 AM |
|
|
Jonathan Bartlett wrote:
Iain wrote:
It is important to remember how
integrated the theory of evolution is with modern biology and how incredibly
backwardsly revised and uncohesive the lessons would need to be to even try
to have a fruitful science course without it.
In what way? What, besides evolution, requires evolution to understand?
its deeper than that, and hardly self-referential. when they say
evolution is the unifying concept of modern biology, they mean it.
saying species X has this trait, and species Y has another is all good
and well for taxonomists, and saying "because god made them that way" is
good enough for creationists, but for someone looking for why species W,
that looks and acts similarly to species X and Y dosen't have that
trait, "because god made them that way" isn't going to cut it.
linneus taxonomy shows that all animals fit into particular categories,
but not why beyond "because god made them that way".
2 species of the same type of animal on separate islands in the
galapogos are still slightly different, seemingly for no reason other
than cosmetics. why?
some moth species, in spite of having very different color patterns in
visible light, all reflect similar patterns in the ultra-violet
spectrum. why?
australia is full of marsupials, a type of mammal that otherwise only
exists in *one* species outside of it, here in north america. why?
chickens carry the genetic instructions for growing teeth, and they also
contain instructions that actually supress the hormone that triggers
that growth -- reintroduce that hormone, and a reptile tooth grows. why?
outside of the influence of man or disease, most ecological niches reach
a state of equilibrium, where predator-prey ratios reach a point of
stability. though the predators and prey may be different, the ratios
are generally consistent throughout the world (and throughout the fossil
record). why?
hunting animals tend to have forward-facing eyes, big ears, and an
incredible sense of smell; nocturnal creatures tend to be colorblind;
rabbits and most rodents don't make much noise with their vocal chords;
mountain goats are able to climb what appears to be a 90 degree
rock-face, and yet mountain lions are still able to hunt them; why?
the application of evolutionary theory answers every single one of those
questions. no other theory does in a way that remains consistent with
all of the other observations of biological nature.
to not know evolution is to not know one useful thing about life,
because you can't answer the question "why?"
not why in the philosophical search for Truth, but why in the "what
sequence of events led to this state that we see today?" the true why
of science.
without evolution, the science of biology has no answers at all.
without evolution, biology ceases to be a science; it would be only a
classification system, requiring no creative thought, only rules and
policies. an easier life, sure, but true science was never easy.
Joe
.
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: "Teach evolution" |
27 Jan 2005 03:15:03 AM |
|
|
On Wed, 26 Jan 2005 20:27:43 -0500, Joe Shelby <acroyear@NOSPAMio.com>
said in alt.atheism:
without evolution, the science of biology has no answers at all.
without evolution, biology ceases to be a science; it would be only a
classification system, requiring no creative thought, only rules and
policies. an easier life, sure, but true science was never easy.
"Nothing in biology makes sense without evolution."
- Theodosuis Dobzhansky
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Jonathan Bartlett" |
|
| Title: Re: "Teach evolution" |
28 Jan 2005 03:46:27 PM |
|
|
The why? questions are equally applicable in both creationism and
evolution.
without evolution, the science of biology has no answers at all.
without evolution, biology ceases to be a science; it would be only a
classification system, requiring no creative thought, only rules and
policies. an easier life, sure, but true science was never easy.
Just because you think that religion removes the why? questions does not
make it so.
Jon
.
|
|
|
| User: "Joe Shelby" |
|
| Title: Re: "Teach evolution" |
28 Jan 2005 11:20:09 PM |
|
|
Jonathan Bartlett wrote:
The why? questions are equally applicable in both creationism and
evolution.
my paragraph above this cut below was:
not why in the philosophical search for Truth, but why in the "what
sequence of events led to this state that we see today?" the true why
of science.
like with "theory" and "prove", I used the word "why" in the way
scientists use it, not in the way the general public does.
without evolution, the science of biology has no answers at all.
without evolution, biology ceases to be a science; it would be only a
classification system, requiring no creative thought, only rules and
policies. an easier life, sure, but true science was never easy.
Just because you think that religion removes the why? questions does not
make it so.
yes, at any (or every, as the YECers go) question, one can snap back
with the answer "Because God made it that way."
that's perfectly valid within that kind of religion.
also utterly useless for the rest of mankind. they might call that an
education. I call it brainwashing.
in addition, stopping at "Because God made it that way" immediately
STOPS, in that the next question inevitably is "why?" again to which
there will never be an answer. hitting against interpretations of the
will of the almighty 6000 years ago (as far as YECers go) immediately
becomes a dead-end, philosophically.
Joe
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jonathan Bartlett" |
|
| Title: Re: "Teach evolution" |
31 Jan 2005 11:02:40 PM |
|
|
yes, at any (or every, as the YECers go) question, one can snap back
with the answer "Because God made it that way."
that's perfectly valid within that kind of religion.
That is true of any question of motive, whether it is of the Creator or
individuals.
also utterly useless for the rest of mankind. they might call that an
education. I call it brainwashing.
Have you ever said "I don't understand, but I know my wife wants it that
way." It's great to persue the understanding, but understanding is not
required for believing it is happening.
Just because you wish there was a better answer, does not make the type
of answer you wish for correct.
in addition, stopping at "Because God made it that way" immediately
STOPS, in that the next question inevitably is "why?" again to which
there will never be an answer.
Why not? A lot of the history of science comes from theologians asking
why God made it that way.
Jon
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: "Teach evolution" |
27 Jan 2005 02:02:45 AM |
|
|
On Wed, 26 Jan 2005 16:07:12 -0500, Jonathan Bartlett
<johnnyb@eskimo.com> said in alt.atheism:
In what way? What, besides evolution, requires evolution to understand?
Explain why and how super bugs come to be without using anything
having to do with evolution.
