By Request:
MOYERS: Is evolution a theory, not a fact?
DAWKINS: Evolution has been observed. It’s just that it hasn’t been observed while it’s happening.
MOYERS: What do you mean it’s been observed.
DAWKINS: The consequences of. It is rather like a detective coming on a murder after the scene. And you… the detective hasn’t actually seen the murder take place, of course. But what you do see is a massive clue. Now, any detective…
MOYERS: Circumstantial evidence.
DAWKINS: Circumstantial evidence, but masses of circumstantial evidence. Huge quantities of circumstantial evidence. It might as well be spelled out in words of English. Evolution is true. I mean it’s as circumstantial as that, but it’s as true as that.
142 Comments
biopunk
If he wants to talk about how long it took for bacteria to form higher lifeforms we are not talking 300 years. We are talking about the time from the appearance of the first cyanobacteria to the cambrian explosion. That’s 1.5billion years. See the difference? 300 years - 1.5 billion years. This is just dumb.
Meandering
You know, I’m pretty sure I posted on this already, but I can’t search through the whole bunch to find it so here is my post. Lucky you.
xigging
I didn’t have time to read through all 139 posts up to this point, so I apologize if somebody already made this point. however, the largest problem I have with ID, is that you merely postpone the explanation. If there is an intelligent designer, then who created the designer? Either you have an infinite series of more and more complex designers, which does no good, or you can say the designer didn’t need a designer, he just is. But for the second case, why should we say the designer just is, and not say that life just is. What is the purpose of declaring their must be a designer, when having a designer brings us no closer to knowing how everything, including a possible designer, came to be? And if something has to just come to exist, isn’t it more probable that life just came to be, instead of a much more complex designer capable of then designing everything else. just my two cents…. or I should say Dawkins, because it’s one of his arguments.
steph
woah does this one have the most comments… i think so. and once again i agree with this one we arent exactly sure how us humans became humans or our species came about so why do we keep arguing like this is almost worthless because both sides have an equal amount of evidence and both sides can be easy to believe we just dont have enough actual information to prove exactly that either one is true or not. so lets stop the fighting because ive been in the middle of this debate before and i wasnt sure wich side to choose because im still unsure wich ones right or not. to me niether really make sense. go ahead and rant about what i just said but im not changing my mind about this unless this is researched more and who knows maybe a new theorie will come. im just really sick of the religon vs. science stuff on evolution and all that because its a never ending battle.
Nospinplease
At my school they actually said all of them were theories and my bio teacher made a good point. One girl argued that how can you say that creation from god is a belief. My teacher said ok how did you learn creation at church. she said by Adam and Eve and my teacher said how do you know that is true. He finally got her to say well I believe that and he said yes you believe and doesn’t that make it a belief?
I keep my mind open to the answers of how we were created, but I lean towards evolution because of this thing in our body called a tail bone and we don’t have a tail so where did it come from?
Curtis
Great show, as I keep catching up on all those of the past. Great comment discussion, too. Seems this topic struck the greatest chord with all your viewers. Keep up the informative and open-minded shows.
Joshua Zambrano
First of all, I LOVED the video. Great logical, unbiased approach to the matter. As a creationist, I’d love to see both evolution and ID presented in philosophy classes, rather than forcing either theory as fact upon students. Let them draw their own conclusions based on where the facts lead them without being told what the conclusion is.
Also, I wanted to address some criticisms others are making here:
Post 5, by Someone: There is an alternative concept proposed by creationists, that evolution is actually two concepts, microevolution (evolution within a species) and macroevolution (evolution between species). In short, there is no species change, just core species that adapted to their environments. Also, you say ID is different than Evolution because God can’t be tested. However, the changes He makes in our universe are the same ‘circumstantial evidence’ that Dawkins claims supports evolution! We may not be able to see them happening (and with Evolution, that problem remains because of the vast time periods) but we can see the ensuing results.
Post 6, Anonymous: Yet as the article itself admits, we can’t decide on what a species is, so how we can decide that species change has occurred? If the alternate theory is correct, these are simply examples of adaptation to the environment by classes within a species, and still provide no evidence for such hard-to-believe transformations as apes magically turning into humans.
Post 7, Ingrid: Just because something is a theory, doesn’t mean it can’t be a fact. It simply means it’s not yet proven to be a fact.
Rich
There is no such thing as ‘devolution’ evolution is not about ‘complexity’ or ‘information’ but organism / environment fit.
Also, the different parts of the ring species can all have babies and even transfer genomic information through intermediaries, so genetic diversity (which YOU might take is information) has increased.
Keith
X said…
Take a ring species for example. These types of species had evolved across tropical islands to the point where the intermediates could interbreed, but the first form and final forms could not… that’s the definition of a new species:
_______
Wouldn’t that be an example of devolution - a lose of information? It’s started with a ring species and ended with a ring species that can’t have babies. Where is the evidence of “new” information being ADDED to the genom?
AnotherSqueezedRadish(or Turnip?)
http://biologicinstitute.org/our-take-on-the-id-controversy/
http://biologicinstitute.org/
Phil
Hey, Winn Brothers,
Did you catch the Winn announcer in this “Rock the World” Youtube video, dealing with the topic at hand?:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D5KF56lHIDQ
(If they used your video without permission, sue for millions!)
José from Surin (France)
Let’s just have a look at Popper’s book “Logik der Vorschung”. It really can help
X
scratch that.. meant to say “round”: “denying the earth is flat”
No comment editing option = failsauce
X
Hasn’t been observed while it’s happening?! You can’t be serious. We have seen it happen, we can prove it happened, and it’s science. Ring species, Gregor Mendel and his pea pods, fruit flies, bacterium. Not to mention the great advances in bioengineering that show without a doubt that by modifying plant’s DNA, new genetic traits can be given. Take a ring species for example. These types of species had evolved across tropical islands to the point where the intermediates could interbreed, but the first form and final forms could not… that’s the definition of a new species: They can’t interbreed anymore because of all the evolutionary changes. How else do you explain the intermediary species being able to breed all the way up until the final forms? Darwin has been proven time and time again, and it’s the equivalent of denying the earth is flat to cover your ears and proclaim that Intelligent Design is still valid, or a science at all. Intelligent Design and creationists are far from intelligent… they should have chosen a better name for themselves.
Rich
I’m not specifically attracted to any model of abiogensis, the field is very young. Evolution abiogenesis, obviously.
Old earth / universe / etc. See that starlight? That’s what happened millions of years ago. Or did God create false images of supernovae in transit 6k years ago? What a prankster!
Carbon 14 explained:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/c14.html
Don’t worry about the naval gazing. Her statement of faith means she’s concluded before she’s investigated. And that aint science.
“So why doesn’t the amoeba move when the vacuole empties” are you SURE it doesn’t?
Mr. G.
Rich,
You most certainly do. You have book, called a biology book, that says that a cell can put itself together when operational science says that life comes only from life (biogenesis). That book claims that mutations are the source of novel and new structures that have not existed before which transform a sponge into a human being. That book claims that carbon 14 has a half life of only 5,730 years, yet we find it in coal and diamonds which are supposed to be millions of years older. That book claims that the earth put itself together from planetesimals and therefore was once molten. So how come granite cannot be formed in the lab as it would form layers of crystals due to differential sorting of minerial densities?
You still avoid which phrases are naval gazing. You still avoid the huge difference between origin ideas and how things work now. A contractile vacuole co-opted from a propulsion use? So why doesn’t the amoeba move when the vacuole empties?
Rich
Mr. G, I don’t have a book that I believe is infallible that makes claims about the observable universe that are obviously false. The faithful can of course use the scientific method, but they’re not using their faith when they do it.
Mr. G.
Rich, (and Squeezed Turnip at end!)
I have read the definition of naval gazing. Please tell me the phrase(s) where Dr. Pudom was naval gazing. I couldn’t tell when she was doing that specifically.
Finally you admit your philosophical construct! But you still have not shown how my adherence to creation as being true knocks out my ability to be of scientific mind. Does this mean I cannot apply science to create a new technology? What does evolution have to do with applied science? One of my graduates went on to get her doctorate in oncology. She said that evolution was never mentioned in her work or teaching. It had nothing to do with her doctoral thesis which she earned very well.
Dawkins says that items have the appearance of being designed, but they aren’t. I can say that anything you show me has the appearance of being evolved, but it isn’t. Same thing huh?
Dear Squeezed,
Note who does most of the name calling and it is not my side!
dgandhi
Sorry guys, poorly researched. You bought the ID misinformation campaign against Evolution, which is all the DI, Stein, Behe and their friends seem to care about. Your counter arguments are not based on evidence, but misinformation.
Science is a doctrine, a doctrine that works, if that is an article of faith, then so is everything else in life. Saying “belief” about the scientific method and its conclusion that evolution is a demonstrable fact in no way reduces the validity of the scientific conclusion.
Remember Science is not a book where we look up the true facts, it’s a system.
1. hypothesis
2. try to disprove
3. refine hypothesis
4. repeat steps 1-3 for 20-50 years
5. If no significant change in hypothesis is required in that time, and the topic has been widely studied, we are likely to call it a theory.
