Evolution Accelerating?

[MeltDown]

So, the point is that a large part of the people you're calling "Darwin Thumpers" are actually "Science Thumpers", which is completely different thing, and appropriate considering the amount of pure religious stupidity in this country.

The people I call Darwin Thumpers are just that. They tout Darwinian evolution as a fact and claim that they are the side of "science" and that if you're against macroevolution you must be on the side of "religion". I am not advocating Creationism (or ID which I consider a subset of Creationism). I'm simply skeptical of macroevolution. I don't know why people who claim to be scientists refuse to evaluate the theory of (macro) evolution on its own in a vacuum instead of turning every time someone doubts macroevolution into a creation/evolution debate. Regardless of the viability of any alternate theory, there are many gaping holes that leaps of faith are required to cross in macroevolution and a lot of missing transitional species between for example T-Rex and archeopteryx. For the record the problem I have with macroevolution is not getting from a monkey to a human, it's more of getting from say a fish to a monkey. This is not a binary issue where there is some universal law that says that creation and evolution are the only two possible answers.

By the way I am not a biologist but I do work in a scientific field, and very often - I might even say most of the time - in my work the right answer isn't either of the first ones that are considered and if you latch on to "if I can disprove A then B must be right" you'll never get to G which is the real answer (which also shows the fallacy of excessive reliance on Occam's Razor.) Far too many arguments in favor of (macro)evolution are actually arguments against creationism with the assumption that if creationism is wrong then macroevolution must be right. Is voting for one candidate because the other one sucks right? Of course not, but it happens all too often when you only have two choices.

In fact, I can provide an alternative theory to which the same (limited) evidence can be viewed as supportive:

If there is a divine power that created EVERYTHING here on Earth, and there are undeniable biological similarities between all the different species, instead of there being ONE species that all of creation evolved from, why could the creator of all these different species not "reuse parts", so to speak.

For example - if the creator had already designed the cardiovascular system and a minimal set of genes for say a BASIC brain for one species, then it would seem more logical to simply adjust the "settings" of those genes or add and take away parts of them to create a new organism, than to "reinvent the wheel", so to speak.

From an evidence standpoint, the exact same evidence that supports the theory of evolution supports this theory as well, and it brings me to my final point. There is an UNDERLYING BIAS to BOTH sides of the argument that cannot be ignored. With evidence supporting both viewpoints, but not fully explaining EITHER.

I was going to post the same thing. In fact, if you're one of the tinfoil hat crowd who thinks we were put here by aliens who genetically engineered us the same argument would apply, why redesign subsystems once you've made them work once? If you really want to take the argument to its extreme since all (that I know of anyway) life on earth is hydrocarbon based then clearly it must have come from the same source.

[Clue69Less]

In fact, if you're one of the tinfoil hat crowd who thinks we were put here by aliens who genetically engineered us the same argument would apply, why redesign subsystems once you've made them work once? If you really want to take the argument to its extreme since all (that I know of anyway) life on earth is hydrocarbon based then clearly it must have come from the same source.

The problem with this line of thought is that it assumes that we know quite a bit more than I'm convinced that we do know. It's possible that what we're seeing is the manifestation of numerous functional evolved systems and subsystems. These could include combinations of outcomes from parallel, serial or unrelated processes.

[HotFoot]

So, why doesn't this kind of debate spring up about quantum mechanics, which is an obviously flawed theory in that it's inconsistent with large scales?

[MeltDown]

Because quantum mechanics involves things most people can't see, much less comprehend? Because there isn't a popular alternate theory based in religion? I don't know, I suspect a combination of both of those.

[HotFoot]

I'm thinking of an analogy between evolution and Newtonian physics. Say you push on an object, and it accelerates away from you in the direction of your push. So, you say a=f/m and you have one of Newton's laws. But people could contest this, and they decide to. In fact, f=m*a is not 100% correct. It is known to be inconsistent with observations in extreme conditions. Therefore, the people refuting Newton's physics have some basis for saying it's wrong. Fine...

