The angry young anti-evolutionist who made that ill-informed video has been complaining in the comments about how rude we all are, and saying that he’s got other, more substantive gripes about evolution that he hasn’t told us about yet.
Well, here’s his chance. Mr Henry can instruct us in what he considers the most damning evidence against evolution, and you all can correct him in an informative, constructive fashion.
I will be enforcing very strict commenting rules here. Be polite or your comments will be axed on sight. No complaining, either; give the young gentleman a chance to state his position. We’ll see if he can put together a coherent argument.
(I am serious, people. Shut your gobs unless you’ve got something instructive to say.)
rather than wait, why not just send young Sean along to Talkorigins right now?
here Sean:
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html
it will answer far more of your questions than could possibly be covered in any single thread.
…but don’t let that stop you from asking anyway.
some of the folks that actually put effort into researching those claims hang about this very blog, so you have a chance to put questions direct to the horse, so to speak.
I promise to be good, even if he commits #28 from the 281 Tricks to Irritate an Atheist.
If ever I have seen a culturally conditioned individual, this is it.
there is an element of brainwashing at work here.
I don’t see what good will come of this. If I couldn’t get my opinions across in a ten minute video, I doubt I can get them across by posting comments on a blog. But I’ll give it a try and see what happens. Don’t expect me to post replies instantly to whatever you say. I’m the seventh child of eight (nine counting my twin who is dead), thus there is a lot of competition over who uses the computer.
Where do we start? Religion? Philosophy? Intelligent Design? Evolution? I’m guessing evolution, but what part of evolution? Evolution is a topic that covers a lot of areas of science.
Sean,
I would suggest you start with the what you consider to be the most fatal flaw in the theory of evolution.
start with what was proposed that you address?
Mr Henry can instruct us in what he considers the most damning evidence against evolution
there ya have it, floor’s yours.
Where to start, Sean?
How about a simple, physical question.
What mechanism do you propose explains the way species of bacteria and insects acquire immunity to antibiotics and pesticides?
Since this is Dr. Myer’s blog, I’d say start with biological evolution.
Strongest, best argument first, lets have it. Take your time if you want to decide, but make it your very best.
Another thing: Saul, you stated in the other thread “I admit most of the information I have given has been debunked. I admit I should have done further research on the subject than merely reading an old textbook from the basement. But there is more information I have realized that prevents me from believing every component of evolution.”
Since you have admitted previously using sources of information which are unreliable, I think it is necessary for you, in order to construct a viable argument, to cite the source of any statement of fact you make. If you state that evolution says this, that, or the other, please state the work from which you take this assertion. If you make a statement about morality, either identify it as your own opinion or state who you got it from. This will allow us to identify possible biases or gaps in your knowledge.
It would be a pity, for example, were you to claim that morality requires a God if you were unaware of the different strands of existentialist thought from Sartre to Tillich and (importantly) unaware that you were unaware.
Hard to say. Depends on what you mean by flaw. If you mean what’s the most fatal flaw by what evolution means, I’d say it is that it implies we are not human beings…we are just animals, cattle to be herded by elitists. If you mean how it does not work, I’ll have to give that some thought. Maybe after a good night’s rest I’ll come up with an answer. One of the big problems I have though with evolution is that, even if all the evidence did point to it, what is that evidence? Is it that our genes shout that we are descendants of the Old Monkeys? To me, that isn’t reason to declare evolution fact. It means there is a big similarity between us…that doesn’t necessarily mean we are related though. Correct me if I am wrong, but don’t evolutionists claim humans evolved at different places at different times? If so, then why do our genes show we are more closely related to any human than the closest monkey we “evolved” from? Look at it this way: there are two human couples (each couple represents two groups of the same type of monkey) and the two couples are distant relatives to one another. Let’s suppose each couple had children (the two groups of monkeys had descendants who evolved into humans), who would the first couple’s children be more closely related to: their parents, or their parents’ distant relatives’ children?
…do you get it?
Consider yourself corrected.
Sean,
Did you say that you made a new video – something along an apology? Can you direct us to it?
Where do we start? Religion? Philosophy? Intelligent Design? Evolution? – Sean
Where do you feel compfortable starting? The scope of the “problem” is really quite large – don’t forget geology. So large that it’s hard for anyone around these parts to not be miffed and/or incredulous that someone not yet out of high school is publically professing/advocating an “opinion” on something so complex. Anyone can have an unimformed opinion and many stop at that point and rely on copying and pasting other people’s “evidence” which was copied and pasted from someone else which was copied and pasted from someone else and so on – often passing on long debunked junk.
Please, you’re young and you appear to have a strong desire to explore and create – don’t waste it. Instead of relying on repeating other people’s misinformation why not take a few years to at least learn the basis of the argument – I’d recommend concentrating on science coarses at high school and then a science-based college major after high school…perhaps a biology major…with some phylosophy…and some physics…I’d recommend physical and historical geology at a minimum…some astronomy would be cool. There’s so much to know that maybe a graduate program with lots of lab work, field work and a thesis to defend would be beneficial. Then, a PhD would really add to the street cred. Nothing like working on finding and solving a complex problem and then having to write and defend a dissertation to get the blood going and to begin to understand the process. Then, of course, peer reviewed publishing – yum.
Then, after about six or seven or ten or 15 years you’ll have learned enough to begin to form a firm foundation for your arguments. That’s the path that many of the commenters that you’re hearing from have taken or are in the process of undertaking. Then, if you still feel the need to attack evolution, at least you’ll be able to engage in an informed manner and, if you do so honestly, you’ll at least have a chance at earning some respect.
Otherwise, it will help to grow a real thick skin real fast – no one that’s devoted five, ten, fifteen years or more to understanding a discipline takes real kindly to arguments made from willful ignorance (ingorance as in lack of knowledge and understanding, I’m not inplying stupid).
Thanks and good luck
Sean, let’s clear something out first:
You don’t have to feel ashamed about your video. It was OK as far as shooting and editing were concerned; It’s just that the context was innacurate- and you couldn’t know that, if there was no one to learn it from.
I understand that you felt quite proud, as everyone around you was commenting you on it- and now that the comments are bad, you jumped on the other side. But you shouldn’t feel bad, in the same way that you shouldn’t be proud when you thought it was quite an achievement; It simply doesn’t matter. Nobody’s born right.People learn from making mistakes.
That said, all we ask from you now is to tell us why you think evolution is wrong: tell us the thing that, in your mind, is the best argument against it- the one that truly convinces you most of all. Or you can post a list of them, much like the old discredited one.
You may feel you are at a disadvantage against so many, and you may be right, but so would any one of us be if he was discussing in a Creationist forum (much, much more than you might think, in fact- you won’t get banned for saying “but…” here).
The important thing is to reason with those who disagree with you: You may win an argument, or lose it… but learning to use reason is the only way to prevent you from losing always.
If so, then why do our genes show we are more closely related to any human than the closest monkey we “evolved” from?
I am puzzled by what you are trying to say here. The similarity in our genes is what establishes us as being a part of the same species. If we weren’t then we wouldn’t be part of the same species. In other words, if an ape had genes more similar to a human then it wouldn’t be an ape.
Sean,
One thing I should have added above – keep the scepticism. Believe it or not that, and curiosity, is science. At least it’s a good start.
“I’d say it is that it implies we are not human beings…we are just animals, cattle to be herded by elitists.”
That seems to contain misrepresentations on several levels.
Evolution science and biology doesn’t imply that human beings don’t exist, it states that human beings are animals. Any preconceived notion about the place of animals in the world that comes from a belief system that rigidly separates humans and animals don’t automatically apply: this says nothing about the worth, abilities and potential of human beings.
As for the second part (“herded like cattle by elitists”), I can’t see where this comes from, how it’s implied by evolution science or biology.
This link leads to the video:
Sean, a human being is a member of the animal kingdom. Your choices are fungi, plant, animal, protist, or bacteria. I like you am a species of animal. I am also a human being.
I don’t know where you get elitists are herding humans up and how this has anything at all to do with evolution being true. I think you’ve been taught some bizarre ideas.
You are more closely related to a chimpanzee than a rat is to a mouse. A chimp is not a ‘monkey’ but a great ape. I for one am glad to be related to such splendid creatures.
“Correct me if I am wrong, but don’t evolutionists claim humans evolved at different places at different times?”
I’ve heard about speculation on possible convergent evolution before, but I don’t think it was as extreme or dominant as you suggest here.
This link leads to the video:
already learning the value of condescension, are we Sean?
you’ll make a good “elitist” yet.
LOL
BTW, all anyone is asking for here is that you define exactly what evidence it was that you mentioned in your “apology”
“If you mean what’s the most fatal flaw by what evolution means, I’d say it is that it implies we are not human beings…we are just animals, cattle to be herded by elitists.”
Well, those ‘elitists’ would also be ‘just animals’. So no human has any inherent claim to domination over others. (Also, I should point out that elite rule and subjugation of the weak has been with us far, far longer than the Theory of Evolution, and has for the most part been justified by religion – The elites are elites because they have the favor of God or Gods. Peasants are peasants because God wants them to be peasants, and if they try not to be peasants, that goes against the will of God and must be stopped.
But more to the point, we are what we are. We, as humans, have certain characteristics and abilities, behaviors, moral and immoral tendencies, I’m sure you’d agree. If we learn that our origins are different from what we believed before, we still have the same inherent characteristics and abilities, the same behaviors, the same moral tendencies and predilections for immorality. We have not changed, only our understanding of what happened in the distant past has changed.
Sean, not only it’s absolutely wrong, it is the first time I have ever heard of this absurd argument.
The person who told you that, either made it up on the spot, or heard it from someone else who made it up on the spot… but both clearly had zero knowledge about biology. Not even the most hardcore creationist would say something like that and hope to maintain his credibility with his audience.
(I sincerely hope they didn’t mean that different races came from different monkeys… >_0)
Now, have you ever heard a modern evolutionary biologist ever say that? Evolution implies absolutely nothing of the sort. Evolutionists are very conscious that humans are amazing things – yes, we are related to chimpanzees, but the interesting questions are why we’re so different. As for cattle herding, got a reference there sparky?
uh… proof?
What would convince you? do you have any idea of the sheer complexity of the genetic systems?
Well now, this is a classic misunderstanding of evolution. In fact, this whole chain of being from “less evolved” entities evolving into “more evolved” species is actually pre-Darwinian and strongly associated with religious concepts going all the way back to Aristotle. I suggest you look up “scala naturae” and “the great chain of being”.
Here’s what evolutionary theory says: At some point in time, probably 5.5 million years ago, there was a population of primates. This population became separated and one group slowly accumulated changes and became what we now label “chimpanzees”, and some group slowly accumulated different changes, and became what we now label “humans”. See the difference? Chimpanzees are just as “evolved” as we are, just in different directions. In factm we’re just as evolved as say, fruit flies, or oranges.
–Simon
Sean, you’re thinking about the multiregional hypothesis: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiregional_hypothesis
But you should note that the separate origins for Homo sapiens occur from a population of Homo erectus, not a monkey. So if this hypothesis were true and we had a bank of Homo erectus DNA, we would expect some humans to share portions of their DNA with Homo erectus from the same region, and be different from humans whose ancestry is from a different region. I believe that this hypothesis is less popular among paleoanthropologists than the Out of Africa hypothesis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recent_single-origin_hypothesis)
but I’m certainly not qualified to evaluate the evidence for one versus the other.
Also, one should note that what you perceive as the moral consequences of a scientific theory has nothing to do with the validity of said theory. We don’t have to like the evidence for it to be true. Of course, I strongly disagree with you on the moral implications of the theory of evolution (I’d say there aren’t any, but the theory can inform us why we behave in certain ways, and philosophy can tell us what we should do about it).
Finally, I haven’t read Ken Miller’s Finding Darwin’s God, and as an atheist, I admit it doesn’t really appeal to me. But many religious folks who are interested in science have found it to be very good, as it presents the evidence for evolution coherently and then discusses how the author (a Catholic and biologist) can reconsile the evidence with a belief in God. So for you, the book might be well worth checking out.
I am puzzled by what you are trying to say here. The similarity in our genes is what establishes us as being a part of the same species. If we weren’t then we wouldn’t be part of the same species. In other words, if an ape had genes more similar to a human then it wouldn’t be an ape.
Brent, he’s relaying the conceptin he has said about humans evolving at different places at different times.
Mr. Henry, the species are primarily defined by groups of animals that typically mate together. Big cats have been shown to create vertile interspecies hybrids as have various dolphin species. Yet normally, in wild situations, they tend not to interbreed. We are currently the only human proven human species on the planet and anyone of the males of our species can (and often do) mate with any of the females.
Keep in mind that various hominid species have walked, or nuckle-walked, this planet in the past few million years. Branching into several trees and some with very specialized behaviors and anatomy.
Here’s an analogy that might be poetic:
A rose is a plant. So is a weed. They still aren’t the same.
For me, “animal” is just a meaningless category. It’s a fact of life that humans are animals, but it doesn’t really mean anything: It’s a descriptive term, not a proscriptive one. To me, a person’s worth isn’t measured by the physical processes that sustain them. If Lt. Commander Data, the android from Star Trek: The Next Generation, beamed down here with a bunch of sentient plant aliens, I’d treat them essentially the same way I do human beings.
Science, like evolution, is strictly descriptive: It tell us how the world works. It says nothing about how it should work, or how we should use that knowledge. You might want to look up the “is-ought fallacy”.
or, if you want to see how those at the core of the modern synthesis struggled with some of the same philosophical issues you apparently are, you might try reading the collected works of WD Hamilton:
“Narrow Roads of Gene Land,
Volume 1: Evolution of Social Behavior”
He was really at the thick of things during the development of hypotheses utilizing evolutionary mechanisms to explain human behavior, and his work is a great example of how to apply evolutionary theory to make predictions about behavior and test them.
Unlike a lot of works, this not only contains most of his important publications, but all of the chapters are introduced by Hamilton himself, and he goes into quite a lot of detail regarding his own personal struggles in developing his theory on kin selection and its implications for human behavior.
“Sean, you’re thinking about the multiregional hypothesis: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiregional_hypothesis But you should note that the separate origins for Homo sapiens occur from a population of Homo erectus, not a monkey.”
Thank you, argystokes, that’s what I had in mind.
Sean,
Thanks for the link to the video. One other thing to add and then I’ll stop – Trying to compile evidence to support a preconceived belief is never going to work – many many have tried and failed. Instead, your understanding should be informed by the findings and conclusions of your research. But be prepared that no answers that you “find” in science will be absolute and unmutable. Instead, they will be part of an evolving continuum – that’s what really shakes a lot of people. Accept faith for faith if you must – if you need to ground yourself in absolutes – but you really needn’t slay science or evolution. Either you accept faith on the word alone or you don’t.
Sean, I’m new here (lurked before), but I think it’s safe to assume that we’re going to be more interested in your reasons why you believe evolution doesn’t work. The matter of “what it means” is more a question of its societal implications. You can argue the implications from now until doomsday, but if A=B, then A=B, even if society doesn’t like B or its implications.
Consequently, in this forum you will be much better off arguing that A cannot equal B, not because the implications of B are intolerable, but because the explanation “A=B” is false in and of itself – regardless of its implications.
To do that you’re going to have show why it doesn’t work as an explanation for observed data.
That’s how science works. Someone(s) sees something, comes up with an explanation for what’s seen, tests it, and then reports what he or she has seen, done, and what he or she believes the explanation to be. Then others (who either agree or disagree, very often mostly disagree) also go test and report. Darwin saw what others had seen (including Linne, who had given species names to organisms that we still use now), and realized you can trace a huge family tree through those species. Other researchers at first thought Darwin’s ideas were nuts, but here we are over 100 years since that debate was largely completed among scientists, and still adding further information that only supports what Darwin first proposed as an explanation for the diversity of species around us.
Scientists accept the theory of evolution the way they accept the theory of gravity, because they are the best explanations anyone has come up with to explain the phenomena the theories explain. When & if something better comes along the better explanation will be embraced, but only because it does a better job of explaining the observations we have made to that point.
That’s how it works.
Sean:
Not an auspicious start, I’m afraid. I’ll leave much of this to others, but a couple points:
“it implies we are not human beings…we are just animals, cattle to be herded by elitists.”
I’m a bit surprised you can’t see the problem of this statement. The validity of evolutionary theory has absolutely nothing to do with how much you or I like implications we may draw from it. Of course, I also find that specific implication ludicrous. Evolution is the key to biological science, and if anything confirms our humanity, it is biological science. I suspect you meant to say that you don’t like the definition of humanity that biology establishes, but how does describing how something works degrade it? Is a Porsche somehow less enjoyable to drive when I learn in exacting detail how to build one from metal, plastic and glass? I feel love just as fiercely as “a fancy kind of rust” as I would as a divine creation…neither context changes how I feel, what I am. And again, it doesn’t matter how you feel about it any more than it matters how I feel about my uncle’s Alzheimer’s diagnosis. Neither that reality nor any other will go away, however much I want to disbelieve it.
“even if all the evidence did point to it, what is that evidence? Is it that our genes shout that we are descendants of the Old Monkeys?”
If I understand your point here, then yes, that’s exactly what it says (leaving aside “minor” quibbles like the fact that it’s apes, not monkeys.) Here, I suspect you’re misunderstanding the nature of “scientific evidence.” Not surprising, most creationists do. Is the existing genetic, developmental and paleontological evidence sufficient to call common descent, the general picture of human origins and evolution itself fact, within the philosophical limitations of calling anything in science “fact”? Absolutely. (Of course, no scientific conclusion is absolute, but I use the word conversationally…see how treacherous English can be in these discussions?)
I highly recommend you seek to understand the methods scientists use to evaluate and accept this evidence. We don’t use this method because we find it politically or philosophically attractive, we use it because it works.
WHOA WHOA WHOA! everyone slow down! I mostly know what you all are talking about and even I’m overwhelmed, imagine how sean is feeling right now!
back to sean:
I have to say that it’s not reality’s job to satisfy our egos. Scientists look at the evidence in order to determine what is right and what is wrong. Whether or not you think we should be animals or not has no relevance whatsoever to whether we are actually decedent from other animals and share a lot of characteristics with them.
And I think we are going about this the wrong way. First one needs to understand something in order to debate it. Here are some quick points:
Evolution only deals with how life changes over time. There are other hypotheses/theories for the origins of the universe, life, etc.. but that’s for another time.
Evolution is basically just when certain genes become more or less common in a given population.
This happens through a few processes, but the main one is natural selection. Natural selection basically says that the genes that give individuals an advantage in surviving and reproducing will be favored, and will increase in numbers.
Now that we have the very very basics, I think we can begin to debate.
If you mean what’s the most fatal flaw by what evolution means, I’d say it is that it implies we are not human beings…we are just animals, cattle to be herded by elitists.
This part of your statement stood out to me as interesting and I’m not seeing anyone else address it. What about being an animal disqualifies us from being human beings? There is nothing intrinsic to the definition of “human” that is mutually exclusive with being animals. We are animals, we are a type of animal. And nothing about being an animal implies that we’re “to be herded” as not all animals qualify as herd animals. Seriously. I think I understand what you’re trying to say but there’s really no logic to this statement. Also, who are these elite? How are they doing the herding if they too are simply herd animals?
One of the big problems I have though with evolution is that, even if all the evidence did point to it, what is that evidence?
Instead of listing all the ordinary things, I’m going to point you to a wonderful case study, performed in our own time. Dr. Peter and Dr. Rosemary Grant clearly observed and recorded evolution occurring during their 30 year study of the finches of the Galapagos Islands. Mainly, they watched how shifts in climate effected finch morphology – also some good tidbits on sexual selection as an interesting evolutionary driving force.
Correct me if I am wrong, but don’t evolutionists claim humans evolved at different places at different times? If so, then why do our genes show we are more closely related to any human than the closest monkey we “evolved” from?
No, not really. What you’re referring too here is called “regional continuity” and it basically made the claim that modern H. sapiens all evolved from local populations of H. erectus which was known to have migrated all throughout the Old World. However, since then new genetic and fossil evidence have pretty much buried this idea. We now accept that modern humans evolved in Africa and those that eventually migrated out and populated the rest of the globe were the result of a bottleneck – thus creating a species throughout the world that is very closely related genetically. We’re a very young species in the scheme of things and because we’re so apt to migration and gene flow we remain a relatively homogenous species genetically.
But if we’re all animals–the elitists would be animals too, right? So why would they become herders and not cattle? I’m not sure I understand what the last clause of that sentence means.
I disagree with the sentiment, in any case. We are animals, true, but we’re animals with minds. And while we may not really know, scientifically, exactly what the mind is at this point, I don’t think anyone’s claiming we don’t have one.* It gives us the ability to use logic, to make decisions beyond instinct, even (in my case) write inane blog comments. :) I’m descended from my parents, but I’m not just some chance combination of the two of them; I have my own experiences, my own thoughts. We’re animals, but that’s a starting place, not a life sentence.
So, the consequences of us being animals are not nearly as dire as you seem to think. And this is leaving aside the fact that, just because you don’t like the consequences of an idea, that doesn’t mean the idea itself is incorrect. (I mean, believe me, my life would be much easier if lots of quantum operators commuted, but then physics would break, and that would be bad!)
*Yeah, there are lots of studies that show we have much less conscious say in the choices we make and the reactions we have than we realize. I still doubt this erases the entire concept of the self or negates all our choices. Still, I am a lowly protoastrophysicist–what do I know?
Sean,
Don’t let the grumps scare you. The video (or what I saw of it) looked pretty well made, despite relying on so many discredited and unreliable sources. And you come across as a pretty reasonable, thoughtful person. So reasonable in fact, that I am pretty confident that if you keep on thinking and being reasonable, you will (probably sooner rather than later) come to realize that certain things you were taught just plain don’t make sense. No teacher/parent/mentor is perfect, although some are worse than others. It is up to you to use your (god given?) intellect and reasoning to figure out what is true of the world and what is not.
One thing that might get you thinking is this: you said that if evolution is true then “it implies we are not human beings…we are just animals, cattle to be herded by elitists”. Essentially you are saying “evolution is true” then “we should be slaves”. I’m guessing that someone taught you this (which again is nothing to be ashamed of — listening is a great way to learn things). But why should you beleive it? Try to reconstruct the missing links in the chain of argument.
Here is a first step in a possible argument for your statment: if “evolution is true” then “we are related to cattle”. Do you belive that? Does it make sense? Have other people discussed and thought about it?
Here are some other links to think over, and decide if you beleive them, and to see if the ones you believe fit together to make your argument:
“all animals should be treated like slaves”
“all cattle should be treated like slaves”
“all non-humans should be treated like slaves”
“things that are related should be treated exactly the same”
“humans are superior to non-humans”
if “we are related to X” then “we are no better than X”
if “we are closely related to X” then “we are not closely related to each other”
The goal of this thinking is for you to satisfy yourself that you can put together a chain of things you believe to support your argument. If you can do that, then it makes sense to believe the argument. But if you can’t, then you should not beleive the argument… and also try and see if you believe a counter-argument… and finally also try and figure out why you initially beleived the argument in the first place.
Good luck, and keep on being thoughtful and questioning!
-Kevin
Oh and sean, thanks for removing the original video and making an apology video. The new video is not perfect, but frankly I didn’t think you would do it. I think that shows how you really do care about the truth and that you’re a bigger person than a lot of people. I just want to commend you for that, and I hope you learned from your mistake.
BTW, where’s Sean? :)
I guess he must feel a little bit overwhelmed here ……
Hi there, Sean. I’ll pitch in to see if I can address some things :)
Human beings are pretty darned amazing. Animals we are: we have kidneys and hearts and brains and bones. This does not consign us to like domesticated, drooling cows. What we lack in quills and speed and thick fur coats, we make up for in language, the ability to hunt together, to specialize, and more recently, to keep knowledge and stories outside our bodies and oral traditions, and we have transformed this world of ours in more profound ways than any other animals.
Evolutionary theory is not out to mold people into something they’re not. Exposing what the history of the world tells us only indicates what is, not what should be.
What poor cow could even operate a video camera, Gary Larson cartoon notwithstanding? :) Humans are pretty cool. You are no domesticated cow!
There are many lines of humans and proto-humans which have died out. More recent human history, over the past 80,000-odd years, are more interesting to figure out. Did everyone come out of Africa at once? In waves? It’s enough time for superficial differences to come about, in particular in skin colours, but couples from various races can still have babies together. Modern humans are still one species. We have so much capability to travel and intermarry that it’s unlikely that we will split into new species for a very, very long time.
Species is a word that works on a scale, and it really comes down to the question of whether two creatures can and do have children together. That’s it. There comes a point in diverging families where even if you were to marry a family member 100 times removed, there might be troubles conceiving. When you start trying to have children, or know people who are trying, you find out how many complications there are. You can have allergies to babies, as in Rh compatibility (here, we are managing to create our own destiny – Rh compatibility can be overcome with medical science). You may find someone that far removed not so attractive – if this is mutual, it can start to keep families apart to the point that they couldn’t have children together if they wanted to.
If you have a big enough population, though, you don’t have to marry someone that incompatible. You could marry half that far away. Families thus tend not to get totally incompatible with one another.
Small populations don’t have that luxury. That’s when most ‘evolving’ happens: not a lot of choice of partners, and survival is ever in doubt.
It’s really this process, repeated over and over, which directs beings in this world to turn into different
You may believe you are disagreeing with evolutionary theory here, but you are correct in that we are more closely related to any human today than any other primates in the entire world. That is also exactly how evolutionary theory predicts it to be: the closer two creatures are, the more similar their DNA will be.
Take forensics and DNA testing: they can tell if the saliva on the toothbrush was from you (100% match on genes that change from person to person) or from one of your siblings or parents (about a 50% match) or one of your half-siblings (about a 25% match)
We did not evolve from any other monkeys living today. What we can do is something like critical text analysis (like tracing how copies of Beowulf or the Bible were made) where we can compare two modern branches and say “alright, all these copies have this whole verse here, but one set has this one misspelling and uses the word ‘very’ a lot more, and the other set always uses ‘it is so willed'”.
You typically have only so many changes per generation. Too many, and you could totally overshoot any possible advantages (e.g. my mucous is stickier, letting me get away from this nasty bug that’s going around, but… I can’t breathe!)
You would expect there to be a lot more similarities between people than between a person and our closest divergent relatives, say, bonobos or chimpanzees. It’s not as though our common ancestors were 100 generations ago. We haven’t shared any family members until you go back some 5 million years or so. That really is a very long time, especially if you consider that our far off ancestors would probably have children closer to puberty than they do now, making for tens of thousands of generations.
Here’s one fun fact, though. It’s possible for you to have genes that are closer to those in particular chimpanzees than to your fellow humans. How can that be?
Think about blood types. There are O, A and B genes. If you are OO, then those genes are much closer to those of chimpanzees with OO blood type than to humans with AA, AB, or BB blood type.
Blood groups go back a very, very long way, as do things like color vision.
Each one of your genes comes down a single line, e.g. mother->her father->his father->his mother. They are in pairs, true, but you’ll only pass one of them down to a child. This makes for a few counter-intuitive things like the blood group-chimpanzee relations.
