Evolution vs. Creationism. Bill Nye Debates Ken Ham.

[silent thunder]

Good science does what few other paradigms will do...

Change its perspective in the face of new information or experience.

[goatguy-too]

Good answers all the way around Brian! The one most "scientists" miss is the part about modelling and confusing the reality with their model.

 

So the ability to measure red shift is based on the presumption that the physical properties of the vacuum are the same everywhere. If in fact the properties are different across the universe, the frequencies of light given off by exciting stuff in different places would change. The spectral signature could be red shifted simply by the 'different kind' of vacuum it occurs in.

 

When we believed that a vacuum was nothing, it seemed to be a safe bet. But now that there is a field of study called "vacuum engineering" which has nothing to do with your Hoover, but is concrned with manipulating the properties of the vacuum, all bets are off. There is room for another model.

[goatguy-too]

If that is the case then I must (as a guerrilla anthropologist) pick you up on this:

 

Goatguy ; " THe 'bible' on evolution is a book called 'Origin of the Species' ... "

 

Charles Darwin; " ' On the Origin of Species.' "

 

"Sophistry by semantics ..." ? ? ?

 

Sorry, you missed your cheap shot target.

 

Dropping "On" is a common practice in referring to the book: (Dropping 'the' is merely an error of the early morning, and unless it can be shown that it changes the meaning of the title, surely does not support an accusation of sophistry.)

 

http://www.literature.org/authors/darwin-charles/the-origin-of-species/

 

http://www.amazon.com/The-Origin-Of-Species-Anniversary/dp/0451529065

 

http://www.amazon.com/Species-Wordsworth-Classics-Literature-Collection/dp/1853267805

 

You do much better when you actually address the issue ;-)

 

 

I call this classic 'scientism' and this in particular the 'case of the time travelling scientist'. What sort of 'theory' is this for a scientist to be involved with .... we replicate the first half of an experiment ... we have information to conclude the 3rd part of the experiment and we bridge the middle and most crucial part by saying a scientist in the future will be able to do that, and we take him from the future and back in time to now and insert him in the middle part and say this is a valid scientific theory ? ? ?

Great!

Edited February 7, 2014 by goatguy

[goatguy-too]

I struggled with this. Given time can you make/evolve a cat into an elephant?

I think the answer is no. Given time you can create a giant cat, a tiny one, a water cat, a hairless cat, but get to far from its genetic template and it doesn't work. Cats won't evolve into elephants, and vice versa.

 

I think according to evolutionary theory that the cat and the elephant had a mammal rodent ancestor, seemingly unimportant by itself yet making up the trunk of a great tree. From that base countless branches formed over 100's of millions of years. Some branches/species died others were successful, spawning new branches from themselves, many of those to wither, but successful ones survive. Often environmental forces will shove branches in the same direction.

 

So thats my answer. Similarly we didn't evolve from say chimps or apes, but share a common ancestor. I think without environmental stressors and/or wildcard mutations a species doesn't have to evolve.

I think you summarized it appropriately. However, that common ancestor was a different species than either the cat or the elephant, so it is still proper, according to the theory which you explained, that we can say one species supposedly evolved from another. It would avoid confusion if it was clarified that the theory does not state that a modern species can evolve into another modern species.

Edited February 7, 2014 by goatguy

[goatguy-too]

So, to understand the problem with teaching creationism as "science," think about how you might go about experimentally validating the theory.

 

While you are thinking about it, though, think about other beliefs which are taught as science that also lack such validation.

 

When we speak of scientific principles, we often are sloppy about stating assumptions or clarifying beliefs or describing models employed -- and is fine among peers or on uncontroversial topics. When the topic impinges upon belief systems (especially culturally engrained ones), there is an ethical responsibility to be very clear about what the data shows and what it doesn't. The language of the conscientious scientist then becomes filled with qualifiers.

 

I do not like the term creationism. I prefer the term forensics. Can you tell the difference between pits in the sand caused by wave action and footprints.