However, say those people (and not all of them, but a politically active voice) insisted that when you push on an object, what you're really doing is asking God to move it for you, and he complies by intervening in the Universe and altering it's state by moving that object. The harder you push, the more you ask of God. Fine, that's a "theory" in league with the repeated intervention one. Now, you might think these people are crazy. Why? Because they are calling on external intervention, the kind of which has never been scientifically documented, to explain a phenomenon for which we have a theory that works within the bounds of nature. Yes, f=m*a is flawed in that's it's not perfect, but it's still the basis on which every machine we make is built.

If there is, however, an alternative theory that works without the requirement for external intervention that can be applied with greater precision than Newton's physics, then by all means we can adopt that. In fact, at certain scales, we have that, and it's Quantum Mechanics. Again, this is another flawed theory in that it does not work universally.

The same goes for macroevolution. It's the best theory that fits within natural occurrence without external intervention. It seems to me that in any other field we wouldn't be having a debate over whether or not macroevolution is a good theory. It's probably full of flaws and it's definitely needing more evidence to back it up, but as it stands, the alternatives are unsatisfactory. Is there an alternative theory that doens't require external intervention? Why are some so happy to accept external intervention in the case of the progression of one species to another but not in other areas such as the nuts and bolts of physics?

[Clue69Less]

Well, that's the thing about models, Hotfoot - they apply within certain boundary conditions. Einstein tried to develop Unified Field Theory as an all-encompassing set of physical laws, published it then retrated it years later. Current researchers in String Theory are using aspects of UFT as a backbone and are building upon it. But I'm skeptical that the human mind can ever understand a singular fundamental law, assuming that it exists in the first place.

Humans find comfort in models, be they faith-based, science based, myth-based or whatever. But models are just that - attempts to understand sets of behaviors. Discover the fundamental secret to the universe and win a free trip to Uranus!

[HotFoot]

I guess the complaint comes back to a basic human condition where I don't like how some portions of a group represent an idea that I think is important. This will always be especially true in religion, because so many people have done so many things in the name of... well, everyone knows what I'm talking about there.

So, in the same note, the people who want to be skeptical about evolution are faced with having to separate themselves from the nuts who think that people rode around on tricerotops.

[Clue69Less]

It gets back to the comfort of a model. If you can measure or detect something, you might be able to do research. When we talk about the past - especially times when no data was collected, it is difficult if not impossible to interrogate. Some people like the leap of faith model because it frees them from the need to worry about the possibilities. Personally, I see the benefits of science and religion and am comfortable with the belief that they can coexist but that's probably because I'm not threatened by uncertainty.

[HotFoot]

I agree with you there.

[Scubageek]

fidgewinkle - from a scientific perspective, the theory of evolution is just that a THEORY. There has been no group or groups that have yet been able to provide sufficient evidence to PROVE that MACROevolution does in fact exist.


In fact, I can provide an alternative theory to which the same (limited) evidence can be viewed as supportive:

If there is a divine power that created EVERYTHING here on Earth, and there are undeniable biological similarities between all the different species, instead of there being ONE species that all of creation evolved from, why could the creator of all these different species not "reuse parts", so to speak.

For example - if the creator had already designed the cardiovascular system and a minimal set of genes for say a BASIC brain for one species, then it would seem more logical to simply adjust the "settings" of those genes or add and take away parts of them to create a new organism, than to "reinvent the wheel", so to speak.

From an evidence standpoint, the exact same evidence that supports the theory of evolution supports this theory as well, and it brings me to my final point. There is an UNDERLYING BIAS to BOTH sides of the argument that cannot be ignored. With evidence supporting both viewpoints, but not fully explaining EITHER.

This is the attitude a real scientist would/should take. Evidently most, which also includes this forum, do not take this attitude. They feel they are right and all evidence they show towards their end is correct.