To see the similarities between chimpanzees and humans, take a look at a comparison diagram between chimpanzee and human chromosome 7. This is not what you would expect from pure randomness (which evolutionary theory is not – think of a 10,000,000 column slot machine with all but 7 of them on hold), and it’s not what you would expect from special creations: the vast majority of genes do not have to be in the order they are on, or on the chromosomes they are on. There are also multiple spellings that code for the amino acids that go into proteins. If you want a Leucine at some point, you can spell it six different ways. Yet if you look at the way DNA for proteins are “spelled out” across creatures, you will find that they are usually “spelled” the same way.
Sometimes, the “spelling mistakes” also lead us to believe that evolution is concerned. If some spot in a protein is spelled CUU in most mammals, say, and there’s a different spelling CUC in some animals, evolutionary theory would tell us to expect that the animals with CUC are likely more closely related to each other, in form, in other genes, etc., just as if you were to look at greek biblical manuscripts and have OEO in a number of manuscripts and THEO in another (there’s one manuscript in which it is alleged a crossbar leaked through the vellum to turn an omicron, an ‘o’, into a theta, a ‘th’ sound – and manuscripts were manually copied for centuries). And indeed, we find this happens.
My apologies for blathering on, and I may have used some unfamiliar terminology, but I or many other folks on here can certainly tell you what we mean or where to look it up (there are some professors and teachers in here, I believe :)
Some of your intuition is going to be spot on (when you mentioned that humans should be more closely related to all other humans than any monkeys, which is true), so I think you’ll truly “get” a fair bit of what we’re saying!
Thanks for coming and asking questions, Sean :)
RE: “I promise to be good, even if he commits #28 from the 281 Tricks to Irritate an Atheist.”
I never promise to be good, as I am sure my version of good is quite different from someone elses.
“Good” for many people means – “agree with me” – oh dear, I am hopeless at that.. ;)
I want to congratulate Sean for being willing to try to understand some ideas that are not just different from what he may have previously understood, but that could very well make him feel uncomfortable and uncertain.
I think that many of us who are familiar with our own fields of knowledge sometimes forget how many barriers there are for those who haven’t had the advantage of years of study or training.
And simply “explaining” concepts or providing more accurate definitions on a web page is not sufficient to provide a full understanding, no matter how hard everyone tries.
Still, I believe that if we (actually other posters more qualified than myself) can help Sean to understand some concepts that cause him genuine concern, then something quite useful will have been accomplished.
Cripe people, I don’t have a life and I don’t even have enough time to read all of that in one sitting…
Could someone link to the replacement video?
Andy, at least some of the blame for the piling-on in your rather bizarre analogy has to be blamed on the medium–when I started writing my comment above, the previous 6 or so hadn’t been posted yet, so I ended up duplicating a lot of information.
In the interests of keeping this short, I will also only note that we seem to be high-fiving Sean much more than each other.
Sean:
I don’t know if there is an extensive web-resource based on the work of Professor Bryan Skes (of Oxford in England) but.
He and his co-workers and rivals have shown that:
Humanity split off from other Hominids in Africa several hundred thousand years ago.
{ Separately the Hominids were themselves multiple species, which themselves split of from “other” great Apes or their predecessors a few million years ago )
All of humanity has been shown to be descended from (at the time of his research) 33 women – because mitichondrial DNA is inherited from the Mother, only, and its’ mutation rate is very slow, unlike our “germ DNA” which is mixed at every generation)
He (Sykes) wrote a book called “The Seven Daughters of Eve” – referring to the 7 out of the 33 from whom 95% of “Europeans” are descended.
Its ISBN for paperback is:
0 552 14876 8
Get a copy and read it.
It will inform you of much.
Google for the title and the author as well.
Hope this helps.
PZ, can I recommend that future exchanges be constrained to only one person replying? I think if you barred everyone but yourself and Sean from this exchange it would make it less intimidating for him, and we might actually see an interesting dialogue emerge. Everyone here (myself including) enjoys being in the middle of a discussion, but for stuff like this we would all probably get more out of it by just being observers.
Hard to say. Depends on what you mean by flaw. If you mean what’s the most fatal flaw by what evolution means, I’d say it is that it implies we are not human beings…we are just animals, cattle to be herded by elitists.
— That doesn’t make much sense Sean. We are human beings. We are also animals.
— “Cattle” to be herd by “elitists”?
— You mean like religious figures who have great sway over their flock?
— Very Funny stuff, Sean. You can only be herded if you are ignorant and too lazy to think for yourself.
If you mean how it does not work, I’ll have to give that some thought. Maybe after a good night’s rest I’ll come up with an answer.
— Thats a good idea. We wouldn’t want to be to hasty.
One of the big problems I have though with evolution is that, even if all the evidence did point to it, what is that evidence?
— COnsult the talk.origin FAQs for starters
Is it that our genes shout that we are descendants of the Old Monkeys? To me, that isn’t reason to declare evolution fact.
— There’s a lot more evidence, than just genes. What about the many species of fossil hominids that show a progression from ape-like characteristics to humans? Australopithecus, Homo Habilis, Erectus, + many more.
It means there is a big similarity between us…that doesn’t necessarily mean we are related though. Correct me if I am wrong, but don’t evolutionists claim humans evolved at different places at different times?
— No.
If so, then why do our genes show we are more closely related to any human than the closest monkey we “evolved” from?
— Humans don’t interbreed with monkeys.
…do you get it?
— Yup. You’re pretty lost here.
Why are theists petrified of being an animal? Biologically, we are. But of course religions have always claimed that an animal is something loathsome. Animals do what they do. Human animals have the ability to make choices. Well, some of us do anyway.
You can only be herded if you are ignorant and too lazy to think for yourself.
I think that’s the basic fear right there. Sean may think he’s only allowed to believe what older, meaner people have told him to believe, which could be why he angrily announced on the other thread that we had destroyed his chances of ever “believing” in evolution.
The nice thing about evolution, Sean, is that you don’t have to believe in it at all. The facts are right there for you to look at and think about for yourself. Science never, ever expects you to “believe” in anything. It’s not interested in “herding” you. It’s religion that wants to take advantage of your credulity, and for your own safety, you shouldn’t let it.
Hey, Sean. Thought I’d pass along a quote:
“What a piece of work is man! How noble in reason! how infinite in faculties! in form and moving, how express and admirable! in action how like an angel! in apprehension, how like a god! the beauty of the world! the paragon of animals!”
That’s Shakespeare, from Hamlet. It expresses how it’s possible to think of humans as animals, and at the same time as very, very special.
Hope to hear back from you, and that the fire hose of information coming from this end isn’t too much to deal with.
Sean, first of all, kudos to entering into this discussion. You are brave, and most people who no not accept evolution would rather shy away or ignore the issue. Now onto what you said:
I highlighted this quote of yours because it presents numerous problems. The first is that evolution does not imply that we are not human beings. Our species is Homo sapiens, and we are human beings, evolved or not. What evolution says is that human beings and other great apes descended from a common ancestor, evolving in different directions. This ancestor shared ancestry with other walks of animal life, joining lineages with fungi and plants, and farther back, single-celled life. Sharing ancestry doesn’t change that we are human, but it can certainly influence how we view ourselves in light of our history.
Second, we are animals. Just as daffodils are plants, humans are one species of animal.
Third, what is your basis for treating animals “like animals” herding them like an elitist? (I am not a vegetarian or anything) Let me try and pick apart this problem, here. You view other animals as “beneath” us, and you get this heirarchical view from somewhere else, such as society or religion. Finding out that we are related to the other animals implies to you that we are not “above” them anymore, so then we must be herded and controlled like we do to them. However, if we are no longer “above” them, then they are no longer “beneath” us – you lose your justification for treating them – and thus us – that way. It is circular reasoning. We are above them, so we cannot be on the same level, because we are above them.
Mind you, this does not mean that humans and other animals are morally equal – you can construct a moral framework that recnogizes what degree of intelligence and autonomy other species have, and you can treat them accordingly. You wouldn’t treat a Gorilla the same that you would a fly, would you? My point is that considering humans as beings worthy of rights and what is called “moral status” is not affected by accepting evolution.
Finally, here is the most important point. Your objection is not a valid objection. It is called an ad-hominem argument. Rather than argue with evidence, an ad-hominem argument occurs when you argue against the implications or motives behind something. You used them many times over in your video, which I watched most of. It doesn’t matter what you think the implications of evolution are, or what agendas you think people have for teaching it, what matters is the evidence.
Think of it this way, if someone showed you that the foundation of your house was crumbling, and you rejected that idea because it would make you uncomfortable living there, you’ve made an ad-hominem argument. It doesn’t matter how comfortable ideas make people if what you are concerned with is the truth.
There’s a lot of evidence for evolution, and I suggest Talk Origins (www.talkorigins.org) as a start, perhaps even a book or a BBC program. You can click on my commenting name and drop me a note on my site if you would like some more tips.
I think this might be too much information from too many people. Would it be possible for PZ to designate one or two folks to respond. Information overload. Difficult to focus. Also, we don’t want to make it too easy for young Sean to bail on the whole enterprise.
Charlie, he’s 16. He’s said so several times. Please don’t insult him by not reading his comments.
I noticed a perfect example yesterday of the social milleu that can lead to supporting attitudes and opinions like Sean’s. In this week’s Newsweek there is a two page story on antibiotic resistant bacteria. The author used the words mutate, change, adapt, etc., but never once used the word evolution. Not once, in an entire article about the evolution of microbes, did the word appear. Is it any wonder that Creationists claim that there is no evidence for evolution?
Actually he’s made an Appeal to consequences fallacy. If he argued that the house couldn’t possibly be crumbling because the guy who pointed out the foundation problem is ugly, then he’d have made an ad hominem.
Sorry about that – I responded to something that is now gone. Ignore that first sentence in the last post.
Oh, wait – it’s back, but after mine. There’s a wormhole in here! And now I’ll stop clogging up the place.
There’s no such thing as too much information. One of the points to be made here is that there are lots of people who see right through to the errors in creationist claims.
I do think people are repeating themselves, though, so everyone should STOP for a while. Let Mr Henry absorb what’s been said, and let’s see if he can make a rebuttal. OK, everyone? I know you may have what you think is the perfect response, but hold off for a while.
By the way, I have removed about 8 posts from this thread so far because they threatened to sidetrack the discussion or were getting nasty. Focus!
Hy, Chrl, hvn’t rd y fr whl; wndr why ddn’t mss y…
f y hd rd th thrd, Sn thrw dwn th gntlt, nd ths thrd ws wy fr hm t dscss th thngs tht h sd. PZ hs fn clb tht lks t jn n, nd ths thrd s ssrdly nt bt “btng p” n kd. d hp tht h strngly cnsdrs th thngs tht hv bn pntd t t hm nd prhps tks nw lk t hw scnc hs cm t th cnclsn tht vltn s ndd fct.
[Charlie is now repeatedly spamming this thread with the same comment over and over. He is officially and permanently banned, finally. Do not respond to him, I’ll be junking his comments on sight henceforth.]
Beautiful; that’s it in a nutshell. We don’t pick what is true by what has the warm-fuzziest implications for us.
For the record, Hamlet was being ironic. When he said this, he wasn’t very taken with humanity.
Of course, Picard felt differently (“What Hamlet might say with irony, I say with conviction”). And I agree with Picard, mostly. But that wasn’t the original intent of the line.
Dang you, wintermute, for stealing my thoughts!
B Brtlby:
Frst, h’s 16, s h’s rptdly crrctd ppl. Fr shm tht y’v nt rd hs cmmnts.
Scnd, th pnt sn’t t bt p n hm, bt t gv hm th vry tls y lmnt tht h lcks. dmttdly, thr wll lwys b smll nmbr f ppl wh dn’t hv th mtrty t dl wth thrd lk ths wtht rsrtng t nslts, bt PZ sms t b dng fr jb f kpng thm qt.
Mr. Henry,
I will take a slightly different approach to those others have used.
You state “If you mean what’s the most fatal flaw by what evolution means, I’d say it is that it implies we are not human beings…we are just animals, cattle to be herded by elitists.“.
While all evolutionary biologists would agree that “humans are animals”. This is a scientific statement about our position on the family Tree of Life. However, the idea that we are “just animals” is a value statement.
For example, are the beautiful songs of a bird or the sound of a rippling brook (or the strains of a symphony) “just vibrations of the air”? They are unquestionably vibrations of the air in the strict sense, but that doesn’t mean they aren’t beautiful. And I think it fair to say that many of us would regard these sounds as more important to us–more meaningful–than the sounds of a cracking rock or nails on a chalkboard.
Is the Grand Canyon just a hole in the ground? Are Mt. Everest or Uluru just piles of rocks?
It is an error to assume that because someone regards something as the product of natural forces that they do not think it has value or meaning. Or that all things that are products of natural forces have equal merit.
Yes, we are animals. But we are pretty spectacular animals. We have created the most wonderful art of all living things; we can (when we choose to) act to help others even on the other side of the planet; we have even been able to travel off planet to walk on the surface of the Moon. And we are the only animal to be able to figure out how we came to be, and the natural forces that produced us.
What part of “everyone should STOP for a while” don’t you people understand?
Let Sean Henry speak. Until he does, you don’t.
Essential Links for Sean
Your video was pretty impressive, nice countryside you live near. You’ve obviously read alot about the creationist side of the argument, so I hope you can devote some time to reading about the case for evolution. I’m not sure if any of the above posts are actually helpful for you, but I’ve compiled a list of links and books you should check out if you get time. I know what it’s like to share a computer amongst siblings.
Talk Origins is a collection of FAQs with responses to many creationist claims. It’s quite comprehensive and has relatively straight forward answers.
http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-evolution.html
Carl Zimmer is a similar blogger to PZ Myers, but he’s a professional science writer and covers alot of really cool research into recent evolutionary research.
http://www.scienceblogs.com/loom/
The Panda’s Thumb is a central blog of the major evolution blogs that collates recent postings. Alot of it is hit and miss, but it was a great central resource for the recent court case against Intelligent Design in Pennslyvania.
http://www.pandasthumb.org/
Animal Diversity Web has a listing of a lot of animals with some references on behaviour etc. Pick a random animal and see how evolution might be used to explain particular features of that animal (color, behavior, appendages). That’s what we scientists do all day, try and work out why we all ended up the way we did.
http://animaldiversity.ummz.umich.edu/site/index.html
PUBMED – If you really want to jump into the deep end, have a look at pubmed. Pubmed is one of the largest databases of scientific literature in the world and is freely searchable. There are two pubmeds – one which shows you all the science articles and one that only shows those that don’t require a subscription, ie the free ones. The link is for the free articles. Have a search for evolution, there will be thousands. I suggest searching for what I work on ‘bitter taste’, lots of cool papers on that. Alot of good stuff in there mixed with really technical work that scientists are working on. It gets updated daily.
http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/
Books
Guns, Germs and Steel – Jared Diamond
Really good book about the development of civilization, covers alot of ground and isn’t 100% about evolution but is written by an ornithologist (bird scientist).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guns,_Germs,_and_Steel
The Seven Daughters of Eve – Brian Sykes
Another good book about recent developments in the molecular analysis of human history
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Seven_Daughters_of_Eve
The Selfish Gene – Richard Dawkins
An example of a real scientific controversy that should be taught in schools (if only they had the time and resources to do it)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Selfish_Gene
Jurassic Park – Michael Crichton
Not really about evolution either, alot of science fiction in there, but a great read. The book is different and better than the movie.
http://www.amazon.com/Jurassic-Park-Michael-Crichton/dp/0345370775
Hope this helps and welcome to Pharyngula. PZ only rants when he’s marking exams.
63 cmmnts s f my fndng ths thrd, nd n mntn f PYGMS ND DWRFS? PZ s bng vry strct ndd.
Kds t vryn fr bng s crdl t Sn. rd Phryngl dly nd, hv t sy, t cn gt prtty crmdgnly n hr fst. (‘m nt scntst, lthgh ply n fr my hppy-dppy frnds whn thy stry t fr frm rlty n r bll sssns.) Mks my thstc ll’ hrt ll wrm t s y gys rchng t wth cmpssn nd gnrsty.
-Brc
[I’m junking Wagner’s spam, I’m killing anything that smacks of a personal attack, and I’m also pruning out this meta-talk about the thread — could we please focus? — pzm]
I got here a little late. It looks like Sean has not had much opportunity to say anything, but there are lots of comments from others.
Instead of starting out by asking Sean to argue against evolution theory, I think it would be helpful to ask him to explain what he finds to be the most compelling argument in favor of (whatever his explanation for durrent biodiversity and the change in life forms over the history of the Earth) is.
Sean,
This is a nice video lecture with Sean B. Carroll (U. Wisconsin, Madison) and David Kingsley about Darwin and evolution. Have a look. I don’t think they come across as elitist.
It’s geared towards high school students.
2005 Holiday Lectures on Science
Howard Hughes Medical Institute
http://www.hhmi.org:8080/ramgen/05lect1_225f.rm
Enjoy and learn!
Oh, I didn’t realize, it’s a four part lecture series. Here are parts 2,3, and 4:
http://www.hhmi.org:8080/ramgen/05lect2_225f.rm
http://www.hhmi.org:8080/ramgen/05lect3_225f.rm
http://www.hhmi.org:8080/ramgen/evolution_religion_225.rm
Looks like the last one is on Evolution and Religion (haven’t see it yet).
“I’d say it is that it implies we are not human beings…we are just animals, cattle to be herded by elitists.”
A lot of you have misinterpreted what I meant by that. Some of you have even said that’s how it is with religion. Right there, I’m gonna have to put my foot down. Not all religions promote elitists. Catholicism teaches that we are all children of God, all equal, but in different ways. According to the Bible, we are made in the image and likeness of God and are thus masters of the earth.
“…cattle to be herded by elitists.”
Some of you have said a cattle can’t herd a cattle. You’re taking what I said too literally. What I mean is that if life came about entirely naturally and God does not exist, then elitists (world-leaders) can lie and twist and herd us through deceitful ways, and they will feel no guilt, for, in the words of a Russian philosopher: “If God does not exist, then nothing is morally wrong.” I forget the philosopher’s name. I conceived this perspective due to many sources I’ve read and heard. One source that stands out in my memory would be the book “The Marketing of Evil.” You might have heard of this book and probably wouldn’t like it, but I found it very interesting.
You might say that the belief in God can coincide with the Theory of Evolution. That would depend upon your beliefs about God. Of course, I don’t entirely disagree with evolution. For instance, (correct me if I am wrong) evolution claims we develop immunities to sicknesses and stuff, and those immunities get passed on to our descendants; we can (to a degree) adapt to different climates and ways of life; and other things of this nature. But there are other parts of evolution that I still don’t agree with, mainly that we are descendants of apes. There may be fossils indicating a line of apes, each becoming more and more like a human, but similarities to me are not science. One could say the fossils prove evolution, or one could say God has a particular syle of design. It becomes a matter of opinion, and I choose the latter. I also disagree with the claims that all life on earth evolved from a single-celled organism. That’s a longshot, even for “natural” selection, and too unlikey to be logically considered scientific fact (scientific at all, for that matter).
Other than with technology and immunities, the term “evolution” doesn’t literally seem to apply in most instances. Evolution comes from the word “evolve,” which means: “to expand or grow. To increase.” Most things, however, seem to be DEvolving, not Evolving, in life. Take, for instance, dogs. Evolutionists claim certain wolves evolved into dogs. Evolved? Wouldn’t it make more sense to say DEVOLVED? Wolves are taller, stronger, faster, and probably smarter than most dogs. Take, also for example, the human brain. I looked at a copy of some math papers 8th-graders were doing back a hundred years ago, and it staggered my mind. It was harder than most modern college level mathematics. Kids back then were studying books like “The Federalist,” a project most modern college students wouldn’t and couldn’t undertake. Maybe that’s just due to the way modern society is run, not the human brain devolving, or maybe a combination of the two, one brought on by the other, but modern society seems to accept evolution a lot more than society did back then. Look at erosion, the earth’s slow but steady slowing down of its spin on its axis, and the numerous stars observed to have blown up (never once has a star been observed to form). Yes, some of that you might say has nothing to do with evolution, but according to the World Book Encyclopedia, “The word EVOLUTION may refer to various types of change. For example, scientists generally describe the formation of the universe as having occurred through evolution.” It goes on, but that should give you a general idea of where I’m coming from. It is for these reasons and many other similar examples that I propose there should be another theory, a theory called “The Theory of Devolution.” You’ll probably just laugh at that radical notion, but I earnestly believe it would make more sense than Evolution, for more things seem to devolve rather than evolve.
Sean,
One of the biggest issues I see in your statement is the conflation of evolution with improvement. Your assumption seems to be that evlution must produce something better or faster (the wolf example, or the example of hominid evlution). In general, evolution states that species change and adapt over time to their environment. It doesn’t mean that something has to get stronger/bigger/faster. Evolutionary pressure can make things smaller/weaker/slower. The important thing is that the change has to improve the species survival rate for the environment that they are in.
I will let others with a better background than I fill in the details.
One other thing, regarding seeing a star born, haven’t you heard/seen the NASA pictures of the “star nurseries” in nebula’s?
But evolution claims life evolved from a single-celled organism. Would that not be literally evolving? But that is also, like I said previously, too unlikely. Devolution makes more sense. Devolution would also coincide perfectly with the Second Law of Thermodynamics.
Quote:
Devolution would also coincide perfectly with the Second Law of Thermodynamics.
Please enlighten me as to this second law, and how evolution is impossible with the existence of external energy sources.
Sean,
The second law only applies to closed systems. The earth is not a closed system. We have lots and lots of energy coming in from that big thermonuclear furnace 8 light minutes away.
Any invocation of the second law with regard to evolution is utterly false.
MikeG
To understand more fully how genetic information makes a case for evolution beyond just genetic similarity, take a look at some information on endogenous retroviruses and the probabilities involved in those coincidences. Pretty complex stuff but is overwhelmingly supportive of evolution if you understand the concept. (ERV partial dna insertion in germ cell lines showing common ancestry…I believe humans and chimps share 7 of these? Been a while since I looked at that data. Maybe you can help me out P.Z)
And showing common ancestry between humans and animals can be an opportunity to look upon our fellow organisms with more respect rather than the perception that it entails looking upon ourselves with less.
There is something beautiful in a sort of rags-to-riches tale in the tapestry of life, something humbling and a touch egalitarian about knowing we are beings with such simple origins, yet we survived and changed, rising from history as thralls to the whim of nature and our environment, to masters, able to subdue nature in most of her aspects.
This knowledge, along with astronomical information, that we are circling one average star on the edge of one spiral arm of galaxy of billions of stars and it, in turn, is one of billions of galaxies, should be evidence that our importance is not innate. Instead, we should be driven to establish and achieve our own purpose and judge ourselves by our actions.
The second law of thermodynamics is an expression of the universal law of increasing entropy. In simple terms, it is an expression of the fact that over time, differences in temperature, pressure, and density tend to even out in a physical system which is isolated from the outside world. Entropy is a measure of how far along this evening-out process has progressed.
The most common enunciation of second law of thermodynamics is essentially due to Rudolf Clausius:
The entropy of an isolated system not in equilibrium will tend to increase over time, approaching a maximum value at equilibrium.
There are many statements of the second law which use different terms, but are all equivalent. Another statement by Clausius is:
“Heat cannot of itself pass from a colder to a hotter body.”
The second law is only applicable to macroscopic systems. The second law is actually a statement about the probable behavior of an isolated system. As larger and larger systems are considered, the probability of the second law being practically true becomes more and more certain. For any system with a mass of more than a few picograms, the second law is true to within a few parts in a million.
A consequence of the Second Law of Thermodynamics is that the universe could not have always existed; it must have had a beginning. A further consequence of the Second Law of Thermodynamics is that when the universe began, it was in a more organized state than it is today. Should not the same go for life on earth?
Note: this information might be debunked, or partially at least. I apologize if it is.
Not all religions promote elitists. Catholicism teaches that we are all children of God, all equal, but in different ways.
Catholicism is probably one of the best examples of eliticist (is that even a word?) religions. (at least in my experience, having been born in a VERY catholic country and having catholic friends) They believe that you shouldn’t only follow the bible, but the catholic church. They have a whole hierarchy of people (PASTORS, priests, bishops, popes, etc) whose sole purpose is to tell others what to do.
What I mean is that if life came about entirely naturally and God does not exist, then elitists (world-leaders) can lie and twist and herd us through deceitful ways, and they will feel no guilt, for, in the words of a Russian philosopher: “If God does not exist, then nothing is morally wrong.”
First off, evolution doesn’t deal with god. Most people who accept evolution believe in god too.(if you look at the numbers… about half the population accepts evolution but only 10% are agnostics/atheists)
Secondly, people have done what you talk about thousands of years before evolution or the big bang or anything else came about. They have done it in the name of religion, and even in the name of christianity and catholicism.
Thirdly, psychopaths aside, morality is built into our brains. It comes FROM evolution. If you notice, ALL societies, ALL religions have some basic morals. There are taboos against incest, lying, etc.
Even us atheists and agnostics have morals. In fact, I consider myself more moral than most religious people I know. And actually there are studies such as this one: http://moses.creighton.edu/JRS/2005/2005-11.html that show that in the most prosperous societies, as religiosity goes up, morality goes down (from homicide rates, abortion rates, etc go up).
For instance, (correct me if I am wrong) evolution claims we develop immunities to sicknesses and stuff, and those immunities get passed on to our descendants
That’s an outdated idea of evolution. It was conceived of before Darwin. We do not inherit what our parents developed. For example, the child of a body builder isn’t born with a body builder’s body. Those changes aren’t genetic changes in our gametes (sperm and eggs), and neither are our immunities.
… to be continued…
[Disclaimer: The following way-too-long comment comes from a person of faith (Baptist preacher’s kid, albeit a self-proclaimed heretic and not terribly “religious” in the ordinary sense of the word) and science (chemistry/chemical engineering, although life took me in a different direction and I haven’t worked in that field in over 25 years) who admits to not being a biologist, so my pronouncements re biology are admittedly oversimplified, and it’s directed toward a non-scientist, so it also includes some historical background. Anyone feel free to jump in and correct me if I’m wrong. YMMV, AWYSB.]
Sean asks:
No reputable scientist that I know of claims that humans are descended from monkeys per se. Monkeys, apes, and humans have a common primate ancestor (which undoubtedly did look a lot like a monkey, or maybe a lemur), but the primate family tree split into numerous branches over millions of years, producing the ancestors of modern monkeys, apes, and humans.
The “descended from monkeys” misconception has no foundation in Darwin’s work. It was a facile means of ridicule on the part of supporters of the prevailing scientific and religious status quo who didn’t understand what Darwin was talking about (and in too many cases, they didn’t want to understand, because that would undermine their comfortable belief system).
BTW, Darwin didn’t invent the idea of evolution. What Darwin did was propose a mechanism for that process. The scientific world knew about the fossil record, the notion of evolution was already common, and decades earlier some scientists had proposed an age of several million years for the earth. (For example, Lord Kelvin’s estimate was somewhere around 20 million years.)