[Nungali]

Cheap shot ?

 

I see it as a minor 'infraction' in 'quoting' the title of a book ... also I will point out others, including the major infraction ... or cheap shot, if one prefers to see it that way ... 'Man evolved from the Apes'.

 

The biggest cheap shot in the debate actually came from the religionists side ( a Bishop, mind you ) ;

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samuel_Wilberforce

[zanshin]

 

That a good question. It is my understanding that once a mutation evolves to the point where it can no longer mate and reproduce with the root species it becomes a different species. This has been discussed RE the fruit flies in Hawaii and the finches of the Galapagos.

Domestic horses and Mongolian horses can have offspring but they have issues because of intraspecies differences. Or horses and donkeys more common example- mules are sterile offspring because of species divergence.

[Brian]

I do not like the term creationism. I prefer the term forensics. Can you tell the difference between pits in the sand caused by wave action and footprints.

 

I'll buy that.

 

Data fitting a model do not prevent the same data from fitting another model. Options stay open until they are closed by evidence rather than by opinion or feeling.

[goatguy-too]

Cheap shot ?

 

I see it as a minor 'infraction' in 'quoting' the title of a book ... also I will point out others, including the major infraction ... or cheap shot, if one prefers to see it that way ... 'Man evolved from the Apes'.

 

The biggest cheap shot in the debate actually came from the religionists side ( a Bishop, mind you ) ;

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samuel_Wilberforce

 

Hmm.. seems like it was not a foul since even wikipedia seems to do the same.

 

"Huxley argued for human evolution from apes by illustrating many of the similarities and differences between humans and apes, and did so particularly in his 1863 book Evidence as to Man's Place in Nature." --http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_evolution

 

Chapter name "On the natural history of the man-like Apes"

Addendum name "A succinct history of the controversy respecting the cerrebral structure of Man and the apes"

 

Seems that Huxley himself used the term frequently:

 

• 1861. Man and the Apes. Letters to the Athenaeum, March 30 and September 21, p433 and 498.
• 1862. The Brain of Man and Apes. letter to Medical Times & Gazette, October 25, p449.

So I think the bishop is cleared.

Edited February 7, 2014 by goatguy

[Marblehead]

Domestic horses and Mongolian horses can have offspring but they have issues because of intraspecies differences. Or horses and donkeys more common example- mules are sterile offspring because of species divergence.

Yep. And there is the liger (lion and tiger) but they too are sterile. Any of these mixed species would be a dead end as far as evolution goes. I didn't know about the domestic and Mongolian horse though. It can't be more than 60,000 years when they were all the same species. Perhaps the human cross-breeding of the domestic horse took it too far away from the original.

[Marblehead]

To say man evolved from apes is an error. Man and apes evolved from a common ancestor.

[ralis]

Why not investigate evolutionary genetics? I have seen data that indicates ~ 1% DNA difference between humans and chimps. The journal Genome Research states an approximation of 4% DNA difference. In my mind that is a place to further read/explore.

 

Genetic mutation/adaptation does not necessarily occur in a short period of time but over millions of years.

 

 

 

http://genome.cshlp.org/content/15/12/1746.long

[ralis]

To say man evolved from apes is an error. Man and apes evolved from a common ancestor.

 

If I remember correctly it was Simiiformes or Simians.

Edited February 7, 2014 by ralis

[Nungali]

Hmm.. seems like it was not a foul since even wikipedia seems to do the same.

 

"Huxley argued for human evolution from apes by illustrating many of the similarities and differences between humans and apes, and did so particularly in his 1863 book Evidence as to Man's Place in Nature." --http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_evolution

 

I am sorry ... I am confused ... is the quote you made above from the first link (if so I cant find it) or the second.

 

The quotes below seem to come from the first link.