Explain why last year's flu vaccine isn't effective this year without
using anything having to do with evolution.
--
"Christians, it is needless to say, utterly detest each other. They slander each
other constantly with the vilest forms of abuse and cannot come to any sort of
agreement in their teachings. Each sect brands its own, fills the head of its own
with deceitful nonsense, and makes perfect little pigs of those it wins over to its
side."
- Celsus On the True Doctrine, translated by R. Joseph Hoffman, Oxford University Press, 1987
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
rukbat at verizon dot net
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jonathan Bartlett" |
|
| Title: Re: "Teach evolution" |
28 Jan 2005 03:52:39 PM |
|
|
Explain why last year's flu vaccine isn't effective this year without
using anything having to do with evolution.
If you mean, without using genetics, you are creating a straw man.
Genetics was founded on the work of a creationist. Likewise, even
though Linneaus believed in fixity of species does not mean that all
creationists must believe in fixity of the species, and in fact I have
not met a creationist who knew biology and believed in fixity of the
species.
In fact, most creationists believe in natural selection and mutation (as
well as epigenetic means of change), but just not in universal common
ancestry. Also, they generally believe that mutations do not increase
the complexity of an organism, even though specific mutations may be
beneficial (i.e., beneficial is not necessarily the same as increasing
complexity).
Specifically, creationists actually believe in a faster speciation than
evolutionists, but a speciation within bounds.
Now, if you modified the argument to say that _genetics_ was the
unifying theory in biology, I would largely agree with you. However,
one can easily believe genetics without believing in universal common
ancestry.
Jon
.
|
|
|
| User: "Cary Kittrell" |
|
| Title: Re: "Teach evolution" |
28 Jan 2005 05:43:18 PM |
|
|
In article <41fa6e86@news.tulsaconnect.com> Jonathan Bartlett <johnnyb@eskimo.com> writes:
Explain why last year's flu vaccine isn't effective this year without
using anything having to do with evolution.
If you mean, without using genetics, you are creating a straw man.
Genetics was founded on the work of a creationist. Likewise, even
though Linneaus believed in fixity of species does not mean that all
creationists must believe in fixity of the species, and in fact I have
not met a creationist who knew biology and believed in fixity of the
species.
In fact, most creationists believe in natural selection and mutation (as
well as epigenetic means of change), but just not in universal common
ancestry.
Fair enough.
Also, they generally believe that mutations do not increase
the complexity of an organism, even though specific mutations may be
beneficial (i.e., beneficial is not necessarily the same as increasing
complexity).
Hmmm. How about this one:
step 1) an existing gene is "accidentally" duplicated during
copying, a well known phenomenon.
step 2) one copy subsequently undergoes mutation, the other
does not.
outcome: original organism has gene `A', and produces protein `X'.
modified organism retains gene `A', continues producing
`X' -- but now also possesses a new gene, `B', which
manufactures a novel protein, let's call it `Y'.
There are well-known apparent examples of this (e.g: the human gene for
hemoglobin). Is this not an increment in complexity?
Specifically, creationists actually believe in a faster speciation than
evolutionists, but a speciation within bounds.
So this is the category of "kinds", then? I'm curious -- you don't
seem to identify "kinds" with "species", as you freely use the
term "speciation", so what would the word "kinds" mean to you?
Or am I making an unwarranted assumption here?
-- cary
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jonathan Bartlett" |
|
| Title: Re: "Teach evolution" |
28 Jan 2005 08:05:52 PM |
|
|
Hmmm. How about this one:
step 1) an existing gene is "accidentally" duplicated during
copying, a well known phenomenon.
step 2) one copy subsequently undergoes mutation, the other
does not.
outcome: original organism has gene `A', and produces protein `X'.
modified organism retains gene `A', continues producing
`X' -- but now also possesses a new gene, `B', which
manufactures a novel protein, let's call it `Y'.
There are well-known apparent examples of this (e.g: the human gene for
hemoglobin). Is this not an increment in complexity?
My point was not to prove creationism (though I am a creationist) but
instead to correct misconceptions about what creationists believe and
why saying "evolution" is the foundation of biology pretends to indicate
a number of things about alternate beliefs which are not true. Anyway,
in this example you gave, there is not an increase in complexity (at
least as you specified it) because you have not shown any interactions.
Complexity is not measured by the number of genes, but by their
interaction, and their specificity within a mechanism.
Specifically, creationists actually believe in a faster speciation than
evolutionists, but a speciation within bounds.
So this is the category of "kinds", then? I'm curious -- you don't
seem to identify "kinds" with "species", as you freely use the
term "speciation", so what would the word "kinds" mean to you?
Or am I making an unwarranted assumption here?
For the creationist, "kinds" are a historical, not biological reference.
While evolutionists believe in universal common ancestry, creationists
believe in multiple created kinds. A "kind" is one of the ancestry
starting points. Change can happen. Some change is from built-in
adaptations, some from selection of attributes within a population, some
from environmental changes, and some from mutations. However, change
cannot increase biological complexity, at least on any large scale.
Jon
.
|
|
|
| User: "Cary Kittrell" |
|
| Title: Re: "Teach evolution" |
28 Jan 2005 09:24:12 PM |
|
|
In article <41faa9df$1@news.tulsaconnect.com> Jonathan Bartlett <johnnyb@eskimo.com> writes:
Hmmm. How about this one:
step 1) an existing gene is "accidentally" duplicated during
copying, a well known phenomenon.
step 2) one copy subsequently undergoes mutation, the other
does not.
outcome: original organism has gene `A', and produces protein `X'.
modified organism retains gene `A', continues producing
`X' -- but now also possesses a new gene, `B', which
manufactures a novel protein, let's call it `Y'.
There are well-known apparent examples of this (e.g: the human gene for
hemoglobin). Is this not an increment in complexity?
