I am not here to debate intelligent design. But simply to state a few facts, and hope to spark some intellectual debate, in an area which seems almost "holy" in the scientific world. Since the 1950's, The Origin of Species by, as we all know, Charles Darwin has become something like a holy text for some dogmatic darwinists.
But, it should be noted in the scientific community that there are indeed some doubts about the strenght of Darwin's theory. Indeed there has been a petition posted by University Professors and some nobel prize winning scientists that they do no believe that Darwin's theory of evolution is worthy of being called fact, or even being considered anything more than a theory or hypothesis. I agree.
Problems with the fossil record, missing links, mathematical probabilty, carbon 14 being present in dinosaur bones, discrepencies between reproductive, circulatory, and optic organs between mammals, reptiles, and birds, and of course the Cambrian Explosion, have shed a light of doubt on Mr. Darwin's theory. I agree.
or girl or guy who is writing this about Darwin's life works.
I attended the University of Pennsylvania as a science major and it wasn't even a question of asking if people took Darwin seriously--
It is a given in most scientific and unbiased non-government and non-church related institutions..
it's a GIVEN, if you ask this question as a science major, shame on you, well, me since I am the science major.
It's more of a thing that people already have decided and found out that Darwin makes complete sense, by the time they come to college..most of them actually, not all
the dude (Darwin, who i like to sometimes call my friend) left family and stuff to travel on a ship to foreign lands, the Galapagos Islands off the coast of hmm, I think Africa or South America somewhere, not sure but DB would know, where he took very detailed accounts of what he saw and then came to his conclusions
the man was not going to publish his works because he himself was a very devout christian, and at that time, having idea like this was not very good. He died struggling with his religion and science
I have immense respect for Darwin's findings so excuse me if i don't seem to be understanding what you are trying to say, I loved the man for what he has done for science and still love his legacy
edited to add that if any of my info is wrong, then someone will hopefully come along to correct me..
"Pride is concerned with who is right. Humility is concerned with what is right."
South America, I'm sorry but it seems a little funny you dont know where the galopagos are and you are a science major. I suppose you probably have never read Origin, considering it talks extensively about going around cape horn and the geographic findings in patagonia in Argentina.
Secondly, you are proving my point. I am stating facts, a question as to whether darwin can be doubted. You have said, there is NO QUESTION, and that when you go to college as a science major, you better have NO QUESTION as to whether darwin is right or not. That isn't only counter to scientific principle, but it is dogmatic, and it comes from the 1950's, and since then, much light has been cast on darwins theory, and has put it up for re-examination.
It's true, Evolution does make sense on many levels. But I'm sure you would agree, that the idea that the earth was flat and was the center of the universe also made alot of sense 600 years ago.
I only hope, that todays scientific community does not end up like the catholic church of gallelios day, and will end up eating its own words in the future.
that Darwin Makes complete sense and i mean most science people come to this conclusion by reading texts and conducting experiments or analyzing Darwin's experiments
and excuse me for not having eidetic memory and and having trouble with my LTM because i have other shit on my mind, i hope you know what eidetic and LTM mean since you doubt my credibility, i should have double checked before submitting my comment, but i apologize for that ignorance on my behalf.
To add to my comment on Darwin, people are finding more reasons to actually hold his findings to be the actual truth and accurate results.
In addition to that, there have always been and always will be people that doubt the credibility of science or just stuff in general, the biggest example i know and can say gets scrutinized over and over again is not onnly Freud but Albert Einstein.
Both men get their theories analyzed over and over again but quite frankly I am sick of people picking apart these people's works. If it comes out that it was wrong what they were saying then, oh boo hoo, they researched and ended up at the wrong conclusion but that does not erase or leave them with no credit for doing so much extensive work.
and you make sense with your comment about galileo and i know exaclty what you are referring to when you wrote that, thank you very mch
edited to add, that a simple search on Darwin will also tell you what i was saying about him being a devout faithful religious man, he studied medicine and theology and he was very confused about it all..and not only that as I already mentioned from my own memory from biology which i took two years ago, he only published his works because a friend of his showed him someone else's works that had the same sort of findings as Darwin's.
And what I don't understand is why you find it funny that i got confused with south america and south africa while there is a teen in the US who couldn't even explain why people in america can't find the US on a map and excuse me, I got confused with the Islands of Gibraltor, named after an Arabic word, which are off the coast of Spain not south africa, i don't know why i was thinking of africa,proably because man kind and by that i mean the species of man, homo sapien sapien, sort of dispersed originally from Africa
"Pride is concerned with who is right. Humility is concerned with what is right."
Far from being a "holy text" the original theory of evolution contained in The Origin of Species has been heavily modified and expanded to create the modern theory.