Evolution is a theory just like gravity, relativity, electromagnetism. You can’t “see” any of these things, only their results. If you make predictions of what results you will find in the future base on a hypothesis of how these things work, and these predictions are supported by the evidence, then your hypothesis has more credibility, until it has so much it’s functionally absurd to question it without a better alternative hypothesis, then it gets to be called a theory.
That is science in a nutshell, you can’t call out Evolution for special criticism, if it fails your sniff test, so dose the theory that allowed the design of your computer. If you “believe” in the electromagnetic principles that make your computer work, or the theories of gravity/inertia that keeps you from worrying about the earth doing a 90 degree nose dive into the sun, you are just as faith based and dogmatic as Dawkins.
AnotherSqueezedRadish(or Turnip?)
All Hail The All Powerful And All Knowing Ants!!! ;)
AnotherSqueezedRadish(or Turnip?)
Precisely my dear fellow!
(but not nearly as funny as the raucous debate [and I do mean raucous in the formal definition of the word] that’s raging here)
As for me, I think I may stick with the Theory (oops, I mean Doctine) Of The Forming Of Humans And All Living Things From Tiny Particles Of Colony Earth By The All Powerful All Knowing Ants etc.etc. (don’t forget the Antennae part), after all, it does seem to address both the questions at hand.
a. Intelligence behind design: Ants look like aliens (I’m pretty sure they are), They’ve been here a really really long time, there’s lots and lot’s and lots of them, and ants work really well together! (”really really” and “lots and lots”, there’s some science for you!)
b. Species: There’s lots of different kinds of ants, they like to make all kinds of different things!
And, even better, almost no one would be stupid enough to try and argue with me about it, so I can be as “opposing-opinion averse” (how’s that for politically correct) as I want to be!
So, my theory (oops…,Doctrine) really solves three problems.
Meanwhile, you guys keep trying to convert each other, it’s fun to watch! (Especially the name calling and personal insults, very scientific!)
Rich
As long as you think its funny, AnotherSqueezedRadish(or Turnip?). That’s the main thing.
AnotherSqueezedRadish(or Turnip?)
Humor, Awaiting moderation? Please
Go look up borborygmus and Orycteropus Afer, then go back and read my humorous posts again…
(The Pope, Cardinalus Primus, and Grand Inquisitor of The Church of The Informed Minority Of The Enlightened Colony said, shaking his head as he typed)…
oh and by the way,
(we are annnt peopllle! annnt-people-ant-people-annnt-peeeopllle..)
Rich
2. I’ve signed no statement. I don’t believe. a priori in a religious text and try to bend interpretations to fit it. I’m commented to methodological naturalism for science, because you need to be able to repeat and study. Hope this clarifies.
Let my highlight the difference
Bible -> Observation -> interpretation -> Bible based conjecture.
Observe -> Hypothesis -> test -> theory -> continunal testing.
We don’t start with the assumption ‘how did god do this”.
Arguing to concequences doesn’t chage the fact of evolution / gravity / germ theory / plate techtonics…
Intelligent design isn’t researched. so me ANY positive evidence for design.
Mr. G.
Rich,
Regards to 2. Why aren’t you the same way in your statements? Consider your statement of faith. No one! Nature! Billions of years! All the evidence in interpreted in the light of evolution…just like Gould said is done. (Facts are interpreted in the light of theory.) You ignored the carbon 14 facts I presented. They really ought to carbon date the next batch of soft tissue found in dino thigh bones!
3. Don Baars is an evolution-believing geologist refering to extinction theories and the theorists who make them. So what is your point? All sides of the extinction debate interpreted the facts to fit his/her own pet theory. You find what you seek, so do we. It doesn’t really matter to operational science, the true and useful science which gives us medicine, technology, etc.
4. Arguing to cosequences is said to be valid if we are discussing policy. Okay. Hitler was one who based his policy upon evolution. The discrimination of science research into intelligent design is being squelched by policy, which is based upon the notion that only evolution is true. So intelligent design is researched, how does that hurt you?
Rich
*also*
“- Your comment is awaiting moderation.”
Why? This got through:
“AnotherSqueezedRadish(or Turnip?)
I proclaim you both evil heretics and servants of Orycteropus Afer and I rebuke you!
You will be consigned to the Borborygmus of Orycteropus Afer to suffer for all eternity! (or until you are expunged onto the tortured plains by Orycteropus Afer, to be recycled into building material by the all powerful, all knowing ants)….”
Rich
1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Navel-gazing
2. Dr. Purdom has signed AIG’s statement of faith:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/about/faith
She already has all her answers: Jesus! God! 6000 years! so she’s not doing science, she’s trying to affirm a book.
3. You are perhaps talking around ‘confirmation bias’. See point 2.
4. That would be arguing to consequences:
http://www.fallacyfiles.org/adconseq.html
reality isn’t contingent on you (or I) liking its outcomes.
Mr. G.
Rich,
While I await Dr. Purdom’s response, thank you for your patience towards me and that you have not resorted to calling me names…yet. (What an idiot)
Please help me out here.
1. What is naval gazing? Not sure what this is or what you mean by it.
2. Dr. Purdom stated that much is to be learned yet in this field. You don’t make any mention of this nor, apparently, do you accept that. Yet when we discussed abiogenesis, you stated that “The correct answer is we have some ideas but the field is very young.” So you can say it is young, but she can’t?
3. React to this quote and no this is not quote mined…the entire review says this same thing.
“A philosophical truth in the geological sciences seems to have been validated - we find what we look for.” Don Baars Book Review Geotimes 9/1994 P. 23
Possibly true of biological evolution evidence?
4. Soon I shall return to a discussion of consequences as this is one area most evolutionists will not discuss. Perhaps you are more open minded?
AnotherSqueezedRadish(or Turnip?)
I proclaim you both evil heretics and servants of Orycteropus Afer and I rebuke you!
You will be consigned to the Borborygmus of Orycteropus Afer to suffer for all eternity! (or until you are expunged onto the tortured plains by Orycteropus Afer, to be recycled into building material by the all powerful, all knowing ants) All hail the all powerfull all knowing ants!
The Church of The Informed Minority Of The Enlightened Colony will pray for your souls. You must conform to the Doctrine Of Truth! (The Doctrine Of The Forming Of Humans And All Living Things From Tiny Particles Of Colony Earth By The All Powerful All Knowing Ants And The Semblance Of Life Transmitted Into Their Lifeless Brains, Stems And Leaves Through The Twittering Antennae Of The All Powerful All Knowing Ants”) to be saved from the hell that is the Borborygmus of Orycteropus Afer.
(or you may make a one time tax deductible donation of 24.99 or more to The Church of The Informed Minority Of The Enlightened Colony, for which you will receive a complimentary booklet outlining how you can avoid being destroyed in the coming Apocalypsolation)
We are ANNNT PEEEOPLLLE!
annnt-people-annnt-people-annnt-peeeopllle…
Rich
Have you actually read what she wrote? What an idiot… and what unscientific navel gazing. Appealing to her authority is clearly a mistake. She links too and uncharitably quote mines from three papers, ALL OF WHICH SUPPORT MY THESIS. I love the way how AIG tells you by clicking this link you may leave AIG and enter reality…
Here’s the deal. You can piece the ERV LTRs back together and get a working virus. We’ve done it. So they ain’t “design elements”, the world isn’t 6000 years old and here’s how we got them:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/images/retrovirus.gif
Mr. G.
Rich,
Go here. http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2006/1219herv.asp
Dr.Purdom - her bio. is below
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/bios/g_purdom.asp
is qualified to respond. It wuold be interesting to get these two women together to see what is what. Note that it does not matter where these things come from. Whether I believe in evolution or creation they are still what they are and still do what they do. You have still not answered the interpretation issue yet, why it matters and how what interpretation one has will be bad for science.
Rich
Mr. G.
I don’t know why its in every biology book you’ve ever taught with. The correct answer is we have some ideas but the field is very young.
Let’s see this creationist interpretation. I look forward to shredding it. To save you some time, here are most of the canards already debunked by Abbie Smith:
http://endogenousretrovirus.blogspot.com/2007/07/index-to-common-creationist-claims.html
Now onto ‘interpretations’. You have ‘interpretations’, I have theories and hypothesis, which are different. You can advance this PoMo pluralistic view of science, but you can’t get me to think that 2+2=5 is as valid as 2+2=4. So whilst you’re welcome to a creationist viewpoint, I don’t respect it, because I’ve never seen any datum or experimentation to confirm it.
Fond Regards,
Rich
Mr. G.
To Another Squeezed…
For the most part I agree with your fine and respectful presentation of ideas. Now I’d like to present one for you to consider. Those I’ve read and one I know in person, have said that whenever the Hebrew word for day has a cardinal number before it (first, second, etc.) that the word day has no other meaning than a 24 hour day.
Another fact is that the verb forms used in Genesis 1 and 2 are not poetic, but narrative. So Genesis is an historical document, not a poem at all. Besides, read Exodus 20 : 8-11. This commandment makes no sense if Genesis 1 is not what it says it is. Worse, it makes God out to be a liar. Have fun with this one!
