May 26, 2005
Creationists and Speciation
One of the old and continuously used mantras of the Creationists (of virtually all stripes) is that we have not seen a single event of speciation. Now actually this is quite completely false. Still, this mantra is trotted out as if it is an erudite observation that is somehow damning to evolutionary theory.
Before continuing with the ridicule of this view point lets review a few examples of speciation. The first example is the primrose.
While studying the genetics of the evening primrose, Oenothera lamarckiana, de Vries (1905) found an unusual variant among his plants. O. lamarckiana has a chromosome number of 2N = 14. The variant had a chromosome number of 2N = 28. He found that he was unable to breed this variant with O. lamarckiana. He named this new species O. gigas.--link
In other words, a new species came into existence. Another example with the primrose,
Digby (1912) crossed the primrose species Primula verticillata and P. floribunda to produce a sterile hybrid. Polyploidization occurred in a few of these plants to produce fertile offspring. The new species was named P. kewensis. Newton and Pellew (1929) note that spontaneous hybrids of P. verticillata and P. floribunda set tetraploid seed on at least three occasions. These happened in 1905, 1923 and 1926.--same link
Now some might object and say that polyploidization is not a big deal. Okay, then how about the fruit fly speciation events.
Dobzhansky and Pavlovsky (1971) reported a speciation event that occurred in a laboratory culture of Drosophila paulistorum sometime between 1958 and 1963. The culture was descended from a single inseminated female that was captured in the Llanos of Colombia. In 1958 this strain produced fertile hybrids when crossed with conspecifics of different strains from Orinocan. From 1963 onward crosses with Orinocan strains produced only sterile males. Initially no assortative mating or behavioral isolation was seen between the Llanos strain and the Orinocan strains. Later on Dobzhansky produced assortative mating (Dobzhansky 1972).
And this event on sympatric speciation,
In a series of papers (Rice 1985, Rice and Salt 1988 and Rice and Salt 1990) Rice and Salt presented experimental evidence for the possibility of sympatric speciation. They started from the premise that whenever organisms sort themselves into the environment first and then mate locally, individuals with the same habitat preferences will necessarily mate assortatively. They established a stock population of D. melanogaster with flies collected in an orchard near Davis, California. Pupae from the culture were placed into a habitat maze. Newly emerged flies had to negotiate the maze to find food. The maze simulated several environmental gradients simultaneously. The flies had to make three choices of which way to go. The first was between light and dark (phototaxis). The second was between up and down (geotaxis). The last was between the scent of acetaldehyde and the scent of ethanol (chemotaxis). This divided the flies among eight habitats. The flies were further divided by the time of day of emergence. In total the flies were divided among 24 spatio-temporal habitats.They next cultured two strains of flies that had chosen opposite habitats. One strain emerged early, flew upward and was attracted to dark and acetaldehyde. The other emerged late, flew downward and was attracted to light and ethanol. Pupae from these two strains were placed together in the maze. They were allowed to mate at the food site and were collected. Eye color differences between the strains allowed Rice and Salt to distinguish between the two strains. A selective penalty was imposed on flies that switched habitats. Females that switched habitats were destroyed. None of their gametes passed into the next generation. Males that switched habitats received no penalty. After 25 generations of this mating tests showed reproductive isolation between the two strains. Habitat specialization was also produced.
They next repeated the experiment without the penalty against habitat switching. The result was the same -- reproductive isolation was produced. They argued that a switching penalty is not necessary to produce reproductive isolation. Their results, they stated, show the possibility of sympatric speciation.
Also note that there is more than one definition of speciation. For example, there is the concept of morphological speciation. Why is there more than one definition of speciation? Because historically we can't tell if pelycosaurs could mate with early mammels. They problaby couldn't, but we can't say for sure exactly. For example, this picture shows the changes in the jaw and ear structures of pelycosaurs (mammal like reptiles) and early primative reptiles. Clearly reptiles are not mammals and there is a speciation event in there somewhere...maybe even more than one.
So, back to making fun of those who believe that these examples of speciation are not examples of speciation. To these people the only valid instance of speciation apparently is if a cat drops out of the birth canal of a dog or something. An ape giving birth to a human. According to these people this is the only sufficient evidence that the theory of evolution is right.