My point was not to prove creationism (though I am a creationist) but
instead to correct misconceptions about what creationists believe and
why saying "evolution" is the foundation of biology pretends to indicate
a number of things about alternate beliefs which are not true.
Yes, I understood that. And I think that is an intellectually
supportable viewpoint.
Anyway,
in this example you gave, there is not an increase in complexity (at
least as you specified it) because you have not shown any interactions.
Complexity is not measured by the number of genes, but by their
interaction, and their specificity within a mechanism.
However, this I did not understand. My mutatant now has the ability
to produce a new protein which the vanilla organism did not. Additional
code has been added to the program, to look it from my viewpoint
as a programmer. I don't see why this is not increased information --
the program now takes more bytes to specify than did the original--
nor, on the other hand, I suppose I do not see why any further reactions
this new reactant might participate WOULD constitute new information.
Specifically, creationists actually believe in a faster speciation than
evolutionists, but a speciation within bounds.
So this is the category of "kinds", then? I'm curious -- you don't
seem to identify "kinds" with "species", as you freely use the
term "speciation", so what would the word "kinds" mean to you?
Or am I making an unwarranted assumption here?
For the creationist, "kinds" are a historical, not biological reference.
While evolutionists believe in universal common ancestry, creationists
believe in multiple created kinds. A "kind" is one of the ancestry
starting points. Change can happen. Some change is from built-in
adaptations, some from selection of attributes within a population, some
from environmental changes, and some from mutations. However, change
cannot increase biological complexity, at least on any large scale.
So you wouldn't pair up "kinds" with any of the traditional
taxonomic classifications, then?
One last question: spontaneous local increases in complexity
have been demonstrated in physical systems, in chemical
systems, in naturally occuring meterological systems,
and in randomly-mutating compter code. Does it strike
you as impossible that this could happen in biological
systems as well?
-- cary
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jonathan Bartlett" |
|
| Title: Re: "Teach evolution" |
29 Jan 2005 04:24:31 PM |
|
|
However, this I did not understand. My mutatant now has the ability
to produce a new protein which the vanilla organism did not. Additional
code has been added to the program, to look it from my viewpoint
as a programmer. I don't see why this is not increased information --
the program now takes more bytes to specify than did the original--
nor, on the other hand, I suppose I do not see why any further reactions
this new reactant might participate WOULD constitute new information.
More bytes != more complexity. Lee Spetner's criteria for increasing
complexity is fairly good:
* Level of catalytic activity
* Specificity with respect to the substrate
* Strength of binding to cell structure
* Specificity of binding to cell structure
* Specificity of the amino-acid sequence devoted to specifying the
enzyme for degradation
Basically, for it to count as increasing complexity, it has to work in a
way that is better for the whole lifecycle of activity, and in a way
that is specific and sequenced. Simply having a slightly modified copy
of an old gene doesn't do that.
In computer programming, it's possible for a program with some corrupted
bytes to continue functioning. However, even if it the corruption
caused the number of bytes to increase (although I don't know of an
error that would do that to a program, except perhaps maybe a
terminating character got erased or somethign), that DOES NOT mean that
the program is better, more functional, or is more complex than the
original. Although it's possible that a random modification to a
program might cause something beneficial to happen, it is not really
possible for any sequence of random modifications (even if they were
selected out -- actually, especially if they were selected out) to
generate entirely new, functional screens that process data.
Jon
.
|
|
|
| User: "Cary Kittrell" |
|
| Title: Re: "Teach evolution" |
01 Feb 2005 05:11:19 PM |
|
|
In article <41fbc781$1@news.tulsaconnect.com> Jonathan Bartlett <johnnyb@eskimo.com> writes:
However, this I did not understand. My mutatant now has the ability
to produce a new protein which the vanilla organism did not. Additional
code has been added to the program, to look it from my viewpoint
as a programmer. I don't see why this is not increased information --
the program now takes more bytes to specify than did the original--
nor, on the other hand, I suppose I do not see why any further reactions
this new reactant might participate WOULD constitute new information.
More bytes != more complexity. Lee Spetner's criteria for increasing
complexity is fairly good:
* Level of catalytic activity
* Specificity with respect to the substrate
* Strength of binding to cell structure
* Specificity of binding to cell structure
* Specificity of the amino-acid sequence devoted to specifying the
enzyme for degradation
Basically, for it to count as increasing complexity, it has to work in a
way that is better for the whole lifecycle of activity, and in a way
that is specific and sequenced. Simply having a slightly modified copy
of an old gene doesn't do that.
Ah, I see now. We've really been talking about two different things.
I'm arguing against the old canard that mutation cannot increase
"genetic information", a slightly vague claim frequently made by creationists,
while you've actually been saying something a bit different:
"does this increased information lead to something useful?", if
that's a fair paraphrase.
I don't see why it could not. More often than not it wouldn't,
necessarily (in fact, more often than not it would have no
effect), but I still fail to see any a priori reason increased
genetic information could not lead to a useful protein -- and thus,
if I understand your criteria, more complex system.
Certainly in humans the three varieties of hemoglobin which
seem to have arisen by the above mechanism have three slightly
different functions: one is found in embryos, one somewhat
later on, and one in adults.
In computer programming, it's possible for a program with some corrupted
bytes to continue functioning. However, even if it the corruption
caused the number of bytes to increase (although I don't know of an
error that would do that to a program, except perhaps maybe a
terminating character got erased or somethign), that DOES NOT mean that
the program is better, more functional, or is more complex than the
original. Although it's possible that a random modification to a
program might cause something beneficial to happen, it is not really
possible for any sequence of random modifications (even if they were
selected out -- actually, especially if they were selected out) to
generate entirely new, functional screens that process data.
If you're going to specify in advance what your mutated code will
produce (an entirely new functional screen which processes
data), then you're probably right, this might never happen.