The petition of which you speak is not "posted by University Professors and some nobel prize winning scientists" but by a notoriously dishonest Intelligent Design Creationist lobbying organisation called the Discovery Institute. Few of the signatories have qualifications or experience in fields related to evolution, and as far as I know, none of them have won a Nobel Prize.
The "problems with the fossil record, missing links, mathematical probabilty, carbon 14 being present in dinosaur bones, discrepencies between reproductive, circulatory, and optic organs between mammals, reptiles, and birds, and of course the Cambrian Explosion" to which you allude to is nothing but a tired old laundry list of long-discredited Creationist canards.
You clearly subscribe to a view of evolution which has been described as "talk-radio evolution" -- a ludicrously inaccurate strawman version of the real (and thoroughly researched) scientific theory.
...to this petition. I would be very interested in seeing the actual credentials behind a group of scientitists that would confuse a Scientific Theory with a statement of fact.
When you talk about "a theory or hypothosis," your context implies the non-scientific use of the term "theory." Used in this way, both a "theory" and a "hypothesis" both refer to a supposition or conjecture. However, the Theory of Evolution is an example of a scientific theory. Used in that context, the word "theory" represents a specialized technical term that refers to an empirical model that can be tested and used to predict certain phenomena.
The Theory of Evolution has been remakably successful in this regard. Like all scientific theories, however, the Theory of Evolution is subject to change upon the receipt of new data. None of the challeges you mentioned are "new" at all, and the scienfic rebuttals to each have been addressed many times both in this forum and many, many others.
The current scientific consensus is that the Theory of Evolution is the best working model of the way that species develop and change over time that we have. If creationists or intelligent designers (who are frankly just dressed up creationists) want thier hypothesis to gain acceptance as a scientific thoery, it is the scientific community that they have to convince. Dawin was able to do this, despite widespread rejection and even ridicule from the scientific establishment in his day.
Its great to discuss this king on thing in these forums, but the simple fact is that most of the people in the discussion usually aren't particularly well-qualified to defend the positions that they hold.
percivale
-------------------------
"Vi Veri Vniversum Vivus Vici." ~ V.
Intelligent design is nothing more than warmed over creationist canards, and your purpose does seem to be spread those around. You have two here. However, before I address them I will point out a minor error. Darwin published his book ON THE ORIGIN OF SPECIES in 1859, not 1950.
Creationist canard #1: Likening modern evolutionary theory to religion.
This is wrong. Religion demands that you NOT question it, as the post-ressurectional Jesus told Thomas after he had to show him the holes in his hands to get him to believe, ".... how much more are those that have not seen yet believe" (quoted from memory) & the biblical imperatives not to put God to the test.
Modern evolutionary theory like all other areas of science survives ONLY by questioning and testing it. There is no other area of science that has more published papers in peer-reviewed scientific journals concerning the results of those test than modern evolutionary theory.
Creationist canard #2 -- Labelling those who work in the field as "dogmatic darwinists"
Again the fact that modern evolutionary theory is a science which involves testing of theory, rules this out. Even if some individual is dogmatic concerning some aspect of modern evolutionary theory others will not be (at least about that aspect). Thus, alternative theories are allowed to compete.
The reason that creationists feel that supporting modern evolutionary theory are dogmatic is because their ideas do not get any respect. The reason this is so is because often their ideas WERE considered and dismissed over a hundred years ago. They is not a single paper in peer-reviewed scientific journals of new research that supports any aspect of creationism at the expense of modern evolutionary theory. But there are tons of papers that support modern evolutionary theory at the expense of all forms of creationism. The other reasons that creationists do not get any scientific respect is that their arguments are all too often "straw man" arguments in that they attack a version of evolutionary theory that no one supports.
Creationist canard #3 -- There is doubt in the scientific community.
This is intentionally misleading on the part of creationists:
(A) doubt in the scientific community is NOT expressed in petitions. It is expressed in peer-reviewed scientific journals. (B) Modern evolutionary theory is a WIDE-RANGING theory covering many areas. There IS considerable controversy in SOME AREAS of modern evolutionary theory, but there is NONE concerning its core tenets. Those core tenets are:
(1) All life is related through common ancestry.
(2) Mutation creates the variability that forms the raw materials for evolution.
(3) Natural selection is a VERY IMPORTANT, but not necessarily exclusive mechanism directing evolutionary change.
One dishonest technique used commonly by creationists is called "quote-mining". This is where a creationist will quote, out of context, a mainstream scientist as he outlines his disagreement in one of the peripheral areas of modern evolutionary theory where there is controversy. The creationist presents it as though it is controversy over whether the WHOLE of evolutionary theory is in doubt. Furthermore, he does not present the scientists proposed resolution of the controversy, which has ALWAYS been more in line with modern evolutionary (indeed it is often an advance of modern evolutionary theory) than it is with creationism.