You may also be surprised to learn that because science was a fashionable pursuit among the upper classes throughout the Enlightenment era, many (if not most) of the greatest discoveries of the age were made by gentlemen (and a few lady) amateurs. (Darwin was one such “gentleman scientist.”) Many scientists in Darwin’s time were also people of faith (including a number of members of clergy) who studied the earth and sky in an effort to better understand the glory of the Creator. OTOH, another large group (including much of Darwin’s family) considered themselves “freethinkers,” willing to challenge both science and faith.
Sean again:
Their parents, of course. We get our genes directly from our parents. The more generations separate one person from another, the more genetic sources come into play. We’re half-related to each parent, quarter-related to each grandparent, and so on.
In addition, genetic drift – numerous minor mutations occurring in each generation and shaped by natural selection over time (OMG, the dreaded EVOLUTION!) – gradually moves the branches of the family even further apart.
The resulting diverse gene pool is a major factor in the survival of any species or population. Inbreeding is a big problem in endangered species of animals (and in many breeds of domesticated animals as well); small populations become so inbred that they’re prone to birth defects, genetic diseases, infertility, etc. (Someone correct me if I’m wrong, but I think I remember reading that a minimum viable population – one where potentially deadly recessives are sufficiently diluted – is at least 100-200 individuals.)
In humans, inbreeding became a major problem in royal families. European royalty (and, to a great extent, nobility) became so inbred as to become in effect one big family (which eventually included some pretty odd and less-than-healthy birds), and the Egyptian custom of pharaohs marrying their sisters did a number on several dynasties.
Bringing a few things over from the other thread……..
Sean says:
I shudder to think, but you seem to be coming perilously close to the POV of I-forget-who-it-was (Hovind, Ham, or some such young-earth creationist) who declared not long ago that when direct scientific observation and the Bible give different answers, the Bible has to take precedence. Anything even vaguely resembling “Don’t confuse me with the facts; my mind’s made up” is untenable no matter where you’re coming from.
It’s of concern insofar as it interferes with your scientific objectivity. Regardless of the protestations of its supporters, “Intelligent Design” is grossly unobjective because it necessarily involves an “Intelligent Designer.” Who else could that be but a God/god of some sort? IDs a blatant and dishonest attempt to package creationism in quasi-scientific sheep’s clothing by dodging the question of who the designer is. Real science doesn’t dodge the questions.
In addition, creationism/ID is dishonest in sticking to its assumptions and cherry-picking only those “data” that support them. It’s akin to trying to jack up a house and run a foundation under it without determining how sound the house is. Real science questions its assumptions constantly, and when it disproves one assumption, it moves on to the next. It’s not afraid to remodel the house and add on new rooms as needed, or even to build a completely new house if the old one becomes too shaky to live in.
Ultimately, creationism/ID is dishonest even in matters of faith. Not only the Bible but “the heavens are telling the glory of God,” and not to read the “book” of the universe and try to understand what it tells us is a kind of blasphemy. The Bible was written centuries before the concept of “science” was invented. It was never intended as a science book, and it simply doesn’t work as one no matter how many knots you tie it (or the skewed “evidence”) into.
Science is science, faith is faith, and ultimately neither has thing one to say about the other, which (IMO) renders the science “versus” faith question meaningless. (I don’t want to start off in that direction; suffice it to say that the two have coexisted more or less peacefully in me, and in many other people I’ve known, for as long as I can remember. OTOH, I freely acknowledge that science versus religious dogma and authoritarianism is a very real problem, and in that arena I stand firmly on the side of science. ‘Nuff said.)
Absolutely untrue. I think I was about your age when I realized that the average atheist or agnostic I knew was, if anything, more ethical than my average fellow Christian, at least partly because so many Christians were so caught up in small personal rule-bound pseudo-ethical “morals” that they couldn’t see beyond the rules into the larger-scale reality of life in a complex world, which demands a larger-scale, beyond-the-personal ethical sense. Even the most irreligious among us have a basic “philosophy of life” that provides an ethical framework, and since it’s grounded in observed reality, often that framework is far superior to that of the conventionally “religious.”
Paradoxical? Maybe at first glance. OTOH, it makes sense in that not having a detailed “list of rules” to simply follow (often more or less blindly) in hopes of some next-life reward, atheists/agnostics have to give more thought to their actions and their real-life, here-and-now implications.
If you take the reductio ad absurdam tack and say, “You mean we’re nothing more than animals?” you need to keep in mind that alongside the self-preservation instinct, most higher animals have a strong altruistic instinct. We care for others of our kind because it helps the species to survive.
To oversimplify things, instinctive altruism plus intelligent thought equals ethics. Add to that the realization that our continued existence and well-being depend on the complex web of natural processes in our universe, and that ethical sense expands to studying its workings (including the process of evolution) in order to preserve it.
I could go on, but I think I’ve tortured everyone enough for now. PZ, I hope I’ve stayed sufficiently on topic. Sean, I disagree with you wholeheartedly, but I give you credit for sticking around for the bumpy ride.
Next!
Mr. Henry:
Similarity is science – when used properly, like any other tool. If you look at the silhouettes of sharks and dolphins and icthyosaurs, you see a certain similarity. But closer inspection reveals that the differences are even more significant. Only one breathes underwater. Only one nurses its young. One doesn’t have real bone, just cartilage. By looking at these patterns of similarity, we conclude that a dolphin is a mammal. And that statement, “A dolphin is a mammal” is just as accurate and scientific as, “a human is a great ape” and for the same reasons.
I still think devolution would make more sense.
Here’s a link you might find interesting.
http://www.bible.ca/tracks/converted-to-creation-antony-flew-former-atheist.htm
It might be somewhat besides the point and not too factual, but it supports Intelligent Design and also supports, in a way, devolution.
I still think devolution would make more sense.
Here’s a link you might find interesting.
http://www.bible.ca/tracks/converted-to-creation-antony-flew-former-atheist.htm
It might be somewhat besides the point and not too factual, but it supports Intelligent Design and also supports, in a way, devolution.
No, Sean, it has already been pointed out to you that evolution is not “improvement”, and it is not “growth”, “expansion” or “increase”, either. It simply means “change”, not “change for the better in human terms”.
-“in the words of a Russian philosopher: “If God does not exist, then nothing is morally wrong.” I forget the philosopher’s name.”
Here we have a problem.
This statement is true if you define moral behaviour as actions in accordance with Gods will. This is not the only defintion (although it is in religion, which gets you into some tricky grounds). There are many schools of ethical thought, some of which you may want to explore.
For example, let us take the basic concept of self defence. Is it moral to kill a man to save anothers life? This question is insanely sticky if you use biblical doctrines to answer it (for example, you are risking eternal life for a short term gain, yet if you don’t you are passively doing harm to another; killing the person is for the greater good, but is not strictly speaking biblicaly moral).
The very fact that we can debate ethics, even using the Bible as our basis, between these schools of thought shows that they are not a black and white question to be dismissed with a flick of a Bible.
-“You might say that the belief in God can coincide with the Theory of Evolution. That would depend upon your beliefs about God.”
Yes, it would. But here is my question.
If your beliefs about God exclude something core to the way that the world you find yourself in – Gods own creation – works, does that not cheepen, or even destroy, the integrity of what you believe in? It is hard to give an example here without someone crying ‘but that isn’t how it is’, but I will try.
Imagine a person who believes in a God that would never allow them or their loved ones to die. When someone they know dies, they are probably going to have their faith shaken, if not stripped away. For many, this is what happens; they can’t believe that such things can happen in a world governed by a loving God and lose their faith along with their loved ones.
Imagine now a religion that dictates that evolution doesn’t happen at all. You yourself admit that it does to a greater or lesser extent. If their beliefs are not compatable with evolution, but they are confronted with unavoidable, indesputable evidence of evolution, what is going to give? Either they deny reality, or they lose their faith. Reality puts up more of a fight than beliefs do.
As such, holding an image of God that is not compatable with reality, whatever reality is, is a self defeating position, and you should take time to study Creation; the only objective source we have about any Creator there exists.
-“Other than with technology and immunities, the term “evolution” doesn’t literally seem to apply in most instances.”
There is no difference between evolution and devolution in the senses you discussed.
First things first. The phrase ‘survival of the fittest’ is not an accurate one to give you a model of evolution. We have our pre-determined views of what ‘fittest’ means, normaly to do with being stronger, faster, bigger, smarter and all that jazz. This has no bearing on evolution at all.
A more correct version of that phrase, used in ‘Deep Simplicity’ by John Gribbin, is ‘survival of those that best fit’. Fittest is not used in the terms of strongest or coolest or whatever you may see it as, but as in those who most suit their environment. Those that survive best in the conditions they find themselfs in.
As such, the traditional view of fitness may not always be the same as the evolutionary fittest. A wolf that is quick and strong will likely lose out to a smaller, fluffier wolf when the situation it finds itself in to get food requires looking cute so the kids will play with you.
Being big and having lots of muscles costs a lot in energy. You have to eat a great deal to maintain that body. At a certain level, different for each situation, the payoff from having the additional strength is less than the cost of the additional energy requirements, and less strong, smaller animals will be favoured.
As for society declining, you should take another look at those conditions a hundred years ago. Sure it looks like litteracy rates were high, so long as you don’t notice that litterate meant writing your name. Mathematics and other areas have moved away from rote learning and classics towards more practical skills required for modern working lifes, and to encompass modern technology. You can argue if this is a good or bad thing, but it is social development, and society has improved overall in most areas (health, actual education, etc.).
A good, concise debunking of the thermodynamics myth:
http://talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html#CF (note that I just linked to the Physics and Mathematics section because they have different sub-links for thermo)
Re: The Second Law of Thermodynamics:
Sean, as was pointed out, the earth itself is *not* a closed system. The Second Law of Thermodynamics does not state that entropy cannot decrease locally. If this was the case, your A/C unit would be a Second Law violation. It just states that in a closed system, entropy will increase. This holds true for the earth as well; if we were somehow blocked off from the sun, our local reductions in entropy (outbalanced by increases in entropy in the solar system as a whole) would quickly reverse, and there wouldn’t be any of us beneficiaries of the localized reduction in entropy sitting around to talk about it.
C’mon, Sean. No fair cutting-and-pasting the Wikipedia definition of the second law of thermodynamics, and then cutting-and-pasting from (at least this is the source I found) “The Noetic Cafe – Evolution of consciousness through the Media” (http://cafe.noeticnetworks.org/dcf/DCForumID17/13.html)without, perhaps, understanding what’s being stated — shoot, I don’t understand what’s being stated! At least cite your sources. . . .
Play fair.
–folderol
Evolutionists claim certain wolves evolved into dogs. Evolved? Wouldn’t it make more sense to say DEVOLVED? Wolves are taller, stronger, faster, and probably smarter than most dogs.
Take a look at the definition of evolution I posted before. Evolution is ANY change in a population. This can be either good or bad. Even assuming wolves are somehow “superior” (as you seem to think) to dogs, that is still evolving. Dogs evolved because dogs are better able to survive. By being our friends, we feed them, give them shelter, water, etc. That’s evolution.
“I looked at a copy of some math papers 8th-graders were doing back a hundred years ago, and it staggered my mind. It was harder than most modern college level mathematics.”
There is a statistic or whatever which I’m not sure if it’s true or not, saying that there is more information one issue of today’s newspaper than any person saw in their entire lives just a few hundred years ago.
You’re not even in college yet, how would you know about modern college level mathematics? look at today’s physics papers and stuff, and you’ll be amazed at how complex they are.
“according to the World Book Encyclopedia, “The word EVOLUTION may refer to various types of change.”
Encyclopedias and dictionaries tell you what someone that speaks english MIGHT mean when they say a word (colloquial meaning). Scientists don’t use the same language. The scientific theory of evolution does not include big bangs, the origin of life, or anything else. Just how life changes.
Devolution would also coincide perfectly with the Second Law of Thermodynamics.
By your own logic, a seed growing into a tree would be impossible, because a tree is literally trillions of times lower in entropy than a seed. Others above have explained the second law better, so I won’t repeat it.
You’re right about it being off-topic, and being “not too factual”, but still:
Cite
Just taking a few of your comments:
Evolutionists claim certain wolves evolved into dogs. Evolved? Wouldn’t it make more sense to say DEVOLVED? Wolves are taller, stronger, faster, and probably smarter than most dogs.
You are continuing to look at the issue of evolution from the wrong perspective. First of all, the evolution of dogs was due to *artificial* selection, not *natural* selection. More than ten thousand years ago humans started selecting young wolves that followed the human groups that were friendlier and more docile [or more dependant, juvenile and stupid from another point of view]. From that point, humans selected the progeny that accentuated the characteristics that they wanted and with mutations over the next thousands of years, more artificial selection was used to create the breeds today. If you take the situation from the point of the population of dogs versus wolves, dogs are far more successful since they have adapted to humans much better than wolves have.
Again, your view contains value judgements where they shouldn’t occur. Dogs are more successful because they have evolved in a the direction of becoming our beloved parasites, and that happened because we wanted them friendlier, cuter, weaker and more stupid than wolves.
Take, also for example, the human brain. I looked at a copy of some math papers 8th-graders were doing back a hundred years ago, and it staggered my mind. It was harder than most modern college level mathematics.
More value judgements and perceptions that are unnecessary and probably incorrect. Maybe you should become a math major in college and that will change your perception. The real point is that we are a product of our society at least as much as a product of our genes. Train a child of today as a child of 100 years ago and you will get pretty much the same results. No video games, no computers, no internet, no organized sports, limited availability for arts instruction, a more disciplinary schooling environment etc. etc. and you will get pretty much the same results.
Another thing to consider is that only very rarely in evolution does something happen in the course of 4 generations. Your use of value judgements about the capabilities of people then and now is very limited.
Kids back then were studying books like “The Federalist,” a project most modern college students wouldn’t and couldn’t undertake.
Hmmm, I studied some of the Federalist Papers in high school one generation ago. Somewhat wordy from a modern perspective, but easily understandable. Again, your perceptions get the better of you. The curriculum has changed as have the expectations of students to able to do this kind of work [tool low IMHO]. What can you do easily that people your age group couldn’t conceive of some 100 years ago? There’s so much more on our table to possibly do than there was 4 generations ago.
I think the wolf example can be debunked quite easily.
Which is a better adaptation for the canine family? Evolving into a more docile species that cooperates with man who then in turn feeds and gives it shelter or being in constant competition in the wild with other wolves.
The dog isn’t a great example because most breeds of dogs are arrived at through genetic manipulation through breeding. It’s domestication and traits that are based on the needs and whims of humans.
Also, Sean you might want to think about the language analogy. Modern English is a descendent of an ancient Germanic language. So is Modern German. At one time they were the same. As people became separated socially and geographically, the languages began to change in different ways. Language is inherited, and for the most part your language is virtually identical to the language of your parents. It was true of the Anglo-Saxons when they settled in England. Yet, the inherited language was not a perfect match. There are slight differences in the language between generations…a new phrase or term…an old one falls out of use…etc. Over time, the people in England can no longer talk (without learning a new language)to those who remained in what is today Germany. You can measure in centuries how long it has taken for language to change dramatically. Old English was in use just a few hundred years ago and it is impossible to read without some training. Try reading Chaucer in his original form sometime. That was written around 1400.
The point is that it is difficult for us to imagine long periods of time and consequently it is difficult for us to imagine the amount of change that can occur in those long periods of time. It is hard enough to think far back in human history, much less in the millions of years involved in evolution. Be careful what you say is logical or likely. Sometimes science can be counterintuitive, especially when dealing with large numbers.
Re:
“What I mean is that if life came about entirely naturally and God does not exist, then elitists (world-leaders) can lie and twist and herd us through deceitful ways, and they will feel no guilt, for, in the words of a Russian philosopher: “If God does not exist, then nothing is morally wrong.”
Even if the last sentence followed (others have commented at length on why it does not), note it would still be quite irrelevant to the question of whether or not said deity does exist…
I’m only restating TAW’s “it’s not reality’s job to satisfy our egos”. But, anyway: once more with a new metaphor…
The following argument is transparently irrational:
1. I would be happier if I had $500 in my pocket;
2. Thus I believe I have $500 in my pocket.
The following argument has the same flaw:
1. If Yahweh does not exist, world leaders can do as they please with no guilt.
2. I wouldn’t like world leaders to be able to do as they please with no guilt;
3. Thus I believe Yahweh exists.
Put more simply: what you wish is so has no bearing on what is so…
Or, again, as per TAW: “It’s not reality’s job to satisfy our egos.”
Except women of course who are kinda equal but not equal enough to be a priest.
You mean like preachers, priests, etc. Why does Gods existence or non existence matter in this regard?
This is absurd and wrong but what does it have to do with evolution.
Yes, like why aren’t you a Muslim? a hindu? buddhist? etc
The rest of your post is quite literally nonsense.
Not so. Second law is statistical; it’s possible for arbitrarily large decreases in entropy to occur, just extremely unlikely. But if you have an infinite amount of time to kill, you’ll see it happen eventually.
Only if you’re defining ‘organized’ in terms of low entropy. You can do that if you like; just be aware that such a definition won’t match up with what you intuitively consider ‘organized.’
Just think of the Universe as it is today, compared to the chaotic jumble of mass-energy it was in the past. Would you really call the earlier state more organized?
No. Look at your definitions again. In no way is the Earth an isolated system.
MikeG:
Cobblers. Second law works just fine in open systems. It just work in the way creationists want it to.
Oh, and re: dogs vs. wolves, it has already been pointed out that, even if dogs were all dumber, weaker, slower, etc. than wolves, it would not follow that they had devolved. I would also point out that *some* dogs are significantly larger and stronger than wolves, and some (Irish wolfhound, borzoi, and others) were bred specifically to hunt and kill wolves. Are these breeds therefore “more evolved” than wolves, or than other dogs? Nope- their evolution was just directed (by humans) in a different direction.
Anomalous4, I’m gonna have to disagree with you over most you have said. Athiests are not bound to moral guidelines. They might have their own personal principles, but they are not bound to them, and if you are not bound to principles, you are likely to sway from them, for immorality is easier than morality. Why you brought that up though, I do not know; this thread was supposed to be about evolution, or at least right now it is. You mentioned something about us evolving from apes has nothing to do with Darwin’s theory and is untrue. Maybe I misinterpreted you, but…aren’t you agreeing with me right there? I am befudled (I like using that word).
Here’s a concise presentation on evolution at Wikipedia, maybe it can form a basis for discussion:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_of_evolution
(You science types, please don’t groan at the Wiki, it’s accessible to us laymen.)
You should also read up on mutation:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutation
One way that DNA changes is when radiation causes a replication error that is called a mutation. If that error leads to a characteristic that helps the organism survive and reproduce, then the error becomes a permanent part of the subsequent DNA copies. That’s all natural selection is, the slight tilting in favor of the survival and replication of tiny changes that cumulatively end up having large effects over very long periods of time. The current estimate for the amount of time available since life began here for all these tiny changes to accumulate is somewhere between 3.5 and 3.9 billion years.
(For you non-appeasers here, please see the following as a bridge argument.)
One source of radiation is from outer space. So it’s arguable that mutations are caused by beams from outer space. If you want to believe that there was intent behind those beams from outer space, and call it God, then you can have your cake and eat it too in terms of believing in God and understanding the mechanics of the science of evolution.
Whether or not people have inherent value, or can behave morally without threat of a punishing deity, are two questions that are separate from the understanding of the simple mechanics of DNA mutation driving evolution. But I think it’s a mistake to throw out the science in order to hold on to any favorable opinion one might have on those questions.
This implies that the most recent common ancestor of Old World Monkeys and New World Monkeys is somehow not a monkey. So I have a question: Is there any good reason for arguing that the most recent common ancestor of Old World monkeys, and New World monkeys is not a monkey?
I’ve been seeing the anti-creationist argument ‘No reputable scientist that I know of claims that humans are descended from monkeys per se. …’ since before I started reading talk.origins in 1996 (or maybe it was 1995). Why do we rush to deny that evolution implies humans are descended from monkeys?
I’m well aware that the humans are not descended from any species of monkey which remains alive today – but it is very common for scientists to describe (when writing for the layperson, at least) extinct ancestors of modern monkeys as, well, monkeys. Now, carry that back to the most recent common ancestor of all New World monkeys and Old world monkeys, and we have reached a creature which is an ancestor of humans. Why should we as anti-creationists rush to define this creature as a non-monkey?
You have a good Christmas, Mr. Henry. Hopefully the current site manager persons are not such a grinch that they will disemvowl this comment!
Athiests are not bound to moral guidelines. They might have their own personal principles, but they are not bound to them, and if you are not bound to principles, you are likely to sway from them, for immorality is easier than morality.
Actually atheists are just like theists, and we ARE bound to moral guidelines- those of the society they are in. Your morality didn’t come from the bible sean. It came from the society you live in. If you don’t believe me, look at what the world looked like a couple of hundreds of years ago. What people (christians) believed was moral was not what YOU would think is moral, as they burned people alive, and did many other atrocities.
-“They might have their own personal principles, but they are not bound to them, and if you are not bound to principles, you are likely to sway from them, for immorality is easier than morality.”
The same goes for anyone religous. While they believe in consiquences for violating their principles (dictated to them from outside, but interprited by them in each situation they find themselfs in), they still may violate them from time to time. I could point to any number of Church scandels here.
You are mostly right when you say this has little to do with the debate though. It was you who brought the point up as evidence for God (or at least I thought you did), but lets drop it now, unless you want to go another round?
You might want to read up a little more on Flew.
Flew has subsequently made contradictory statements to those given in the Habermas interview as justification for his endorsing of deism. In October 2004 (before the December publication of the Flew-Habermas interview), a letter written to Richard Carrier of the Secular Web, stated that he was a deist and also said that “I think we need here a fundamental distinction between the God of Aristotle or Spinoza and the Gods of the Christian and the Islamic Revelations.”[7].
Flew also said: My one and only piece of relevant evidence [for an Aristotelian God] is the apparent impossibility of providing a naturalistic theory of the origin from DNA of the first reproducing species … [In fact] the only reason which I have for beginning to think of believing in a First Cause god is the impossibility of providing a naturalistic account of the origin of the first reproducing organisms.
In an another letter to Carrier of 29 December 2004 Flew went on to retract his statement “a deity or a ‘super-intelligence’ [is] the only good explanation for the origin of life and the complexity of nature.” “I now realize that I have made a fool of myself by believing that there were no presentable theories of the development of inanimate matter up to the first living creature capable of reproduction.” wrote Flew. He blames his error on being “misled” by Richard Dawkins, claiming Dawkins “has never been reported as referring to any promising work on the production of a theory of the development of living matter”. (Dawkins has – in “Evolutionary Chemistry: Life in a Test Tube,” published in the 21 May 1992 issue of Nature, with Laurence Hurst.) The work of physicist Gerald Schroeder had been influential in Flew’s new belief, but Flew admitted to Carrier that he had not read any of the scientific critiques of Schroeder that Carrier referred him to.
When asked in December 2004 by Duncan Crary of Humanist Network News if he still stood by the argument presented in The Presumption of Atheism, Flew replied he did but he also restated his position as deist: “I’m quite happy to believe in an inoffensive inactive god”. When asked by Crary whether or not he has kept up with the most recent science and theology, he responded with “Certainly not”, stating that there is simply too much to keep up with. Flew also denied that there was any truth to the rumours of 2001 and 2003 that he had abandoned his atheism or converted to Christianity.
Sean wrote: “A consequence of the Second Law of Thermodynamics is that the universe could not have always existed; it must have had a beginning. A further consequence of the Second Law of Thermodynamics is that when the universe began, it was in a more organized state than it is today”
Sean – that appears to be a direct cut and paste from this site. Is that where you are deriving your information?
Feh. I wasn’t going to post here but since Sean has re-engaged, and I just posted on related material over in the “Awww” page:
* domestic dogs are, uhm, *domesticated*. Even Darwin knew well that the such artifical selection, while an excellent *analogy* for introducing natural selection to his readers, produces very different results: timid animals, with less emotionality, and usually smaller brains. This process has been documented with wild foxes, and it’s hypothesized that when we humans domesticated ourselves (by civilization), we reduced our brain size compared to our less-domesticated close relatives, Neandertal humans (whose brains were disproportionately larger than ours by about 10%, even taking their larger body size into account). (Less this less-brains be taken as devolution, consider the dramatic overall increase in human species’ brain sizes in charts here , though the discussion gets technical.)
Natural Selection, though, is continuing to produce exquisite adaptations and even revise them as environments change – the resulting animals are not devolving, though as others here have noted, there’s no overall progressive trend either. Nor could there be – as environments change, no single adaptive response can be optimal.
* From my post on the “Awww” page: Sean differentiated sharply between ‘us humans’ and ‘animals’. But we share with our fellow primates not only anatomy and physiology, but emotional lives and some parts of our cognitive worlds – including art and simple use of language . Thus evolutionists find it natural (sic) to extend empathy to non-humans; in contrast a Christian writer such as Bush’s former speechwriter Matthew Sculley has to appeal to mercy from fellow Christians to temper their DOMINION over non-humans in factory farms and commercialized ‘hunting’ (an excellent review of this book by Christopher Hitchins in full form appeared in Atlantic Monthly).
Darwin knew and studied these behavioral commonalities. His book THE EXPRESSION OF THE EMOTIONS IN MAN AND ANIMAL emphasizes that human and other primate faces possess comparable musculature, though it’s also clear that human expressivity is more behaviorally developed. He also noted chimpanzee politics a century before De Waal, and that virtues of character (leadership, fairness, trustworthiness) are observable in primate groups. Darwin’s unpublished notebooks (now available even online) sketch, in his ‘m’ and ‘n’ series , many such observations, e.g.
The young Ourang in Zool. Gardens pouts. partly out [of] displeasure (& partly out of I do not know what when it looked at the glass) when pouting protrudes its lips into point.–Man, though he does not pout, pushes out both lips in contempt, disgust & defiance.– different from sneer–
Plato /Erasmus/ says in Phaedo that our “imaginary ideas” arise from the preexistence of the soul, are not derivable from experience.–read monkeys for preexistence.
The modern perspective on primate is most accessibly and helpfully presented by DeWaal in various books such as GOOD NATURED; OUR INNER APE; TREE OF ORIGIN; PEACEMAKING AMONG PRIMATES, etc.
As for other primates and language, although she can edge into woo-woo territory, Sue Savage-Rumbaugh’s book “KANZI : the ape at the brink of the human mind” is well worth reading, and the en.wikipedia page for ‘Kanzi’ provides links to more current material.
Sean,
You are conversing with a big lot of atheists and agnostics.
Do you have any proof that we are any less moral than a christian?
How is one exactly bound to a principle? Fear of punishment of an invisble sky god?
I’m much more likely to not rob someone because A. I wouldn’t want to be robbed and B. Getting caught makes it not worth it.
I think very few people behave morally because they think god is judging them. Societal and internal pressures are much greater.