However, empirical experimentation with randomly mutated computer
code in self-replicating programs, self-copying programs which have one byte
randomly changed and then are subject to selection (the
simplest kind of selection, too: if the program can no
longer copy itself, than the program can no longer copy
itself) -- this kind of experimental setup has been shown
to lead, and lead quickly, to the most astonishing kinds
of "new organisms". The results of some of these mutation-selection-
reproduction experiments are almost literally unbelievable.
I will try to pick up a book at home tonight and type in a
few examples. Fascinating stuff.
-- cary
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "John Popelish" |
|
| Title: Re: "Teach evolution" |
28 Jan 2005 10:07:44 PM |
|
|
Jonathan Bartlett wrote:
(snip)
For the creationist, "kinds" are a historical, not biological reference.
While evolutionists believe in universal common ancestry, creationists
believe in multiple created kinds. A "kind" is one of the ancestry
starting points. Change can happen. Some change is from built-in
adaptations, some from selection of attributes within a population, some
from environmental changes, and some from mutations. However, change
cannot increase biological complexity, at least on any large scale.
Speaking as a creationist, what would be the observable
characteristics that would enable one to measure whether any given
species was derived from any given kind or another? This would be a
prediction that could be tested. Of course, a list of kinds to choose
between would be essential. Can you provide that, as well?
--
John Popelish
.
|
|
|
| User: "Cary Kittrell" |
|
| Title: Re: "Teach evolution" |
28 Jan 2005 10:14:41 PM |
|
|
In article <41FAB7B0.8BC0B345@rica.net> John Popelish <jpopelish@rica.net> writes:
Jonathan Bartlett wrote:
(snip)
For the creationist, "kinds" are a historical, not biological reference.
While evolutionists believe in universal common ancestry, creationists
believe in multiple created kinds. A "kind" is one of the ancestry
starting points. Change can happen. Some change is from built-in
adaptations, some from selection of attributes within a population, some
from environmental changes, and some from mutations. However, change
cannot increase biological complexity, at least on any large scale.
Speaking as a creationist, what would be the observable
characteristics that would enable one to measure whether any given
species was derived from any given kind or another? This would be a
prediction that could be tested. Of course, a list of kinds to choose
between would be essential. Can you provide that, as well?
Heck, Adam named `em all ("beetle...beetle...beetle...beetle...")
and in a short time, apparently, so I'm guessing it wouldn't
be a thumping huge list.
-- cary
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Joe Blow" |
|
| Title: Re: "Teach evolution" |
28 Jan 2005 05:50:27 PM |
|
|
Jonathan Bartlett wrote:
<snip>
Specifically, creationists actually believe in a faster speciation than
evolutionists, but a speciation within bounds.
<snip>
This sounds like you are starting to make a move at defining that
ellusive "Scientific Theory of Creationism". Care to take a stab
at the whole thing at least in general terms?
oe
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jonathan Bartlett" |
|
| Title: Re: "Teach evolution" |
28 Jan 2005 08:13:27 PM |
|
|
This sounds like you are starting to make a move at defining that
ellusive "Scientific Theory of Creationism". Care to take a stab
at the whole thing at least in general terms?
Not really, because creationism is a historical proposition, not a
scientific one. I don't have a scientific theory for the reign of
Emporer Nero, although I believe it happened. When dealing with a
historical event, you can look at evidence, but you can't postulate a
scientific theory. In addition, your evidence will be much more tainted
by your worldview than on an experiment that can be repeated.
Jon
.
|
|
|
| User: "Steven J." |
|
| Title: Re: "Teach evolution" |
29 Jan 2005 06:48:39 AM |
|
|
"Jonathan Bartlett" <johnnyb@eskimo.com> wrote in message
news:41faaba6$1@news.tulsaconnect.com...
This sounds like you are starting to make a move at defining that
ellusive "Scientific Theory of Creationism". Care to take a stab
at the whole thing at least in general terms?
Not really, because creationism is a historical proposition, not a
scientific one. I don't have a scientific theory for the reign of
Emporer Nero, although I believe it happened. When dealing with a
historical event, you can look at evidence, but you can't postulate a
scientific theory. In addition, your evidence will be much more tainted
by your worldview than on an experiment that can be repeated.
But there are theories about history. For example, in his book _The
Peloponnesian War_, Donald Kagan discusses various theories about why the
Athenians acted the way they did in the years leading up to the war. If,
for example, they were intent on expanding their empire, he would expect
them to act, whenever the opportunity offered itself, to gain more colonies
and allies, but they often declined to do so. So he tends to regard this
hypothesis as falsified. You can't run experiments in history, but you can
examine many different situations to see if the rules you formulated to
explain event A yield the observed results in events B, C, D, and so forth.
It's sloppier than chemistry, because historical events are much more
complex, and therefor more various, than chemical reactions, and it's harder
to control for various causes. But the fact that history is past, not
present, doesn't prevent the formulation of testable theories. Note, by the
way, that multiple historians can separately examine various events, and
various aspects of events, to "repeat" tests of historical hypotheses. It's
not necessary to refight the wars between Sparta and Athens, or reassasinate
Nero, to reexamine the historical records or other surviving facts.
In the case of common descent, it's easy enough to determine the results
that would be expected -- and the sort of results that would definitely not
be expected -- from a process of gradual common descent, and to see if these
results are observed. The results (even the fossils) exist in the present,
and can be examined in the present; we don't need to be able to observe the
past directly. By the same token, one might expect there to be some
testable consequences in the present if known species fell into multiple,
unrelated created kinds, rather than all sharing more or less remote common
ancestors. For my own part, I would not expect, e.g. that humans would
share a GULO pseudogene disabled in the same way as ape and monkey GULO
pseudogenes, but differently from guinea pig pseudogenes. This depends, of
course, on assumptions about how the Creator would design and implement His
designs, but I would think an actual theory of creation could come up with
something on that subject.