(B) Concerning the "petition" mentioned above.
Here is a link to the petition. It contains over 600 names.
(1) I didn't see a single Nobelist on there.
(2) Most of the people signing it are NOT scientists. They are engineers, and medical doctors.
(3) Most of the people who are scientists are not scientists in a relevant field
(4) None of the scientists in relevant fields have published anything in a relevant peer-reviewed scientific journal that documents new research that supports creationism at the expense of modern evolutionary theory.
(5) Here is the statement they signed:
“We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged.”
Er ... were it not for the political implications of such a statement, it is one that I could sign and you are going to be hard pressed to find a more vigorous supporter of modern Darwinian evolutionary theory than me. MODERN EVOLUTIONARY THEORY DOES NOT CLAIM THAT RANDOM MUTATION AND NATURAL SELECTION ALONE ACCOUNTS FOR THE COMPLEXITY OF LIFE. But it does claim that they are VERY IMPORTANT processes. Others include genetic drift, neutral mutation, punctuated equilibrium, developmental mutations, etc.
Here is a link to a similar petition from the National Center for Science Education. It contains 827 names.
(1) There ARE some Nobel prize winners on that list:
Stephen Chu and Steven Weinberg.
(2) Many of the scientists ARE active publishing researchers in the field
(3) They signed a much stronger statement:
(4) And the list is limited to ONLY those scientists whose name is "Steve" or some variant thereof (and I am proud to be one of the signers). "Steves" comprise about 1% of the population here in America. And yet the NSCE was able to find MORE scientists with BETTER qualifications to sign their STRONGER petition than the Discovery Institute was to sign theirs.
So less that 1% of the scientists have any concern whatsoever about modern evolutionary theory. AND (and this cannot be stressed too highly) NONE publish any scientific data that is at odds with modern evolutionary theory and in line with any form of creationism.
(C) Concerning "Theories"
In science "Theory" has a technical meaning. That meaning is a well-tested explanatory mechanism. It is that sense of the word "theory" that applies to modern evolutionary theory. The Heliocentric THEORY of the solar system is a theory.
(A) Fossil record: There is nothing in the fossil record that is a problem for modern evolutionary theory that isn't even MORE of a problem for creationism. I have written blogs on this. I do not at the moment have time to make a link to them but click on my name and you can find them.
(B) Missing links: In my blog I have a standing challenge to creationists. I provide a link to a picture containing photographs of fossil skulls. It is a sequence, at one end is a modern chimpanzee skull at the other end is a modern human skull. The ones in the middle are arranged by the dating of the fossil. I ask three questions:
(1) Where do ape-like skulls end and human ones begin.
(2) What criteria did you use to make your decision.
(3) If you couldn't decide, then why should this not be considered a VERY good example of an evolutionary transition.
So far the only response I have gotten from a creationist is that the skulls must be faked. Again I do not have time at the moment to post the appropriate links, when I come home tonight I will edit this post and do so.
Update: Here is a link to the challenge
The point being is that there ARE tons of evolutionary progressions in the fossil record.
(C) concerning mathematical probabilities:
There is NO probability estimate that models how probable evolution was to have happened. How could there be? We do not know what genetic variations were present during the course of evolution. The probability estimates used by creationists are classic examples of "straw men" arguments. They use assumptions that NO proponent of modern evolutionary theory has ever advocated.
(D) Carbon 14 present in dinosaur bones.
Carbon 14 is produced when a high energy cosmic ray hts a Nitrogen 14 nucleus. This can happen at any time. So of course there will be background C-14 levels. No one would expect otherwise. Since the half life of C-14 is a bit over 5,000 years and dinosaurs are many million years old we do not expect to find C-14 levels there over and above what could have been put there by natural means ... AND we don't.
(E) Discrepencies between organs of mammals
This is crap. Comparative anatomy is one of the BIG AREAS of science that supports modern evolutionary theory at the expense of creationism. For instance there is a distinct homology in the arm bone structure of humans (who use their arms as arms), bats (who use their arms as wings), dolphins (who use their arms as flippers), dogs (who use their arms as legs), and moles (who use their arms as shovels). This is certainly not due to any requirement from FUNCTION. Modern evolutionary theory explains the observation as being the produce of historical contingency ... all those animals shared a common ancestor with that type of arm bone structure. Creationism explains it as ... God just deciding to use the same design for the hell of it.
(F) The Cambrian Explosion
I have written up a multipart blog concerning the Cambrian Explosion. I'm sorry but I am swiftly running out of free time so again I am unable to link to it. But it is easily found on my blog. There I document that any problems from the Cambrian Explosion are even MORE of a problem for Creationism.
Cheers,
Darwin's Beagle
===
If a million people say a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing. - Anatole France