Sean: You wrote: ‘in the words of a Russian philosopher: “If God does not exist, then nothing is morally wrong.”‘
That’s a common misquote from Dostoevsky’s novel The Brothers Karamazov. Ivan is quoted as having said that ‘if you were to destroy in mankind the belief in immortality, not only love but every living force maintaining the life of the world would at once be dried up. Moreover, nothing then would be immoral, everything would be lawful, even cannibalism.’ In the novel, the other characters are aghast.
In fact, Ivan is completely wrong. He is suggesting that humans avoid wrongdoing solely to avoid punishment after their death. But if that were true, they would not be behaving morally; they would just be avoiding punishment. More importantly, we have no way of knowing reliably what misbehaviour will be punished. Is it stealing, as Moses said YHWH said, or owning things, as Jesus is reported to have said? Is polygamy wrong, as most of the big religions currently say their god says; or fine, as Mohammed practised, and Joseph Smith said an angel had told him on behalf of YHWH? Is usury (taking interest on money you have lent) wrong, as Christians once said YHWH said, and Muslims still say Allah says? Or is it necessary, as the Vatican bank now practises?
Moreover, humans have often claimed that their god requires behaviour we now, with or without the claimed support of other gods, call immoral, eg burning witches, slavery, forcible removal of children from Jewish parents.
Evolution provides a better explanation of why humans (and, possibly, other animals) acquire a moral sense. Behaving altruistically, or ‘loving your neighbour’ can often help your genes to survive. For example, if your genes program you to groom the fleas out of your neighbour’s fur, you’ll both be more likely to survive long enough to breed.
Humans, and probably other animals, take that to another level, and have acquired a skill called empathy. That enables us to wonder, for example, how much a cow dislikes having her calf taken away from her and then being milked, and therefore to wonder whether dairy farming is moral.
Sean is copying from Wikipedia.
Sean:
The second law is only applicable to macroscopic systems. The second law is actually a statement about the probable behavior of an isolated system. As larger and larger systems are considered, the probability of the second law being practically true becomes more and more certain. For any system with a mass of more than a few picograms, the second law is true to within a few parts in a million.
Wikipedia:
The second law is only applicable to macroscopic systems. The second law is actually a statement about the probable behavior of an isolated system. As larger and larger systems are considered, the probability of the second law being practically true becomes more and more certain. For any system with a mass of more than a few picograms, the second law is true to within a few parts in a million.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_law_of_thermodynamics
I see no point in continuing with this farce.
Copying, but clearly not understanding, unfortunately.
If you mean what’s the most fatal flaw by what evolution means, I’d say it is that it implies we are not human beings…we are just animals, cattle to be herded by elitists.
I think this is a crystal summary of the (lack of) discussion.
If it is axiomatic that human beings are unique, it should be obvious that saying otherwise is wrong. There may be sophistry that softens the problem, say by interpreting “unique” as a “distinguishable difference is the same sort of stuff”, but this doesn’t work if “unique” simply means “of different stuff”. There is also the “meat plus” dodge that allows bodies made of similar stuff, but asserting that the associated “human” is of different stuff. (This is actually a very helpful notion in enabling the commission of mayhem on other apparently similar bits of meat lacking the “human” stuff)
Science is different in that the only a priori “truth” is that you cannot assert an a priori truth. (Give that as a 1st year essay and stand back. :) Every assertion of theory can be challenged, but only by observation and reasoning. Really good theories may attain the status of “laws” but that just make it more important when you can find how they break. What is scientifically impermissible is to say “this theory contradicts that a priori truth”.
This is the converse of the starting point above. You can hack around trying to attack the premises of the theory, but it is simply sophistry. You can’t get around that you can’t make an a prior assertion.
So, net-net, until one side or the other gives up a core principle, there is no discussion, only proselytizing in hopes of enlightenment. Observationally, evangelicals tend to not mess around with sophistry and convincing the unsaved with the language and understanding of the saved. They go right to the crucial point.
I’d rather say that “this evidence contradicts that a priori truth”
Wait. You said impermissible, and I misread it. Sorry.
Sean, I’m going to look at one tiny philosophical part of your statement, okay?
First, “elitist” does not mean “world-leader”, it means someone who thinks the world should be run by an elite group of [insert personal favorite here].
Second, how are these two ideas joined: that life arises naturally OR God exists. Many people of various religions have no problem accepting that life arises naturally and God exists.
Third, if life only comes from a god, how do you choose a particular god? If you accept a supernatural explanation, what evidence do you use to prefer one supernatural explanation over another?
Fourth, the people who “can lie and twist and herd us through deceitful ways, and they will feel no guilt” are sociopaths. Other people will feel guilt, regardless of whether or not they claim any god or religion. We call this aspect of personality “empathy”. It is a trait we share with a number of animals, as well.
Fifth, what evidence would you use to support the idea that if God didn’t exist nothing would be morally wrong?
If you mean what’s the most fatal flaw by what evolution means, I’d say it is that it implies we are not human beings…we are just animals, cattle to be herded by elitists.
Sean, you are making two errors here.
Firstly, you are engaging in the logical fallacy of argumentum ad consequentiam. “if evolution is correct, humans are animals. Since I consider humans being animals to be undesirable, evolution cannot be correct”. To demonstrate the problem with this, consider a biopsy revealing you have cancer. You may not like the result, but that does not invalidate the test.
Secondly, you are making a category error. You are confusing “humans” in the biological sense with “human beings” in the existential/theological/moral sense. Yes, we *are* animals. We are also more than animals, in that we have culture and intelligence. To demonstrate this, consider the claim that both rocks and animals are made out of molecules. This claim is true, but it does not mean that animals have the same qualities as rocks.
We are also more than animals, in that we have culture and intelligence.
First off, other animals have both. Maybe not to the same extent, but they do.
Secondly, I’ll just illustrate what’s wrong with your logic with an analogy:
“water bears are more than animals, in that they can survive days chilled to almost absolute zero”
an animal is an animal. There is no such thing as an animal being more than an animal, it’s a logical fallacy.
It’s hard not to view this conversation with Sean as just a large scale version of this conversation:
As I read through the first twenty or so comments I held out such hope for Sean, given the respectful and reasoned comments and reference points with which he was provided. Too bad he is unwillingly to consider the information provided here as there is so very much to learn.
(And, cheers, to those who responded to his mis-perceptions about our beloved canine parasites.)
wintermute –
umm … the tacit completion of “this x contradicts that a priori truth” by definition of “a priori truth” is that “x is false”. I understand your post to tacitly conclude that “the a priori truth is false”. :) This requires accepting that “a priori truth” is an empty phrase. Those so inclined may insert the “synthetic” and so retain analytic a priori truth.
Fearing both PZM’s tangent detector and making too much of an antique theory of knowledge, I’ll stop here … except to note that one of Kant’s problems was the distinction between empericism (say, Hume) and rationalism (say, DesCarte)which would resolve itself today by saying it is possible to be rational (in a strict sense) without being scientific. It may be that one of the reasons our creationist friends get so pissed off about rude treatment is an honest lack of understanding of the difference.
Or they may be just a money grubbing elite slime leading the cattle. Unfortunately we can’t make an a priori judgement. :)
Evolutionists claim certain wolves evolved into dogs. Evolved? Wouldn’t it make more sense to say DEVOLVED? Wolves are taller, stronger, faster, and probably smarter than most dogs.
Sean, you are making another error here. Crudely, evolution is about “survival of the fittest”. Your error is in assuming a naive definition of “fittest”.
Let us assume that wolves are indeed stronger, faster and smarter than dogs. Dogs are still more “fit” than wolves to survive in the environment, because that environment includes and is dominated by humans and human desires. Humans like dogs and dislike wolves. This is demonstarted by the fact that wolves are an endangered species – precisely because of human activity – and dogs are thriving – precisely because of human activity.
Sucking up to a successful species is, in itself, a survival strategy. Dogs, cats, sparrows, opium poppies, body lice and grass are all successful species – because humans are successful.
Yeah, I noticed that Sean was copying from Wikipedia, too. You beat me to the punch!
Sean, you criticized anonymous4 for bringing up atheism and morality, but you were the one that did that, and indeed, in your video, you said thaat evolution is believed as an excuse for atheists who do not want to believe in god. Try to remember what you’ve said or argued.
Now, about the second law of thermodynamics, given that you copied paragraphs from Wikipedia and passed them off as your own, we don’t think you understand the concept. It is a tired old objection of creationists, and it is easily addressed.
The Earth is not a closed system. We get an input of a tremendous amount of energy from the Sun. Living organisms capture that energy, and use it for form chemical bonds, creating organization, reducing entropy. However, inside the sun, where all the energy is coming from, entropy is increasing. The overall entropy of the Earth-Sun system has been increasing, and so living organisms, and evolution, do NOT contradict the second law of thermodynamics. This is explained in the talkorigins.org list of creationist claims, you could spend days there and I suggest that you do.
Evolution means change in a particular direction, I don’t know where you got the idea that it means to expand, grow, or increase. Evolution is about change.
Did you know that we have discovered exactly where two ancestral ape chromosomes fused together to create our chromosome 2? Did you know that humans and other apes possess the exact same mutations that disable our Vitamin-C-synthesizing gene? You are saying that an omnipotent omniscient deity pruposefully inserted a broken gene, broken in exactly the same way, in both humans and other apes? And this is just a taste of the molecular evidence.
No matter what evidence we give you, you will always be able to retreat and say, well, god could have made it that way. This is called pseudoscience. You aren’t saying what evidence would falsify your position, and so no matter what science discovers you will hold to your position. That is an unscientific position. You know, I could say I think magic fairies could have made the universe the way it is, no matter what the universe looks like – that doesn’t mean that fairies exist or that they did anything.
In the movies, how can they tell when the bomber bad-guy is an expert – because there is no pattern to which kinds of bombs he or she uses. To say that a god has a particular style of design implies that this entity is limited in expertise.
There are tens of thousands of wolves. There are millions upon millions of domesticated dogs. It appears that the survival strategy employed by dogs is a whole lot ‘smarter’ than that of wolves. You seem to think that evolution must involve an increase of complexity or intelligence in every case – only where it matters for survival. Stick domesticated dogs in the wild, and given a few thousand or tens of thousands of years they should adapt.
There are hundreds of thousands of scientific research papers on evolution: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=search&term=evolution
You don’t need to read them all, but you should know that not one of them supports the view that humans and all life on this planet did not evolve from earlier species.
There are many people here who are willing to discuss this with you, however, don’t cut-and-paste words from elsewhere to make it seem as if you understand something. That will get old real fast.
There is no such thing as an animal being more than an animal, it’s a logical fallacy.
Don’t take it so literally; I was trying to point Sean towards the idea of different levels of “beingness”.
An animal is an object; it is made out of molecules just like a rock. An animal is also more than an object; it exhibits qualities of life not found in other objects such as rocks.
The phrasing was based on pedagogy, not symbolic logic.
Here’s a pretty good video against evolution:
The person who posted this video on youtube has a lot more videos against evolution. I haven’t had time to watch them all yet, but what I’ve watched so far is interesting.
I mentioned my proposal for a theory called Devolution, but I didn’t explain too much about it. Its details and concept I’ll explain on a whole individual web page that I’ll create perhaps later tonight or tomorrow (owning http://www.knightstavern.com and knowing how to type HTML codes, that shouldn’t be too hard for me).
Oh yea! Someone said something about how the Bible doesn’t allow killing (or something like that). They’d be wrong. In the Old Testament it is written:
“There is a time and place for every purpose under heaven: a time to kill, a time for peace…”
It is also written in the Old Testament:
“An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth.” A consequence for this would be a life for a life.
The Bible teaches many things, and some people say it contradicts itself. It does not. It gives us the wisdom of how to act in whatever circumstance we must face. The Bible shows that God is not a hippy, nor a nazi. He is just and merciful at the same time. He is God.
Someone else claimed that Catholicism does not give full equality to women because it does not let them be priests. Women are not allowed to be priests because a priest is supposed to represent Christ, and Christ was a man. Thus, women can’t really represent Him. It has nothing to do with discrimination. I said we are all equal in different ways. A woman cannot be a priest, likewise a man cannot be a nun.
I’ve come across this before, and it’s due to the sensitivity to a particular creationist argument that goes as follows:
“If we evolved from monkeys [or apes], why don’t we see monkeys [or apes] evolving into humans today, huh? Huh???”
The counter-argument to really get them to understand the semantics requires that they really understand evolution, so you’re kind of in a catch-22. The shortcut to that is to try to get them to understand that we share a common ancestor, and that all these descendant (sp?) populations have changed over time into their current species.
And when a person is wont to grossly misunderstand things in the first place….. *sigh*
Sean, most of your issues seem to boil down to predisposition.
I could talk about some of your objections, about the laws of thermodynamics or the fossil record. But I’d like to take a different tack.
Many of us believe that your God is small. That a god who, when he could be playing with the universe on the scale of black holes and galactic nurseries where stars are born, or on the scale where vibrating edges of space-time sing in harmony with each other and make everything be, instead makes a few thousand creatures on a single planet and sets up marching orders. He looks like a child playing with toy soldiers.
Your god puts this whole universe to the side and says ‘not for you’, because before we can go out of the sandbox and play, the game is over. Like showing a child the world outside the window, but telling him thats not his place, that he can never go there. All he can hope for is for the game to end quickly and to get as many points as possible before it does.
Your god seems to us one of despair and, and as you said, devolution. Fewer possibilities over time. Everything was better back then, you seem to believe. We were smarter (though we weren’t), dogs were wolves and somehow better (though dogs can do things today that wolves never could), language was more complex (it wasn’t), etc.. You seem to WANT it to be that way.
And we can’t see why you want a god like that. Why you’d never want your children to be better than you are. Why you’d never want your grandchildren to live up to some of the potential you could never fulfill. Why you don’t want the humans to come to be better caretakers, better at understanding their own natures and better at making choices about their future.
When we look at where evolution has led, we say proudly ‘look how far we have come, bloody amazing, no? I wonder how much further we will go?’ You look at evolution and all you seem to care about is that you think there isn’t anything special about humans in it.
We see amazing possibilities ahead. Evolution allows for that.
As for some of your odd conclusions:
You seem to think that evolution inevitably leads back to a single cell spontaneously coming from non-living matter. You ever consider the possibility that maybe life is a LIKELY result of the quantum/chemical/physics of the universe? That we will find evidence of it almost everywhere we look (like we have, on mars rocks and in dust older than the solar system, and it will develop to its potential in places best suited to nurture it?
As for the notion that somehow Christian morals somehow make people better, come on, you know better already. We find people calling themselves Christian and behaving badly all the time, they aren’t ‘bound’ to a moral code any more than anybody else is. They get their sense of appropriateness the same way everybody else does, from the culture around them.
I think some of you need to lighten up on Sean’s use of Wikipedia. Debunk the information if you want but please, not all of us are as brilliant as some of you seem to think you are.
Sean, I really appreciate your having this conversation. I (and perhaps only I) think it is useful.
Sean, I think it would be better to focus more on one aspect of evolution, rather than getting sidetracked down the religion/Bible issues. Get a thorough understanding of one aspect you don’t think works. If you don’t focus, your education on the subject will flounder, because, as was stated previously, there’s a helluva lot to cover.
Personally, I think you should ask about and focus on the genetic issues that are evidence for the common ancestry of humans and apes. That would keep the discussion nice and tight, and the evidence is quite strong and compelling, but if you don’t focus on it, you won’t be able to understand it. Then, after getting a thorough review on that, move on to another question you have.
Best of luck to you. I hope you’re able to learn from these wonderful folks. ;)
He’s linked to AIG videos! Argh!
Listen if you want science read science.
But don’t turn to other Christians for the truth. You won’t find it.
I suspect you don’t really want the truth.
There is NO controversy among honest scientists when it comes to evolution.
It comes from christians. Ken Ham is a chralatan.
In the Old Testament it is written:
The old testament also says you shouldn’t wear clothes of mixed textiles, that you should stone your children if they disobay you, that you shouldn’t eat shellfish, that homosexuality is a sin, etc.
As for your video, it contains misrepresentations and lies (as do all of the rest).
First off, the vast majority of scientists that don’t accept evolution don’t know anything about biology or evolution.
If you only take the relevant scientists (scientists in biology, palentology, etc) all over the world, OVER 99.9% of them accept evolution. http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA111.html
Scientists are people. It is only natural that a few of them ignore the evidence and are just plain stupid. I wonder how many racist, femminist, flat earthers, etc. scientists there are out there.
Sean, you’ve already admitted most of the points in your earlier video are wrong. You’ve stated a few more wrong points today. Rather than continuing to go to the same sources that have given you wrong information so far, do you think it might serve you better to actually go to some real primary sources?
And while you’re at it, you might try taking the advice of St. Augustine: “It not infrequently happens that something about the earth, about the sky, about other elements of this world, about the motion and rotation or even the magnitude and distances of the stars, about definite eclipses of the sun and moon, about the passage of years and seasons, about the nature of animals, of fruits, of stones, and of other such things, may be known with the greatest certainty by reasoning or by experience, even by one who is not a Christian. It is too disgraceful and ruinous, though, and greatly to be avoided, that he [the non-Christian] should hear a Christian speaking so idiotically on these matters, and as if in accord with Christian writings, that he might say that he could scarcely keep from laughing when he saw how totally in error they are. In view of this and in keeping it in mind constantly while dealing with the book of Genesis, I have, insofar as I was able, explained in detail and set forth for consideration the meanings of obscure passages, taking care not to affirm rashly some one meaning to the prejudice of another and perhaps better explanation.”
Even in the 5th century, thoughtful Christians were aware that a literal interpretation of the bible is not tenable, and metaphor must give way to empirical reality.
Sean: Someone else claimed that Catholicism does not give full equality to women because it does not let them be priests. Women are not allowed to be priests because a priest is supposed to represent Christ, and Christ was a man. Thus, women can’t really represent Him. It has nothing to do with discrimination. I said we are all equal in different ways. A woman cannot be a priest, likewise a man cannot be a nun.
It doesn’t matter what the reason is. It’s still discrimination.
Reminds me of that Orwell quote:
“All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.”
Sean, while I admire this conversation (for selfish reasons no doubt) I agree with TAW that if you’re going to use the Old Testament, I will be interested on seeing how you deal with Leviticus.
“A woman cannot be a priest, likewise a man cannot be a nun.”
There are religious order for men that are the equivalent of this for men.
There is no equivalent to priesthood for women.
The “equal but different” rethoric is tripe and wordplay, but I know that’s been the official rethoric of the Catholic Church for some time.
Inoculated Mind, similarities are not science. Until evolution comes up with something more convincing and absolute than that, there’s no reason for me to forget my faith and break my promises to God. The Bible says we were made in God’s image and likeness. It would be blasphemy to say an ape is His image and likeness.
Evolution is consistantly inconsistant. Every time someone discredits it, evolutionists come up with some excuse and redo the theory. Religion on the other hand remains, for the most part, constant. Scientists once thought the earth was flat, but in fact it is round. Religion on the other hand remained, for the most part, constant. Scientists once believed we could not fly, but then the airplane was invented. Religion on the other hand remained, for the most part, constant. Scientists once believed an atom couldn’t be split, but then the atomic bomb came along. Religion on the other hand remained, for the most part, constant. While one should always explore science, one should not put full trust in it. Scientists are so sure evolution is true, but, then, so were they about the earth being flat. Religion on the other hand remains, for the most part, constant. I respect science, but I’ll sooner place my bets on religion than the continually changing science. And evolution does not even have full scientific support. There is evidence against it. I’ll need more time researching and thinking before presenting “the most damning evidence against evolution.”
An evolutionist once said to me that the only way to abolish a theory like evolution would be to present a theory with more evidence supporting it. That’s why I propose the Theory of Devolution.
Here’s a pretty good video against evolution:
ahh, the videogame generation shows us how they learn.
rmp:
Sean, I really appreciate your having this conversation. I (and perhaps only I) think it is useful.
Indeed, you may be right.
as expected, Sean’s first stop should have been to talkorigins, rather than to Pop-Videos-R-Us.
fortunately, there have to be at least a large proportion of students who actually want to learn from actual science sources, so yeah, Sean appears a waste of time.
move on.
Like I said, Christ was a man, thus a woman cannot represent Him.
It would be blasphemy to say an ape is His image and likeness.
why? are you so arrogant as to think you know the mind of god and can thereby interpret exactly how he views his own image?
you have far too much to learn to be thinking you are ready to make grandiose proclamations on the mind of god, or on centuries of observation of nature.
good luck with that mindset, junior, cause it won’t take you too far.
“Religion on the other hand remains, for the most part, constant.”
Which is why so many of us see it as an obstacle to progress.
The very fact that science has changed–progressed to keep up with environmental and societal changes–shows its constant relevance and its unique ability to discover more about the empirical world through the scientific method. I would much sooner place my bets on science than stagnant religion.
In your research, I urge you to shun widely discredited sources. I recommend talk.origins, as so many others have already. Berkeley also has an excellent site about evolution that is easy to understand.
And there is no way that your theory of devolution has any predictive value or evidence to back it up, as many have already said. Your preconceived notions cloud your willingness to discover more about a theory that has massive amounts of evidence to support it and on which your life depends every day. If you had actually visited the links that fellow commenters so kindly provided you, you would not be repeating the same arguments over and over again. It is frustrating to witness such stubbornness.
I have never understood this. Why can’t a woman represent a man? It seems to be simply an assumption, I see very little to indicate this is not possible, and that men are somehow more able to fullfill this role.
I did not realize what type of people created that video until now. And I HAVE gone to talkorigins. Frankly, it seems just as biased as most Creationist sites…only for evolution. I’m researching it anyway.
Frankly, it seems just as biased as most Creationist sites
then you didn’t look very closely.
the big difference is the direct references to actual scientific works in support of the refutations.
the fact that you don’t notice such things speaks volumes.
bye bye and good luck to you; you’ll need it.
Yes, it’s biased for mainstream science; it also provides copious links to the Creationist material that it is discussing, so that people can check it all out themselves.
“Bias” doesn’t necessarily mean bad. Being biased in favor of truthful statements and accurate representations, for example.
Sean,
I would urge you to read talkorigins and actually think about the arguments. Don’t let yourself ignore an argument because it seems to contradict what you already believe, and after reading what is said, if you find you still disagree ask if you understand it correctly. And be specific, don’t make broad statements like “Frankly, it seems just as biased as most Creationist sites”, explain what you think is biased, and why it is biased. Is it just biased because it says what you believe might not be entirely correct, or do you have more substantial complains?
Paul Schofield: thanks for mentioning Gribbin’s ‘survival of those that best fit.’ It’s something I had a hunch about but didn’t have a name for it until now.
Sean says:
The same lying, twisting, and herding applies to all those religious leaders who are out there fleecing the flock and living double lives. It’s not the existence or nonexistence of God that’s the problem, it’s having limited or no access to the knowledge we need to avoid being taken in by bull—–ers at either extreme and make intelligent decisions.
They who control the knowledge control the society; such has it ever been. In its tight control of information and its strict limitation of free inquiry, fundamentalist or otherwise strongly hierarchical religion of any variety – Christian, Muslim, or whatever – contains a very dangerous proto-fascist streak.
Based on 50+ years of experience, I stand by my statement about the strong ethical foundation and sense of integrity most non-theists can and do have. When you refer to the supposedly nonexistent moral/ethical grounding of “atheists,” you’re not talking about atheists in general, but about nihilists and their embittered ilk. (If you want bitter, track down any radio or TV interview with Ayn Rand. She was 6 kinds of miserable, especially in later life.) For those few, anything may go, but the vast majority of non-theists know better and reject such crap out of hand.
You really should talk – and more importantly, listen – to some “freethinkers” and look at the way they live their lives. I’ve found that even though I may derive the Golden Rule from my faith and an atheist may derive it from logic and call it something else entirely, when the rubber meets the road, the net effect is pretty much the same. Only the motivations are different: most theists would appear to be motivated primarily by the contingency of an afterlife, while non-theists (and I myself, to a great extent – didn’t I say I’m a heretic?) concern themselves with making the world better here and now.
I’ve said my piece. We’re getting away from science here. If we can agree to disagree on the ethics question, I’m not going to beat you over the head with brickbats from my POV.
llewelly says:
Not at all. An Old World monkey and a New World monkey are both monkeys. Their “last common ancestor” (a somewhat fuzzy concept, because splits in lineages aren’t sharply defined; they take a time that’s long in human terms even though it’s short in geological time) was presumably a recognizable “monkey,” which evolved from the line that had split off from the rest of the primate line to become proto-monkeys, and contributed exactly nothing to the ape and human lines after that. I don’t know at what point in time the two monkey families began to diverge.
You’ve been seeing it for so long because it’s backed up by the evidence. Don’t simply pooh-pooh the “argument”; look at the observed facts, learn what the theory really says, and then you’ll be able to discuss it intelligently.
We don’t, because it doesn’t. You’re falling into the same misinterpretation as Darwin’s early critics.
I repeat: monkeys, apes, and humans are descended from an earlier primate ancestor that may well have looked like a proto-monkey – or perhaps like a lemur, which isn’t a monkey at all but which evolved from an earlier branching of the family tree.
But that common ancestor was not a true monkey, any more than the feathered dinosaur “proto-birds” of China were true birds. True monkeys developed from a branch that split off millions of years before the ape-human split.
No one will deny the existence of extinct true monkeys. But they’re not our ancestors; they evolved entirely independently after the split. They’re either the ancestors of modern monkeys or evolutionary dead ends – no one’s ancestors at all.
A proper diagram of the primate family tree should be easy to find; take a look at it and you’ll see what I’m talking about.
Nicholas, thanks for mentioning the ethical driving force of empathy; it’s really what the Golden Rule is all about.
Sean, beware of Wikipedia; its contents are uneven (reflecting the unevenness of its contributor base) and subject to change without notice. Anything you read there should be checked against another source.
As always, YMMV and AWYSB. And to all you biologists out there: If I’m full of crap, feel free to point it out.
Talkorigins is a big site. It’ll take a while researching into it.
Every time someone discredits it, evolutionists come up with some excuse and redo the theory.
First off, NONE of the things you have mentioned discredit ANY part of evolution. Not one. Secondly, it has never been discredited by ANYONE. There HAVE been some things that need explaining, but that is not discrediting. It is how science works. That’s the beauty of science- science admits it can be wrong or incomplete, and seeks to correct that.
Religion on the other hand remains, for the most part, constant.
Once again, religion has NOT been constant. Go back a few hundred years and religion was used to support the ideas that the world is flat, that whites are superior to all other races, the idea of going out and burning people alive, and a whole other slew of things.
As for the advances in science, they are irrelevant. Are you going to doubt the theory of gravity, the germ theory of disease (that viruses/bacteria cause diseases), and all the other scientific theories because who knows how long ago a bunch of ignorant scientists driven by religion thought the world was flat? I think you’re smarter than that. To quote Seth Lloyd, “Unlike mathematical theorems, scientific results can’t be proved. They can only be tested again and again until only a fool would refuse to believe them.”
Don’t be that fool.
And evolution does not even have full scientific support. There is evidence against it.
am I speaking to the wall here? did you see my stat that OVER 99.9% of scientists in the relevant fields accept evolution?