Jon
-- Steven J.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jonathan Bartlett" |
|
| Title: Re: "Teach evolution" |
29 Jan 2005 04:39:55 PM |
|
|
But there are theories about history.
None of which are scientific.
For example, in his book _The
Peloponnesian War_, Donald Kagan discusses various theories about why the
Athenians acted the way they did in the years leading up to the war. If,
for example, they were intent on expanding their empire, he would expect
them to act, whenever the opportunity offered itself, to gain more colonies
and allies, but they often declined to do so. So he tends to regard this
hypothesis as falsified.
What scientific method did he use to do this? Is this really a
repeatable experiment that could be performed? Note the underlying
assumption -- "If, for example, they were intent on expanding their
empire, he would expect them to act, whenever the opportunity offered
itself, to gain more colonies and allies, but they often declined to do
so". If this is the quality of evidence used, well, it's an interesting
mental exercise, but we don't know all of the considerations they were
using. It's hardly a scientific inquiry -- it's mostly based on your
assumptions of how the world operates.
You can't run experiments in history, but you can
examine many different situations to see if the rules you formulated to
explain event A yield the observed results in events B, C, D, and so forth.
It's sloppier than chemistry, because historical events are much more
complex, and therefor more various, than chemical reactions, and it's harder
to control for various causes. But the fact that history is past, not
present, doesn't prevent the formulation of testable theories.
Yes it does. Think about linear programming. No matter what the set of
historical data, you can devise a linear equation to represent it.
That does not mean that your equation is correct, it just means that
you've happened to put in the time to create an equation. In order to
prove that your linear equation is correct, it would have to be subject
to ongoing experimentation with, as you said, controls for various
causes. This is not testable, it is simply linear programming. In
addition, many such historical theories assume the outcome. Take Noam
Chomsky, for instance, who assumes that anyone who has power is by
necessity abusing it. Since at any time you can find someone getting
the short end of the stick and someone in power, he assumes that his
theory is proved. Who is to disprove it? You can't, really, because
you can't go back and see if the good intentions were just propoganda,
or if those who were oppressed were just whining and picked the biggest
guy on the block to whine about. It's ultimately untestable.
Note, by the
way, that multiple historians can separately examine various events, and
various aspects of events, to "repeat" tests of historical hypotheses. It's
not necessary to refight the wars between Sparta and Athens, or reassasinate
Nero, to reexamine the historical records or other surviving facts.
But this is much different than experimental science, and the results
are much more tenuous. You do not have the certainty with such that you
have with experimental science. Since we can't go back and refight the
wars between Sparta and Athens, we have no way of knowing if the
histories were accurate or if they were just propoganda pieces.
In the case of common descent, it's easy enough to determine the results
that would be expected -- and the sort of results that would definitely not
be expected -- from a process of gradual common descent, and to see if these
results are observed. The results (even the fossils) exist in the present,
and can be examined in the present; we don't need to be able to observe the
past directly.
Given the short history of science, you really have to assume gradualism
and uniformitarianism to make such an inquiry, yet science has not been
around long enough to make such an assumption with force.
By the same token, one might expect there to be some
testable consequences in the present if known species fell into multiple,
unrelated created kinds, rather than all sharing more or less remote common
ancestors. For my own part, I would not expect, e.g. that humans would
share a GULO pseudogene disabled in the same way as ape and monkey GULO
pseudogenes, but differently from guinea pig pseudogenes. This depends, of
course, on assumptions about how the Creator would design and implement His
designs,
It also depends on assumptions about pseudogenes.
but I would think an actual theory of creation could come up with
something on that subject.
Well, if you want my personal, unscientific take on it, from the
perspective of a software developer, I've always thought that the world
looks like it was designed using design patterns and not a straight
heirarchy. The marsupials seem to be indicative of such a pattern,
specifically the marsupial wolf, where most of the features that
distinguished it from a placental wolf are based on the fact that the
marsupial design pattern is used. This would also explain a lot of the
strange results of molecular phylogenic analysis.
However, I wouldn't put a lot of weight into that, as I'm fairly new to
the subject.
Jon
.
|
|
|
| User: "Steven J." |
|
| Title: Re: "Teach evolution" |
30 Jan 2005 05:26:37 AM |
|
|
"Jonathan Bartlett" <johnnyb@eskimo.com> wrote in message
news:41fbcb1e$1@news.tulsaconnect.com...
-- [snip]
Note, by the
way, that multiple historians can separately examine various events, and
various aspects of events, to "repeat" tests of historical hypotheses.
It's
not necessary to refight the wars between Sparta and Athens, or
reassasinate
Nero, to reexamine the historical records or other surviving facts.
But this is much different than experimental science, and the results
are much more tenuous. You do not have the certainty with such that you
have with experimental science. Since we can't go back and refight the
wars between Sparta and Athens, we have no way of knowing if the
histories were accurate or if they were just propoganda pieces.
Not only that, we have very few histories in the first place, so the
historian is trying to develop and test theories of a very complicated
phenomenon based on very limited data. But while biology may be as
complicated as history, there's rather more data surviving.
In the case of common descent, it's easy enough to determine the results
that would be expected -- and the sort of results that would definitely
not
be expected -- from a process of gradual common descent, and to see if
these
results are observed. The results (even the fossils) exist in the
present,
and can be examined in the present; we don't need to be able to observe
the
past directly.
Given the short history of science, you really have to assume gradualism
and uniformitarianism to make such an inquiry, yet science has not been
around long enough to make such an assumption with force.
I'm not sure I follow your reasoning here, or even your point. I have
claimed that one does not need to assume gradualism; there are observations
that can distinguish between gradual and catastrophic causes. As for
"uniformitarianism" and the short history of science, what is your
suggestion? That the laws of physics might have been different (albeit in a
way that cannot be detected) a thousand or ten thousand years ago?