Why is this so laughably stupid? Because if a cat did actually drop out of a dog's birth canal that would likely be evidence against evolutionary theory, not evidence in support of it. This is like some crackpot saying, "I ain't going to believe no physics theory till I can see an electron with my naked eye while sittin' here in my living room!" If we could see electrons unaided while sitting in our living rooms our current theories on physics would likely be in serious trouble. A physicist would probably consider our crackpot an uneducated backwater rube. He'd say, "You'll never be able to see such a thing." At which point our uneducated backwater rube would nod his head and say, "See, I told ya' that physics stuff was a load of hooey."
A slightly less uneducated backwater rube will sometimes talk about the microevolution vs. macroevolution distinction. The problem here is that there really isn't a distinction between the two. This is like arguing that the difference between a compact car and a sedan is meaningful in terms of the functioning of the engine. The same process that is at work in mircorevolution is at work in macroevolution. That is why, after enough microevolution, can't macroevolution occur? The resposne at this point from our less uneducated backwater rube is usually silence of misdirection. There are two problems for our rube.
- There are recorded macroevolution events.
- They don't have a theory as to why enough microevolution can't lead to macroevolution.
Now there are some people who are educated and believe all of the above. They aren't rubes, but they are either completely dishonest or they are people who, on this subject at least, no amount of empirical evidence will suffice in getting them to change their mind. For some reason they believe that evolution is so impossible that even God himself would probably have trouble dislodging these people from their beliefs.
Oh...and a side note. No, I'm not in the latter catagory. You see, initially I found the intelligent design argument quite persuasive when I first ran across it. Then I started looking more and more into the controversy and eventually rejected Intelligent Design in favor of evolutionary theory. In other words, I have been to both camps and tried to give each a shot and in the end I found one severely lacking and the other quite persuasive.
Posted by Steve at May 26, 2005 09:31 AM | TrackBack'This is like some crackpot saying, "I ain't going to believe no physics theory till I can see an electron with my naked eye while sittin' here in my living room!" '
No actually it's not. The difference is that we've constructed devices that rely on theories of quantum mechanics. I'm composing this message on one of them. We have not bred a human from a primate or even an earthworm from a flatworm.
You are correct that the speciation argument is weak, but even if I grant you that speciation is possible and occurs naturally, we haven't seen an experiment on the scale of a giraffe evolving from a goat and even if we did, it doesn't prove that man originated from primates.
It's like a differential equation with more than one solution.
Posted by: melvin toast on May 26, 2005 10:48 AMNo actually it's not. The difference is that we've constructed devices that rely on theories of quantum mechanics. I'm composing this message on one of them. We have not bred a human from a primate or even an earthworm from a flatworm.
No we haven't.
You are correct that the speciation argument is weak, but even if I grant you that speciation is possible and occurs naturally, we haven't seen an experiment on the scale of a giraffe evolving from a goat and even if we did, it doesn't prove that man originated from primates.
Thanks for clarifying exactly what catagory of person you are Melvin. The last catagory: no amount of empirical evidence will move you from your beliefs.
Posted by: Steve on May 26, 2005 11:54 AMWell it depends on what kind of a theory you are talking about. A theory that describes something that we can observe now is easier to validate than a theory that describes something that occurred in the past.
Like you, I was also once in the other camp. So obviously something changed my beliefs. When I was at Caltech, I took a number of philosophy of science courses. That together with notions about quantum mechanics and general relativity suggest that the nature of the how the world works can surprise us and that our current knowledge, as compelling as it may be, is not necessarilly complete or accurate.
Take this example. Galileo was persecuted for saying that the planets went around the sun. Einstein later showed that space is distorted by gravity so it just as valid to say that the sun goes around the earth as it is to say that the earth goes around the sun.
Who would have thought that 100 years ago? One would think that then, the idea that the earth goes around the sun is obvious. Most people today would probably even say that it's silly the think that the sun goes around the earth. But it isn't.
Posted by: melvin toast on May 26, 2005 12:15 PMAnd people wonder why I think religion is a sign of a weak mind.
Posted by: Timothy on May 26, 2005 03:09 PMTimothy,
That sort of statement does not change minds.
Yours,
Wince
Steve,
The link you gave says all species are related. It doesn't say what the process was, in fact, it specifically declaims that:
In this essay, universal common descent alone is specifically considered and weighed against the scientific evidence. In general, separate "microevolutionary" theories are left unaddressed. Microevolutionary theories are gradualistic explanatory mechanisms that biologists use to account for the origin and evolution of macroevolutionary adaptations and variation. These mechanisms include such concepts as natural selection, genetic drift, sexual selection, neutral evolution, and theories of speciation. The fundamentals of genetics, developmental biology, molecular biology, biochemistry, and geology are assumed to be fundamentally correct—especially those that do not directly purport to explain adaptation. However, whether microevolutionary theories are sufficient to account for macroevolutionary adaptations is a question that is left open.Thus, it does not address the question of whether we have evolution via natural selection or evolution via Divine selection. Another phrase for evolution via Divine selection, which is what Pierre Teilhard de Chardin the Jesuit paleontologist believed, is theistic evolution.