There is NO evidence against evolution. NONE. Not even a shred… Please do post your “evidence” so we can debunk it, just like all the “facts” you had in your first video.
Sean: “Talkorigins is a big site. It’ll take a while researching into it.”
Focus, Sean, focus.
“Religion on the other hand remains, for the most part, constant.”
One last comment about this. As I already said, religion was used to support the notion that the earth was flat, that non-white races were inferior, that burning people alive was fine, that people who said the earth wasn’t the center of the universe should be killed (or at least arrested), etc…
Now think about this: Why did that change?
Was it because some angel came down and told people to stop doing that? was it because someone found a hidden passage in the bible saying that was wrong? Why did it change?
In a word: science. People used science to prove that the earth is a spheroid object, that there is no inferior or superior races, etc.
Other than with technology and immunities, the term “evolution” doesn’t literally seem to apply in most instances. Evolution comes from the word “evolve,” which means: “to expand or grow. To increase.” Most things, however, seem to be DEvolving, not Evolving, in life. Take, for instance, dogs. Evolutionists claim certain wolves evolved into dogs. Evolved? Wouldn’t it make more sense to say DEVOLVED? Wolves are taller, stronger, faster, and probably smarter than most dogs.
— Sean you are laboring under caricatures of the theory of evolution that have little to do with evolution as is understood by the scientific community. Evolution is not some mindless rush to ever increasing complexity with bigger muscles. Evolution results in organisms better fit for their environments. Now if that means more “strength”, “endurance” etc., then there is selection pressure to acheive those results. Dogs evolved from wolves under selection pressure supplied by Humans. You may argue that dogs have “devolved”, however, the complete opposite is true. Dogs evolved under selection pressure to be more compatible with humans, more easily domesticated, and suited to specicifc tasks. Ditto with felines domesticus. Which would you rather go hunting with? A wolf or a bird-dog? Dogs were evolved from wolves to assist humans. That was the principle selection pressure, and in that regard they are way ahead of wolves. As for raw power, I’d like to see a tug of war between a Mastiff and a wolf. Guess which one is more likely to eat you?
Sean, you been fed a load of codswallop about evolution. You are reacting to something you do not understand.
Stuart
Religion is most assuredly not constant. 21st century Christianity looks nothing like 1st century Christianity. There have been too many schisms breaking away from mainstream Christianity and councils to decide what beliefs and practices are central to Christianity to suggest that it has remained constant throughout the centuries. There is far less debate over evolution within science than there is debate over how Christianity should be practiced within the religion. By your argument, we should dismiss Christianity because Southern Baptists, Roman Catholics, and the Russian Orthodox cannot come to an agreement over how Christianity should be practiced.
“Evolution is consistantly inconsistant. Every time someone discredits it, evolutionists come up with some excuse and redo the theory. Religion on the other hand remains, for the most part, constant.”
I don’t know if you have any idea how much you just sounded like Stephen Colbert’s character on The Colbert Report, but you did (and that’s definitely not a good thing when you’re talking about science).
Anyway, the more accurate description, in my opinion, would be “Evolution is a scientific theory that adapts to the evidence. Every time a creationist brings up a supposed proof against evolution, it is summarily debunked. Religion, on the other hand, starts off with an idea that it wants to believe and refuses to change even in the face of evidence.” It sounds to me like you’ve pretty much got a preconceived notion of what you want to believe here, and you’re just going to bring up the same old, tired creationist cliches to try to prove it. You have to understand, though, that this is not the way that science works, period.
“Religion has, for the most part, remained constant.”
No it hasn’t! Take a quick jaunt through Western monotheism with me for a moment. We’ll even start with the Biblical account to tilt the playing field a bit.
Jews/Israelites. [not to mention Pagan Gentiles(Baal etc)]
Early Christians (Gnostics, Apostolics)
Later Christians (Roman Catholics, Greek Orthodox)
Muslims (sprung directly from the Judeo/Xtian traditions)
-later split into Shiite and Sunni
-even later, Sufi split off
-still later, Pashtun split off
Still Later Christians:
(Lutherans! Baptists! Presbyterians! Puritans! Quakers! Evangelicals! Jehovahs Witnesses! Branch Davidians! Moodys! Mormons!)
Let’s not forget the fact that the Catholic Church itself is constantly changing its position and living down stuff it did in the past, like blaming Jews for killing Christ; burning witches; and, of course, the Spanish Inquisition. (Nobody expected that one, though)
Let’s remember that Galileo Galilei was tried for HERESY and EXCOMMUNICATED by the CHURCH for claiming that the Earth rotated around the Sun. Later, of course, the Church had to CHANGE ITS POSITION.
Do you know about the decrees of Vatican II?
Can we also address the fact that Christmas and Easter and All Hallows Eve were placed on their respective days because of preexisting Pagan celebrations? (I, for one, still celebrate the Solstices).
Religion has been changing ever since your ancient ancestors were worshiping trees and building limestone monoliths.
The second law of thermodynamics is an expression of the universal law of increasing entropy. In simple terms, it is an expression of the fact that over time, differences in temperature, pressure, and density tend to even out in a physical system which is isolated from the outside world.
— Note the key word here Sean… “isolated”
Entropy is a measure of how far along this evening-out process has progressed.
The most common enunciation of second law of thermodynamics is essentially due to Rudolf Clausius:
The entropy of an isolated system not in equilibrium will tend to increase over time, approaching a maximum value at equilibrium.
There are many statements of the second law which use different terms, but are all equivalent. Another statement by Clausius is:
“Heat cannot of itself pass from a colder to a hotter body.”
The second law is only applicable to macroscopic systems. The second law is actually a statement about the probable behavior of an isolated system. As larger and larger systems are considered, the probability of the second law being practically true becomes more and more certain. For any system with a mass of more than a few picograms, the second law is true to within a few parts in a million.
—Not Bad.
A consequence of the Second Law of Thermodynamics is that the universe could not have always existed; it must have had a beginning.
–False. Google “Zero-Point vacuum fluctuation” SLOT, meet Quantum Mechanics.
A further consequence of the Second Law of Thermodynamics is that when the universe began, it was in a more organized state than it is today.
–If Big Bang theory is indeed correct, and if the Universe emerged from ahighly ordered comapct state, then this statement is correct. The entropy of the Universe is always increasing.
Should not the same go for life on earth?
— But here’s the rub. The SLOT doesn’t mandate that entropy must monotonically increase everywhere all the time. Clearly if you turn water vapor into snow flakes, you’ve reduced the entropy of the water. But in order to make snowflakes, you needed to remove heat from the water vapor. SLOT says the entropy of the heat removed must more than makeup for the reduction in entropy caused by the phase transition from vapor to snow. In other words, SLOT sez you can reduce entropy, but only if you offset that by increasing the entropy elsewhere.
— Now we return to “isolated”. One needs to think in terms of systems and surroundings. You can lower the entropy of any system, so long as you increase the entropy of its surrounding by an even greater amount. In an isolated system, there are no “surroundings”; an isolated system cannot communicate heat or matter to the outside. In that situation, and only that situation, does SLOT tell you that entropy must increase until thermodynamic eq is reached. If the system is not isolated, all bets are off, and open systems are whole nother ball of wax.
Note: this information might be debunked, or partially at least. I apologize if it is.
— Apology accepted.
Stuart
We don’t even need QM. Poincare recurrence will do nicely.
Sean is obviously not listening. You can’t argue with a creationist.
Like I said, Christ was a man, thus a woman cannot represent Him.
Sean, please don’t grow up to be a sexist jerk. You are just repeating Church dogma. Learn to think for yourself.
The EVOLUTION of this thread is proceeding entirely too fast! The selectively bred wolf-canine (now appearing as a 10 lb. white poodle) demandeth to be fed, then there is another dozen or so posts to digest.
Has anyone else thought to click on Sean Henry’s web site?
VERY enlightening, to say the least. ( I copy directly from):
“If you are dumb, or plan on becoming dumb, then this site is for you.”
Sound familiar to this young man we are trying to enlighten???
(Sorry, PZ, but I had to follow that lead that Sean himself offered.)
Sean, similarities are part of science, I don’t know where you got this idea. How are similarities not science? Explain. Besides, the anti-evolutionists seem to think that comparing a bacterial flagellum to a human-designed machine is scientific.
Sean, you are not going to find absolutes in science. Nothing in science, even the theory of gravity, is an absolute.
The fact that you are setting up your religious faith in the way of accepting a scientific theory on the basis of evidence is troubling. You are saying that you would be breaking your promise with god. Therefore, no evidence can change the way you think. You are not thinking scientifically at all, and you do not know what you are talking about when it comes to what is and is not science. I’m not saying this to be mean.
Let me talk about what you said about religion being constant. Religion has stood in the way of scientific progress many a time. The roundness of the Earth, the Earth orbiting around the sun, religion has opposed these ideas, and it was science through experimentation that made these discoveries, not religion.
Also, I assume that you are Christian, did you know that the Bible instructs that you are to stone your wife to death if she has had sex before marriage. It’s very explicit – and few Christians today would do that – the religion is constant but its adherents have been progressing socially and morally based upon reason, despite the constancy of religious ideas.
Sean, until you can present this evidence, I say you probably do not have such evidence. All the big anti-evolutionists have been saying it for years upon years, and they have never come out with this magical evidence. They’ve been telling you that there is evidence against evolution, and you have been convinced that it must be there. If you keep searching on the assumption that it is there, your effort will be fruitless because your approach is doctrinaire. You should start with the evidence, and follow it where it leads, and not act off of presuppositions.
You are still young! You probably haven’t even considered religions other than your own, or different interpretations of the same religion. Until you discard the idea that changing your mind based upon evidence and reason is breaking a promise to god, then you will never be able to think for yourself.
In the meantime, enjoy a piece on the evolution of whales. There’s some really good stuff in Talk Origins and other places. To say that it is biased reminds me of Stephen Colbert saying that the facts in Iraq are biased against the president. Facts aren’t biased, and Talk Origins is a well-references and researched website.
http://www.talkorigins.org/features/whales/
Here’s a good picture of whale transitional forms.
http://hometown.aol.com/darwinpage/whale1.gif
Note: creationists kept saying over and over again that we would never find transitional forms for whales. Then in the 90’s, a whole bunch of them were found, and the creationists have been spinning since. One thing to remember, creationists don’t do scientific research, they just react to science as it progresses. Another hallmark of pseudoscience.
Sorry! This got dropped from my last post:
http://www.knightstavern.com/ is what you get when you click on “Sean Henry”.
We may be working at this backwards. If we keep asking Sean for objections to evolution, he will always have more no matter how many people refute. Here is an alternative:
Sean, what evidence be needed to convince you that your position on evolution is wrong and evolution is correct?
This evidence needs to be specific and testable. Saying you would need us to “prove evolution” is not specific. Saying you would need God to come down and say your position is wrong is not testable. Any evidence requiring the intervention of a supernatural force is by definition not testable. Anything based on your subjective interpretations of or opinions on something is also by definition not testable.
Note that I am not asking you what evidence would make you an atheist. It is perfectly possible to accept evolution and still be a theist. If the only way for you to accept evolution is to reject God so be it, at least we know what we are up against. But that is not necessary to fulfill my request.
FOCUS is the best recommendation. Try to consider the single most critical issue as you define it, e.g. just what is the best evidence for human/chimp common descent? Today more than ever the answers and a lot of good questions are easily accessible.
Forget the Theory of Evolution: what would it take for Sean Henry to adopt the scientific method as a way to understand the world?
You know what I think is so interesting about this? It’s how much we all want to have a real, honest conversation with a creationist. I know I do. There have been so many posts. I can’t even begin to keep up with them. It was the same thing with the last thread with the guy that never showed up. To me, this really says that science and science types are not trying to exclude people or suppress their ideas. We want them to participate. That doesn’t mean we will sit there with our hands folded in our laps nodding when and if we ever get to hear an actual idea or question but we do want to hear them and debate with them. We are straining to hear their ideas. We even hope that they may come up with some good point! Wouldn’t that be great? Maybe something would have to be explained, looked at again or even a new experiment done, woo hoo. The thrilling terror or realizing that there is something new to learn, something unexpected to find is something that these folks don’t appreciate.
I think Sean’s post that repeated that religion stayed constant thing over and over really underlines what he doesn’t understand about science. He holds up scientific breakthroughs as examples of how science has a history of being wrong and changing in order to make up for those errors. That is called progress. that is what science does. that is not a weakness of science, it is it’s biggest strength. It is humble and it’s a lot of work but it’s where real truth lies. This is what he doesn’t get.
Sean: Unlike many of the disembodied here, I’m using my actual name. I have a criticism (below) and underneath it a list of resources to supplement talkorigins.net. I think you should also consider a deeper reading of the Bible.
You seem scandalized, for example, at the suggestion that God might not be male. Have you never read (Gen 1:27) “God created man in his own image. In God’s image he created him; male and female he created them” and not wondered how it could be that God’s image could be both male and female?
Or perhaps the previous verse (Gen 1:26) raises more questions: “God said, “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness…”
Sean, who is this “our” ? Well, shoot, I know you’ll probably take this as an oblique reference to the Trinity (it’s the standard believer’s answer), but then what do you do with this statement about Christ’s church:
“There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.” (Gal. 3:28)
Surely the Bible is not denying that there are Jews, Greeks, slaves, freemen or women. It seems that where the Bible is concerned, there are things that aren’t to be taken literally…..who woulda thunk?
Seriously, though, it’s apparent that you not only don’t know much about what evolution really is, you don’t know too much about theology. If you did, you would realize that many believers (including me) have an issue with the narrow vision of God championed by fundamentalists who place an undue stress on interpreting the Bible literally.
I realize that’s a pretty harsh judgement, but take it from me: you’re going to need an upgrade. For a balanced view on this topic, I urge you to consider the following resources:
The National Center for Science Education (www.natcenscied.org)
The AAAS’s new book “The Evolution Dialogues: Science, Christianity, and the Quest for Understanding”
(they have a web link with partial content available for free at http://www.aaas.org/spp/dser/)
Perspectives on an Evolving Creation, edited by Keith Miller
“When Science Meets Religion: Enemies, Strangers, or Partners?” by Ian Barbour
Good luck. If you want to bounce ideas off me privately in a forum where you would not be ridiculed (I am, after all, a believer) you can email me at:
[email protected]
Don’t hesitate to contact me if I can be of use.
Sean, you don’t seem to grasp what makes something “scientific”. Here is what science is.
We have, thanks to the efforts of biologists over the last two hundred years, a wealth of observational data relating to the diversity of life throughout earth’s history. Some of this is from the fossil record. Much of it is genetic. Some of it is statistical studies of extant populations. And so on. There are all sorts of observations we can make about life on earth. Now the science comes in developing a theory that explains that data better than any other. What that means is that from the theory you can derive hypotheses that can be tested against the evidence to distinguish them from competing hypotheses. Time and again evolutionary theory has passed those tests. What do you think biologists actually do all day? They devise hypotheses and test them, furthering our understanding of how life developed in the process.
You claim to have an alternative, better theory of “devolution”, but you haven’t even begun to say why it provides a better explanation of the data than evolution. For instance several posters have highlighted chromosome fusion in humans as evidence for evolution. The reason this is solid evidence for evolution, rather than something along the lines of your citation of the second law of thermodynamics, is that if common descent of chimpanzees and humans is true, then there had to have been a fusion event or something like it. If we hadn’t discovered that fused chromosome, that would have been very strong evidence against evolution. Similarly evolutionary theory says that we have to find fish earlier in the fossil record than birds. If we were to convincingly date a bird fossil to the Cambrian, then evolutionary theory would be in serious trouble.
So what you need to do, to participate in a scientific debate, is to show how some piece of data supports your devolutionary hypothesis and disconfirms the evolutionary hypothesis. It would help if you would define what your theory implies, since there doesn’t seem to be a necessary contradiction between “devolution” and common descent.
Finally I want to address this:
I call people out when they claim this about mediaeval Christians, so I’m certainly not going to let this one pass. With perhaps a handful of exceptions around the world, no educated society since the ancient Greeks, whether religious or scientific minded, has thought that the earth is flat. This is an infuriatingly persistent urban myth. If you don’t want to take my word for it, read (devout Christian and mediaevalist) CS Lewis’s The Discarded Image, an excellent introduction to the educated European’s worldview in the Middle Ages.
No, medieval Europeans didn’t think the world was flat.
Most of them thought the Sun went around the Earth, though, which wasn’t much better.
It was in fact one of the first modern scientists who demonstrated that the Earth almost certainly went around the Sun. His name was Galileo Galilei. Despite being a devout Catholic, he was willing to publically declare that evidence trumped even the claims of the Holy See – and for that, he was sentenced to house arrest and threatened by torture by the Inquisition.
I want to hear why Mr. Henry thinks this ‘theory of devolution’ is any different from either biological evolution or astronomical evolution. As far as I’m concerned, evolution means ‘change’ and doesn’t at all imply increasing or decreasing complexity. So humans, let’s say, losing a tail is evolution just like humans developing larger brains is evolution. And it’s been proven to work both ‘ways’ (and it still obeys the 2nd law of thermodynamics, increasing complexity or not).
Sean, there’s a lot of criticisms of your positions here. Consider this a good thing, not a personal assault. And criticism based on observations of nature is central to science – it’s how it rejects untrue things (rather than relying on axioms and scriptures). For example Darwin’s own ORIGIN OF SPECIES contains an entire chapter (#6) on “Difficulties of the Theory”, in which he considers evolution of eyes, and of neuter castes of insects (how could something evolve which doesn’t reproduce itself), and other issues – can you imagine creationist or biblically based authors including such self-criticisms in their work? (Darwin resolved all these challenges, incidentally.)
Speaking personally, I recall I’ve revised a lot of my teen-age ideas over time, although my experience was that the Christian fundamentalism I was raised among never sat well with me (and I do mean raised – my mother eventually spent two decades as a mission nurse in southern Africa). Growth involves change, as one is exposed to additional views and facts than those of your youth.
One last note: the etymology for the word ‘evolution’ is actually an “unfolding”, or un-rolling of a scroll. Darwin used the word reluctantly and sparingly, since it implied a pre-ordained process with a directionality. He much preferred his phrase ‘descent with modification’ (this ‘descent’ as in pedigrees, with no implication of devolution).
What that means is that from the theory you can derive hypotheses that can be tested against the evidence to distinguish them from competing hypotheses.
I have to object to the way you use the word “theory”. Because you are talking in a science context, you should use science terms. You should have said “what that means is that from the DATA you can derive hypotheses…”
I don’t remember sean saying it, but I’ll still go over it-
There is no such thing as “just” a theory in science. There is no higher standing than a scientific theory. First, scientists formulate hypotheses (ideas that can be tested), and then they test them again and again, sometimes modifying it, sometimes discarding it, sometimes finding support for it. After many many many tests, by many scientists around the world, a hypothesis graduates to a scientific theory. This means that there is such overwhelming evidence that supports it, that the chances of it being wrong are extremely small and therefore they are accepted as facts. Theories can still be improved or expanded, but that does not mean they’re wrong.
Scientists once thought the earth was flat, but in fact it is round. […] Scientists once believed we could not fly, but then the airplane was invented. […] Scientists once believed an atom couldn’t be split, but then the atomic bomb came along
Do you remember me stating the need for you to provide cites, Sean? Can you provide cites backing up those statements?
Sean, you say that science is constantly changing. This is good, as it accomodates for new observations. Also, “devolution” is still a change, so it is still evolution, which the dictionary defines as “the theory that groups of organisms, as species, may change with passage of time so that descendants differ morphologically and physiology from their ancestors.” However, I would really like to hear evidence for your positions, everyone. Flaws in your opponent’s argument for their position or about flaws in your argument don’t support your argument, and in science, ideas must be supported by evidence, not just the only proposed ones. I’m leaving that to people with relevant knowledge of evolution or creationism, unlike me.
Religion on the other hand remains, for the most part, constant.
I wonder when Sean last had a hamburger on Friday?
Anyway, I’m interested in this thread. I was just talking to my husband the other day about how confusing it is to me that someone can be a Creationist. I mean evolution is so…obvious.
Maybe Sean should explain what his understanding of evolution is. I don’t think he actually knows. I would think you would need to know some basic Biology to really see how obvious it is, too, and it seems like Sean is lacking that.
Does he understand Mendelian inheritance? Does he know what alleles are, or what genes are? How about dominance, partial dominance, and co-dominance of alleles and things like that? Gene flow? Genetic drift? Maybe even population genetics and the Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium?
How about some Geology? You might even want to ask how much Sean understands about Uniformitarianism, plate tectonics, climate change, even how radiometric dating works and stuff like that. It’s hard to think that evolution doesn’t exist (or that “Devolution,” which incedentally just makes me think of Devo, does exist) when you understand the changes the planet has gone through since its creation. Organisms adapt when the environment is altered.
Just curious. It kind of seems like Sean is coming at this from a more philosophical angle rather than one using the scientific method.
There’s something. What does Sean understand about the scientific method?
Sean, your “theory of devolution” sounds a lot like my proposal for the existence of “darkons” in high school. In my theory, darkness was not the absence of light, but the presence of physical particles of darkness. Other than that, everything worked pretty much the same. Granted, I was mostly being silly, but I admit that my adolescent self thought that this mirror-imaging perhaps revealed something “significant”–somehting similar to your idea that god/nature is only a matter of opinion or perspective and that one can’t be proven over the other. Then a teacher suggested I look up the solar wind, which pretty much kicked my darkon theory in the crotch. And I thought, “freakin’ awesome!”. Who knew that you could actually propel an object with light? How cool is that?
My point being, devolution (oustide of the album) is amusing, but cliched and meaningless. You’re still seeing (and inherently accepting) genetic and morphological change. What you’re missing is that evolution is directionless. There is no higher or lower. Stephen Jay Gould has a cool essay about creatures that survived by evolving into surprisingly simple organisms. The male anglerfish is actually absorbed into the body of the female as somehting akin to a parasite. It “devolved” by your standards, but in fact it’s just plain old evolution. Being a tiny spud attached to its mate assures its genetic survival. That’s just as “fit” as being a big “complex” fish.
Sean, I gotta hand it to you; you’ve got guts. So did a dog of mine once, when he went after a bear. Luckily the bear just didn’t want to hear the noise because he could have finished the dog with one swipe of his paw. So he ambled slowly off, grunting.
It is true that both the Bible and (some) medaeval scientists had wrong ideas about the Earth and other things. Difference is, when science is presented with new evidence, it corrects. Religion, on the other hand, is relatively constant. It holds onto the error, twisting into ever-deeper convolutions so as not to adapt to new information.
In evolutionary terms, that is a nonadaptive organism. Such usually go extinct. Luckily many religious people do adapt so their religion won’t go extinct. But it will change form. It may be unrecognizable to its predecessors.
You’re young yet; keep an eye on your investment of self-worth in your religion. Don’t invest more than you can afford to lose. As an ex-Christian that is my advice to you.
And I thought, “freakin’ awesome!”. Who knew that you could actually propel an object with light? How cool is that?
Sorry to break it to you, but solar wind are plasma discharges from the sun (aka: superheated gases).
Nevertheless, solar sails work primarily by reflecting light.
And I thought, “freakin’ awesome!”. Who knew that you could actually propel an object with light? How cool is that?
Sorry to break it to you, but solar wind are plasma discharges from the sun (aka: superheated gases).
True, but there is such a thing as radiation pressure, which could conceivably be used to propel objects. I seem to recall that there’s been some research into that at some point or another.
Wow, I didn’t know about radiation pressure. I have a bunch of questions about it, but I’ll refrain from asking them so we don’t go off in a tangent.
For Eris’ sake!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_sail
This is off topic, so I’ll add something to the evolution discussion in the next paragraph. Back in either middle school or high school, I had an idea for a bomb that would release the energy from atoms and trigger a chain reaction of energy release. I was totally crushed when I found out exactly how an atom bomb works soon after that. The whole darkon thing just reminded me of that. THANKS MOTHWORM ;)
Anyway, back on topic. How is talkorigins biased? Because it supports evolution? I think you’re confusing “bias” with “having a focused topic”. You cannot even claim that it totally ignores creationist claims while only providing evidence for evolution- the whole :List of Creationist Claims” page is devoted to showing what the main creationist arguments are and why they are misinformed or wrong. To present evidence for creationism would be ridiculous because the vast majority of their claims are poppycock.
Religion on the other hand remains, for the most part, constant.
Would you consider it a sign of intellectual honesty and emotional maturity to be able to admit when you’re wrong and change your ideas to fit new information as it comes in? Or do you see “remaining constant” as a virtue? If so, why?
…..the whole :List of Creationist Claims” page is devoted to showing what the main creationist arguments are and why they are misinformed or wrong.
This is something important to think about Sean; Talk Origins shows a long list of creationist arguments and links to creationist sites. No such arguments or links to science sites can be found on creationist websites.
Doesn’t that give you pause? Doesn’t it make you think about which side is more open minded and fair?
Religion remaining constant… wow. Sean, not only do you need to bone up on science, you really, really need to sit down with several good, thick books on religious history. Religion hasn’t even stayed constant in my lifetime (just a dozen years longer than yours), much less throughout history. Hell, even Mormonism has made pretty major changes in its lifetime, and it’s less than two centuries old. The modern Catholic church would be hardly recognizable to a Catholic from the 16th century, much less the 4th century. And that’s not even getting into all the non-Christian religions…
I’m going to back a bit and address what was a responce to me.
-“Oh yea! Someone said something about how the Bible doesn’t allow killing (or something like that). They’d be wrong. In the Old Testament it is written:
“There is a time and place for every purpose under heaven: a time to kill, a time for peace…”
It is also written in the Old Testament:
“An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth.” A consequence for this would be a life for a life.”
Matthew 5:38-39;
38″You have heard that it was said, ‘Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.'[a] 39But I tell you, Do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also.
Virtualy every Christian schollar I have spoken to agrees that Jesus words trump the old testament. Those who quote ‘eye for an eye’ are practicing bad or selective theology.
Even as far as self defence goes, the Old Testament is the only source I know of for verses that support killing another for your own (or anothers) life. Jesus was radicaly passifist, and most NT verses are extremely against killing in any context (look to Matthew and Romans).
Killing, for a Christian, is virtualy impossible to justify. Most of those who I speak to agree that it can be required in certain cases, but only when filtered through a particular ethical system. Which ethical system, and thus when it can be justified, depends on who you ask. For example, self defence may not be allowed, but acting in the defence of others may be. After all, your life is not worth saving if you are already saved by Christ, but by saving others you may grant them a chance of salvation.
It is amazing what even an Atheist can pick up if you hang out with the right people…
Caledonian wrote:
Whilst I certainly agree with what you say about the consequences faced by Gallileo (not to mention Giordano Bruno, of course), surely that was for promoting the concept of heliocentrism, rather than demonstrating it. His important discovery in the field was that of the moons of Jupiter, by his employment of the newly invented telescope, which he used as evidence for the heresy that not all celestial bodies revolved around the Earth.