Mr. G.
Rich,
If abiogenesis has nothing to do with evolution, then why is it in every section of every Biology book I have ever taught with…including Miller’s?
Okay, so your viruses are your “ace-in-the-hole”. What is interesting is that creationist scientists can explain those. Yup! Both sides look at the same items (viruses, proteins, DNA, stars, you name it!) What both then do is come up with what the facts are telling them…an interpretation. All interpretations are the result of using the worldview or philosophy to make an interpretation.
So react to this…what we have is two differeing interpretations. Neither affect true science (defined as operational science) in any way. So what does it matter if some believe it was God, god, nothing, or space aliens that caused us to be here, the facts are still the same.
AnotherSqueezedRadish(or Turnip?)
As a founding member of The Church of The Informed Minority Of The Enlightened Colony, (I am in fact the Pope, Cardinalus Primus, and Grand Inquisitor)I cannot concede that evolution is a fact, or that creationists really know what they are talking about, else I be brought before the Grand Inquisitor and tortured by the all powerful, all knowing ants and summarily executo-communicated.
I must adhere to, have faith in, and propagate the “Doctrine Of The Forming Of Humans And All Living Things From Tiny Particles Of Colony Earth By The All Powerful All Knowing Ants And The Semblance Of Life Transmitted Into Their Lifeless Brains, Stems And Leaves Through The Twittering Antenna Of The All Powerful All Knowing Ants”
I have been tempted by Orycteropus afer, I have associated with the infidels, I must now recite the litany to purge myself of the ’tain’t:
Harrrdcorrre Evolutionissstsss are The Greeeat Orycteropus Aaaferrrr, Harrrdcorrre Creationissstsss are The Little Orycteropus Aaaferrrr, I must not become adulterated by the heresy of the Greeeat or The Little Orycteropus Aaaferrrr, lest I be consigned to the hell that is the Borborygmi of the Orycteropus Aaaferrrr… Aaameeennn
Alll Haiiil The All Powerful All Knowing Annnnts!
Weee arrre ANNNT PEEEOPLLLE!
ant-people-ant-people-annnt-peeeopllle…
Rich
Sadly, you’re not really getting your head around science. i don’t mean that nastily, but journalistically. Let me expound, if I am. Gravity is both theory and fact. Evolution is both theory and fact. Both have been directly observed and indirectly inferred from other evidence. We do not know all the evolutionary mechanisms, *yet*, but here are a few:
Sources of Heritable Variation (both genotype and phenotype) Among Individuals in Populations:
Gene Structure (in DNA)
1) single point mutations
2) deletion and insertion (“frame shift”) mutations
3) inversion and translocation mutations
Gene Expression in Prokaryotes
4) changes in promoter or terminator sequences (increasing or decreasing binding)
5) changes in repressor binding (in prokaryotes); increasing or decreasing binding to operator sites
6) changes in repressor binding (in prokaryotes); increasing or decreasing binding to inducers
7) changes in repressor binding (in prokaryotes); increasing or decreasing binding to corepressors
Gene Expression in Eukaryotes
8) changes in activation factor function in eukaryotes (increasing or decreasing binding to promoters)
9) changes in intron length, location, and/or editing by changes in specificity of SNRPs
10) changes in interference/antisense RNA regulation (increasing or decreasing binding to sense RNAs)
Gene Interactions
11) changes in substrates or products of biochemical pathways
12) addition or removal of gene products (especially enzymes) from biochemical pathways
13) splitting or combining of biochemical pathways
14) addition or alteration of pleiotropic effects, especially in response to changes in other genes/traits
Eukaryotic Chromosome Structure
15) gene duplication within chromosomes
16) gene duplication in multiple chromosomes
17) inversions involving one or more genes in one chromosome
18) translocations involving one or more genes between two or more chromosomes
19) deletion/insertion of one or more genes via transposons
20) fusion of two or more chromosomes or chromosome fragments
21) fission of one chromosome into two or more fragments
22) changes in chromosome number via nondisjunction (aneuploidy)
23) changes in chromosome number via autopolyploidy (especially in plants)
24) changes in chromosome number via allopolyploidy (especially in plants)
Eukaryotic Chromosome Function
25) changes in regulation of multiple genes in a chromosome as a result of the foregoing structural changes
26) changes in gene expression as result of DNA methylation
27) changes in gene expression as result of changes in DNA-histone binding
Genetic Recombination
28) the exchange of non-identical genetic material between two or more individuals (i.e. sex)
29) lateral gene transfer via plasmids and episomes (especially in prokaryotes)
30) crossing-over (reciprocal and non-reciprocal) between sister chromatids in meiosis
31) crossing-over (non-reciprocal) between sister chromatids in mitosis
32) Mendelian independent assortment during meiosis
33) hybridization
Genome Structure and Function
34) genome reorganization and/or reintegration
35) partial or complete genome duplication
36) partial or complete genome fusion
Development (among multicellular eukaryotes, especially animals)
37) changes in tempo and timing of gene regulation, especially in eukaryotes
38) changes in homeotic gene regulation in eukaryotes
39) genetic imprinting, especially via hormone-mediated DNA methylation
Symbiosis
40) partial or complete endosymbiosis
41) partial or complete incorporation of unrelated organisms as part of developmental pathways (especially larval forms)
42) changes in presence or absence of mutualists, commensals, and/or parasites
Behavior/Neurobiology
43) changes in behavioral anatomy, histology, and/or physiology in response to changes in biotic community
44) changes in behavioral anatomy, histology, and/or physiology in response to changes in abiotic environment
45) learning (including effects of use and disuse)
Physiological Ecology
46) changes in anatomy, histology, and/or physiology in response to changes in biotic community
47) changes in anatomy, histology, and/or physiology in response to changes in abiotic environment
(thanks to Allen MacNeil) - But I’m sure you new this as you’ve stated above.
Now back to Gravity. No one has seen a graviton. Or detected one. So Gravity, as a theory, is also incomplete. But here’s the kicker - Modern science, that is Popper’s empirical falsificationism, is NEVER complete. You keep testing, learning, revising. It’s never ‘Done’, never ‘whole’, never ‘complete’. That is the role of Dogma, which science isn’t.
Now to reconcile. Faith and science aren’t necessarily at odds. But if you think your faith suggests that it didn’t happen, then you must have a prankster god who is trying really hard to trick us by putting overwhelming evidence for evolution everywhere we look:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/
AnotherSqueezedRadish(or Turnip?)
Hardcore Evolutionist = Malodorous flesh-cog, slowly turning in the massive leftist machine that spills out vomitousness, for which the uninformed proletariat masses line up to fill their cups…
Hardcore Creationist = Blankly grinning robot, hobbling unsteadily through the death-tainted vapors that emanate from the frog-like mouths of the clergy…
The Informed Minority Of The Enlightened Colony knowww the truuuth…
Huuumans were made by the aaants, slowwwly built from the particles of Colony Earrrth,
the semblance of life transmitted into their lifeless brains through the twittering antennae of the all powerful all knowing annnts!
Weee arrre ANNNT PEEEOPLLLE!
ant-people-ant-people-annnt-peeeopllle…
(for the ultra sensitive, this is meant as biting humor) wow, I just made a pun (I think)
AnotherSqueezedRadish(or Turnip?)
Thanks for the response Rich. I’ve read a lot of books, I’m keen to understand the universe and everything in it accurately, no matter what the truth may turn out to be.
I wasn’t meaning to criticize anyones understanding of science, but more to point out, through questions, that there’s nothing wrong with there being a diversity of opinions, and that there should be nothing wrong with expressing and discussing them, and even considering the possibility of answers you may not believe in. It’s unfortunate that an interesting theory has been elevated by some to the level of unassailable doctrinal belief.
I’m often shocked at the vitriol with which both sides of the debate attack one another (I’ve been guilty of it myself), and the absolutism that is dished out in support of ideas that are as yet unproven.
I am aware of what the theory of evolution is, and I am aware of what it isn’t. I am aware that it is a theory that is meant to explain the diversity of life, not the origins of life or the universe. That’s one reason it is alarming to know that many who start with the assumption that it’s ludicrous to even consider that there could be intelligence behind existence try to use the theory of evolution as if it were somehow a hammer of proof of their philosophical beliefs, thereby bringing evolution into the realm of philosophy.
As for what I mentioned about the bible, I was simply presenting a little known fact about an ancient Hebrew word used in the original writing of the biblical version of creation. A more scholarly understanding of that one ancient Hebrew word can completely remove at least that one traditional and very large bone of contention between evolutionists and creationists. It doesn’t sweepingly prove or disprove anything, I was simply pointing it out as a little known fact that is interesting to consider within the larger debate. I’ve always felt that it’s very unfortunate that many, if not most, creationists are unaware of that fact and continue to pound on the ridiculous idea that everything came into existence in 6 literal 24 hour days, seeking ridiculously unrealistic “proofs” that the Earth (and in some cases Universe) is only a few thousand years old.