 

 

Chapter name "On the natural history of the man-like Apes"

Addendum name "A succinct history of the controversy respecting the cerrebral structure of Man and the apes"

 

Seems that Huxley himself used the term frequently:

 

• 1861. Man and the Apes. Letters to the Athenaeum, March 30 and September 21, p433 and 498.
• 1862. The Brain of Man and Apes. letter to Medical Times & Gazette, October 25, p449.

 

If it is suggested that any of the above words indicate that man evolved from apes, I cant see it.

 

Going to the first link and where I believe the above 'samples' can from , it is interesting to quote a bit more:

 

" Evidence as to Man's Place in Nature is an 1863 book by Thomas Henry Huxley, in which he gives evidence for the evolution of man and apes from a common ancestor " - Which what I keep pointing out (not to you but in other threads and conversations).

 

" The second chapter contains the basic evidence for man as an animal." - Hence , IMO, the underlying Christian dissatisfaction with the concept.

 

" Huxley next begins a comparison of the adult anatomy of apes with man, asking "Is man so different from any of these apes that he must form an order by himself?" - What Huxley is on about is a distinction in classification.

 

" "It is quite certain that the ape which most nearly approaches man is either the Chimpanzee, or the Gorilla..." (p86). "In the general proportions of the body and limbs there is a remarkable difference between the Gorilla and man (p87).. " - he is making a distinction, not saying one evolved from the other. ... " in whatever proportion the Gorilla differs from man, the other apes depart still more widely from the Gorilla and that, consequently, such differences of proportion can have no ordinal value" (p89). Put simply, Huxley rejects the idea that man should occupy an order separate from the apes. Therefore, they are primates. " ( My emphasis )

 

" ... then it seems to follow that... there would be no rational ground for doubting that man might have originated... by the gradual modification of a man-like ape". - Not an ape ... but a man like ape ... they are still developing the terminology and distinction.

 

"Huxley's conclusion, that man differs from apes at the level of a family, may be compared with the opinion today that the distinction between the great apesand man is at the level of a subfamily, the Homininae or at the level of the tribe, Hominini or even at the level of a subtribe: the Hominina. TheAustralopithecines separate man from the great apes, and the genus Homo is almost certainly an offshoot of the early australopithecines, upright apes of the wooded savannah (see human taxonomy). The general opinion today is that man is more closely related to apes than even Huxley thought. " - But not evolved from them.

 

" "The bearing of the three great classes of facts now given^[18] is unmistakable... [the facts] are intelligible if we admit their descent from a common ancestor, together with their subsequent adaptation to diversified conditions.. " (my emphasis)

 

" Later, in Chapter 6, Darwin produces his famous passage on the birthplace and antiquity of man, quoting the Chimpanzee and Gorilla as evidence that "...as these two species are now man's nearest allies. " - that is the relationship ... they are similar now , and had a common ancestor in the past.

 

Huxley's work led to the clear demonstration that man was an animal and what type of animal he was , in relation to, but different from, the Apes. ... Even today some people (who are not even religious) feel uncomfortible when it is pointed out we are primates and associate and behave like primates. But of course we arent just primate animals ... their work showed we were also different, even on a base level .

 

​{An aside: and IMO this is an essential difference we all need to come to terms with; many native cultures, in their view of genesis , see themselves as another one of, but special animal and relate to the environment and nature in a context of belonging and sharing. The Christian view, generated by dominance ( "to have dominion over the birds of the air and ... " ) in their view of genesis , seems to have a separation / 'separateness' between Man and the animals and nature and an unhealthy dominative relation to the environment and nature. ... And then after that - a 'fall' . }

 

So I think the bishop is cleared.

 

I dont .

 

 

[Edit ... ah! your 'first link' is a link in the quote that is in your 'second' link.

 

Well .... shame on you Wikipedia if it said " "Huxley argued for human evolution from apes " because he didnt ... as evidenced by their own other article on Huxley."