Heliocentrism was proposed during that period by Nicolaus Copernicus (and earlier, but long since forgotten, by Aristarchus of Samos) and verified by Johannes Kepler based on data collected by his mentor Tycho Brahe.
I’m quite willing to be corrected, of course, and none of this detracts from what I guess is your central point: that Gallileo promoted evidence over revelation, and was persecuted for it.
The thing is, it isn’t “bias,” it’s “evidence.” Sean is equivocating between positions which do not make claims that are equally supported. I mean, take two websites. One says that the sky is green and purple polka-dotted, the other says that the sky is blue. If I begin from a position that “all claims regarding the color of the sky are equally valid,” then they are both biased sites.
But if I look at the evidence, I find that the sky is in fact blue. Which means one of two things: either the sky is also biased, or not all claims regarding the color of the sky are equally valid.”
And this is what Sean’s doing (though I’m sure it’s apparent); he’s not beginning as a scientist would from saying “some claims are right, some are wrong, we’ll see what the evidence supports.” He’s saying “these two claims are equally weighted” (at least for the purposes of posting here), and therefore, anything supporting one or the other is biased. The problem is that, when you examine the evidence, it too is quite clearly biased.
What Sean also fails to notice is that the Creationist position has based itself entirely on the false dichotomy of the issue (if not evolution, then creation), and has directed all its efforts toward criticizing evolution, without making any substantive claims itself, beyond “read Genesis.” Evolution can answer those criticisms, so Creationism is in a bind. In the end, they either have to claim that the Bible supercedes the natural world in terms of fact, or that evidentiary claims are bupkus and both claims are on even footing, which brings the matter back to the beginning.
Until someone has an attitude which says “evidence precedes conclusion,” this conversation will just run in circles.
I couldn’t agree with you more, Yeila.
It is true that both the Bible and (some) medaeval scientists had wrong ideas about the Earth and other things. Difference is, when science is presented with new evidence, it corrects. Religion, on the other hand, is relatively constant. It holds onto the error, twisting into ever-deeper convolutions so as not to adapt to new information.
That is why, Sean, the intensely religious have a reputation for being “close-minded”.
That’s not a compliment.
Don’t make that mistake.
So far, you are. In your criticism of the heart of science (that it’s inconstant), you fail to understand that by clinging to the constant you cling to that which cannot embrace new information.
As another writer has pointed out to you, even St. Augustine knew that was a trap and a mistake.
I disagree here. Most seem to say Jesus confirmed OT statements. He was after all the one making the rules then also. He even says as much himself when he states he didn’t come to change the law and not one jot or tittle would change.
Could you cite your source GH? I’m not saying it’s wrong, I’d just like to know the specific verse to use it in my debates.
“Until evolution comes up with something more convincing and absolute than that, there’s no reason for me to forget my faith and break my promises to God.”
Sean, this sounds sincere and heartfelt – and is totally off the mark. No one is demanding that you do this, least of all evolutionary biology. Imagine thinking that to accept heliocentrism (the earth and other planets go ’round the sun) would mean forgetting your faith and breaking your promise to God? Or if not heliocentrism, the germ theory of disease (many diseases are caused by tiny creatures, not God’s wrath)?, or the modern scientific understanding of weather (storms caused by natural forces, not gods/God/demons/witches? You’d be put in a horrible position, forced either to somehow ignore so much about the world, or to discard your faith – and at various times in history, that might have seemed like a choice you would have to make.
Yet nobody’s in this predicament nowadays. NASA, flu shots, and the Weather Channel aren’t considered challenges to faith. Nobody would claim that lightning rods are thumbing your nose at God and pretty much asking for divine retribution, as some folks did after Ben Franklin invented ’em. (Imagine having so fragile and simplistic a faith that a lightning rod could threaten it?) Indeed, one can sorta see how God/gods/etc. had been pushed into service as explanations for natural phenomena that earlier people couldn’t yet understand. How does the sun move across the sky each day? It’s being driven in the chariot of a god, or pushed by a divine dung beetle (which, since dung beetles do spend a lot of time pushing balls of dung around, does make a certain bizarre kind of sense). Where does lightning come from? Well, Zeus is pissed. And etc. (Ptolemy’s geocentric model, with the earth in the middle and everything else, actually was an example of early or proto-astronomy (mistaken, but trying), except then Western science mostly flickered out for the next thousand years and more, and this idea got sort of fossilized into religious dogma).
One of the consequences of our growing understanding is that religious people today have a much grander God – not some sort of pagan Big Powerful Person or giant dung beetle frantically rushing around making sure that all the lepers and plague victims are properly smitten, or that the sun doesn’t just sit there – but one who presides over a vast and amazing universe.
Earlier you contrasted religion and science, portraying one as an source of eternal, changless Truth, and the other as a kind of fallible search for answers. Yet if one looks at the things you list, and the ones mentioned here, one would have to admit that this search, this process of uncertain discovery, has been amazingly productive in terms of the natural world, in terms of explaining the sorts of natural phenomena that once were attributed to gods. When it comes to other kinds of questions: Is there a God? A soul? What’s the ultimate meaning of life? What are good and evil? Etc. – science can’t really help us. It doesn’t have the tools, and that isn’t its job. But in terms of the natural world, it’s done wonders. We’ve landed on the moon! We can cure many diseases, and have a way to try to find cures for others! We can, with some degree of accuracy, predict hurricanes! Etc. (What we do with this kind of knowledge is, of course, another matter). Understanding the natural world is both rewarding and important – evolution included. One example you’ll come across, if it hasn’t been mentioned here already, is antibiotic resistance in bacteria (and a related issue, pesticide resistance in bugs). Because of what we know about evolution, we can predict that – and have unfortunately seen it confirmed time and time again – and figure out ways to minimize the problem. (Creationists will try to say that this is only microevolution, and doesn’t mean anything. This is like a younger sibling moving their finger towards you in tiny increments and insisting no, they’re not trying to poke you because they only moved it an inch – and then another inch, and then . . .)
I’m sleepy, and don’t know how much sense I’m making, so let me wrap this up: There are many ideas about religion, but if one believes in God and also believes that modern biology – our best understanding (and way of understanding) so far about life – has to be resisted to preserve one’s beliefs – well, it’s like you’ve been given an amazing gift (the natural world) but refuse to open it because you don’t want to muss the wrapping paper. If you believe in God, evolution is the best answer so far as to how God caused the incredible diversity of life – past and present – to come into being. For those of us who don’t, evolution is our best answer so far as to how the incredible diversity of life has come into being. Same as with the earth orbiting the sun, or germs causing disease, or etc.
Let me strongly recommend Ken Miller’s Finding Darwin’s God: A scientist’s search for common ground between God and evolution – see also this short article, which is adapted from the book.
Of course, what I’ve been saying here isn’t science. It does seem, though, like it’s something you’ll have to work out before you can really deal with the science, y’know? If you just come at it with the idea that it’s something that will make you “forget my faith and break my promises to God,” it’s going to be hard for you to get anywhere.
TAW: here you go.
Matthew 5:17-19, King James Version. (The pretty one.) Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.
I may be a Rabid Atheist, but I know my Bible…
You know what I think is so interesting about this? It’s how much we all want to have a real, honest conversation with a creationist.
With Bible quotes!
Worst. Thread. Ever.
I would say that the Matthew 5:39 change is quite a drastic one. Going from ‘eye for an eye’ to ‘turn the other cheek’ is a drastic change, rather more than a ‘jot or tittle’.
Incidentaly, that verse;
Matthew 5;
“17”Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. 18I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. 19Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. 20For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven.”
The idea I have seen put forwards most often was that Jesus fulfilled that law. As such, it was changed. The Old Covenant of material and ritual sacrifice was satisfied fully by Jesus perfect sacrifice, and as such the requirements for salvation changed drasticaly. The old rituatal laws no longer applied. Only Jesus teachings, the New Covenant, are required today.
Had Jesus not made his sacrifice, the law would never be satisfied, even by the most worthy in the world, and all would be condemned. By his sacrifice, the impossible laws were no longer required by all, as he satisfied them, and so the only requirments were to accept his sacrifice and spread his teachings. His moral code is a part of that.
The result? Anyone who tries to make a moral point using the Old Testament should look to the New Testament first to see if it holds today.
When it comes to other kinds of questions: Is there a God? A soul? What’s the ultimate meaning of life? What are good and evil? Etc. – science can’t really help us.
Science can certainly tell us whether there are gods or souls. It can’t tell us what the “ultimate meaning of life” is because that’s an incredibly vague, poorly-formed question, and it can’t tell us what good and evil are any more than it can define any other words for us. When it comes to matters of existence, science is quite literally the only way to know anything.
Sean says:
Au contraire, mon frère. Take a serious trip through the history of religion, the development of the actual beliefs involved, and the numerous schisms, persecutions, and “holy wars,” and you’ll soon realize just how much religion changes over time. No religion is exempt from those changes.
Religion isn’t even a constant within a family. Take my family, for instance. I’m a flaming liberal heretic with a dollop of universalism and a dash of Zen thrown in for flavor, my brother who’s a year younger is a hardcore Fundamentalist (we have a tacit understanding that we don’t talk about religion at all), our parents are mainstream Baptists, and our two youngest siblings are somewhere in the middle as well. The extended family covers everything from Jehovah’s Witnesses to “none.” Scale things up into the larger world, where there are tens of thousands of “flavors” of Christianity alone, add in all the varieties of the other major faiths and everything else from ancestor worship to shamanism – now there’s a mix for you! (When I get into a flip mood, I wonder if the Almighty has a constant Excedrin headache from listening to all those clamoring and clashing prayers 24/7.)
Stuart says:
Yup.
Sean, things aren’t nearly as straightforward as they seem, or as you seem to want them to be. What may appear to be a “loss” frequently turns out to be an actual gain. Look at blind, pigmentless cave fish. They don’t need to see or be seen, so those characteristics have been discarded because it’s a waste of energy for the fish to keep them. Superficially it appears to be a “devolution,” but in reality it’s an entirely appropriate move toward greater efficiency. The same principle applies to whales and their kin; the “loss” of their legs reduces drag and doesn’t take up the energy and nourishment that would be required to grow them, so it’s a positive adaptation to a full-time aquatic life.
Good one, Ichthyic!
YouTube, Google Video, et al. are overpopulated with slick hour-long ID presentations from the likes of Hovind, and lots of people are far more easily drawn in by production values and complacent self-assurance than by the actual facts. If it looks professional, it must be serious, right?
Sean says:
I didn’t hear anyone say that; did anyone else?
Ichthyic replies:
Ichthyic’s words here could have come straight out of the Bible. God holds forth for several chapters at the end of the book of Job, reaming Job a new one about the guy’s presumption and attempts to second-guess God.
Travis asks:
I wasn’t going to get into the gender thing because it really grinds my grits, but I can’t help it. “Men only” is a dogmatic tradition based on some very narrow, out-of-context readings of a few of the most restrictive verses in the Bible, as extrapolated by the early “Church Fathers.” Alarmingly, that restrictiveness has also been taken up in the US by the more conservative Protestant churches as well. Taken as a whole, the Bible in general holds a more inclusive view of things, but the arguments still go on because this is one issue where the Bible is the most self-contradictory.
One of the biggest sticks to hit women with is Paul’s assertion to Timothy that he (Paul) doesn’t allow women to teach or have authority over men, and that women should shut their traps.
OTOH, in real life, one of Paul’s closest friends, colleagues, and partners in ministry was Priscilla who, along with her husband Aquila, is mentioned five times in Acts and the epistles – and in three out of the five instances, Priscilla gets first mention! That doesn’t sound much like “shut your trap, woman” to me!
If Paul can contradict himself and those contradictions can be incorporated into the canon of scripture……. no wonder we’re still arguing about it 2000 years later!
In the Catholic church, the “celibate men only” priesthood is causing real problems in many parts of the world. There simply aren’t enough priests to cover all the parishes, and the problem will only get worse over the coming years as older priests retire, because there won’t be enough new priests coming out of seminary to replace them.
(In a few special cases nuns, usually Mothers Superior of convents in remote areas, have been given special dispensation to hear confession and administer the sacraments. But those are extremely rare; in many areas priests have become “circuit riders” as many early American Protestant clergy were, and people may have to wait months between occasions for confession and communion.)
Unless the Church reconsiders its restrictive policy and opens up ordination to married men and even to women (who make up the majority of active Christians of all denominations), the result is likely to be at least partial collapse of the Church’s organizational structure. For the record, I acknowledge that the majority of present company probably wouldn’t be at all upset about that. =grin=
BTW, while celibacy was strongly encouraged for centuries, it didn’t become a universal requirement until some time in the early Middle Ages. (I didn’t know that until fairly recently.) And of course, plenty of parishioners throughout Christendom had reason to wink and whisper behind their hands about the priest and his “housekeeper.” Quite a few priests kept mistresses and made no secret of it; the most famous offenders were the generally notorious Borgia Popes, who practically became a dynasty.
Once again I’ve burned up way too much silicon and wasted way too many electrons, and I’ve let myself wander off into religion. I think I’ll upshut for now, lest in my tired late-night state I get up in the figurative pulpit and start channeling my-dad-the-rev.
It would be blasphemy to say an ape is His image and likeness.
It wasn’t too long ago that ignorant Christians like yourself were pointing out that black people were subhumans because they looked like apes.
The fact is that some people do bear more than a passing resemblance to monkeys. There’s a good reason for that, of course.
The question is: does your god look less like them and more like you? How’s the penis? Above average?
Non-evolution issues:
I know others have already covered this statement in great detail, but I just wanted to make one more point – there’s a big gap in the logic of going from God’s existence to leaders’ actions. God’s actual existence has no bearing on the world leaders’ actions – it’s only their own personal beliefs and morality that effects those actions.
How much must one be like Christ in order to represent him. Would it be valid for me to say, “Christ was Jewish, therefore gentiles can’t represent him,” or “Christ was of Middle Eastern race, therefore whites/blacks/hispanics can’t represent him,” (assuming that you actually put stock in the concept of races) or “Christ was sinless, therefore no sinner can represent him?”
Moving on to Evolution Related Issues:
I really recommend reading this comment by Ein Sophistry from an earlier Pharyngula thread. It’s a little long, but a very good bit of evidence for evolution, and as another commenter put it, “the most beautifully succinct description of evolutionary genetics I have ever encountered.”
Regarding all the discussion of wolves vs. dogs – many people have written about the “domestication” of dogs from wolves. And no doubt, once dogs did evolve from wolves, humans did a fair amount of selective breeding, but it may not have been intentional human intervention that domesticated dogs in the first place. The latest theories I’ve read on this are that scavenging wolves evolved to be more docile around humans, simply because that let them get closer to humans to eat their scraps. In other words, instead of being our hunting partners, the first dogs may have been more like the strays you still find scavenging around garbage dumps. Although, I also question the contention that dogs are less capable than wolves of survival in non-human dominated environments. Maybe some of the more extreme pure breds, but dingos, for example, certainly seem to be doing well.
And I agree with llewelly – the common ancestor of old world monkeys and new world monkeys is a monkey (unless convergent evolution made the divergent populations of proto-monkeys develop into true monkeys in both the old world and new world populations). Then again, it’s kind of a pointless semantics argument.
I’ve decided I’m not gonna say anything here for a bit of time…until I come up with something useful to present. Not to gripe or anything, but one 16-year-old creationist arguing against probably around twenty grown-up evolutionists (most of whom probably have degrees in biology, and some are even science professors at universities) on an atheism/evolution biased blog is pretty unfair. And there’s such a massive overload of information (some people addressing evolution, others addressing religion, others saying women should be priests, and some claiming Darwin’s theory never meant we evolved from apes…?…), thus it’s kind of hard to know what to say, or to whom; I’ll say something to one person, another person thinks I’m talking to him, then a new guy buds in and claims he’s got the answers…to something–hard to tell what he’s talking about at this point–then the person I originally addressed comes along with some retort to what I said…only it was to something I said thrity comments back…SLOW IT DOWN! This is getting ridiculous! We could argue all day about whether Christ damned all fighting or not, but that will not get us anywhere on evolution. Asking you people to stick at least somewhat close to the point is like asking a drunken bagpiper to read a sheet of music (just does not work)–and trust me, I would know!
There are a few things more I wanted to say here. Somewhere I’m pretty sure someone mentioned that Creationists spend most of their time bashing on evolution and a lot less time (if any) defending their own claims other than pointing to the Bible. Regretfully, this is more than true. It’s a shame, to my honest opinion. That is why I proposed devolution, a scientific theory that, although it wouldn’t prove God, would certainly point to a Creator, leaving Christianity as a reasonable belief. Give me some time to organize a list of scientific data supporting it and some time to draw out its concept in understandable terms.
Why would ‘devolution’ point to a creator?
Sorry for the double post.
Anything that points to a creator has to eventually point to a god. If you accept that evolution produced life as we know it, you have to ask the question ‘where did that creator come from?’ You basically have two choices- an evolutionary one or a supernatural one. I personally tend to agree with Richard Dawkins on this point: complex beings have to be built from the ‘bottom up’ and not ‘top down’ because ‘top down’ leaves just the same question there.
Not to gripe or anything, but one 16-year-old creationist arguing against probably around twenty grown-up evolutionists (most of whom probably have degrees in biology, and some are even science professors at universities) on an atheism/evolution biased blog is pretty unfair
you’re 16 and you haven’t figured out that life ain’t fair yet?
besides which, perhaps you might get a clue that maybe presenting your notion of “devolution” might not play so well with the crowd you are presenting it to?
nawww. good luck finding “scientific” evidence to support it. LOL.
Ichthyic’s words here could have come straight out of the Bible. God holds forth for several chapters at the end of the book of Job, reaming Job a new one about the guy’s presumption and attempts to second-guess God.
at least someone caught the reference. I was hoping Sean himself might catch that, but I don’t think most xians really consider the book of Job all that much (it’s that arrogance thing, ya know).
oh well, it was too much to hope for anyway.
I’m still half leaning towards Sean as mostly sock puppet.
Why would ‘devolution’ point to a creator?
In a superficial way it shows that the original is better than the subsequant. Things were perfect [or much more so] at some time in the past because that was the time closest to the creation event. The most commonly known story about this is, of course, Adam & Eve. There are also other mythological stories in the past about “Golden Ages”, Atlantis, Babel and other lost civilizations with ethical, intelligent and technologically superior people. Then all is lost due to some hubristic action. It’s a common story – it was always better way back when.
Another point about Sean’s claim about our “devolution” is that if students were so much smarter a centrury ago, then think about how very much smarter than that there were 1000 years ago. And that was the end of the Dark Ages. See how much we have devolved since then.
And for Paul Schofield, I’ll see your Matthew 5 and raise you Romans 2, 7 & 10 in which Paul rejects one of the most important symbols of the original covenant and law – circumcision [an important point if you are an adult male gentile]. Acceptancee of salvation becomes a circumcision of the heart. Paul continues in 7:6 – But now we are rid of the Law, freed by death [of Jesus] from our imprisonment, free to serve in the new spiritual way and not the old way of a written law; and 10:4 – But now the Law has come to an end with Christ, and everyone who has faith may be justified. The nuts and bolts of Chrfistianity were set in place by the epistles, not the gospels.
Not to gripe or anything, but one 16-year-old creationist arguing against probably around twenty grown-up evolutionists (most of whom probably have degrees in biology, and some are even science professors at universities) on an atheism/evolution biased blog is pretty unfair
true, but, just to point something out
You chose to come here to play with the 20odd BBB.
You honestly could not have been expecting a fair deal, especially when the vast majority of your ‘facts’ have been well refuted in literally the first post.
Ok – in a perhaps misguided (and definitely lengthy) attempt to put some structure on this somewhat chaotic thread, perhaps Sean might like to read each of the questions below and say which he does and does not agree with. Then perhaps Sean would like to give us his reasons why he disagrees.
I accept that there may be errors, oversights and oversimplification in the questions below – but I’m sure the collected Pharyngulan community can point these out. If needs be, I’ll post an updated list.
Do you agree that the sequence of nucleotide bases in the DNA molecule encodes the sequence of amino acids in proteins (via the processes of DNA transcription and translation)?
Do you agree that the structure and function of proteins is determined by its amino acid sequence?
Do you agree that the functions of any given living cell are dependant on the structure and function of proteins?
Do you agree that complex organisms, including humans, are made up from living cells?
Do you agree that changes in the nucleotide sequence of DNA (mutations) can occur for a number of reasons – for example, exposure to radiation, errors in DNA replication, chromosomal recombination?
Do you agree that such DNA mutations can cause changes in the sequence and therefore, the structure, function and expression of proteins?
Do you agree that changes in the structure, function and expression of proteins can cause changes in the behaviour or properties of cells and that changes in the behaviour and properties of cells can lead to changes in the behaviour or properties of the whole organism?
In short – do you agree that genetic variation exists in populations of living organisms, including human beings, and that these genetic variations cause variations in the form, function and behaviour of these organisms?
Do you agree that in a species that reproduces asexually that mutations occurring in anywhere in the genome of an organism can be passed on to that organism’s offspring?
Do you agree that in a species that reproduces sexually, that mutations occurring in germ cells of one organism can be passed onto that organisms offspring?
In short – do you agree that genetic variations can be inherited?
Do you agree that the environment of the Earth is varied – i.e. that there are different prevailing conditions of temperature, rainfall etc?
Do you agree that the organisms living in any particular part of the Earth are well-adapted to living in the prevailing environmental conditions?
Do you agree that the characteristics that make an organism well-adapted to a particular environment are encoded in that organism’s DNA?
Do you agree that a mutation in an organism’s DNA that alters its properties or behaviour in such a way that it is no longer well-adapted to its environment means that its chances of survival are decreased?
Do you agree that a mutation in an organism’s DNA that alters its properties or behaviour in such a way that it is better adapted to its environment means that its chances of survival are increased?
Do you agree that a mutation in an organism’s DNA that alters its properties or behaviour in such a way that it is better adapted to a new environment where it faces, for example less competition for food, or less predation means that its chances of survival are increased?
Do you agree that an organism that is not well-adapted to its environment will produce less offspring than an organism that is better adapted to its environment?
Do you agree that if mutations that cause changes in the chances of survival of an organism can be inherited by the mutant organism’s offspring, that the number of organisms with the favourable mutation will increase over time, while the number of organisms with the unfavourable mutation will decrease and eventually disappear?
Do you agree that the environment of the Earth has varied over time?
Do you agree that if the environment changes, that the characteristics that are required for an organism to be well-adapted to that environment also changes?
Do you agree that a mutation that was deleterious in one environment might be advantageous in a different environment – that is that it might make the organism better adapted to the different environment?
Do you agree that if an organism with such a mutation exists in a population of organisms whose environment changes so that the mutant organism is now better adapted, that the mutant organism will produce more offspring carrying the advantageous mutation, while the organisms carrying the now less advantageous mutation will produce less offspring carrying their mutation?
In short – do you agree with natural selection?
Do you agree that a species is (broadly) a group of organisms that can (in theory) mutually interbreed?
Do you agree that the ability for an organism to breed with another organism of its species is determined ultimately by its DNA?
Do you agree that species can be spread over large areas?
Do you agree that not all members of such a species can physically interbreed and that there will, thus, be different breeding populations within the same species?
Do you agree that different mutations can occur in different breeding populations?
Do you agree that if these mutations are inherited that over time, different breeding groups will have different complements of mutations?
Do you agree that, if the ability for an organism to breed with another organism of its species is determined ultimately by its DNA, that mutations can alter the ability of an organism to interbreed with other organisms of its species?
Do you agree that if locally advantageous mutations that alter the ability of the organisms in one breeding population of a species to interbreed with the organisms in another breeding population of that species to the point where they can no longer interbreed even in theory, then they two populations are, in fact, different species?
In short – do you agree that genetic variation and natural selection can lead to the evolution of different species?
(Another)Paul
Sean,
Look, we both know you probably won’t show up again. Not because you are overwhelmed or afraid or anything, don’t get me wrong; just because you are 16 years old, and you have WAY better things to do than argue with a bunch of “grown ups”. And that’s understandable. I’m completely serious here.
However, if you are indeed planning to search links and books and other sources to learn more about this… Please, PLEASE don’t do it just to present counterarguments, or to seek something that will help you hold on to your beliefs, let alone to come up with a new theory that will revolutionize biology (and I shouldn’t have to tell you how highly unlikely that is).
If you want to learn, learn about what science really has to say, not all the new creationist scams and sophistry. Read about all the amazing amount of information gathered for decades now, by people who have dedicated their lives to the pursuit of truth. Read about what we have learned.
Then, when you think you have learned enough, you can think up and present any theory you like, if you want to.
You seem eager to believe people who have done no actual research of their own, and argue away from their livingroom, disputing data and theories. Don’t you think you should at least give all those people who bust their ass in the laboratory and in the field a shot?
Others have provided the links already- I sincerely hope you will decide to check them with an open mind.
“‘ve decided I’m not gonna say anything here for a bit of time…until I come up with something useful to present. Not to gripe or anything . . .”
Oh, darn. But I can imagine it must be pretty intimidating, and as you point out, given the speed, number and range of comments . . . Perhaps if you just ignored everything that wasn’t specifically about evolution? (Whether or not that includes questions about the relationship between religion and evolution is up to you).
One thing: you mentioned, way back, that
“There may be fossils indicating a line of apes, each becoming more and more like a human, but similarities to me are not science. One could say the fossils prove evolution, or one could say God has a particular syle of design.”
I would urge you to read more about human evolution, which is a subject I’ve personally found fascinating – it is finding out about our ancient relatives, after all, and where we came from. TalkOrigins has a ton of stuff on Fossil Hominids: The Evidence for Evolution, but a) it can be a bit overwhelming, and b) like the rest of that (rather impressive) site, it can sometimes give the impression that all science, and all of doing science, is part of this epic struggle between two enormous adversaries – Evolution and Creationism. In reality, creationism is really scrambling along behind actual science as the latter strides along, with creationism gasping and panting, trying to jump up and grab science’s pants cuff, and saying in a piping, squeaky voice, ‘hey! hey you! Darwinians! I challenge you! Now (pant) stand and (gasp) face me, you – “at which point it falls into a little hole in the road . . . (Most scientists don’t pay any attention at all to creationism, although the recent fuss have gotten a few roused up: folks like PZ are extremely unusual).
Other sites you might want to take a peek at include the PBS Evolution: Humans page, or the Smithsonian Institute’s Human Ancestors Hall (including a clickable Human Family Tree), as well as their FAQ page . . .
And lots more, but I do have to get to work – certainly google can turn up many more (although like everything else on the web (and life), you’ll want to evaluate what you read, and try to figure out how useful and reliable it is as a source), and folks here could suggest others. You can also check out your local library or bookstore – which is a good idea for evolution in general – Carl Zimmer’s “Evolution: The Triumph of an Idea” (based off the PBS show) is good (anything by Zimmer’s good, really – “At the Water’s Edge: Fish with Fingers, Whales with Legs, and How Life Came Ashore But Then Went Back to Sea” is cool, while Parasite Rex is both really creepy and fascinating). – Lots of other recommendations, but yeah, there’s that work thing . . .