At any rate, I am of the opinion that the theory of evolution should not be presented in schools or universities as if it’s proven fact, nor referred to in educational media in ways that make it seem as if it were proven fact, but rather should be presented as an interesting theory that continues to undergo changes and adjustments as we progress towards a fuller understanding of the world around us. I don’t feel that such an opinion is unreasonable.
I hope it’s ok that I have those opinions, and I hope it continues to be ok that I express them. I want it to continue to be ok for you to have yours, and to express them as well.
Rich
You are perhaps conflating the big bang with a ‘big banger’. Do you think there wasn’t a big bang? The universe suggests otherwise.
keelhaulbill
@Rich
“When you postulate an answer more fabulous than the question, you may have a problem.”
Big Bang?
Rich
“AnotherSqueezedRadish(orTurnip?)”
May I suggest you become familiar with the terms you use before criticizing people’s understanding of science?
Evolution is concerned with the diversity of life, not its first beginning (abiogenesis). It also doesn’t addresses origins of the universe, the uniformity of nature or any other red herrings you may want to throw out there.
next you might want to look at ‘Occam’s Razor’, the scientist’s friend. ‘God did it’ will answer a lot of questions, but not in a very satisfying way. When you postulate an answer more fabulous than the question, you may have a problem.
As see you interpret some of the bible allagorically. Have fun on that slipperly slope…
And just to recap.. you’ve read a book and are keen for the universe to conform to its story. Is *that* science?
AnotherSqueezedRadish(orTurnip?)
@“Science” Avenger (and friends)
I say this with all respect: Check your scientific method, I’m serious, please, go back and study the Scientific method in detail and then think deeply about it.
Also, please think about these questions calmly and objectively:
In your opinion, is it ok for people who choose to, to believe in a higher intelligence, to believe there is a designer who engineered all that we see in the amazing universe around us?
Or, should they not be allowed to believe that?
Should those who believe that be allowed to search for evidence to support that belief, or should they be stopped from exploring that possibility or even discussing or considering it openly?
Consider this as well; The evidence for evolution, (of any kind), is circumstantial at best, (it has not been demonstrated).
The idea of spontaneous existence of all matter and physical systems in the universe is based on the idea put forth in the Theory Of Evolution, which is the idea that there is no designer behind biological systems, the idea that life formed spontaneously due to random, unexplained, unobservable, and so far un-re-creatable physical causes (kind of like the idea of Intelligent Design).
Based on all of this (The Theory Of Evolution), it has been assumed by many that the same thing must be true of matter, physical laws, and all of the observable and unobservable parts of the universe: That the creation of the universe was spontaneous and without cause, just a massive, sudden and chaotic, uncontrolled burst of energy, with no sensible or provable explanation of it’s cause. Yet there is absolutely no evidence to support that it was chaotic or without cause or control, not even circumstantial evidence. The “evidence” in this case is an as yet unproven theory of the origins of life.
Most people believe in black holes (I believe in black holes!). Yet they have not been proven to exist. According to mathematics and our current understanding of astrophysics they should exist, and according to some observable but as yet not fully understood phenomenon, they seem to exist, but the evidence is circumstantial, and much of it is based on other as yet unproven theories.
The idea of there being intelligence behind the existence of the universe and all the observable and elegant laws that govern it (only a fraction of which we can even begin to say we understand), the idea that there may be intelligence behind the amazing “clockwork” seen in everything from the smallest observable atomic particles to the most distant observable cosmic phenomenon, although scary, cannot be dismissed if one desires to be true to the scientific method.
The evidence for intelligence behind existence is the astounding complexity of existence itself. It is circumstantial evidence, but very strong circumstantial evidence. The same as the evidence for black holes, the same as the evidence for unobserved planets circling far away stars. What’s more, mathematical probability very strongly supports the idea of design behind the complexity of the universe over random spontaneous happenstance (Don’t believe it? Research it!) To dismiss the evidence out of hand is to dismiss the Scientific Method itself. Dismiss the Scientific Method itself to promote one unproven idea over another, and everything you say (as a scientist) crumbles. Science itself loses credibility, which is sad, because science has so much to say that is true and good, so much to offer that is of benefit in every way.
The mistake we make is to assume that if science says it, it has to be correct. Scientists are humans, susceptible to the same mistakes all of us make, pride, stubbornness, bias, self preservation, desire for acceptance, lack of integrity, even greed.
The idea that there is no intelligence behind existence and the physical laws of the universe takes as much faith, if not more when observed scientifically and mathematically, as the idea that the existence of all things is completely random and accidental.
It all really seems to be faith based when you look at it all objectively, especially if you follow the scientific method completely. Either side is faith based. And why not? Should there be any reason we can’t have our own opinions, and share them in the marketplace of ideas, and have faith that they are true until proven wrong? Is that bad?
It’s only bad if you have no tolerance for ideas other than those that you espouse.
What’s more, “Science” Avenger, saying things like “100% of mathematicians agree with evolution” is false, and beyond that scary in its absoluteness. It smacks of propagandist ideology that leaves no room for dissent whatsoever. Very creepy and scary. The fact is, unless you are an omniscient God, you have no way of knowing what all mathematicians worldwide think about the mathematics of evolution . People who speak in such rabid absolutes are cause for alarm, most especially in the scientific community.
I have read papers and articles by well respected mathematicians, physicists, astrophysicists, astronomers, biologists of different kinds, and other scientists that find the idea of undeniable spontaneous existence of matter, the physical universe, and biological life without intelligence behind it somewhat ludicrous.
It certainly is very scary to think that we may be accountable to a higher intelligence. By contrast it certainly is comforting to think we may be answerable to no one at all, to think that we can do as we wish, when we wish, and how we wish. But the fact is, because of how little we really know, (and the strong evidence we have that there may be intelligence behind the shocking order of the universe) the wisest course of action would be to operate under the assumption that we may be answerable to a higher intelligence, answerable for everything that we do to our world and one another.
The bottom line is, doing so can’t hurt, after all, we already know what is harmful to one another, and what is beneficial to one another (How do we know that!?). Why not do what is beneficial for one another and our world (without being fooled by those who conspire to manipulate our concern to bolster their power, the left and the right!).
Here’s an edited excerpt from another comment I posted about this subject:
“What made the lightening that struck the mud that came to life and became everything that’s um, alive?
Not just “what made the lightening”, but you know, what made the like, kinda just slightly complex and very elegant laws of physics that govern how lightening is formed and how it behaves. Where did these amazing and complex processes come from, where did atoms come from? Why do electrons behave the way they do? Where did matter come from, and why is it arranged in such uniform and spectacularly useful ways? Why does it all behave in specific, very meaningful and very beneficial, useful and predictable ways that we call “Laws”?
How did the complexities of gravity and electromagnetism get worked out, things we don’t even fully understand yet, but somehow they work, perfectly!
They just, formed? Out of, stuff? Stuff that floats? And ummm… Well, it’s a mystery. Like magic, you just have to have faith, it all just happened. You gotta have faith! It just…appeared ok! That’s what happened! I know it because….well, because…, Well, anyway, yeah, it all just appeared on its own. I wasn’t there, but I know it happened that way, because somebody said it, and wrote it! So that’s how it happened! (Kind of like in religionists beliefs! But without any sense of logic behind it! It all just happened without cause!) Greeaaat, and very scientific.
No cause and effect here huh? But a whoooole lotta faith…
(Oh wait, it was a BIG BANG that made all that complicated stuff! Like Atoms and Time and Space and Gravity and the Laws of Physics… A really SMART big bang!)
Oh, and by the way, if there is an all powerful intelligent designer of the universe, then all bets are off as far as speciation and how living things, including humans, have developed throughout time, why some didn’t make and some did, the whole shebang, if there is an all powerful designer, forget trying to figure out any sensible progressive systems, because any changes could be made at any time, at will, no holds barred.
And here’s something else interesting: The “7 (actually 6) Creative Days” teaching found in the Bible is a major sticking point between the three “faiths” (Evolutionist, Intelligent Designists, and Creationists), but if you check into it in depth, you find out something very interesting: The ancient Hebrew word used in Genesis for “Day” in regard to the creative days (and in many other instances) was a very flexible word, and was used in ancient Hebrew to refer to any set period of time with a beginning and an end, no matter how long. Something like, “back in my day”, or “in my grandfathers day”, or “in the days of the dinosaurs”, but with even more flexibility than we use the word “Day” in our time. It could be used to represent any period of time with a beginning and an end.
To be repetitive, one of the major sticking points between evolutionists and creationists is the idea that the whole Universe and the Earth were created in six 24 hour days. If the Bible record is looked at very carefully, with the view that the creative days mentioned were figurative, simply representing specific unknowable time periods, known to an intelligent designer but not yet fully known to humankind, where the designer was active throughout, and if that is compared to the fossil record, things get quite a bit more interesting.
It’s interesting to note that the first 6 creative “days” in Genesis mention a “morning” and “evening”, but the last, the 7th “Day”, the “Day” indicated as a time of the creators resting (ceasing creative activity) only has a “morning”, but no “evening”, indicating that the “day” (epoch? era?) during which this intelligent designer had ceased creative activity had begun, but not ended yet. It’s, at very least, interesting to think about.