By the same token, one might expect there to be some
testable consequences in the present if known species fell into multiple,
unrelated created kinds, rather than all sharing more or less remote
common
ancestors. For my own part, I would not expect, e.g. that humans would
share a GULO pseudogene disabled in the same way as ape and monkey GULO
pseudogenes, but differently from guinea pig pseudogenes. This depends,
of
course, on assumptions about how the Creator would design and implement
His
designs,
It also depends on assumptions about pseudogenes.
Which assumptions? I do not assume that pseudogenes are entirely lacking in
function (though that's probably a good guess for most of them). I assume
that they are vestigial structures -- that is, that they have detailed
counterparts in other, similar organisms that have functions the pseudogenes
don't. Even if pseudogenes are all functional in some way, they are classic
examples of the problem of parahomology -- designs that share detailed
similarity, but serve clearly dissimilar functions. Common descent provides
a reason for why this homology should exist. Special creation and design,
at the very least, do not, and would seem to m
e to suggest that parahomology should not exist.
but I would think an actual theory of creation could come up with
something on that subject.
Well, if you want my personal, unscientific take on it, from the
perspective of a software developer, I've always thought that the world
looks like it was designed using design patterns and not a straight
heirarchy. The marsupials seem to be indicative of such a pattern,
specifically the marsupial wolf, where most of the features that
distinguished it from a placental wolf are based on the fact that the
marsupial design pattern is used. This would also explain a lot of the
strange results of molecular phylogenic analysis.
There are also differences in the dentition (the number and types of teeth).
There are certainly marsupial counterparts to many placental mammals
(although, when you consider that kangaroos are the closest marsupial
counterpart to deer, the hypothesized use of patterns seems odd and
inconsistent), but then, there are similar ecological niches in areas
inhabited by marsupials and by placental mammals, and both groups have
adapted to these niches by modifying mammalian features inherited from a
common ancestor.
I am aware that molecular phylogenic analysis has turned up a few surprises,
some quite large (such as the discovery -- later confirmed by fossils --
that whales are nested in the artiodactyls). But what strange results did
you have in mind, and how is it explained by "design patterns?" I have
never heard of any genes or proteins that, e.g. put kangaroos closer to deer
than to oppossums, or "marsupial mice" closer to rodents than to koalas, for
example.
However, I wouldn't put a lot of weight into that, as I'm fairly new to
the subject.
Jon
-- Steven J.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jonathan Bartlett" |
|
| Title: Re: "Teach evolution" |
31 Jan 2005 04:26:46 PM |
|
|
Not only that, we have very few histories in the first place, so the
historian is trying to develop and test theories of a very complicated
phenomenon based on very limited data. But while biology may be as
complicated as history, there's rather more data surviving.
But we have no contextual data, which is problematic, as there is
usually a lot more happening with any phenomena than would be presumed.
With histories, the accounts are at least given by someone who might
have knowledge of the intricate contexts that events take place in.
I'm not sure I follow your reasoning here, or even your point. I have
claimed that one does not need to assume gradualism; there are observations
that can distinguish between gradual and catastrophic causes. As for
"uniformitarianism" and the short history of science, what is your
suggestion? That the laws of physics might have been different (albeit in a
way that cannot be detected) a thousand or ten thousand years ago?
It is certainly possible. In addition, how would one go about detecting
how physics would be different? I find the phrase "in a way that cannot
be detected" interesting, because I'm not sure what criteria you would
use to know that physics had changed.
It also depends on assumptions about pseudogenes.
Which assumptions? I do not assume that pseudogenes are entirely lacking in
function (though that's probably a good guess for most of them). I assume
that they are vestigial structures -- that is, that they have detailed
counterparts in other, similar organisms that have functions the pseudogenes
don't. Even if pseudogenes are all functional in some way, they are classic
examples of the problem of parahomology -- designs that share detailed
similarity, but serve clearly dissimilar functions. Common descent provides
a reason for why this homology should exist. Special creation and design,
at the very least, do not, and would seem to me to suggest that parahomology should not exist.
But this is simply argument from ignorance. There are a number of
possibilities which I could suggest for many of them, but the truth is
that there has not been enough research. Basically, we have these genes
that we don't know what they do, so we just assign them "vestigal"
status. And they say Creationism stops scientific inquiry!
There are also differences in the dentition (the number and types of teeth).
There are certainly marsupial counterparts to many placental mammals
(although, when you consider that kangaroos are the closest marsupial
counterpart to deer, the hypothesized use of patterns seems odd and
inconsistent),
Not really. Design patterns does not mean that every organism has been
strictly created according to different design patterns, but that when
designing, design patterns were used. It's the difference between
looking at creation as a product of law versus a product of an
artist/artisan doing design. You cannot assign strict laws to how an
artisan works, although his creation usually follows a well-defined
method of working. However, you can often generally see the patterns
with which they work.
I am aware that molecular phylogenic analysis has turned up a few surprises,
some quite large (such as the discovery -- later confirmed by fossils --
that whales are nested in the artiodactyls). But what strange results did
you have in mind, and how is it explained by "design patterns?" I have
never heard of any genes or proteins that, e.g. put kangaroos closer to deer
than to oppossums, or "marsupial mice" closer to rodents than to koalas, for
example.
I'm not sure that such studies have been done, though it would be
interesting to find. However, my argument was that certain proteins
that were thought to be developed late were found nearly identically in
other animals not thought to be closely related, especially for that
protein/enzyme. I can't remember any examples, but I'll try to look it
up if I get the chance.