The idea that the sequence of fossils in human evolution – which is embarrassingly rich, the problem is that instead of big gaps we have a bunch of guys that look a great deal alike, making it really tricky to figure out how exactly they’re all related to each other, sort of like Thanksgiving dinner in big families – maybe doesn’t show evolution, but different designs – well, it’s an interesting idea, and one could see circumstances where that would work – for example, aliens were excavating cars on some far future earth, and wondering if they were some strange life form that evolved. But that only seems silly because we know how cars are made – by people, in factories. Is that how people are made? Now that’s silly – we know how people are made, and it’s a very different process, one that doesn’t involve intentional design, at least on any natural-world level we can examine. If a kid looks like his parents, we don’t think that the manufacturer is experimenting with a slightly different model, right? So why should this apply if we’re talking about the same thing, just over thousands and thousands and thousands and thousands of generations? Go look at the Smithsonian family tree – why would a Creator be working like that, like some guy in a workshop testing out various models to figure out which ones worked, making tiny changes here and there? (Whether the process of evolution has God behind it in some fashion, again, that’s a question science doesn’t answer). What you want to consider is what makes the most sense -whether God is trying very hard to make it look like people evolved, or whether people evolved (however God may or may not have been involved: Catholics have a very interesting view on this.)
Ok – have to run. Good luck – you’re young, who knows what wonders you will see?
Jeffrey boser:
A while back (on the old Pharyngula, IIRC), PZ used a Bible as a unit of time, representing 2000 years of history, and showed how many Bibles ago various humanoid species lived.
The other day, I played with the same idea, though with 1 Bible == 4000 years. I measured my Bible (5 1/4 inches wide) and played with Google maps to get representations of lengths of time as distances of Bibles laid side by side.
I found that if you start at the corner by the White House in DC, then 6 million years (around when the human and chimp lineages split) takes you up a whole block, and part of another.
The age of the Earth takes you a bit farther than that: outside the Beltway, west across Virginia, and to within a stone’s throw of the West Virginia border.
The age of the universe, again starting at the White House, takes you through Maryland and Pennsylvania, and almost all the way to Ohio.
What can I say? I’m a sucker for gee-wow illustrations of deep time and space?
No, priests are male and hence preferred over women who are subordinate. How can God be male or female? It’s hormones and genitalia here on Earth.
[QUOTE]And there’s such a massive overload of information (some people addressing evolution, others addressing religion, others saying women should be priests, and some claiming Darwin’s theory never meant we evolved from apes…?…), thus it’s kind of hard to know what to say, or to whom;[/QUOTE]
That’s because YOUR arguments IMMEDIATELY went to moral/religious issues, not scientific one. Given that your very first ‘objection;’ to evolution, as posted here, was something along the lines of ‘evolution makes us ‘only’ animals and that’s bad’ — not a scientific one, is it any wonder that the discussion has diverged from evolution per se?
Btw, yes, ‘Darwin’s theory’ (evolution by natural selection) does not, and never did, say we evolved from *apes*. Depending on how taxonomically squeamish you are, it say we ARE apes, or that humans and apes evolved from the same pre-ape ancestor. Get used to it. Better yet, get educated so you won’t make the fundamental errors again.
Asking you people to stick at least somewhat close to the point is like asking a drunken bagpiper to read a sheet of music (just does not work)
Actually it’s your fault sean. Because of your lack of understanding for evolution, science in general, and even religion, you keep bringing up irrelevant points. It is only natural that people will correct your points, and we can’t help it that all your points so far have needed correcting.
That is why I proposed devolution, a scientific theory that, although it wouldn’t prove God, would certainly point to a Creator, leaving Christianity as a reasonable belief.
There’s also the point of you outright ignoring what people said. I told you what a scientific theory is, and some ignorant idea that you conjured up two days ago because you don’t like the fact that humans are apes is most certainly NOT a theory.
… I tried to make it short.
Sean said:
Sean, a good place to start on your journey to “prove” devolution, would be to use the appropriate language when presenting your ideas.
From berkeley.edu
Steven
Here is a web site about how you can learn the scientific method. It is easy and clear to understand. You can study it until you get it. Because you do not have a theory of devolution you only have an idea about how a word can be used to refute something you disbelieve. Your disbelief in Evolution is only understandable from the perspective that you are uneducated in science in general and are unable to understand what evolution really theorizes.
http://phyun5.ucr.edu/~wudka/Physics7/Notes_www/node5.html
When you’ve studied this for a period of time you will realize that you do not have any type of informed opinion. Also you do not have a valid opinion if your using religious understanding to do scientific reasoning. The two do not relate that way. In other words it is like you bringing a snorkle and diving mask to play football.
I meant Sean not Steven.
What utterly floors me about this conversation is that no one has yet tumbled to the heart of Sean’s “devolution.” It’s the Law of Conservation of Information, folks:
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CI/CI010.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB101.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB101_2.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB102.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/information/shannon.html#Entropy
Or, as I like to call it, the Argument from the Second Law of Thermodynamics v.2.0. Both the SLOT and the bogus LCI fit the same basic religious premise: Only God can create. Everything else is just shuffling things around or transforming them. Satan cannot create, so he twists and perverts, a common theme in myths of evil supernatural critters. Thus, evolution can proceed, but only like a clock slowly winding down. Every change and adaption represents a net loss of information, be it the loss of a whale’s eyes or a cavefish’s sight (even though everyone knows the Stonecutters are responsible for the latter…) Of course, a nicely vague and shifting definition of “information” helps. Antibiotic resistance? Meh…you just knocked some amino acids out of a protein or rendered it less effective at its job…and anyway, by “information” I meant “complex integrated molecular machines like the bacterial flagellum.” Screeeeech those goalposts back some more.
I have little doubt that Sean has constructed the idea mostly on his own, but that doesn’t surprise me. He’s quite possibly the finest example of a sophomoric teenager I’ve seen, cheefully charging ahead with new ideas and discoveries without an ounce of caution or patience for long, dull research.
Kid, save yourself some embarassment and do the research before you proudly present your devolution website. You’ve been scooped…Dembski holds the patent. Your idea is well-known and well-debunked, but at least you can claim the “good” company of the leading lights of the ID movement.
Don’t you think it would have been a good idea to suggest Sean read ‘Origins of Species’ before any discussion? Then perhaps the topic of duscussion could have been limited to anything that was actually in that book. The book is a fairly easy read and has all the goods.
Ichthyic says:
It sticks in my mind for a couple of reasons.
First, my high-school Sunday school class read it as actors in a play, the way high-school students do Shakespeare in English class.
Second, my former significant other and I somehow got sucked into an “opera” (and I use the term very loosely) dreamed up by a sweet little old lady who thought God had suddenly given her the gift of composing music. My former SO, who is a professional composer, ended up pounding the thing into something vaguely resembling music, arranging it, and eventually singing the title role. I did a sizeable chunk of the engraving on the score and parts while trying not to gag, ROFL, or both. The buzzword at home for several months was “Consider my servant Job, for he is truly a piece of work.”
After those two unforgettable experiences, the book is permanently set in concrete in my brain!
Sean Writes:
I’ve decided I’m not gonna say anything here for a bit of time…until I come up with something useful to present. Not to gripe or anything, but one 16-year-old creationist arguing against probably around twenty grown-up evolutionists
— There’s nothing preventing grown-up creationists from posting here or defending you. Fact is, they are cowards. You at least have guts.
(most of whom probably have degrees in biology, and some are even science professors at universities) on an atheism/evolution biased blog is pretty unfair.
— Unfair? Unfair!
— My dear boy, this has nothing to do with fair or unfair. As you now realize many of the posters in this thread have advanced degrees. My specialty is Geophysics. Indeed, what you have been getting is an education by professionals. Normally, you have to wait till you get to college, pay gobs of money (just to even be in the same room with P.Z. no less :-) )for your tuition. If there is any unfairness here, it is that you are getting an education that people normally need to graduate high school and accepted to university to get,(and pay through the nose) for FREE!!!
—Unfair..? OK send me $30 and I’ll call it even. :-)
Stuart
Sean,
The easiest way to critically analyze the “possibility” of Creationism is to logically reconstruct the spread of all life after the Great Flood.
Knowing that the histories of China and Egypt easily date back to the Biblical global disaster, how and when did these two powerful nations — thousands of miles apart — derive from eight people on Mount Ararat?
“Consider my servant Job, for he is truly a piece of work.”
I’ve always wondered if that line was meant as pure sarcasm, and everybody else just missed it.
Here it is…sort of:
http://www.angelfire.com/dragon3/armed_and_dangerous/devolution/index.html
This link leads to a page about my theory/hypothesis of devolution. I put it together really quickly, so don’t be surprised to find a lot of things missing from it or flawed. It’s very incomplete. There’s still a lot more stuff I’m gonna add to it. But right now it’ll have to do as a start. I know you all probably won’t agree with it, but tell me what you think it needs anyway.
Do realize that until you test your hypothesis, it is not a theory.
And how exactly do you plan to test it?
I don’t really know how I’m gonna test it yet. Have any suggestions?
For starters, perhaps you could try elucidating the difference between “evolution” and “devolution.”
According to your hypothesis of “devolution,” blind fish that live in dark caverns are more degenerate than their light-dwelling relatives, even though using energy to maintain eyes and a higher metabolism would ultimately kill them in a dark, nutrient poor environment like a cave pool. Why is that?
In the Great Barrier Reef, fossils of helmetshells and their sea urchin prey have been unearthed… In comparison with their living counterparts, the helmetshells and sea urchins of 1 to 3 million years ago were much smaller. According to palaeontologists and marine biologists, this is because the average size of the local sea urchins have been getting bigger and bigger, as only the biggest individuals able to survive helmetshell attacks, and that the largest helmetshells are the ones that can attack the most sea urchins. According to you, this is simply “devolution.”
Why?
Also, how does “devolution” explain the development of biological antifreeze gene in Antarctic icefish evolution through the accidental splicing of a Start codon onto what was once a pseudogene?
Sean: “I don’t really know how I’m gonna test it yet. Have any suggestions?”
Yes. Finish high school. Go to college, major in biology. Go to graduate school and get a PhD. Be a good enough scientist to get your own lab. Write a grant that is of high enough quality to get funded. Then start trying to put together evidence other than “things get older as time passes” to support your random thoughts.
Sorry PZ, I usually just lurk here, but this is getting out of control. Sean has clearly learned nothing (although I have, thank you everyone). If anything his comments and positions have “devolved” into more magical thinking and reliance on biblical authority than when he started. His website extravagantly joins evolution, geology, and astrophysics into some silly, magical, unified wishful dream of how he thinks things should be in order to avoid facing the truth that there is no god. He is clearly not mature enough intellectually to deal with the ideas everyone here has so generously provided. I hope others will continue to post on this thread, but the charade that the conversation with Sean has become should just stop.
Yes, I quite agree.
Mr Henry, you have failed. You have no idea how science works, your “devolution” “theory” is vacuous, and it’s rather clear that you aren’t willing to learn.
I think we’re done here.
When I say a creature “devolves” in the case of devolution, I don’t mean that it decreases in its capacity to exist, but rather that it devolves physically–it takes up less room. This is only partly against evolution, but partly can coincide with it as well. It’s just a hypothesis, really, but I think it might make more scientific sense than intelligent design.
Wait! You told me to say what I thought was the most damning evidence against evolution. I am still thinking about it. “There’s no reason to be hasty,” as some of you have rightfully said. Just wait a sec.
What I find most interesting is that the ‘adult’ creationists I’ve run into are no more mature in their thinking and reasoning than is this sixteen-year-old boý ;-}>
I just wanted to know if anyone had anything constructive or informing to say about the hypothesis. Stanton was kinda helpful actually, but the rest of you just resorted to your arrogant name calling again.
Like it was said before, your idea is not a theory.
However… putting your religious overtones aside, I think it is a valid hypothesis. The problem is, it was disproved even before you formulated it.
Sean, science adopts a hypothesis only if it explains the observations. Your idea doesn’t explain anything. We can clearly see that the first fossils are very simple cells. As you go up in the fossil record, you can find more complex cells, then simple multicellular organisms, then more complex ones, etc. etc.
So I suggest you find a way to reconcile the two. Frankly, it can’t be done. Therefore your hypothesis is disproved.
I think the main issue here is that you refuse to even entertain the idea that humans descended from other animals. For this, I suggest you read what a previous poster recommended:
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2006/11/handing_out_a_little_rope.php#c273929
and I also suggest that you try to reconcile those facts with your hypothesis. Once again, it can’t be done. Those facts are conclusive evidence that humans, chimps, and other apes shared a common ancestor. There is NO way your “devolution” can account for that.
I wouldn’t give up on Sean yet. I don’t see it very often, but I have seen people who have completely changed their beliefs after a debate (including me). That didn’t happen right then and there, it took quite a while. It is only natural that he is stubborn and tries to hang on to his preconceived notions, conjuring up crazy things on top of crazy things, but I think there’s hope for sean. Consider me delusional or whatnot, but like I said I’ve seen people completely change their beliefs, and if I hadn’t kept in touch with them (or if it hadn’t been me), I would have never even guessed that they would eventually change what they believed, because the replies they made sounded a whole lot like sean’s replies.
Actually, everybody, Sean Henry has come a long way in the past couple of days. PZ, you’re right. He doesn’t understand how science works, but I don’t know how you can say he isn’t willing to learn. If he wasn’t willing to learn he would never have acknowledged that most of the B.S. in his first video was just that.
(Dons his Pop-psychologist hat)
Seems to me he’s here arguing with you people because what he has believed previously is no longer sufficient to explain the world around him. That kind of thing happens to teenagers. I suspect that you old farts are letting your natural hatred of all things youthful get the better of you.
Sean, Kudos on spelling your name the proper way. have you by any chance been home-schooled?
Really? Then it probably is a false hypothesis. Unless (do you think it possible?) maybe the first fossils were simple cells because they (being the first fossils) were the first things to die out and become fossils. Or perhaps the dating methods used for those fossils are unreliable–most seem to be. I don’t know…I’ll have to do some further research. That was pretty helpful information though, TAW. Thanks.
Yes, I’m homeschooled. My parents didn’t originally homeschool though. Like I mentioned previously, there are eight kids, counting myself, in my family, and my older sisters used to go to regular school. But then some bad stuff happened (not sure what) so my mom decided to homeschool us. After several years of griping, some of my sisters were allowed to go to public school again…my mom couldn’t put up with their complaints. What happened? One of my sisters got raped by a teacher in the school…so yea, my parents aren’t too cool about real school, and I wouldn’t blame them. If I was my dad, I probably would have killed that motherfucker (pardon my french).
about them dying first- That’s impossible, unless somehow there is a relationship between complexity and longevity.
First: The more complex organisms would have to have lived BILLIONS of years in order for that to have happened.
Second: even assuming it were possible that ALL the organisms lived that long, there would have to have been signs of more complex life, like coproliths (sp?) which are fossilized… well.. poop. lol. And fossilized tracks, burrows, teeth, etc. They are all present in newer rocks (newer than the less complex organisms). and even assuming that somehow all the organisms died in exactly the right sequence, without making any tracks or losing teeth or even just dying from disease or from a fall or from anything, it is obvious from today’s organisms that more complex organisms don’t live longer. For example, trees can live a whole lot longer than say, bats or humans.
As for radiometric dating, radiometric dating is only used for absolute dating (giving an actual estimate in years), but there are also relative ways of dating things. For example, I’m sure you’ve seen pictures of the grand canyon right? in those pictures, it is clear that there are a lot of layers in the rock. If you examine the fossils in those layers of rock, you will see the trend I talked about before, and there is no possible way that all those layers formed so fast that it occurred within the life span of the organisms in question, and that they somehow arranged themselves in perfect accordance to evolutionary theory. It’s just physically impossible. What’s more, it is impossible for that to have happened EVERYWHERE, because the trends I mentioned don’t just happen in the grand canyon, or just in the US, they happen from the US to china to Antarctica to the middle of the ocean. There are more things I’d like to say (like glacier caps and tree rings and stuff) but I think that’s enough for now.
I’ll skip the whole validity of radiometric dating argument because while I do have a basic understanding of it, I don’t think I could explain it nearly as well as others here.
(uprights chair, replaces monocle)
Sorry to hear about your sister, Sean.
About the fossils (not my field), Typically, soft and tiny organisms of the type early life was likely to be typically don’t make good fossils. Also, you may have been told radiocarbon dating is used to date most fossiles. This is not true. Carbon dating only works on organic materials (right guys?) also, carbon dating can only be used on materials within a specific range of ages. Dating of fossiles is, I believe based on geological references and common ‘index fossiles’ which can be found all over the planet.
whoops, late post.
roflmao, I just realized you didn’t even MENTION radiometric dating. I don’t know where I got the idea that you had.
Oh, and it’s COPROLITE (the fossilized poop) not …whatever thing I said. Actually I think I had spelled it right the first time, but then I changed it.
Carbon dating only works on organic materials (right guys?) also, carbon dating can only be used on materials within a specific range of ages.
Right, I think it’s useful up to 5730 (had to learn it for a class lol, amazing I still remember it)
Dating of fossiles is, I believe based on geological references and common ‘index fossiles’ which can be found all over the planet.
Radiometric dating can also be used, but they use other non-carbon isotopes (I think they use uranium and others)
The whole thing with Creationism though is that it claims the Flood caused all that stuff about the Grand Canyon. From what I’ve researched, it doesn’t seem too farfetched. That’s probably why Creationists argue a lot for the Flood. There’s a book I read (not the one from twenty years ago, but a more recent one) called “The World That Perished.” It’s a pretty convincing argument for the Flood (or at least it seemed convincing at the time). Despite it’s somewhat too religious references at the beginning of it, the book grows pretty scientific as it goes along. It seemed scientific, at least, at the time. I’m gonna have to reread it one of these days.
A camp counselor once told me that carbon dating was unreliable because scientists had used it to date a live ‘mullosk’ as being over 1000 years old. Made me wonder what exactly the guy’s mouth was wired to, if not his brain.
The ratio of water-slides to bible-study at that camp almost made it not worth the trip. Almost.
So, how exactly does “physical devolution” or “taking up less space” explain how Antarctic icefish were able to evolve the ability to secrete antifreeze, the rate of enlargement of Great Barrier Reef helmetshells and sea urchins, the fact that the Apple Maggot Fly (Rhagoletis pomonella) is now divided into numerous populations that have stopped interacting with each other now that they’ve moved to separate kinds of fruit trees (hawthorne, apple, peach, pear, etc) or the fact that the Isla Ángel de la Guarda Chuckwalla (Sauromalus australis) is larger than the ancestral mainland Chuckwalla, S. ater?
But I guess that’s one of the main differences between Creationists and evolutionists…they interpret the evidence differently. The question is: which of them is correct, or is either correct? The truth does not compromise. Two opposing sides in an argument can be both incorrect, but never can the opposing sides both be right, or not 100%, at least. “The truth does not compromise”…yep, a phrase I invented for a book I wrote that I’m trying to get published. It’s nothing to do with science, but do any of you personally know any publishers? It’s a real pain trying to get a book published when you’re an unpublished author, especially when you’re unpublished AND 16. But oh well . . .
Saying ‘The Flood’ isn’t farfetched is like saying Xenu isn’t farfetched. ;)
Floods, no matter how big, don’t carve massive canyons out of rock. That is a process that takes a very long time. Longer than most humans can comprehend. The average canyon hasn’t changed much in the entire history of the united states (excluding man made changes).
And even if the flood DID carve the canyon – that still doesn’t explain how the fossils got in the rocks in the first place.
You’re ideas are never going to get anyone so long as you cling to obviously false pretenses.
Sean Henry, if the Great Flood occured around four thousand years ago, then how come all of the Mesopotamian or Egyptian tablets or documents that date back four thousand years ago make no mention of a world-destroying flood, or of the slaves of Babylon speaking new languages and leaving the city in droves?
“The truth does not compromise”…yep, a phrase I invented for a book I wrote that I’m trying to get published
ROFLMAO!
tell us the truth, you really are a sock puppet, aren’t you.
seeing people take you seriously after you say things like this is even more humorous.
Sean, did you know that the story of the flood is not unique to the Bible. A Sumerian story which predates the bible called “The Epic of Gilgamesh” contains a passage about a man who built a large boat and filled it with the ‘seed’ of all the animals of the earth in order to save them from a flood. (Once again out of my field) Some suggest that the many flood stories may origionate from an ancient culture that actually did experience a devastating, but localized flood. However, There is not enough water on the planet to raise sea levels as high as Mount Arrarat.
Stanton,
That IS a good point against devolution. Perhaps devolution does not always appy to things (if it applies to anything). Perhaps if life started out fully functional, then maybe certain things could evolve physically with life already organized. After all, it’s easier to build a house with tools and lumber already laid out for you then to build your tools, cut the lumber, and THEN build a house. But I don’t know too much about the Antarctic icefish…I should probably do some research on them first before saying anything else on the matter.
yes… going back through Sean posts about being homeschooled, the way he writes his prose, the specifics he decides to include.
I’m absolutely sure you all are debating a sock puppet.
…and you SHOULD hope that I’m actually right.
Ichthyic,
You are really starting to get annoying. I was just making conversation (NOT WITH YOU, OF COURSE), and for that you start ranting that I’m a sock puppet. If you have nothing good or pleasant to say, go to the thread “For Everyone Other Than Sean…” that’s where your gripes should go, not here.
Sean Henry, a piece of grave advice for you…
If you intend for your hypothesis to replace a pre-existing scientific theory, the hypothesis must be able to explain everything that the previous theory explains just as well, if not better.
Evolutionary Biology is in the process of explaining the what’s, how’s and why’s of every living and fossil organism that we humans are aware of.
That biologists have not needed to craft a replacement theory in the last 150+ years speaks literal libraries of Evolutionary Theory’s monumental explanatory powers.
I strongly recommend that you read more about various organisms, as scientists have this unpleasant, but necessary habit of viewing hypotheses with no explanatory ability as akin to junk mail.
The whole thing with Creationism though is that it claims the Flood caused all that stuff about the Grand Canyon. From what I’ve researched, it doesn’t seem too farfetched.
A worldwide flood is impossible in of itself, and it is even more far fetched that it created the grand canyon, the fossil patterns, or anything else for that matter. I could give you a link that debunks it a million times over, but I doubt you’d read it because it’s very long. Instead, could you give a specific argument for the flood and how it created anything we observe today?
Did you read the post I and a previous poster linked to before?
But I guess that’s one of the main differences between Creationists and evolutionists…they interpret the evidence differently. The question is: which of them is correct, or is either correct?
No, the main difference is that creationists start with the conclusion and then look for ways to support it. That can lead you dangerous paths. Because you’re new to this debate, you still haven’t seen that ALL creationist either ignore the evidence, lie, work on misconceptions, etc. That is the reason why over 99.9% of scientists in the relevant fields accept evolution. That is also why all of the “facts” in your first video were wrong, and why you got such a reaction. You’re dead right about the truth not compromising and two opposing beliefs both being right, but as someone mentioned earlier, the difference is that there are mountains of evidence for evolution and none whatsoever for creationism. Every single argument you will find from creationists will be like the ones in your first video- wrong. If you don’t believe me, that’s what we’re here for :) I challenge you to find one valid scientific argument.
Floods, no matter how big, don’t carve massive canyons out of rock. That is a process that takes a very long time.
Yeah, floods would make things flat, not make huge canyons.
That IS a good point against devolution. Perhaps devolution does not always appy to things (if it applies to anything). Perhaps if life started out fully functional, then maybe certain things could evolve physically with life already organized.
Whoa whoa whoa, slow down. First figure out how your hypothesis of devolution can be reconciled with fossils and the facts in this comment- http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2006/11/handing_out_a_little_rope.php#c273929
and then focus on other things.
Sorry for the last part of my comment, I read that wrong. I guess being up until 1:37 AM lowers my reading skills a wee bit :P
I think I’ll take a break until I’ve had some sleep.
If devolution ever amounts to anything, it’ll have to be because either;
a) I go to college, study biology and get really talented at it, then successfully–after much detailed researching, studying, and testing–prove it to be just as good, if not better, as evolution, or;
b) A genius scientist comes along and decides for no reason to take up the research and testing of devolution and ends up doing exactly what I would have if I became a talented biologist/scientist.
Both a and b are farfetched. Devolution was only a whim anyway. I won’t just give up on it yet, but I’m not gonna place to much hope in it either. It’s only a few days after its conception, and already devolution is looking like a lost cause.
Ichthyic, Do sock-puppets typically hire 16 year olds to star in YouTube videos? It’s awesome that you’re comfortable coming to conclusions with so little evidence though.
AnotherSean wrote:
I think the widespread confusion surrounding “carbon dating” here arises because the term “carbon dating” is used to mean two different things.
The first is the carbon 14 dating system, which indeed only works on organic materials (and specifically only those that breathed air – hence all of the sea-dwelling creature analyses that produce bogus results – and only those that did not live near a non-atmospheric source of carbon – hence equally erroneous results from anything living near an active volcano). Carbon 14 dating usually has an upper range of ~30,000 years (in some cases the upper limit has been extended to ~70,000 years, IIRC, but the ~30,000 year limit generally applies).
The second is the colloquial (read: wrong) use of the term “carbon dating” to refer to any radiometric dating system. There are over 40 such systems, many of which apply to rocks, have much larger ranges, and do not require an external reference, such as an assumption that isotopic mixes of some element have always been constant in the past.
Two examples:
Argon-Potassium, which can be used to date lava flows, provided the sample collector doesn’t screw up and fail to exclude anything other than basalt, which is the only thing it can actually date (there are a few examples of creationists using an incorrect sample collection method which fails to exclude xenoliths and results in a stupid answer, which they then claim “proves that it doesn’t work”). The system works by the fact that argon escapes easily from molten basalt, and since one of the isotopes of potassium decays to argon, one can measure the ratios of the two and determine how long it has been since the basalt was molten.
Rubidium-Strontium, which can be used to date rocks containing those two elements. Since the two tend to chemically separate, but not isotopically separate, one can use multiple samples from the same rock cross referenced with each other to determine what proportion of the strontium 87 was there originally, and what proportion resulted from subsequent decay of rubidium 87.
For a detailed explanation, google will return any number of references…
blah, who am I kidding. I have absolutely no self restraint. lol
Actually, ANYONE can come up with a scientific hypothesis that will be widely accepted in science. It may make it a harder for you to get people to listen to you at first, but really it isn’t hard at all. Heck, even now PZ Myers is reading what YOU have to say.
If you were to come up with a good, testable idea that made predictions and explained a lot of observations better than current theories, it doesn’t matter if you’re 5 years old, a flat earther, or anything else. Your idea would still hold as much weight as anyone else’s.
I’m not a history buff so if someone would correct me if I’m wrong, but:
Einstein is a great example. He didn’t have a PhD or even any degree in science, he was actually just a guy who worked in a… post office? library? I forgot…. but the point is that he was a nobody before he came up with his (then) hypothesis of special relativity. (after a while he found out that it was incomplete, so he came up with the theory of general relativity, but that’s another story)
@TAW:
wasn’t he a patent examiner?