This is a really old philosophical question, and those who believe that science and religion can be reconciled typically take a similar stance. The novelty in Intelligent Design is that it holds that natural selection is provably insufficient. This means Intelligent Design can be falsified. Just prove natural selection, or some other materialistic theory is sufficient.
Yours,
Wince
No actually it's not. The difference is that we've constructed devices that rely on theories of quantum mechanics. I'm composing this message on one of them. We have not bred a human from a primate or even an earthworm from a flatworm.
Actually we have with a fairly decent chain of fossil and DNA evidence. We just haven't reproduced the experiment yet. Plus, even if we demonstrate in detail that you can evolve naturally in the ways suggested, it doesn't prove that the above species did evolve naturally. ID is pretty resistant to the scientific method in that respect.
Incidentally, I see no problem with classifying (as is traditionally done) humans as primates (which trivially eliminates one of your tests). We are after all very closely related to other primates (by DNA) and have many morphological and behavioral traits in common.
Take this example. Galileo was persecuted for saying that the planets went around the sun. Einstein later showed that space is distorted by gravity so it just as valid to say that the sun goes around the earth as it is to say that the earth goes around the sun.
Huh, there's nothing special about Einstein's point of view. You can chose a frame of reference under newtonian mechanics that has the Earth orbiting around the Sun or vice versa. Galileo was trying to solve the problem of the motion of the planets. But there are some frames of reference that make a lot more sense than others. For example, you wouldn't use the Earth's rotating frame of reference to model the universe. You would have the universe rotating around the Earth once a day. If you were to describe the motion of two remote galaxies with respect to each other, the first thing you'd have to do is filter out the one day rotation.
In the case of the Solar System, does it make more sense to center everything on Earth or on the single body which contains more that 99% of the mass of the Solar System?
My long winded point here is that you can use unusual frames of reference or other tricks to make a bizarre view of the Solar System. But these are generally not useful, because you end up having to revert to a simpler model in order to make any sort of useful prediction. Galileo didn't labor in vain.
In a similar fashion, evolution has an advantage over intelligent design. The mechanisms of natural selection and heritary traits are well understood. There is evolution happening. OTOH, no one has provided evidence of the existence of an intelligent being capable of genetic engineering over the time periods in question nor uncovered evidence of genetic tampering or other evidence of ID-related actions.
This is a really old philosophical question, and those who believe that science and religion can be reconciled typically take a similar stance. The novelty in Intelligent Design is that it holds that natural selection is provably insufficient. This means Intelligent Design can be falsified. Just prove natural selection, or some other materialistic theory is sufficient.
Hmmm, we have a local version of evolution. Ie, if one imposes a significant selection process on a population, you see the population evolve so that advantageous traits dominate. Second, through fossil records, we have traced the development of modern species from ancient ones, and the incremental development of organs and morphology over long time periods. What's left to show?
Wince: I know, I was feeling particularly petulant.
Steve: On the drive home I was thinking about Toast's comment that we have devices which operate on the principles of quantum physics, and I think he/she is essentially right, especially with regard to this new quantum cryptography stuff. I mean, that's based right on quantum uncertainty.
Toast: We do, in fact, have devices that are based on the principles of evolution. Have you ever eaten maize? That's a long-distant cousin of a South American grass, bred selectively over time in such a way as to become a new species. You can see examples of earlier maize types in anthropological remains from many South American cultures, particularly in Peru. Norway lab mice, and many other domesticated animals are examples of the same sort of thing.
Posted by: Timothy on May 26, 2005 06:21 PMTimothy,
Without getting long winded I'm going to go back to the claim that humans and apes share a common ancestor. So your maize example doesn't quite get there. Quantum mechanics on the other hand is utterly ridiculous until you turn on your computer and someone tells you that the integrated circuit is based on quantum effects. And it also allows us to create tiny little lasers that are used to play music and perform MRIs and take pictures with our phones. I'm not saying the maize example isn't supportive, it's just not as compelling.