Jon
.
|
|
|
| User: "Steven J." |
|
| Title: Re: "Teach evolution" |
01 Feb 2005 12:45:22 AM |
|
|
"Jonathan Bartlett" <johnnyb@eskimo.com> wrote in message
news:41fe6b10$1@news.tulsaconnect.com...
Not only that, we have very few histories in the first place, so the
historian is trying to develop and test theories of a very complicated
phenomenon based on very limited data. But while biology may be as
complicated as history, there's rather more data surviving.
But we have no contextual data, which is problematic, as there is
usually a lot more happening with any phenomena than would be presumed.
With histories, the accounts are at least given by someone who might
have knowledge of the intricate contexts that events take place in.
And the people with the knowledge might or might not be motivated to report
them accurately. But I'm not sure what contextual data you think is
(entirely) missing in the case of evolutionary theory.
I'm not sure I follow your reasoning here, or even your point. I have
claimed that one does not need to assume gradualism; there are
observations
that can distinguish between gradual and catastrophic causes. As for
"uniformitarianism" and the short history of science, what is your
suggestion? That the laws of physics might have been different (albeit
in a
way that cannot be detected) a thousand or ten thousand years ago?
It is certainly possible. In addition, how would one go about detecting
how physics would be different? I find the phrase "in a way that cannot
be detected" interesting, because I'm not sure what criteria you would
use to know that physics had changed.
Let's take the classic possibility: change in radioactive decay rates at
some point in the past. Now, *if* all decay rates slowed down to the same
degree at the same time (e.g. at the time of Noah's Flood), and *if* some
means of dealing with effects of faster radioactive decay before that date
existed (if decay rates were hundreds of thousands of times faster in Noah's
day -- necessary for radiometric dating to be as far off as young-earth
creationists want -- then those more frequent decays ought to have generated
enough extra heat to boil the oceans and rivers), then we might well not be
able to detect the change in rates. Otherwise, geologists would note that
different radiometric dating techniques gave radically different results,
rather than, e.g. uranium-lead and potassium-argon dating giving similar
results, as they generally do.
But there seems no reason to assume that the rates would change to the exact
same extent, unless God were deliberately trying to deceive us by planting
false evidence of the Earth's age (trying, as it were, to trick us into
believing that Genesis was not literal accurate history). Small changes in
the decay rates of some isotopes have been produced by stripping electrons
from the core. This produces different degrees of change in different
isotopes. Obviously, there are no experiments to determine how changes to
the laws of physics would alter decay rates, but the above suggests that
they would alter them to very different extents, so that, as noted,
different methods of radiometric dating would disagree.
It also depends on assumptions about pseudogenes.
Which assumptions? I do not assume that pseudogenes are entirely lacking
in
function (though that's probably a good guess for most of them). I
assume
that they are vestigial structures -- that is, that they have detailed
counterparts in other, similar organisms that have functions the
pseudogenes
don't. Even if pseudogenes are all functional in some way, they are
classic
examples of the problem of parahomology -- designs that share detailed
similarity, but serve clearly dissimilar functions. Common descent
provides
a reason for why this homology should exist. Special creation and
design,
at the very least, do not, and would seem to me to suggest that
parahomology should not exist.
But this is simply argument from ignorance. There are a number of
possibilities which I could suggest for many of them, but the truth is
that there has not been enough research. Basically, we have these genes
that we don't know what they do, so we just assign them "vestigal"
status. And they say Creationism stops scientific inquiry!
No, this is not an argument from ignorance. The GULO pseudogene is not
called a pseudogene or a vestige because its function is unknown. Rather,
it is so designated because it is *known* to be homologous (that is, it is
known to have a detailed similarity in sequence) to functional GULO genes in
most other animals, and because it is *known* not to produce an enzyme that
helps make vitamin C. If it coded for that enzyme, humans wouldn't get
scurvy. For that matter, an organ with no discoverable function would not
qualify, merely on those grounds, as vestigial. If putatively related
species, living or fossil, had no trace of such an organ, or no functional
homologues to it, then what could it conceivably be a "vestige" of?
Rather, as noted, it is the combination of homology to a structure, that
performs some identified function, in a presumed ancestor or relative, with
the absence of that particular function (regardless of whatever other
functions it might serve) that marks a structure as homologous. Darwin
himself remarked that "an organ rendered, during changed habits of life,
useless or injurious for one purpose, might easily be modified and used for
another purpose. Or an organ might easily be retained for one alone of its
former functions." There was no period in the history of evolutionary
theory when vestigial structures were defined as necessarily functionless,
or recognized as vestigial merely because their function was unknown.
Note that I said that lack of function would be a good guess for *most*
pseudogenes (although I might be wrong about that). Some are known to have
functions, although they don't code for proteins. The discovery of these
functions was not prevented by the assumption of vestigiality, nor were they
removed from the list of pseudogenes when those functions were discovered.
There are also differences in the dentition (the number and types of
teeth).
There are certainly marsupial counterparts to many placental mammals
(although, when you consider that kangaroos are the closest marsupial
counterpart to deer, the hypothesized use of patterns seems odd and
inconsistent),
Not really. Design patterns does not mean that every organism has been
strictly created according to different design patterns, but that when
designing, design patterns were used. It's the difference between
looking at creation as a product of law versus a product of an
artist/artisan doing design. You cannot assign strict laws to how an
artisan works, although his creation usually follows a well-defined
method of working. However, you can often generally see the patterns
with which they work.
It still seems to me that common selective pressure, acting on traits
inherited from common ancestors, accounts for this at least as well. As
others have noted when "common design" arguments come up, the absence of
common design (different solutions to the same problems, like bat and
pterosaur wings) is as typical of life as parahomology (eerily similar
solutions to quite different problems, like the bones of a bat's wing or
whale's flipper). If lungfish can have both gills and lungs, why can't
dolphins (because their ancestors had lost their gills in the course of
evolution, and evolution rarely reinvents lost features in detail)? Why are
there no animals with both feathers and mammary glands, or both feathers and
three bones in the middle ear?