Well, there you have it!!!
Avenge me that, Mr, Uh “Science”
Miguel Chavez
Well John, I didn’t say creationist, or people that disagree with me are ignorant. I was just saying that the dude in the video didn’t know what he was talking about. And sorry John, he didn’t. And yes extinction is consistent with storms and such, but you fail to appreciate that extinction is a *risky prediction* of Darwinian evolution and not really something you would expect in an intelligently designed system. If you look at the geological record you can see that there are periods in the earth’s history where almost all of the diversity of life on earth vanishes, and only a fraction of that variation survives. This is why we have clearly defined geological periods like the Cambrian, Permian, and Cretaceous, so obvious in fact that it was observed and defined well before we had the convenience of radiometric dating. Given the sheer volume of extinct species over extant species, it really strains credibility that ecosystems are harmoniously and intelligently designed. Without extinction Darwinian evolution is thrown out the window. (In fact, creationists long ago held that extinction was impossible.) So point for evolution. As for homologies you’re going to have to think this through a little bit harder. There are lots of environmental habitats on earth. If local environments were the primary factor in determining structural homologies why do we have so much diversity in form in such similar environments? And why do we find so much structural constraint tieing classes of animals together amid differences in habitats? Why do Arthropods universally concentrate their nervous system on their ventral side, while vertebrates concentrate theirs along the dorsal surface; Why not mix it up a bit? Easy, they evolved from ancestors with a common bauplan and were constrained along the same path. Why are vertebrates bilateral, with two pairs of jointed appendages, internal segmentation, with the brain on one end and the digestive system running along and exiting the axis below? Why is a nested classification of organisms so natural at all? Easy, organisms evolved from a common tree of life, descending one from another in a nested hierarchical way. Why do dogs, fish, birds, and humans have two eyes, one nose, one mouth, two limbs in the front and two in the back? And why are genetic commonalities correlated with structure rather than form? (For example why do whales share more genetic homologies with horses, more so than sharks or fish?)
Moving along to the courtroom analogy. How doesn’t it hold? The argument was whether circumstantial evidence was credible or not, and it is. For example suppose you have a rape/murder. You are the investigator and you have no direct witnesses. All you have is a suspect with a clear motive, his semen inside the victim, his shoe prints in the pool of blood, his skin under the victims nails, a large number of inconsistencies in his interview, and you find the murder weapon in his home. Never mind the courtroom, do we as rational beings conclude that our suspect committed the murder?
As for why I introduced electrons, well that should be obvious. Electrons are theoretical constructs and supported by strong credible circumstantial evidence. The fact that you’re still on the fence about electrons does much to explain your skepticism regarding evolution. I think I understand now. ;) Best,
John Bay
Dimensio - I believe you are the one who is demonstrably ignorant of evolution. Maybe you should start by getting your facts straight. Perhaps not every scientist agrees, but “Lucy” (and I can look up her scientific name on wikipedia too) is WIDELY used to try and fill one of the many gaps in the alleged ape to human evolutionary chain. Or at least reputable sources like National Geographic and Science Magazine seem to think so. But they must be ignorant of hominid evolution, too. Right, Dimensio? Let’s move on. You say “The narrator also claims that evolution is extremely improbable.” Yes, that is because it is. There is plenty of estimates to support this conclusion. Most scientists understand it implicitly. Thats why it has to take billions of years to come about. Why should he have to take the time prove what everyone (except you) seems to know and accept already? I challenge you to find me ONE legitimate, scientific article that shows otherwise - that evolution (not one individual beneficial mutation) is an overwhelmingly probable event. It isn’t. So show me YOUR proof. After all you are the one who says it is happening. So that should be easy.
If “Bacterial mutation is not itself evidence for evolution” why do so many people try to use it as such? I believe that is what he is addressing. And if “Bacterial mutation is a demonstration of one of the proposed mechanisms for evolution” shouldn’t we be seeing it filling that role right now? I think that is his point.
“he should address inadequacies with the information” In a five minute video? Are you mad? There are libraries full of this stuff. You couldn’t even scratch the surface. It is a ridiculous request following a string of ridiculous (and innacurate) arguments. I think the point is to get closed-minded people like you look at all the holes in the theory to which you cling so tightly.
The following is some horribly, misrepresentative misquoting! You say “He asserts that there exists no evidence in support of evolution, ignoring fossil evidence and DNA evidence.” Wrong, wrong, wrong - a thousand times wrong. That is NOT what is said or asserted in the video. Go back and watch it again! He said it has not been observed. And by the way, Dawkins said the same thing to Bill Moyer (see above). He does claim that it isn’t happening now - true. But its not an unreasonable position because NO ONE has been able to show it happening. (Again see the above quote.) He concludes that his own judgement the evidence is insufficient. And science intentionally leaves that interpretation open to individuals to determine themselves. All you can really say is - “I think the data supports a different conclusion.” Oh and you can apologies for all the grevious errors in you previous arguments.
Clearly the you are far less qualified to address this subject than he is.
Rich
Mr. G.
Do you know what arguing to consequences is? You might want to research it. Reality is not contingent on your approval of it or its perceived consequences.
I find your mirror faulty.. but you might apply it to the rapture and make the same *bad* arguments…
the arguments against old earth / old universe are legion and multidisciplinary. Starlight - it’s what happened millions / billions of years ago, for example.
My Favourite line of evidence (and of sommon descent) is Endogenous Retro Viruses. Have a google - fascining stuff.. and 8% of your genome.
Mr. G.
Rich,
Ooops! Sorry for not proof-reading my text. I should have said that “…such and such cities or persons did NOT exist…”
I apologize for that benficial mutation of my earlier work.
Mr. G.
Rich,
I clicked on the link and was amazed to find that they did not date the artifact, but the ash deposits. Did you know that carbon-14 has been found in coal dated millions of years old by evolutionary reckoning? One of the arguemtns used against the Biblical histories, not stories, was that such and such cities or persons existed. Lo and behold, they were later discovered to exist.
Rich, so if evolution is true, then why do we care at all about endangered species? According to Miller “99% of all the species on Earth have gone extinct.” So if that’s the case, we are no more unnatural than a periodic asteroid that wipes out most of life. So what if the human race destroys the planet, big deal. What does it matter to the cosmos?
But if Biblical creation is true, then I ought to take care of the Garden, as we were told to do. If Biblical creation is true, then the only science I cannot do is evolutionary Biology, which contributes nothing to our way of life.
Dimensio
The narrator is demonstrably ignorant of evolution. He claims that it is not occurring now, however this is not the case. The narrator also claims that evolution is extremely improbable, but he cites no statistical evidence in support of the claim. He asserts that there exists no evidence in support of evolution, ignoring fossil evidence and DNA evidence. If he believes that such evidence is insufficient, then he should address inadequacies with the information. If he is unaware of such evidence, then he is not qualified to claim that the theory of evolution is not science.
Bacterial mutation is not itself evidence for evolution. Bacterial mutation is a demonstration of one of the proposed mechanisms for evolution.
“Lucy” — assuming that the narrator is referring to Australopithecus afarensis — is not thought to be a human ancestor. The narrator has apparently not studied hominid evolution and, as such, he is not qualified to speak on the subject.
Grimmy
“DAWKINS: Evolution has been observed. It’s just that it hasn’t been observed while it’s happening.”
PRICELESS!
Rich
“Biblical Christianity, you will find that it is supported by the science of archeolgy.”
WRONG. Biblical Christianity says the world is between 6,000 and 10,000 years old, was a mass culling of humanity followed by respeciation of life from pairs of animals and one human family.
http://www.burlingtonnews.net/artifacts.html
Oops.
The bible makes origin claims that are incongruent with reality. Now we can say they are allegorical, but if its not all true, is any of it?
Does it amaze me that we use similar solutions to nature to solve problems? No. A good solution is a good solution. Much of our design is inspired by nature.
RE: contractile vacuole . Are you sure it goes Freshwater > Saltwater and not the other way ’round? Also the contractile vacuole is co-opted for motility, no?
Mr. G.
Alex,
Yes, and no. It depends on your religion. For example if you examine Biblical Christianity, you will find that it is supported by the science of archeolgy. Religions like Mormonism are not, ie, the places mentioned in that bokk have never been found.
Both sides need to consider this point. How we got here is NOT an issue of science, it is an issue of philosophy or religion. Science concerns itself with two basic areas…this is what it is, and this is what it does. This is the stuff that gives us our technology, which by the way tries to mimic what was designed or do I say mutated by nature. Rich, look at the contrctile vacuole found in all freshwater protozoans. So you are telling me that this sump pump (oh darn! an anology!) existed in ocean livng protos for no apparent reason and then just happened to be available for the freshwater ones. Wow! What a fortuitous coincedence as S. gould would say.
Alex
One thing I would like to say is this: evolution and religion don;t have to be mutually exclusive. One could believe that God put in place the principles by which evolution takes place and he used this to steer evolution in a way that he saw fit.
I mean, there’s a middle way. We don’t all have to be enemies. There is in fact a lot about evolution that is proven. And there is a lot that we don’t know. But that doesn’t say anything yet.