Creationists also have this problem, it isn't a one way road.

There is evidence for both, where in my opinion, both intersect.

Microevolution isn't objected by Creationists, it is Scientifically proven.

Macroevolution is the problem Creationists have a hard time believing, because I have yet to see the horsemonkey, the catdog or the humangoat

I am open to listen to anyones view that will have the same respect and listen to mine. Problem is, there are very few people that are willing to do that, which also includes people from this forum.

Both sides have the you are with us or against us attitudes, but it seems, that only one side refuses to allow any other theories to be presented and evaluated.

Weird that I would agree with Brent on this, and up to this post, he seemed to straddle the fence quite well. Anyone that took him as being one way or the other, well you really read into his posts.

This was well put Brent and you deserve the kudos for it, along with the few other posters, up to this post, that have kept a civil, willingness to listen to other view points posters.

I am a Creationist, but am willing to listen to and view others evidence, why can't Evolutionists be the same?

And for those back water higher educated people, who evidently don't pay much attention, There aren't many Creationists that despise Science, matter of fact we love science, we just don't agree with some of the things MAN has made/done with science. So no, we don't want to do away with science as some of you have clearly claimed up to this post

To those like Brent that kept some civility Good Job!!!

To those who couldn't, you need some help, and yes I include myself in this group...

[beerandcandy]

God created man then created DOH!

[hergieburbur]

The thing is, there is virtually no way to prove whether the spark of life just happened, or God created it and then left everything alone, so you will always have this argument among people.

[flasher702]

On the one hand you have few real-world examples of macro evolution.

On the other hand you have zero evidence of creationism.

I see very little room for debate. Lots of room for research.

And I didn't quite follow the entire thread but someone mentioned "Tin Foil Hat" in response to my Aliens theory... and they are absolutely right. That is exactly the kind of attitude that *should* be taken when people start free associating and adamantly defending stances for which there is no evidence.

IT WAS ALIENS I TELL YOU! I have SEEEEEEN them and they told me the TRUTH.

I mean seriously, it's laughable, right? It's not that it's impossible; it's that it's inconsistent with everything we know. How much effort should we really put into searching for and debating the Lock Ness Monsters, Green Men, and Gods that people have dreamed up when there is no evidence for them? From time to time people really do find weird things: the party that discovered the duck billed platypus and brought back a taxidermied example was laughed at. But they were able to *show* people another one (oh, and there is the ridiculous duck-beaver exotic animal hybrid that people say they've never seen btw).

[fidgewinkle]

I'm sorry, but this is simply not true.

The CURRENT biological definition of a species is any pair of organisms that is able to interbreed and produce sexually viable offspring.

It is a narrow definition that allows us to make distinctions between some "weird" things observed in nature. For example: a horse and a donkey you get - - a mule. It is a living organism, but a mule cannot mate with another mule and produce offspring. Mules are sterile.

The current definition allows us to explain how subtle changes in biological variation WITHIN a species are still within narrow enough bounds to allow for mating, but those BETWEEN species are not.

It is still a "construct" of our imaginations. The "sexually viable offspring" clause had to be added for an exception. There are also species that can chemically cross-reproduce, but don't because of behavior. Further, I am rather certain that abnormal behavior in members from two of these close species have reproduced somewhere in the past. Also, at the end of the day, how much is fertility a function of the interaction between the biological compounds within the two individuals mating? Is your fertility the same with individual A as individual B? To take a term from sports, how much is a matchup issue? The point is that it is a hazy line, and nature doesn't create species, it creates individuals. Grouping them as species just helps us understand them better. Although I think we might get away from it if gene sequencing becomes far better.

[fidgewinkle]

Macroevolution is the problem Creationists have a hard time believing, because I have yet to see the horsemonkey, the catdog or the humangoat

This statement isn't winning you any respect.