Karl doesn't know newtonian mechanics. Newton requires an inertial frame of reference and the earth isn't one because the mass of the sun is much greater. General relativity eliminates this constraint by deforming space with gravity. An easier way to think about this is an elevator. An elevator isn't an inertial frame unless it's traveling at a constant speed. But in the general relativity world it is because the acceleration is just a distortion of space as gravity and acceleration are equivalent.
Posted by: melvin toast on May 26, 2005 09:59 PMHuh, there's nothing special about Einstein's point of view. You can chose a frame of reference under newtonian mechanics that has the Earth orbiting around the Sun or vice versa.
Actually, no, you can't. There is no frame of reference in which you can integrate equations of motion that have the Sun orbiting the Earth.
Posted by: Slartibartfast on May 27, 2005 05:45 AMTimothy,
I don't care if he was right or not. My point with my answer is that simple denial is not sufficient. Setting really high and impossible tests is just stupid. So his answers about quantum mechanics are in essence totally irrelevant. What would you say if I invoked the Sonnenschien-Debreu-Mantel theorem on the impossibility of dynamic general equilibrium and then argued based on that that evolution is bogus. You'd go, "WTF?"
That sort of statement does not change minds.
I am not trying to changing Melvin's mind. It is my view that he is completely stuck in his views and no amount of empirical evidence will sway him from his views. Notice that he does not even aquaint himself with the basics of neo-Darwinian evolution.
The novelty in Intelligent Design is that it holds that natural selection is provably insufficient.
Really? Try telling it to Behe or Dembski. The work of both men have been shown to be horribly lacking. Behe's examples have all been refuted and he has been backpedalling. Dembski's mathematical mumbo-jumbo has been shown lacking by a great many people from a variety of backgrounds. Yet like Behe he clings to his notions.
Moreover, as Orr points out (see post below) ID is eliminative which is not how science works. Imagine you have an hypothesis, but instead of gathering evidence to support you construct arguments (not evidence) as to why all other possible hypotheses are wrong.
Also, let me point out that guys like Melvin Toast have not addressed the point of this post. The point that a goat dropping out of a giraffe's birth canal is completely besides the point. Such a prediction is completely at odds with current evolutionary theory. Instead we get a bunch of nonsense about physics and Einstein.
Posted by: Steve on May 27, 2005 05:54 AMWithout getting long winded I'm going to go back to the claim that humans and apes share a common ancestor. So your maize example doesn't quite get there.
Goal post shifting. Notice how Melvin has shifted from "speciation doesn't work/has never been observed" to, I want to see a primate evolve into a human. There are number of problems here. The first is that when caught with his pants down on the facts of speciation Melvin invokes a higher and virtually impossible qualification for "him to buy into evolutionary theory". This certainly insulates his current beliefs from any and all empirical evidence.
Second problem is that Melvin seems to assume that evolution has a direction. It must be that evolution of a primate will result in a human...and not another primate. So if we did actually manage to take a modern ape (or more accurately a group of moder apes), and via changes in the environment obtain evolutionary change we might end up with a different primate not a human. Now the new primate would be different that the modern ape (maybe less muscle, maybe a bit smarter, maybe a meat eater, whatever). So even though we have speciation, so long as we don't have a human Melvin would say, "See evolution is a crock." Nevermind that in the process we just confirmed every single damn aspect of evolutionary theory. Nope, because we can't do a lab experiment that might take a really long time and obtain a predetermined result evolutionary theory is just crap. Instead it is God, aliens, or the might Space God Grondar.
This is yet another reason why I am not going to try and change Melvin's mind. He does not want his mind to be changed. Oh he might say he does, but with conditions like this he is dissembling. All existing evidence is considered not sufficient, or actually undermines the theory. Current evolutionary theory posits gradual change over time. So when evidence of gradual change over time is presented (see the link on the jaw/ear structure of pelycosaurs to early primative primates) it is actually evidence against evolutionary theory! At worst since it is the prediction of evolutionary theory it should do nothing towards the probability the theory is true, it should not undermine it. Hence Melvin, who claims to be trained as a scientist, doesn't understand how evaluating scientific theories/hypotheses works.