SDash
IMO I believe we should be doing what we were set out to do which is living life.
Go have fun or try to make the world a better place.
Sure the past helps us understand how we got where we are but that doesn’t sound like it’ll cure cancer sooner than something like regenerative medicine?
btw great video!
John Bay
Miguel, It’s pretty bold to assume someone has never read or studied an issue just because they don’t happen to agree with you. But bold is the wrong word. How about ignorant. But leaving that aside, what factual errors? I’d love to see a list, if you can pull one together. And please don’t tell me that you really believe the only way extinction, natural distribution or intermediaries can come about is evolution. That would be sad indeed. It would seem to indicate that rather than actually studying all you did was take in what you were spoon-fed. After all, natural disasters cause extinction. People even claim manmade climate change is about to just that. Nope, no evolution there. As for genetic and structural homologies, you are going to have to be a lot more specific. I’d be happy to explain the ones that have alternate theories, but part of the reason evolutionary theory is so debatable is because it has so many holes in it. And people use it as a blanket reason for the way everything in the natural world works. Believe it or not, it does not always hold up well. If it did, I would be on your side. Anyway, here is a very general response to your very general assertion about homologies. Is it all that surprising that life here resembles other life? No. We live on the same planet! A life-form made out of silicon (the next most likely if you don’t have carbon) that drinks ammonia (a postulated water substitute) would have a really hard time making a go of it on Earth. And for future reference the cop/courtroom argument holds little or no validity. The kind of evidence that makes it in a courtroom looks pretty weak in a scientific context. Courtroom argument don’t have to be independently repeatable and testable like scientific ones do. And why even bring up electrons? I bet we agree on that. Oh, you’re trying to be condescending and ironic, not accurate! Too bad. You must not have thought that out either. Yes, electrons ARE a matter of interpretation and always will be. Right up until a new, better theory replaces it. And you can be sure one day it will. That is science. I would be happy to discuss the alternative theories to evolution with you, but it is just irresponsible to ride in, say “this is all wrong” and not take a fair look at the other side.
Miguel Chavez
You should probably spend more time reading up on evolution than making videos on a subject I’m afraid you know little about. Ignoring for the moment your factual errors, I wonder how you would explain structural homologies, geographic distribution, extinction, genetic homologies, as well as fossil intermediates, among other bits of so called circumstantial evidence which overwhelmingly support evolution. In law enforcement we just love strong circumstantial evidence. Without it we could never get the convictions that put the bad guys behind bars. In physics circumstantial evidence is their bread and butter. I suppose electrons, too, are just a matter of “interpretation.” Best,
Rich
PS Quadfather. The issue is not to define ’science’ but scientific theory’ - Nice try to move the goalposts. I can tell you why Astrology isn’t a scientific theory - no supporting evidence. Hopefully I’ve cleaned up your conflation for you.
Rich
Biological processes are physical processes. The organic substrate is physical. Moreover, show me ‘information’ without an associated physical presence…
QuadFather
Rich,
`
Language is constituted by *symbols* that are converted into physical states by an information processing system (or by physical states that have been converted into symbols).
`
You are talking about physical interractions, not language.
Rich
Mr. G. That’s a lot of question begging.
You could similarly argue that physics is a language that tells matter how do behave. Anything is a language.
I don’t want to use analogy really. It’s the tentative tool of lazy minds IMHO.
Mr. G.
Rich,
Agreed that it is an analogy. So is nature (or do you say Nature?) the designer of the arthropod “car” series? If you want to use an analogy, then all parts of it should be able to fit.
Try this. Miller describes DNA as a molecule which transmits information. It has also been described as instructions/bluprints/plans/etc. We use messages as a way to transmit information, and DNA-ese has been analogized to our alphabet-word system.
So if DNA is a message, then it contains information. Show me a message with no intelligence behind it.
QuadFather
Rich,
`
Here’s an analogy:
`
My car sits in the driveway.
Nothing happens.
`
I call the mechanic and an engineer.
They build me a new car.
QuadFather
Science Avenger,
Is is typically your modus operandi to attend to everything but the points that refuted your opinion?
`
I guess you didn’t hear about Scott Minnich testifying about his research demonstrating the irreducible complexity of the bacterial flagellum by knocking out each of its 35 parts one by one.
Rich,
Good job on that stellar research! How astute of you. What a fantastic point.
`
Now, just so I understand …
`
Are you saying that no proposition that is now known to be incorrect ever generated a scientific research program?
Are you saying that science can only investigate propositions that turn out to be correct?
And if science discovers that a proposition is not correct, does that render the entire investigation unscientific? (But if it was not a scientific investigation, how then did you determine that the proposition was incorrect? oi!)
`
You obviously have no idea what Behe was talking about. I can hardly blame you though, since it must be very difficult to see with all that venom skewing your vision.
`
I challenge you to show me how “astrology” does NOT fit the NAS definition of science. Do that, and then we can start talking about Behe.
QuadFather
Alex,
No need to defend yourself. I think it’s great that you are making yourself aware of this controversy.
`
Let me just say that I have absolutely no problem if you disagree with me, so long as you are being rational. I also apologize for lumping you with the other quacks in here, since you are obviously not like them (even if you do seem predisposed to one side - but I guess, who isn’t?).
`
As for the question you raised: The method(s) of evolution is the very thing that IS in question, not the end result. The end result is obvious: We’re here, we’re alive, we are many, and we are diverse. The entire question is, where did this end result come from? So the fact the end result exists is not proof of evolution, and the point is not thus settled. It is perfectly and absolutely rational and reasonable for Behe to require that evolution explain itself and not simply be assumed a priori.
`
Now, this may seem a copious task, but it really isn’t that bad - or at least, not much different from other scientific theories about past events.
`
First, you should understand that nobody is saying that we have to demonstrate conclusively that “this” is how evolution actually did occur. We are only saying that, in order to verify the plausibility of evolution, one need only to show that it can even happen at all.
Second, the part that makes it seem so copious is that evolution occurs in gradual steps over millions of years (or more). But remember: Each of these individual steps probably uses the same or similar processes. Heck, if we could just figure out how proteins could come about naturally from an amalgamation of water and amino acids, this would be a step in the right direction. If we could demonstrate that a survivable, self-replicating specimen could come about naturally, then this would settle the issue once and for all.
Third: Obviously, Behe is saying something a little different (oops, got a little sidetracked - sorry). I think you need to understand the issue a little better. There are only about 35 parts to the flagellar motor, so it isn’t very big-and-scary to begin with. Now, the argument is that irreducible complexity can be explained by co-option (the “scaffolding” idea that redundant parts sustain function during production and are later removed when they are no longer necessary, leaving you with an irreducibly complex system). So you have to demonstrate two kinds of things: 1. That each part of an irreducibly complex system can be explained in terms of redundancy, and most importantly 2. That a mechanism driving these changes really does exist.
`
If the sources presented to Behe merely assume that evolution produced the end results that are in question, then they skip right over 1. and 2. That is not an explanation. That is insisting that somebody else believe in evolution simply because you do (not you personally, but the lawyer in the Dover trial). If anybody thinks that Behe’s requirements are unfair, it doesn’t matter. He is still right that there are no Darwinian explanations for those things that are in question.
`
I think that addresses everything in your post. If you have honest questions about the ID perspective, definitely ask. Also, if you want to follow the ID perspective, a good site is: http://www.evolutionnews.org
Rich
Mr. G.
It’s an analogy. D’oh!
Cars don’t have baby cars, for example.
Mr. G.
Hey all,
To the lovers of Ken Miller,et al. you need to read his Biology Text “Biology” Prentice Hall (2002) on P. 716.
“These gradual changes in arthropods are similar to the changes in modern cars since the Model T, the first mass produced automobile.” He goes on in the paragraph to point out the many changes in design and style of cars are analogous to the modifications in arthropods producing creatures as different as a tick and a lobster.
Hmmm…everyone should know that cars are not changed by mutations of the blueprints, but are changed by intelligent agents. So if the arthropods’ changes are like those of cars, ther must have been an intelligent agent.
More on this later, but suffice it to say that I love Miller’s and Levine’s book. I use it to show how illogical evolution is. Speciation, yes, although limited. Bacteria becoming biologists, NO!
Rich
Quack Quack Quack..
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dover/day11pm.html
“Q Under that same definition astrology is a scientific theory under your definition, correct?
A Under my definition, a scientific theory is a proposed explanation which focuses or points to physical, observable data and logical inferences. There are many things throughout the history of science which we now think to be incorrect which nonetheless would fit that — which would fit that definition. Yes, astrology is in fact one, and so is the ether theory of the propagation of light, and many other — many other theories as well.
”
Primary Source. Thanks for playing.
Science Avenger
The fact that Behe hadn’t even read the papers killed his credibility right there. It is inexcusable for a scientist writing a controversial opinion on a subject to not be up to speed on the latest in the peer-reviewed literature. That he automatically dismissed them as not answering the questions he asked after admitting he hadn’t read them branded him rightly as a crank.