Millimeter Wave:
I just looked it up, and he was a patent examiner.
Damn it. Basically everything I said about einstein was wrong, so forget everything I said about him. He actually did have a degree although he couldn’t find a teaching job which is why he ended up as a patent examiner, and that required knowledge of physics.
The point still stands though: anyone can do science, not just scientists. Science is a methodology, a way of thinking, a philosophy, not an education.
I don’t know…maybe evolution is right. Maybe the Bible can coincide with evolution, albeit in a riddling way. My dad once said that, though the Bible says the world was created in seven days, “day” could mean an entire age of who knows how many years in the Old Testament. Yes, my dad isn’t really that against evolution. He doesn’t really care about evolution actually. It doesn’t effect his beliefs in God in any way.
The way I look at it, science is not nature’s law…science is the search for nature’s law. The search may lead to evolution, but in no way could the search end there.
@TAW:
I entirely agree that your point stands.
I just looked it up too (actually I just read the preface to his book on relativity that I happen to have on my bookshelf here), and apparently he was a “technical expert third class” in the patent office in Bern when he published his initial works, which he wrote in his spare time.
Interesting side note: his last writing before his death was a letter he wrote to Bertrand Russell, arguing for the abolition of nuclear weapons.
I was going to explain about radiometric dating but Millimeter Wave already did.
Sean, one thing you’ll find out about scientists is that they try to be very thorough. Pretty much any “loophole” you can think of has already been thought of by someone else. There are people who dedicate their lives looking for holes or new explanations.
So you can *pretty much* bet that excepted theories have already been picked apart and stood the test. Otherwise they wouldn’t be accepted.
Granted, a lot of things once accepted aren’t anymore. But you’ll find in pretty much every instance when a radical new idea comes about it’s because the evidence for it was totally compelling and made a lot of other stuff that used to not make any sense click in to place.
Scientists don’t just make stuff up or randomly come up with ideas that sound cool. There’s an actual method to it.
Congratulations, sir. Apparently this discussion wasn’t a waste of time after all ;-)
The way I look at it, science is not nature’s law…science is the search for nature’s law. The search may lead to evolution, but in no way could the search end there.
Yes! This is it exactly! Science isn’t a set of beliefs. It’s a method, a way to, as you put it, search for nature’s law.
And I meant to add, the ‘search’ doesn’t end with evolution.
It doesn’t ever end.
The way I look at it, science is not nature’s law…science is the search for nature’s law.
That’s exactly right.
The search may lead to evolution, but in no way could the search end there.
You could say the same thing about the theory of gravity, or the germ theory of disease, etc. There just comes a point when all the evidence is so overwhelming that the chance of the theory being wrong is basically zero.
I urge you to keep researching. There is so much interesting information out there. Besides, skepticism is good. You shouldn’t take my word or any one person’s word (admittedly everyone here isn’t just one person, but all the people in creationist sites aren’t just one person either) for it, but reflect on what has been said, research, and make up your own mind. I’m confident that just like 99.9% of scientists, you will see that evolution is the best answer.
Beware of your sources though, don’t fall into the pit you fell in your first video.
If you have a question you, you can always come here, to the panda’s thumb, any other reputable site.
Sean,
You weren’t the first to think up devolution – it’s already been discredited:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Devolution_%28fallacy%29
AnotherSean Wrote:
A camp counselor once told me that carbon dating was unreliable because scientists had used it to date a live ‘mullosk’ as being over 1000 years old. Made me wonder what exactly the guy’s mouth was wired to, if not his brain.
— He wasn’t fibbing. But as per the course, creatobabblers won’t tell you the whole story. No radiometric method is guaranteed to work under all circumstances. This is certainly true of C-14.
Suppose You’re a mollusk in Seneca Lake New York. Seneca lake is embedded in Devonian limestone. Limestone so ancient, it has long lost its C-14. As you might expect some of the carbon in your shell comes from this limestone. Much of the rest comes from atmospheric carbon which is “rich” in C-14 by comparison. As a result when Carbon dating is performed on your shell, the results are skewed by the old component from the Devonian limestone. Hence a “Carbon Age” of 1000 years under such circumstances is not unusual. An approximate true age be obtained by subtracting 1000 years from the Carbon age for any fossil found in that lake.
Sean
I must say that I am impressed, having gone this far in only 3 days. Having the guts to argue with a group of grown-up evolutionists. Comming back when your ideas were challenged, even though the amount of posts were staggering and the lagnuage sometimes got a little harsh.
I whole-heartedly disagree with your initial stance on evolution, but I admire you guts.
And for those of you who gave up on him after only 2 days: Evolutionary biologists of all people should know that things take time…
Anyway I’m glad that something good came of this (rather long) discussion.
Sean, what does your devolution hypothesis say that the theory of evolution (biological or otherwise) does not? I’m having trouble understanding what exactly you think is radical about it (or isn’t covered in the ‘devolution fallacy’ Wikipedia article that has been posted).
-Celestial Teapot ;)
Quoth TAW: “Damn it. Basically everything I said about einstein was wrong, so forget everything I said about him.”
Sean, I wanted to draw attention to TAW’s comment because of what he did here: He admitted he was wrong. This, acknowledging your errors, is a big part of science. As a scientist, nobody is going to get down on you just because you made a mistake; scientists are fallible human beings, and they know they’re fallible human beings, so an occasional “Oops! I was wrong” is just par for the course. What will get people down on you, however, is if, after your mistake is shown to be a mistake, you cling to your error.
Look at TAW; he said some things about Einstein that were wrong, he learned different, and he abandoned his mistake. Do you think any the worse of TAW for having abandoned his mistake, Sean? Probably not. Heck, I’d be willing to bet that you actually have a better opinion of TAW as a result of his admitting his error! But suppose TAW had not abandoned his mistake — suppose he had, instead, clung to it, and complained that all those sources that contradict him were wrong, and it was all just an evil pro-Einstein conspiracy or something. TAW didn’t actually do that, of course, but supposing he had, how would that have affected your opinion of TAW?
There’s a lot of that sort of thing in science, even in evolution-related fields. For instance, Creationists love to talk about ‘Nebraska Man’, the nonexistent ‘hominid’ that was thought to exist because a peccary’s tooth had been mistakenly identified as evidence of a whole new species. This is true as far as it goes — but it doesn’t go far enough. There’s more to the story than Creationists usually tell you. And one thing in particular that Creationists don’t tell you is that this mistake, the false identification of the so-called ‘Nebraska Man’ specimen, was exposed and repudiated by one of the people who had most strongly supported that error in the first place!
“To err is human; to forgive is divine” — and to correct error is scientific.
Teapot;
The biggest difference between the hypothesis and evolution is that the hypothesis is contrary to evolution’s idea that life evolved from a single-celled organism. The hypothesis is still under development though, and it ever amounting to anything seems–from what I’ve learned here–extremely slight. I’m not sure if I should fix and clarify it, or just abandon it. Probably the latter.
I’m not sure how many people have address this one so far, but the ‘devolution’ idea has one critical flaw that would logicaly demolish it.
From what I am getting, devolution would require a creature being created, and from there it essentialy evolves, only with physical mutations only progressing in one direction; down.
However, unless you seriously modify all the basic rules of biological nature, the essential core of natural selection remains; creatures that are not well enough adapted to their environment will die, and species that can’t or aren’t adapted to the environment they find themselfs in will go extinct.
According to the devolution view, because change only happens in one direction, there wouldn’t be the wealth of biological varriation that would be required for species to survive environmental upheaval or even gradualy changing conditions that would require evolution in a different direction.
In short, life couldn’t have survived.
Evolution, by allowing for mutations and adaptions in all directions, allows for ‘devolution’ because a species will simply follow the environment, and the direction dictated by that.
The biggest difference between the hypothesis and evolution is that the hypothesis is contrary to evolution’s idea that life evolved from a single-celled organism. The hypothesis is still under development though, and it ever amounting to anything seems–from what I’ve learned here–extremely slight. I’m not sure if I should fix and clarify it, or just abandon it. Probably the latter.
Where’s the evidence for this, though? J.B.S. Haldane replied, when asked what would disprove evolution, “Fossil rabbits in the Precambrian.” As it stands, no such fossils have been found. We see a general trend from simple to complex in the fossil record (with exceptions, of course, but no very complex organisms have been found very early in life’s history). It seems like ‘devolution’ is just a sneaky attempt at creationism without coming right out and saying it.
The biggest difference between the hypothesis and evolution is that the hypothesis is contrary to evolution’s idea that life evolved from a single-celled organism.
I was surfing the net when I found this (http://neurophilosophy.wordpress.com/2006/10/10/hubble-space-telescope-images-confirm-planetary-formation-theory/ ) and it reminded me of your site that talks about stars blowing up.
Did you know that without the blowing up of stars we wouldn’t exist?
That saying about us being made out of star dust isn’t a myth, we really are made out of star dust.
See… to oversimplify, at first there was the big bang. This created a ton of hydrogen and helium (smallest atoms), but no heavier atoms like the carbon, nitrogen, and oxygen which are needed for life. Gravity caused the helium and hydrogen to come together. Eventually the pressure was enormous and it started getting hot, and stars were formed. Stars basically glow and give off heat because they’re fusing atoms (eg. smash two hydrogen atoms and you get a helium atom… same thing that happens in a hydrogen bomb) Eventually the hydrogen fuel runs out, and they start fusing the helium atoms into heavier atoms. After a while, the star runs out of fuel again, and because of reasons I can’t explain very well without an animation or a lot of time, the stars explode. However, gravity is still working on them and brings them together again. it is then that those heavier elements (iron, carbon, hydrogen, silicon, etc) from the old star gather on planets. Without stars blowing up, there would be no heavier elements and therefore there would be no rocky planets and no life as we know it.
This isn’t just speculation, this process can be seen at it’s various stages with telescopes. If you’d like to learn more about it and are lazy like me and would prefer to watch it instead of read it, I recommend NOVA’s origins. Someone in another post linked to it so I watched it and I thought it was really interesting.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/origins/program-3114.html
A Teapot;
Like I’ve said before, I don’t think devolution will ever amount to anything. It was just a whim.
What devolution means when it claims creatures devolved is not that they decreased in complexity, but rather that they devolved physically. Isn’t that the case with a lot of evolved creatures? Of course, in order to prove devolution one would have to disprove that any creatures evolved physically. So…yea, there isn’t much hope for devolution.
Sean, I’m impressed with how you’ve handled this discussion. I started to lose hope for you somewhere midway through, when you seemed to be falling back on Biblical infallibility, but you’ve really changed tack, and come at this with more open-mindedness than most people are capable of.
You took a bit of a beating on this thread in several spots, and it’s good to see you were able to get past the form and see the substance. As one person pointed out, you really did get a fairer hearing here than one of us would have on a creationist/ID forum. If people came down hard on you, it was partly because you’ve engaged a number of people who are very knowledgeable in their fields, to an extent you won’t really grasp until you’ve finished college (not for lack of smarts, just because you don’t have the frame of reference till you’ve been through the process).
Your devolution idea reads to me much like the arguements that creationists/IDists make about microevolution vs. macroevolution. Those are keywords you might use to do some reading if you get idly curious sometime.
You shouldn’t be too disappointed if you haven’t come up with something really unique. It’s rare (even for experts) to think up something completely new. I’ve got a few years on you and I haven’t thought of anything revolutionary in any field, not for lack of trying.
As someone pointed out earlier, your education taught you some misunderstandings about science and evolution: what they are, how they work, etc. You’re not alone. When I was in school (70s-80s), we were taught about the scientific method and all that, but I gather that things are different now. (My kids might have to learn that stuff at home.)
A big part about why we place so much confidence in science is because it works so well. It’s an astoundingly powerful tool for understanding the physical world. As Phil Plait at badastronomy.com put it (to paraphrase), no astrologer ever discovered a planet: astronomers do that. Psychics don’t help the police solve crimes (current popular shows notwithstanding): clinical pathologists do. Homeopathy and the idea that demons or humo(u)rs cause disease never allowed us to cure diseases: modern medicine and the germ theory of disease have. We went to the Moon thanks to the work of astronomers (navigation), chemists (propulsion), modern medicine (life support), and a host of other sciences, but without the assistance of the pseudosciences.
What science isn’t good at is answering non-physical questions. It can’t tell us if there is a God, what’s the meaning of life, etc., because by definition it can only work with what’s testable–and supernatural things are pretty much by definition not testable. This doesn’t mean science is invalid; it’s just that there are questions it doesn’t try to answer because they don’t submit themselves to be tested. A hammer is great for building houses, but not useful for writing an essay. That doesn’t make hammers invalid; it’s just that they aren’t that kind of a tool.
Whether we descended from apes, or whether evolution is right, is a separate question from whether God exists. Even if we could prove evolution absolutely, 100% correct (not possible to do in science, but for say for the sake of arguement), that would still leave the question of God unresolved. Mainstream Christianity takes exactly this route: it accepts evolution as the way in which God works. This is often called theistic evolution.
Your dad hit on an important point, and in fact the prosecution in the Scopes trial agreed to much the same thing, if I remember right, that a “day” to God could be a very long time to us. I think I’ve read that the original Hebrew (or whatever) word that’s translated from is ambiguous and could mean either “day” or “age” (as in a long period of time, not as in a person’s age). Even some creationists go there; that’s called Old Earth Creationism (another keyword you can look up if you get curious).
That is INTOLERABLE what happened to your sister. I hope this teacher was prosecuted to the full extent of the law?
Other people have said this in different ways, but yes, be sure to get and finish your education. Major in the subject that interests you most, do your best at it, and graduate. Education is typically the best path to a successful and happy future. It opens your eyes in ways you probably can’t yet imagine. I spent a long time learning that the world is a much more complex place than most people ever give it credit for. A good education is also the best way to avoid being taken in by charlatans–be they fundamentalists, new-agers, Scientologists, snake-oil salesmen, or whatever.
(looking back on my post) My, but I can be chatty. I think I’ll shut up now.
What devolution means when it claims creatures devolved is not that they decreased in complexity, but rather that they devolved physically.
Oh. I’m not sure what you mean, but in another comment you said that they take up less space? Well, there IS an initial trend of getting bigger organisms (since there were only single cells at the beginning), as well as at other times and places, like after the dinosaurs were killed, many mammals grew in size. Whales also grew from their wolf-like ancestors, as did elephants, horses, and others.
Isn’t that the case with a lot of evolved creatures?
there are plenty of organisms that have lost things, such as blind cave fish, humans and our lack of tails (although there have been cases of humans with tails. and incidentally whales with hind limbs. These kinds of “throwbacks” are called avatisms), but if you meant a decrease in size, there are also pygmy elephants (actually I think they’re extinct now… and I think because of humans), um… and a bunch of others… including humans. For some reason I can’t come up with more examples right not. Usually when a new species arrives into an island, it will either shrink or get larger. I think it’s officially called the island effect.
Yea, I think I did say earlier that a devolved creature would take up less space. I meant it would take up less mass. There’s probably not much of a difference between the two though.
I’m not sure what happened to the teacher…I wasn’t given any details about it. In fact, I wasn’t told about it till around 6 years after it all happened. I was too young to understand it at the time. I hope he got what he deserved.
Can you refine your definition of “devolved creature,” so you can differentiate between a fly whose growth has been stunted through malnutrition versus, a closely related island form that has vestigial wings, but is the size of a hazelnut, or another closely related island form that is smaller but has larger wings that are used in intraspecific communication?
I think this devolution thing is a serious and boring drift off topic. What about evolution? In a fit of competitiveness, I tried to talk my 17 year old homeschooler daughter into debating with Sean. She just finished biology 101 at the community college so she’s fairly up on the basics. I got a major eye roll so I guess the debate is out. I guess science bloggs are geeky or something?
I did have a kind of random thought about the devolution thing and Noah’s flood. It wouldn’t line up very well with the whole ark thing. The literal folks I know are saying that Noah just had representitives of “kinds” on the ark and then specific species developed from those “kinds” after the flood. That would involve increase in genetic information. Just keeping a “kind” going from such a small gene pool would take a lot of increase in genetic information. Probably a lot more than is realistic considering the problems you can run into with very close inbreeding. I suppose the devolution thing is supposed to be a scientific idea but it, like any other attempt at science, will eventually run into serious problems with the bible. Be careful Sean, thinking is a dangerous thing even if it is about something silly.
Be careful Sean, thinking is a dangerous thing even if it is about something silly.
… um… excuse me? am I losing my ability to read or something?
NOT thinking is what’s dangerous.
Yiela brings up an important point. Consider, Sean, that if the Flood story is literally true, then the various species on Earth today are genetically the result of only one pair of each species each. That would mean an enormous amount of inbreeding for each species, including humankind. If only Noah’s family survived the flood, then either humanity died out, or brothers and sisters had children together. Seriously speaking, a literal interpretation of the Flood story might not be where we want to go…
lol, forget the effects of inbreeding and the amount of genetic information necessary to give rise to all the present species of animals and whatnot, that requires too much knowledge of biology.
A quicker way to debunk noah’s ark is simply food. if there were only two zebras, two gazelles, two wilderbeest (or if you subscribe to the “kinds” argument, two “hooved african hervibores” or something), two cheetahs, two leopards, two lions, (or two undescript felines) etc…. then how in the living hell do we still have predators? It is simply IMPOSSIBLE to have only two individuals of a whole ecosystem (let alone the whole world) and expect to get more of them. Here’s what would happen as soon as they got out of the ark- lions kill one wilderbeest to eat, therefore wilderbeest go extinct. lions digest wilderbeest, kill the other wilderbeest and have babies. Whooppss, there ain’t nothing else to eat! the leopards ate the zebras, the cheetah’s ate the gazelles, so BAM! the ecosystem crashes, the vultures get a feast for a while, then they die too because they run out of carcasses!
lol, forget the effects of inbreeding and the amount of genetic information necessary to give rise to all the present species of animals and whatnot, that requires too much knowledge of biology.
A quicker way to debunk noah’s ark is simply food. if there were only two zebras, two gazelles, two wilderbeest (or if you subscribe to the “kinds” argument, two “hooved african hervibores” or something), two cheetahs, two leopards, two lions, (or two undescript felines) etc…. then how in the living hell do we still have predators? It is simply IMPOSSIBLE to have only two individuals of a whole ecosystem (let alone the whole world) and expect to get more of them. Here’s what would happen as soon as they got out of the ark- lions kill one wilderbeest to eat, therefore wilderbeest go extinct. lions digest wilderbeest, kill the other wilderbeest and have babies. Whooppss, there ain’t nothing else to eat! the leopards ate the zebras, the cheetah’s ate the gazelles, so BAM! the ecosystem crashes, the vultures get a feast for a while, then they die too because they run out of carcasses!
I think it’s kind of funny how you all are focusing on the genetic implications of the present population only coming from two individuals, but you’re missing the very obvious implication of starting a whole world with only two individuals of every species!
What devolution means when it claims creatures devolved is not that they decreased in complexity, but rather that they devolved physically.
Maybe I’m just being dense, but what do you mean by ‘devolved physically’?
I’m not thinking necessarily just about genetic variability and all that, but really the moral implications of the story of Genesis. If it’s all literally true, then the members of Noah’s family habitually practiced incest for generations. The same would also have to go for Adam and Eve’s family: did Abel practice incest with his mother or with his sister(s)? And so forth.
Don’t forget Lot…
http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/gen/19.html#30
The Bible says humans lived a lot longer back in the time of Adam and Eve (it is said Adam and Eve lived up to around 900 years). If people back then were healthy enough to live up to 900 years, then they were probably healthy enough to endure inbreeding. That’s where devolution would apply to humans–we have devolved health-wise due to inbreeding. That’s sort of where devolution would agree with the Bible.
As to how the whole Noah’s Ark/Flood thing would have worked…scientificly I don’t see how it could have. If it did happen the way the Bible says it did, then it would have had to have been guided supernaturally…naturally, I don’t see how it could work. That’s why science can’t really disprove Biblical occurrences, for they are mostly incidents of Divine Intervention, which is–by definition–unnatural.
TAW, I was being a bit sarcastic when I said that thinking was dangerous. I meant dangerous to preconcieved biblical notions. I was thinking about how any active (off the couch) effort to look at the world will eventually run into biblical problems.
As far as Noah’s ark goes, there are just so many reasons why it couldn’t possibly have happened in any literal sense. The list is endless. It is astounding that anyone takes it for an actual event. I know real people that totally believe it and think there is overwhelming evidence for it. To me, this shows that regular, sane people can believe anything no matter how nuts it is. You don’t have to be crazy to believe crazy things it seems. The moral issues (incest and lots of it in this case) just don’t seem to be an issue. Kind of weird since the flood was a punishment for bad behavior.
That’s why science can’t really disprove Biblical occurrences, for they are mostly incidents of Divine Intervention, which is–by definition–unnatural.
You’re right, scientifically speaking it is impossible for the flood to have happened. The universe simply doesn’t work that way.
And no, science can’t disprove biblical occurrences. Neither can it disprove santa or the tooth fairy.
And kind of going along with that, just like you can’t use science to prove the bible, you can’t use the bible to argue against science. Saying the flood carved out the grand canyon or whatever is pointless.
TAW, I was being a bit sarcastic when I said that thinking was dangerous.
whew. I’m glad my reading abilities are still intact. Too bad my sarcasm radar ain’t working :-/
To me, this shows that regular, sane people can believe anything no matter how nuts it is.
Well, that depends on how you define “sane”. I’d say that ipso facto there is something not quite right with their brains if they can believe the flood was possible, let alone that it can be scientifically proven.
Sean, I don’t really see how being able to endure incest is “better” than not being able to. Also, things like people living longer that are stated in the bible can not be used as evidence without actual scientific evidence to back it up. So, a person using the scientific method must put aside preconceived ideas and value judgments. This is a difficult thing to do for everyone and very hard if you have been brought up to think that your beliefs are absolute facts. It can be hard to see the difference between fact and belief.
TAW, I wasn’t very clear :-) about my sarcasm as is often the case. I live and work with a lot of “sane” people who believe insane things. I think of them as sane because they are able to function well in the world and seem totally fine in every area except their ability to believe impossible events related to their religious beliefs. I think they are sane. I’m sure I believe a lot of incorrect things about stuff I don’t know much about out of laziness. Maybe some of it can be explained like that but there is also a strong desire to believe in the magical for many, even most people. It’s interesting and a little scary sometimes.
Sean, one of the most important things about approaching things scientifically is to start with the evidence and then reach conclusions, rather than the reverse. (This was alluded to once above.) That’s subtly different from testing a hypothesis: you have an idea you think might be accurate, and you test it. The key really is what you do with the results of the test. If you find the evidence really doesn’t support the idea, you have three choices: ignore the evidence, modify your idea and test again, and abandon the idea. The first choice is the one that pseudoscientists, creationists, etc. tend to take. Scientists generally take the second one until their idea just doesn’t pan out (or doesn’t work as well as other ideas out there), at which point they go with number 3 and start over.
It’s starting to sound like you may be leaning dangerously (if that’s the word) toward the path of shoehorning evidence to fit a previously accepted idea. Obviously I don’t mean dangerous physically or anything like that, but there are a lot of mental pitfalls that can lead to.
Remember that, if you do have to abandon an idea, it’s not the end of the world (I’m not thinking specifically of devolution here, just whatever idea). In fact, I have a sort of philosophical concept I’ve toyed with for many years which I think is kinda neat, but I’m starting to think I need to jettison it.
Sean, if there were a great flood, even if by divine intervention wouldn’t there be archaeological proof for it?
You seem to struggle between it couldn’t have happened and it’s possible if god did it.
You know there’s no evidence for it. I understand your struggle to accept alot of science and then shoehorn it into what’s in the bible or disregard it if they conflict.
Just accept that the bible is a primarily fictional book of myths and legends which some look to for guidance and others in the end discard it for what it is.
More evidence for Evolution.
Study Detects Recent Instance of Human Evolution
Sean, exactly how does saying that the health of humans has deteriorated since the days of Adam, who supposedly lived for 900 years, is proof of “devolution,” given as how no animal known to mankind is capable of living for 900 years, without the ability to clone itself?
I mean, do realize that you’re also not taking into account that until 4 to 600 years ago, most people were about 5 feet tall, and rarely got the opportunity to live past 30 years of age.
Are we undevolving?
I’m joining in a bit late, and most of the good arguments have already been made. I do have an analogy that I thought might be useful, but it’s kind of long, so I’ll postpone that.
Right now, I just wanted to address the comment made about science changing, and religion being constant. Others have already pointed out that the first example was wrong in itself (no scientist or natural philosopher has ever argued that the Earth was flat; indeed, while the ancient Greeks made many incorrect arguments based on nonexistent observations or incorrect understanding, they correctly argued for the roundness of the Earth based on real observations), and others have pointed out that religion is not “constant” as asserted.
I just wanted to consider the argument itself. I think it particularly bothered me because the “changes” in “science” that were offered as examples were in fact examples of learning. How can learning be bad?
The essential core of science is learning; the idea that there is always more to know, and knowing the truth is better than ignorance. While the accumulation of knowledge changes, because more becomes known, that core of “always more to know” does not change (or at least, I don’t think it should, and I think most scientists and those who approve of science would so agree).
There were some quotes above from the “Old Testament”. Those were actually from Ecclesiastes, chapter 3. Ecclesiastes has a lot of confusing and contradictory sentiments, but in general, it tends to argue that wisdom is better than the alternative. Well, you can’t have wisdom without learning.
And here’s a few lines that not only argue in favor of wisdom, they certainly appear to argue directly against the idea of “devolution”:
While others have argued that religion has changed — as it has — it seems to me that the core of religion is the acceptance of a set of traditions, which may includes some ideas that are provably true, some ideas that are provably false, some ideas that are unproven, some ideas that are unprovable, and some rules about behavior. There’s also varying traditions about which parts of the tradition are most important, usually based on the emphasis of a few verses, sometimes taken out of context.
Of the parts of religion that are provably true, they tend to be trivial, obvious, and uncontroversial. I’ve seen it argued that because Ecclesiastes mentions that the wind shifts directions, this somehow means that the bible has something sophisticated to say about meteorology, which is silly; observing that the winds change is an obvious observation to anyone who has been alive more than a few years.
Of the parts of religion that are provably false, these were few to begin with (anyone with eyes can count the number of legs that all insects have), but have only grown larger over time as science has been able to provide the more sophisticated observations and evidence for the way reality works.
And of the unproven parts of religion, most of these have to do with undocumented history. Yet science can chip away at these too, while religion can never improve on the knowledge transmitted by the tradition, unless it does so by changing as a result of what science shows to be true.
Finally, the truly unprovable parts of religion have to do with the ultimate nature of reality. If there is a God who performs miracles (which is to say, temporary and unrepeated violations of natural laws), well, that God does not perform to order, nor respond predictably to requests. When something happens very infrequently and under unusual conditions, it can be hard to make the observations and gather the evidence. But if something is never reliably observed, the best explanation is probably that it does not exist, and is unnecessary to explain anything about reality.