Melvin reminds me very much of Dembski. Dembski has had his two main ideas almost totally dismantled. His Explanatory Filter (EF) has been shown by quite a few people to have some severe problems. Yet he ignores all these criticisms and focuses on irrelevant minor side issues (much like Melvin with the quantum mechanics...notice Melvin wants very badly for the discussion to go there, an area he is much more knowledgable). The other main idea by Dembski is that evolutionary computer algorithms can't produce information. To make this argument he relies on the work of Wolpert and MacReady, their No Free Lunch (NFL) Theorems. No less than David Wolpert has come out and said that Dembski's application of the NFL theorems by Dembski is hugely problematic and he hasn't gone anywhere near showing it supports his claim. To this Dembski has had a rather lame response again focusing on irrelevant side trivia. In fact, in response to Wolpert specifically I know of no response by Dembski. It is almost as he has said to himself, "Oh shit, now I've really been exposed as a charlatan...I'll go teach at a theological seminary."
Nobody will ever change Dembski's mind, no matter how much evidence they have. Nobody will ever change Melvin's mind, no matter how much evidence they have. So what can I or Timothy do? Take Melvin seriously? Why? He doesn't want his mind changed. Instead I'll simply show the ludicrious nature of his position. I'll show how it is laughable...and I'll laugh at his position. I'll show others that Melvin's position is not a scientific one, but a dogmatic one, and try to have a chuckle or two along the way.
Posted by: Steve on May 27, 2005 06:22 AMSteve: That's true, the physics stuff is a total non-sequitur. As is the weird invocation of philosophy of science (sounds like the guy has been reading too much Kuhn). But you're right that no amount of empirical evidence will do, especially given your examples.
I, for one, refuse to believe in Heisenbergian uncertainty until I can know both the velocity and the location of an electron at the same time :-).
Posted by: Timothy on May 27, 2005 06:31 AMTimothy,
Oh I've got even better stuff than what is in this thread. Check out my post Detecting Designer Bullshit (just do a search). If you understand probability and Bayes theorem it is a fairly simple example of why Dembski's explanatory filter is severely lacking. The short answer is it is too easy on design and too hard on non-design. Gee, could that have been on purpose? Nawww...Dembski setting things up in his favor?
Posted by: Steve on May 27, 2005 06:42 AMHumans are not descended from primates? I hope Melvin is not another one of those "humans are lagomorphs" apologists- that argument is so tiresome.
Posted by: Vache Folle on May 27, 2005 07:29 AMI don't think I explained the point clearly. As Mr Smith said, "You're twisting my words!"
I don't have a problem with people believing in evolution. I'll admit that I had not idea that there was experimental evidence supporting it but even absent that, I still wouldn't have a problem with people believing in it. My problem is the claim that evolution is a fact.
As I've said before, I don't know much about ID so I wouldn't consider myself a believer in ID. I'm just a skeptic.
What I'm trying to point out is that many theories that were once thought of as fact were later proven wrong. Even Einstein was skeptical about quantum mechanics. So skepticism about evolution isn't without merit.
The other point that I'm trying to make is that the truth about the origins of humans can't be verified like quantum mechanics can. It's like trying to figure out who killed JFK or how Jim Morrison died.
Does that help?
Posted by: melvin toast on May 27, 2005 08:17 AMActually, no, you can't. There is no frame of reference in which you can integrate equations of motion that have the Sun orbiting the Earth.
Slart,
I don't make claims that bizarre in physics unless I can back them up. My approach would be to take the Lagrangian of the Solar System under a sane set of coordinates, then transform it to Earth-centric coordinates. The equations of motion still exist, there are standard ways to extract them from the Lagrangian, but instead of a simple integration, one would need to solve a more elaborate system of differential equations. The answers would just describe the usual motion of objects as viewed from the frame of reference of Earth. Since the Lagrangian hasn't changed - it's just being expressed in a goofy set of coordinates, we are still describing a newtonian mechanics system.
Posted by: Karl Hallowell on May 27, 2005 08:20 AMNo, Karl. That approach completely neglects gravitational forces.
Unless I've completely misunderstood you, which...I guess it's possible.
Posted by: Slartibartfast on May 27, 2005 09:16 AMI don't have a problem with people believing in evolution.
And I never implied you did. I did write you don't believe in evolution and that you don't want to change your mind.
My problem is the claim that evolution is a fact.
And I have explained several times what this statement means. It means that at a genetic level there is change. This is undeniable. It is observed directly. It is the data that goes into analyzing evolutionary theory. I'll explain once more.
We have a theory. Call it X. Now we go derive testable hypotheses from Theory X. Based on these hypotheses we gather data (either directly or indirectly). Then we evaluate the validity of Theory X given the data. The theory here, X, is "just a theory". The data are the facts. Evolution is a fact in that it is "the data". Organisms change. There are instances of speciation (or more accurately a new organism that cannot inter-breed with the progenitor organism, or we could use a morphological definition of species and again we see change on a pretty smooth gradient).