Behe was the best witness the plaintiffs had. Read the transcript here:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dover/day11pm.html
My favorite part is where he claims there are peer-reviewed papers that support his hypothesis, but that he didn’t write any of them, and none of the authors accept his interpretation of their work. Pseudoscientist incarnate.
Alex
QF: thanks, I did not know it was called the Dover case, that makes finding it very easy. (I must say in my defence that I had never heard about it, it was only very recently that I learned that people were actually serious about questioning evolution so I don;t really know much about the debate yet. I’ll try to keep up)
Alright, let’s take a look at the passage: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dover/day12pm.html
In this passage we can see that the main reason for writing off the 58 papers is the fact that they don’t give a step-by-step description of how the evolution happened. Now, assuming that evolution is a series of random iterative steps would it not be impossible to give such a description?
Besides, if they are in fact giving a method to arrive at the end answer the point is proven. It’s just like looking at a method for counting to a million (add one until you are there) and saying that the method must be wrong as they did not in fact count to a million but they sure did describe a method that arrives there.
His objection to the articles is just insane.
.
I think that is the point Mr. Miller was trying to make.
QuadFather
Alex,
.
Well you sound rational enough, and I respect that. FYI, the transcripts of the Dover case are widely available online.
.
Rich,
.
I can do that too:
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2005/10/500_years_ago_geocentrism_aamp_astrology.html
.
What Behe actually said was that the NAS’s definition of science could include astrology and geocentrism - not his own definition of science.
.
Any other ducks wanna set themselves up?
Rich
Behe!
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn8178.html
“Astrology would be considered a scientific theory if judged by the same criteria used by a well-known advocate of Intelligent Design to justify his claim that ID is science, a landmark US trial heard on Tuesday.
Under cross examination, ID proponent Michael Behe, a biochemist at Lehigh University in Bethlehem, Pennsylvania, admitted his definition of “theory” was so broad it would also include astrology.
…”
Quack quack quack..
The Moon over Uranus suggests this isn’t science!
Alex
I haven’t had the chance to actually look up the case itself. The way Miller described the process was that they put one of the folders on his desk, asked if he had read it, he confirmed and then they went on to the next one. I accepted this as the truth.
If Behe’s version of this is different the only way to know for sure is to look it up because there is really no way to know who is right.
Was this a public case? because I’m really interested.
.
I would also like to stress that the cours should not need to read these books and papers as the fact that they are peer-reviewed should be enough to say that these papers are considered objective and conclusive by people who have actively tried to refute them.
.
I resent the fact that you are saying that I would love to discredit Behe. I do admit that I could’ve done more research but with both our stories they way they are there is one thing we can say for certain: Either Behe or Miller is misrepresenting the proceedings of what happened there. Which one I couldn’t say. I am not in possession of all the facts.
.
Finally, I’m not very militant about evolution vs. ID. I must admit that I find the theory of evolution a lot more compelling. But I do know that there are a lot of issues that have yet to be resolved. But I find it insulting that you immediately place me in the heretic category and start to get personal. I just cited a resource and voiced it’s standpoint here. I find your conclusion that therefore I want to discredit all ID scientists a bit off.
QuadFather
Alex,
:
You really need to understand what was going on, here. The most glaring point that can be made against you and Kenneth Miller is that: Only a SINGLE example was necessary in order to prove Behe wrong. Instead, a lawyer flooded the witness stand with a copious amount of information that the witness could not possibly go through during his testimony. Could the theatrics BE anymore obvious?
:
I will let Behe’s words speak for themselves:
:
“I was given no chance to read them, and at the time considered the dumping of a stack of papers and books on the witness stand to be just a stunt, simply bad courtroom theater. Yet the Court treats it seriously.
… This is the most blatant example of the Court’s simply accepting the Plaintiffs’ say-so on the state of the science and disregarding the opinions of the defendants’ experts. I strongly suspect the Court did not itself read the ‘fifty eight peer-reviewed publications, nine books, and several immunology textbook chapters about the evolution of the immune system’ and determine from its own expertise that they demonstrated Darwinian claims. How can the Court declare that a stack of publications shows anything at all if the defense expert disputes it and the Court has not itself read and understood them?
… In my own direct testimony I went through the papers referenced by Professor Miller in his testimony and showed they didn’t even contain the phrase ‘random mutation’; that is, they assumed Darwinian evolution by random mutation and natural selection was true — they did not even try to demonstrate it. I further showed in particular that several very recent immunology papers cited by Miller were highly speculative, in other words, that there is no current rigorous Darwinian explanation for the immune system.”
:
So … We shouldn’t use Behe as an authority because he refuses to concede the point when no argument has been made? I’m sorry, but that doesn’t make any sense.
:
What does make sense, since I don’t think you are stupid enough to fall for such cheap and obviously fallacious argumentation, is that you would LOVE to find a reason to discredit Behe and any other ID scientist. Thus, in the absence of more substative protests, you are content to grasp at this straw.
:
And I suspect it is one straw of many.
Alex
After two minutes of searching I found this: http://nl.youtube.com/watch?v=rj06cvj0VLQ.
It is a speech by Ken Miller talking about a trial of the ideas of Behe. Here apparently Behe brushed aside a huge pile of 56 scientific papers that provided evidence for the evolution of the immune system. Although this was just a small part of his theories, he had read them all and found these papers all rubbish.
This should tell us at least that Behe was not keeping an open mind.
I must admit that most evolutionists are not keeping an open mind but carelessly brushing aside 56 (!) proofs because he does not like the ideas they are representing is just really unscientific.
This is of course not saying anything about Intelligent Design but it should tell us that you should not use Behe as an authority.
I’d love to say more about this later but now I’ve got homework.
QuadFather
Good job Paul. It’s nice to have somebody who can hold their own in these discussions.
:
Notice how your opponents can’t even simply disagree. They have to insult other people in a million different ways.
:
It would be much more effective if they would just make an argument, but alas.
Rich
Dissent from darwin:
http://scienceblogs.com/strangerfruit/2008/01/dissenting_from_darwinism.php
What a joke!
paul
My previous post seems to be held up - perhaps because it has some links in it. So - I’m resending it without the links. Perhaps it will go through now.
ScienceAvenger and others,
Remember - I’m not saying I know what’s right. I’m saying there is an issue here. Check out the Dissent from Darwin list - 700+ Ph.D.’s - all cranks, willing participants in a smokescreen? (Type “dissent from Darwin into google and follow to the list of Ph.D.’s in the sciences who openly question neoDarwinism - over 700)
Look into the Dean Kenyon story at SF State - how ’bout J.C. Sanford - professor at Cornell and the inventor of the “gene gun.” These guys are part of a ploy? Phil Skell, member of the NAS. Henry “Fritz” Schaefer - major computational chemistry researcher. Come-on. They may be wrong, but they are not part of some smokescreen.
On another issue raised, with the exception of one fellow (Paul Nelson) everyone of the IDers that I have either talked to or read extensively about came to ID NOT from a Creationist perspective - but from an orthodox Darwinian perspective. I’ll say that again - they did not come from Creationism to ID, they came from orthodox neoDarwinsim to ID. Check it out yourself and see. There IS an argument - but you have to be willing to look at both sides to see it.
If a charge has been leveled that freedom to investigate is being oppressed - what sense does it make to only go to the ones in power to ask if this is true?
If you’ve read Behe, Debmski, Johnson, Wells, Sanford, or somebody significant in the ID movement, then I’ll be happy to keep going. If you haven’t - then let’s just stop. I’m in the midst of finals week. Thanks.
Clinky
I was sitting there listening to the narrator talk about Lucy and bacterial evolution and sort of just staring at his face when a mental image of a chimpanzee popped into my head. No offense to the gentleman but I, he, and all the rest of us aren’t much more than shaved chimps with well formed noses. The differences aren’t much, especially compared with the differences between humans and sharks.
I was also always taught, yes taught, that evolution has to destination or height to achieve, it’s just the adaptations that best allow them to survive. Now if you want some evidence for divine intervention the fact our species (weak, slow, little creatures) survived in Africa for a few hundred millennium with some of the most horrifying beasts on earth. Though perhaps that might have been the driving factor to get smarter, or end up between a proto-lion’s teeth.
QuadFather
ScienceAvenger,
For speaking so confidently, you sure focus an awful lot of time on motives and conspiracies than you do on debunking what ID proponents say are their scientific arguments. From your comments, it appears that you will talk about anything BUT that.
This is a special case of the ad hominem circumstantial argument: appeal to motive.
To speak nothing of the errors in your post … Your modus operandi speaks for itself.
paul
Remember - I’m not saying I know what’s right. I’m saying there is an issue here. Check out the Dissent from Darwin list - 700+ Ph.D.’s - all cranks, willing participants in a smokescreen? http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?command=download&id=660
Or if that link doesn’t work - look here and click on the proper link: http://www.dissentfromdarwin.org/
Look into the Dean Kenyon story at SF State - how ’bout J.C. Sanford - professor at Cornell and the inventor of the “gene gun.” These guys are part of a ploy? Phil Skell, member of the NAS. Come-on. They may be wrong, but they are not part of some smokescreen.