 

Its a long article, would you mind pointing me to where in the article it says that ? Curious as elsewhere in that article it states; " Molecular evidence suggests that between 8 and 4 million years ago, first the gorillas, and then the chimpanzees (genus Pan) split off from the line leading to the humans; "

 

Which is very different from ; "Huxley argued for human evolution from apes ... "

Edited February 7, 2014 by Nungali

[Marblehead]

Just wanted to add to this:

To say man evolved from apes is an error. Man and apes evolved from a common ancestor.

And there were a number of upright walking man-like creatures that evolved but didn't make it. Now we need to see if man can last as long as the dinosaurs did.

[Marblehead]

Why not investigate evolutionary genetics? I have seen data that indicates ~ 1% DNA difference between humans and chimps. The journal Genome Research states an approximation of 4% DNA difference. In my mind that is a place to further read/explore.

 

Genetic mutation/adaptation does not necessarily occur in a short period of time but over millions of years.

 

http://genome.cshlp.org/content/15/12/1746.long

I would go along with the 4% but not 1%.

 

Yes, in most cases evolution (genetic mutation) takes millions of years. There are exceptions though. Animals with very short life spans can mutate in much less time than that. The fruit fly is perhaps the best example. Darwin's finches are a good example as well.

[Marblehead]

If I remember correctly it was Simiiformes or Simians.

You are likely correct. I don't have enough knowledge of this to have formed an understanding or opinion yet though.

 

I took a quick peek at Wiki and in the discussion they spoke of "parallel evolution". This is a concept I have held for a very long time.

 

Lemurs is an interesting species for studying evolution.

[zanshin]

Natural selection has been thought to take place over millions of years. Small less genetically diverse can significantly diverge within a few generations from the main group in some situations.

 

http://wallace.genetics.uga.edu/groups/evol3000/wiki/fb221/Bottlenecks_and_Founder_Effects.html

[ralis]

You are likely correct. I don't have enough knowledge of this to have formed an understanding or opinion yet though.

 

I took a quick peek at Wiki and in the discussion they spoke of "parallel evolution". This is a concept I have held for a very long time.

 

Lemurs is an interesting species for studying evolution.

 

Order: Primates

Suborder: Haplorhini

Infraorder: Simiiformes

[ralis]

Natural selection has been thought to take place over millions of years. Small less genetically diverse can significantly diverge within a few generations from the main group in some situations.

 

http://wallace.genetics.uga.edu/groups/evol3000/wiki/fb221/Bottlenecks_and_Founder_Effects.html

 

If I remember correctly, Darwin et al found physical adaptations in certain species of birds that changed beak shape in just a few generations. That was an adaptation to a different food source.

[Green Tiger]

Yep. And there is the liger (lion and tiger) but they too are sterile. Any of these mixed species would be a dead end as far as evolution goes. I didn't know about the domestic and Mongolian horse though. It can't be more than 60,000 years when they were all the same species. Perhaps the human cross-breeding of the domestic horse took it too far away from the original.

 

You know what ligers are (aside from sterile)?

 

Bad. Ass.

 

[Marblehead]

You know what ligers are (aside from sterile)?

 

Bad. Ass.

Indeed. I wouldn't want to piss one off.

 

Nice kitty, nice kitty. Meow.

[ralis]

Indeed. I wouldn't want to piss one off.

 

Nice kitty, nice kitty. Meow.

 

You don't even need to piss one off! Especially around snack time.

Edited February 7, 2014 by ralis

[Marblehead]

You don't even need to piss one off! Especially around snack time.

Hehehe. Just being there would be cause.

[Zhongyongdaoist]

Watching the back and forth nature of this thread has reminded me of why I decided to take Platonism as a fundamental worldview circa 1980. None of these issues are particularly problematic for me and I am able to assimilate into a Platonic framework everything that is valuable in the views expressed and to weed out what is the result of conscious or unconscious ontological and religious commitments. I wish that I had more time to post on this subject, then people would have the chance to realize what I mean by what I have just said.