Any theory that displaces X, call it Z, will have to explain all that X does and then some. Thus, Intelligent Design must put forward testable hypotheses that rest on the assumption of design (i.e., without this assumption no hypothesis). ID has yet to do this, let alone carry out the experiments.
What I'm trying to point out is that many theories that were once thought of as fact were later proven wrong.
No theory should ever be thought of as fact. A theory should be considered conditionally true given the data at hand. New data might disprove the theory, but we don't have that data yet, so rejecting the current dominant thoery is anti-scientific IMO. For example, John Tukey is noted for saying, "All the laws of physics are wrong in some minute detail, but some are awfully good approximations." Should we thus deem all of physics pseudo-science? I don't think so.
The other point that I'm trying to make is that the truth about the origins of humans can't be verified like quantum mechanics can. It's like trying to figure out who killed JFK or how Jim Morrison died.Does that help?
No, because of my comment immediately above. Quantum mechanics as articulated today will in some way be found lacking in the future and will be changed. So by your own standards we should not call quantum mechanics science. Second, the fact that the strength of evidence in one science is perhaps stronger than in another science does not mean one is science and the other is not.
Posted by: Steve on May 27, 2005 09:18 AMGood responses Steve.
For clarity, I will now make the distinction that evolution as you have defined it is a fact. However, I think most people's notions are that evolution refers to a conception of genetic change plus natural selection and that this process is describes the origin of the species, more specifically, that evolution asserts that humans and apes and even chickens have common ancestors.
I think that perhaps you would have been more sympathetic to the book stickers if they said that the origins of man presented here are a theory.
While the theory of quantum mechanics doesn't have
the same rigor as a mathematical proof, and I'm pretty certain that you are right about it's future, I think you have to agree that it's supportive evidence is qualitatively better.
So my point in bringing it up is to show that even
theories that we are VERY comfortable with are not
thought of as facts. Of course I was comparing this to the idea of the origin of species, not to evolution as you've defined it. I wasn't clear before.
No, Karl. That approach completely neglects gravitational forces.
Classical gravity can be incorporated into the Lagrangian. The standard form is L = K - E, where K would be the kinetic energy of the system, and E would be the potential energy of the system. For gra vity, the potential energy of one object is proportional to the mass of the other objects in the system divided by the distance from the initial object to each object respectively. Sum all the potential energies of the system to get total potential energy.
Now transform from whatever nice coordinate system we just used to the desired perverted one. Let's say, I get L parameterized as L = L(x1,...,x_n,x1',...(x_n)'), where x1' is the time derivative of x1.
To get the equations of motion, solve, D/Dt(d/d((x_k)') L) = d/d(x_k) L. (small "d" means a partial derivative, while capital "D" means a full derivative).
Posted by: Karl Hallowell on May 27, 2005 12:56 PMI think that perhaps you would have been more sympathetic to the book stickers if they said that the origins of man presented here are a theory.
melvin,
Stickers without context aren't a proper way to educate a child or young adult. It doesn't explain what a theory is nor describes the extensive evidence that backs the usual evolutionary theory of the origins of man. Even if this theory is being taught incorrectly as fact or the evidence presented as being more solid than it is, stickers aren't a proper way to refute this.
While the theory of quantum mechanics doesn't have the same rigor as a mathematical proof, and I'm pretty certain that you are right about it's future, I think you have to agree that it's supportive evidence is qualitatively better.
Steve hit it on the nail. The rigor achievable in quantum mechanics isn't relevant here and doesn't help us figure out how man came about. When we look at current evidence, we don't see evidence of any sort of intelligent designer, but plenty of evidence that supports that humans came about through an evolutionary process. Use the theory that best explains the facts.
Stickers without context aren't a proper way to educate a child or young adult. It doesn't explain what a theory is nor describes the extensive evidence that backs the usual evolutionary theory of the origins of man.
I couldn't agree more. If you wanted to make a class that focused on what a theory is and used, as one of the theories, evolutionary theory and also used a book like this one, then I might not object. Of course, this kind of a course is just not going to work for your typical high school student. What high school student is going to be able sit through and understand lectures on conditional probablity and how they can be used in evaluating what the evidence says about a given theory? Not many is my guess.
Posted by: Steve on May 27, 2005 10:34 PMI think the idea is that we should respect people's religious beliefs. So if a theory is at odds with a person's religious beliefs, then it's fair to point out that the theory isn't a fact.