Oh yeah, and with the exception of one fellow (Paul Nelson) everyone of the IDers that I have either talked to or read extensively about came to ID not from a Creationist perspective - but from an orthodox Darwinian perspective. I’ll say that again - they did not come from Creationism to ID, they came from orthodox neoDarwinsim to ID. Check it out yourself and see. Perhaps you’ll find that the sound of one-hand clapping is a bit hard to believe. There IS an argument - but you have to be willing to look at both sides to see it.
If a charge has been leveled that freedom to investigate is being oppressed - what sense does it make to only go to the ones in power to ask if this is true?
If you’ve read Behe, Debmski, Johnson, Wells, Sanford, or somebody significant in the ID movement, then I’ll be happy to keep going. If you haven’t - then let’s just stop. I’m in the midst of finals week. Thanks.
paul
I have checked out Expelled exposed site - have you checked out the counterarguments at Discovery or the Expelled site? (I didn’t claim Sterberg was fired - I claimed he was discriminated against. Is he lying to promote some smokescreen? Just look at the other side on these cases. Have you done any of this? Isn’t this the point of this little blog these guys did? It’s fine that you think I’ve been conned. I’m just asking you to not simply read what one side is saying. Behe, Dembski, Johnson, Kenyon…all deceivers, I gather. Sorry - we profoundly disagree. Have you read Behe? Why condemn him if you haven’t read him? Dembski? Wells? Your arguments come across hollow if you haven’t taken the time to hear from the proponents of ID themselves. Off to class…
Science Avenger
Sorry Paul, you have been conned. ID is not about science. It was about masking creationism enough to pass muster in courts. They literally replaced “Creationists” with “intelligent design proponents”, which is how they got “cdesign proponentsists”. All the flapjabber about detecting design is a smoke screen. There is no substance there, as every scientist who has tried to delve into it could tell you.
What I mean is ID proponents will not publish their theories in the peer reviewed literature. They couldn’t even keep their own journal going for lack of material. Its a con, plain and simple.
Conspiracy theories are for people who can’t accept defeat. It’s the equivalent of the kid in 3rd grade who claimed he never lost because the refs always cheated. Sternberg had nothing done to him. He never worked for the Smoith., so he couldn’t be fired. Gonzales wasn’t graduating students or bringing in grant money, and sadly, that’s what tenure is all about. Their cases have no substance whatever. Check out http://www.Expelledexposed.com
All the ID arguments have been shredded…ALL OF THEM. All it takes is time and google to find it. ERV took Behe apart, and Demski has been shredded all over. If you don’t know that, you aren’t keeping up. They are a joke to real researchers.
paul
Science Avenger. Thanks for responding.
My quick response tonight - grading papers and fading quickly…Don’t conflate creationism with ID. Very different. ID starts only with the broad assumption that evidence of agency is possible. Creationism knows “God did it” and then goes to look how. (Darwinism, by the way, knows blind processed did it and then goes to look how it did it. Both are Cartesian rationalisms. ID isn’t. Plain and simple.
As to the math/physics thing - What about Gonzales being denied tenure at ISU. I’d be interested if you really think he didn’t measure up. Scientism can occur in these disciplines as well. Lots of mathematicians have problems with neo-Darwinism. Berlinski and Dembski’s for two of them. Dembski’s “No Free Lunch” theorems, though criticized, are still out there standing.
As for publishing - what happened to Sterberg when he published Meyer’s article? But the larger point is this - there is no doubting most of the data out there. The issue is the interpretation of the data. For instance, take genetic similarities. Why is that considered unambiguous support for common descent. That analysis seems to offer no greater explanational power than common designer. Furthermore, as I mentioned in one of my first posts - there are lots of findings that are real head-scratchers when it comes to comparing genetic similarities with morphological similarities. I can give you several journal references if you’d like. So, not sure what you mean by ID proponents refusing to do. First of all they do do research (look up Behe, Skell, Wells, Minnich…), secondly there research is systematically sought out and eliminated if it in any way hints at an inference other than blind processes, third - most of the debate isn’t even about the data - it’s about interpretation of the evidence. This is key. Have you read Behe’s work? - still not refuted (though Miller thinks he has - he hasn’t responded to Behe’s response to him), Dembski’s work? If yes, why does it fall? If not, why are you allowing ID critics to tell you what to believe? Back to grading…
Science Avenger
Paul, perhaps you miss my point. I’m not arguing that evolution is true because the consensus says so. I am simply refuting the claims by ID proponents that there is growing controversy in science about ID. There isn’t. The consensus view on evolution is stronger than ever. I’m not making an authoritative argument, I’m refuting their’s.
I am also refuting arguments like yours about “scientism”. You want to claim biologists are biased for evolution, fine, that has some plausibility. But mathematicians and physicists don’t. And yet the overwhelming majority of them say creationist arguments regarding physics and math are garbage. Now, isn’t it FAR more plausible that they are correct, than it is to think that somehow there is a pro-evolution bias among mathematicians?
You are right, science is not about arguing from authority. Modern science is about posing hypotheses, subjecting them to falsifiable experimental testing, and publishing one’s findings in the peer-reviewed literature. And that is the very thing the ID proponents flat refuse to do. What does that tell you?
Rich
Meanwhile, back in reality…
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/
Jeff Long
Good summary analysis of the controversy. But…if after all is said and done evolution is still by admission too flimsily supported by the data and its interpretations, then it should be time to begin considering concurrently the possibility of PURPOSEFUL design by an Intelligent Agent of some nature. Much of the interpretation of data to support this is forensic and statistical and mathematical in nature and thus 95% of the public is lost in grasping it. However, with the advent of the supercomputing age and the capabilities now to collect and collate and interpret vast amounts of data, the time has arrived to permit–and encourage such “scientific” investigation. Bring out the hidden fossils in the worlds’ museums and let’s all subject them to this new intensive scrutiny. Bring forth the T-rex soft tissues recently discovered and let’s get to the bottom of how old they REALLY are!
paul
I thought science wasn’t about arguments from authority. Shows you what I know. Sorry about all of this trouble making - I’ll stop asking questions now and just go back to listening to all of those really smart people. But then what does my Ph.D. in an experimental science mean? Oh yeah, it’s not in mathematics or physics. Forgot, I’ll sit back down now.
(I’m often amazed at the willingness of those who make the scientific method the final arbitrator of everything factual to simply stop questioning and listen to what they are being told by “consensus” science - never considering the possibility that the sociological effects that we see in every other aspect of life may also be present in science - producing a sort of “scientism.” It’s ironic, really. It’s like the priests and the illiterate masses a few hundred years ago - just now its the scientists are wearing the robes and telling everyone “there’s no controversy here - we have it all figured out”.)
Sorry to get so cynical - it’s just so frustrating when folks step into really interesting debates and, with sneering tone, pronounce from on high (or in these cases, pronounce that they have heard from on high) that there is no real controversy here. It’s ridiculous - there are a lot of interesting questions here. If you’re content with the answers you’re getting - fine. Just let us ignorant peons keep talking rubbish.
Science Avenger
Those who actually study these issues for a living keep getting more and more certain of the validity of modern evolutionary theory (MET), not less. This is one of the many reasons pseudo arguments like those put forth in this silly video aren’t treated too seriously.
Consider as the most glaring example, this whole argument about how “unlikely” evolution is. People (99% of which are neither mathematicians nor biologists) have been making this claim for decades at least, the most famous being Hoyle’s 747-in-a-junkyard analogy, and they always make the same mistake he did, namely, assuming all the events in question are independent, when in fact they are VERY dependent, which reduces the probability calculations by many orders of magnitude. This can be verified quite easily by surfing around the net. Talkorigins is the best summary for my money.
If you still have doubts, consider this. Mathematicians and physicists, the experts in the areas touched on by these probabilistic arguments, are smarter than biologists. Just ask them. And if there were something wrong with MET that fell into their fields, no force on earth could shut them up about it. They be all over the biologists just like they were all over the cold-fusion guys. Yet 99% of them say those arguments are nonsense. What’s that tell you?
paul
Mike:
what do you mean by the term “evolution”? It has multiple definitions. Obviously you don’t mean blind processes responsible for creating major biological body plans (aka macroevolution) - or if you do mean this you have a very weak definition of the term “fact.” (Show me - or even create a plausible set of steps to go from one body plan to another - none exist, I assure you.) NeoDarwinism may end up being true - but we are so far from knowing that that we could not in any way say it’s a fact. (In fact, I would say the more we learn the more unlikely it looks.) Lots of real interesting questions out there, my friend. If you’re interested in this stuff, I’d encourage you to start reading arguments from various perspectives.
paul
Alex:
thanks for responding. You need to read Behe’s “Edge of Evolution” - there are all kinds of selection pressures placed on those little critters (fruit flies) - and yet nothing positive has happened (selection pressures refer to what you were talking about when you said “changing environments”). You see it’s one thing to agree that the theory sounds plausible (natural selection working on random errors can create) but it’s another to actually look at the data and let it lead you. Darwinism, I’m afraid, is much heavier on theory and lighter on data than it’s proponents would have you believe.
As to your other point. I’ll look into it that program. Thanks. One question I have from the outset is whether this program cr