I am aware that molecular phylogenic analysis has turned up a few
surprises,
some quite large (such as the discovery -- later confirmed by fossils --
that whales are nested in the artiodactyls). But what strange results
did
you have in mind, and how is it explained by "design patterns?" I have
never heard of any genes or proteins that, e.g. put kangaroos closer to
deer
than to oppossums, or "marsupial mice" closer to rodents than to koalas,
for
example.
I'm not sure that such studies have been done, though it would be
interesting to find. However, my argument was that certain proteins
that were thought to be developed late were found nearly identically in
other animals not thought to be closely related, especially for that
protein/enzyme. I can't remember any examples, but I'll try to look it
up if I get the chance.
Jon
-- Steven J.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Sam" |
|
| Title: Re: "Teach evolution" |
28 Jan 2005 09:25:21 PM |
|
|
Jonathan Bartlett wrote:
This sounds like you are starting to make a move at defining that
ellusive "Scientific Theory of Creationism". Care to take a stab
at the whole thing at least in general terms?
Not really, because creationism is a historical proposition, not a
scientific one. I don't have a scientific theory for the reign of
Emporer Nero, although I believe it happened. When dealing with a
historical event, you can look at evidence, but you can't postulate a
scientific theory. In addition, your evidence will be much more tainted
by your worldview than on an experiment that can be repeated.
Jon
then why do they want to teach creation in science class?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jonathan Bartlett" |
|
| Title: Re: "Teach evolution" |
29 Jan 2005 04:26:26 PM |
|
|
then why do they want to teach creation in science class?
Because other historical arguments are being taught there (for example,
universal common ancestry).
Jon
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: "Teach evolution" |
30 Jan 2005 12:46:36 AM |
|
|
Jonathan Bartlett wrote:
then why do they want to teach creation in science class?
Because other historical arguments are being taught there (for
example,
universal common ancestry).
Of course there are teachings of historical scientific work since that
lays the ground work for students to understand the current activity.
You seem to not understand that historical science is still science
and creation is not.
Joe
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Carol Lee Smith" |
|
| Title: Re: "Teach evolution" |
28 Jan 2005 10:11:57 PM |
|
|
Sorry about the short notice, but I just became aware of a program
happening tomorrow at a S.E. Wisconsin Technical College which affords
an opportunity for individuals concerned about science education to
write an email or phone tomorow in with regard to the
*"sophistication" of intelligent design. [*see article below]
The following text from the Racine, WI newspaper is self-explanatory
and includes the eddress.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
A new way of looking at the origin of the universe will be the topic
of a live broadcast on WGTD (91.1 FM) Saturday.
"Evolution versus Intelligent Design" is the title of "Education
Matters," a program that will air live from Cafi 91.1, a coffee house
located in the atrium of the Center for Bioscience and the Integration
of Computer and Telecommunications Technology. Bio-CATT is located on
the Kenosha campus of Gateway Technical College, 3520 30th Avenue.
Guests will include Adele Weeks, a medical technologist who currently
spends her days home-schooling her children, and Dr. Gregory Mayer, an
associate professor of Biological Sciences at UW-Parkside and the
school's director of Environmental Studies. The host will be Linda
Flashinski, director of Communication and Public Affairs for the
Racine Unified School District.
The program will air from 10:30 to 11:15 a.m. [CST] People may watch
the program in person by showing up for the live broadcast, or tune in
at the time of the show call (262) 564-8450 with their question.
E-mails will be accepted in advance and during the show at wgtd@g...
The theory of Intelligent Design is described by some as a
sophisticated twist on creationism.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Christopher A. Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: "Teach evolution" |
08 Feb 2005 12:12:40 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 28 Jan 2005 15:13:27 -0500, Jonathan Bartlett
<johnnyb@eskimo.com> wrote:
This sounds like you are starting to make a move at defining that
ellusive "Scientific Theory of Creationism". Care to take a stab
at the whole thing at least in general terms?
Not really, because creationism is a historical proposition, not a
scientific one. I don't have a scientific theory for the reign of
Emporer Nero, although I believe it happened. When dealing with a
historical event, you can look at evidence, but you can't postulate a
scientific theory. In addition, your evidence will be much more tainted
by your worldview than on an experiment that can be repeated.
No. It is only a "historical proposition" in the imagination of
creationists.
It is a religious belief, on a par with the stork theory of
gynaecology.
Jon
.
|
|
|
| User: "Glenn Arnold" |
|
| Title: Re: "Teach evolution" |
08 Feb 2005 09:38:02 PM |
|
|
Christopher A. Lee wrote:
On Fri, 28 Jan 2005 15:13:27 -0500, Jonathan Bartlett
<johnnyb@eskimo.com> wrote:
This sounds like you are starting to make a move at defining that
ellusive "Scientific Theory of Creationism". Care to take a stab
at the whole thing at least in general terms?
Not really, because creationism is a historical proposition, not a
scientific one. I don't have a scientific theory for the reign of
Emporer Nero, although I believe it happened. When dealing with a
historical event, you can look at evidence, but you can't postulate a
scientific theory.
Archaeology is a science that does exactly what you are saying can't be
done. So is forensic science, which looks at a historical event (a
crime) and uses scientific theory to determine what actually happened.
Sometimes the word "proof" is warranted, other times it isn't. But it's
no less science.
Independant records of Nero's reign, works of construction and artifacts
attributed to him in those records, Nero's tomb (if it's location is
known) are all corroborating evidence that can be tested scientifically.
Likewise, if the record says he sent his army off to battle somewhere,
you can examine the site of the battle and find artifacts that prove the
history (of the act of sending an army).
The point is that there are more than one questionable record that
proves his existence.
Glenn Arnold
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