So we should call the notion 'that dead is dead and dead things rot' "just a theory" because it contradicts Chritain theology?
And we should insist that Christians acknowlege that their notion of the trinity is "just a theory" because it is offensive to and blatantly contradicts Hindu theology?
Your proposal is worse than ludicrous, which seems entirely consistent with the rest of your posts.
hugs,
Shirley Knott
I'm not sure what your point is Shirley. Dead things do rot and the Talmud concurs on this. I don't know what Christian theology says about it but at any rate, what happens spirtually is beyond the scope of biodegration.
I also understand that if public schools discuss theology, it's generally presented in a neutral context, i.e. as a historical fact, this is what Christians believe, this is what Greeks believed etc. I think that's consistent with my previous post.
Posted by: melvin toast on May 29, 2005 08:53 AMI think the idea is that we should respect people's religious beliefs. So if a theory is at odds with a person's religious beliefs, then it's fair to point out that the theory isn't a fact.
I disagree. The idea is that we should tolerate peoples' religious beliefs. When people believe in things that contradict established fact, eg, the "flat-earthers" who believe that the world is "flat" (a belief that I personally have observed to be false), then I see no reason to respect that.
Similarly, religious beliefs don't excuse the efforts of some ID proponents to portray, through very selective interpretation of evidence and political tricks (eg, the manipulation of school boards), a respectable scientific theory as incorrect and your own pet theory as the obvious successor.
I find these tactics to be unworthy of respect even if they are based on religious belief. If there is a scientific basis for ID, it won't be found this way.
I'm not aware of a religion that asserts that the earth is flat but I think that the roundness of the earth is a fact, not a theory.
I don't really know anything about ID or what it has to do with my statement.
Posted by: melvin toast on May 29, 2005 08:30 PMI'm not aware of a religion that asserts that the earth is flat but I think that the roundness of the earth is a fact, not a theory.
I don't think Karl was saying that there is necessarily a religion that holds the earth is flat. I think Karl's point is that we shouldn't respect a belief that holds that an established fact is not indeed a fact. This can come from the "Rigth" as well as from the "Left". Check out the the Lawrence Summer's fiasco. What he said wasn't all that shocking really, but it was greatly misrepresented by the Left to further their views.
Posted by: Steve on May 30, 2005 01:07 PMI don't think Karl was saying that there is necessarily a religion that holds the earth is flat.
Steve, actually yes, I was serious. It's called the International Flat Earth Society and according to the wikipedia link traces its lineage to a late 19th century group called the "Universal Zetetic Society". Apparently the group has fallen apart (perhaps temporarily) with the death of its last leader in 2001.
The problem with intelligent design is that its current proponents aren't using scientific methods to advocate for it. Also, they are going through extraordinary effort to get the theory inserted into K-12 education. But there's not much justification for presenting ID as a theory at this level. The evidence just isn't there to say anything one way or another.
Finally, if you are going to teach certain theories in a class, you should also describe what a theory is and the limitations of a theory. This shouldn't be dependent on whether the theory in question contradicts some religious beliefs or not.
Karl, I'm not an ID advocate. I'm just pointing out that the assertion that man and apes share ancestors is a theory. Some people's religions assert that man was created alone. There isn't necessarilly a scientific basis for that view.
Some people feel very strongly about the separation of church and state. I think the argument could be made that it is insensitive to teach a theory about man sharing ancestors with apes because certain religious students would be offended. Certainly a theory about Blacks being dumber that Whites would be considered offensive by many. I personally wouldn't make that argument but it would seemingly be consistent with what liberals advocate.
However, because it's religious Christians that are being offended, it's apparently okay to be insensitive because Christian is one step away from Fascist.
I don't advocate that ID should be taught in school but I think it's fair to teach that although many people believe that man and apes have common ancestors it's not necessarilly a fact.
Does that seem reasonable?
Posted by: melvin toast on May 30, 2005 06:52 PMHowever, because it's religious Christians that are being offended, it's apparently okay to be insensitive because Christian is one step away from Fascist.
Yes. There is the "religion is the root of all evil" crowd out there.
Some people feel very strongly about the separation of church and state. I think the argument could be made that it is insensitive to teach a theory about man sharing ancestors with apes because certain religious students would be offended. Certainly a theory about Blacks being dumber that Whites would be considered offensive by many. I personally wouldn't make that argument but it would seemingly be consistent with what liberals advocate.
I don't being sensitive (or its opposite) is a merit here. I will say this. There is a history of certain genuine theories being shunned because they might provide support religious-based theories.
For example, that the US Northwest (along the Columbia River) has seen, over tens of thousands of years, collossal floods, some which may have been a thousand or more feet high in places. For a while, this was resisted because it was perceived as giving ammunication to the biblical flood proponents of the time. As I seem to recall, the issue finally got settled when they had a special conference and toured a portion of the Columbia River basin. The overwhelming evidence was enough to convince the naysayers.
Karl I'm confused by your response. It appears to me that you've got it in for religious people because they apparently were responsible for lack of flood control.
If my memory serves, religious people were also responsible for authoring the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.
Posted by: melvin toast on May 31, 2005 11:27 AMKarl I'm confused by your response. It appears to me that you've got it in for religious people because they apparently were responsible for lack of flood control.
There used to be a conflict between two competing theories on how landforms (mountains, rivers, cliffs, islands, etc) were created. If I recall correctly, the two schools were labeled catastrophists and uniformitarians. The former claimed that landforms were created by disasters. This was particularly popular among certain people who interpreted the bible literally since it could be used to back the theory of a global biblically described flood.
The uniformitarians claimed that landforms formed gradually under infinitesmally slow geological processes. From what I gather, among a number of scientists, uniformitarianism was held to be a far more scientific theory.
The theory of Columbia River flooding (actually called Missoula floods after the ice age lake that when drained created the floods) was perhaps considered a subterfuge by religious groups to introduce a version of flood geology. In any case, the theory of the Missoula floods was accepted when the various critics toured the region and saw firsthand evidence of the flooding.
Looking at this historical example, I think we have permitted any valid theory of intelligent design to be hijacked by radical forces. If someone does find genuine evidence of ID, I wonder if it'll be properly considered in a timely fashion? My guess is that a good portion of the scientific community will waste time denying the evidence ironically for nonscientific reasons, and the creationists will claim without justification that this proves their version of ID, but the evidence will eventually get out.
Posted by: Karl Hallowell on June 1, 2005 10:29 AMI must have rocks for brains because I don't understand your point.
I've already stated that I don't advocate ID.
The main reason why I don't advocate ID is because I don't know much about it. The main reason why I don't bother trying to find out is because I don't see the point. If the point of ID is to prove that God exists then ID is at odds with any religious that claims free will. So I disagree with ID on philisophical grounds. It's inconsistent with Western religions.
So in a certain context, free will demands that evolutionary theories to explain the origin of species be viable. Furthermore, the belief that man was created separately is not dependent on science, it's solely dependent on faith in the bible. The reason is that the bible is supposed to be eternal while scientific theories evolve. At some point, such a believer would expect science to merge but the theory would be one that simply states that men do not share ancestors with other animals, not one that concludes that God must have created the species.
I don't think your acquiescing to the ID view if you simply state that it is a theory that man share ancestors with apes. ID is not true if and only if darwinism et. al. is false. They could both be false.
Posted by: melvin toast on June 1, 2005 10:56 AMI don't think your acquiescing to the ID view if you simply state that it is a theory that man share ancestors with apes.
And who here is denying this? I haven't, not biologist has. Further, this should be obvious from the phrase: Evolutionary Theory or Theory of Evolution. If you want a sticker that says Evolutionary theory is just a theory, fine. How about The current theory of physics is just a theory? Can we put that sticker in the text books for high school physics?
ID is not true if and only if darwinism et. al. is false. They could both be false.
Maybe there is a light at the end of the tunnel.
Posted by: Steve on June 1, 2005 06:53 PMNow transform from whatever nice coordinate system we just used to the desired perverted one.
And the desired perverted one would be...what, exactly?
Posted by: Slartibartfast on June 2, 2005 06:56 PMI've already stated that I don't advocate ID.
IMHO, nothing I've said implied that you advocated ID or that I thought. And I hope I've addressed your concerns about my competence in matters of physics. I can only reply to your comments, not to your perception of what I'm saying. This may be error on my part.
You have a point Steve. Incidentally, Newton's theory is referred to as the Laws of Motion. We should at least put in a correction that calls it Newton's Approximate Laws of Motion.
Posted by: melvin toast on June 2, 2005 11:23 PMSteve, stick to economics. You at least are in your depth when on that subject, and quite interesting. Your anti-religious rants - whether correct or not - or poorly argued and tiresome as you clearly let your emotions get the better of you.
Keep up the good work on the rest!
Posted by: ferd on June 3, 2005 09:51 PM