[Clue69Less]

IT WAS ALIENS I TELL YOU! I have SEEEEEEN them and they told me the TRUTH.

Reminds me of an old adage: Just because the bartender woke you up, told you'd pissed youself and sent you home does not mean that he's an alien.

[fidgewinkle]

fidgewinkle - from a scientific perspective, the theory of evolution is just that a THEORY. There has been no group or groups that have yet been able to provide sufficient evidence to PROVE that MACROevolution does in fact exist.


In fact, I can provide an alternative theory to which the same (limited) evidence can be viewed as supportive:

If there is a divine power that created EVERYTHING here on Earth, and there are undeniable biological similarities between all the different species, instead of there being ONE species that all of creation evolved from, why could the creator of all these different species not "reuse parts", so to speak.

For example - if the creator had already designed the cardiovascular system and a minimal set of genes for say a BASIC brain for one species, then it would seem more logical to simply adjust the "settings" of those genes or add and take away parts of them to create a new organism, than to "reinvent the wheel", so to speak.

From an evidence standpoint, the exact same evidence that supports the theory of evolution supports this theory as well, and it brings me to my final point. There is an UNDERLYING BIAS to BOTH sides of the argument that cannot be ignored. With evidence supporting both viewpoints, but not fully explaining EITHER.

My answer is brief, because I don't have the time at the moment. Quite simply, it is often not good design to share systems between a simple version and a complex version. We have a lot of legacy junk that isn't the best design choice, just like x86 does.

As an analogy, it is easier for Intel to design a brand new architecture from the ground up with higher performance. The problem is that it doesn't fly because of the legacy software issue. This is an artificial constraint that isn't part of the design process. What is God's excuse?

I will hopefully get back to this.

[hergieburbur]

It is still a "construct" of our imaginations. The "sexually viable offspring" clause had to be added for an exception. There are also species that can chemically cross-reproduce, but don't because of behavior. Further, I am rather certain that abnormal behavior in members from two of these close species have reproduced somewhere in the past. Also, at the end of the day, how much is fertility a function of the interaction between the biological compounds within the two individuals mating? Is your fertility the same with individual A as individual B? To take a term from sports, how much is a matchup issue? The point is that it is a hazy line, and nature doesn't create species, it creates individuals. Grouping them as species just helps us understand them better. Although I think we might get away from it if gene sequencing becomes far better.

By that logic, nothing you just said, or ever thought, really exists, as its just a product or your imagination in combination with perceptions of whats real from your senses (which are imperfect). That, or an invention by man.

[Clue69Less]

By that logic, nothing you just said, or ever thought, really exists, as its just a product or your imagination in combination with perceptions of whats real from your senses (which are imperfect). That, or an invention by man.

Did you make that up?

[fidgewinkle]

This is the attitude a real scientist would/should take. Evidently most, which also includes this forum, do not take this attitude. They feel they are right and all evidence they show towards their end is correct.

Creationists also have this problem, it isn't a one way road.

There is evidence for both, where in my opinion, both intersect.

Microevolution isn't objected by Creationists, it is Scientifically proven.

Macroevolution is the problem Creationists have a hard time believing, because I have yet to see the horsemonkey, the catdog or the humangoat

I am open to listen to anyones view that will have the same respect and listen to mine. Problem is, there are very few people that are willing to do that, which also includes people from this forum.

Both sides have the you are with us or against us attitudes, but it seems, that only one side refuses to allow any other theories to be presented and evaluated.

Weird that I would agree with Brent on this, and up to this post, he seemed to straddle the fence quite well. Anyone that took him as being one way or the other, well you really read into his posts.

This was well put Brent and you deserve the kudos for it, along with the few other posters, up to this post, that have kept a civil, willingness to listen to other view points posters.

I am a Creationist, but am willing to listen to and view others evidence, why can't Evolutionists be the same?

And for those back water higher educated people, who evidently don't pay much attention, There aren't many Creationists that despise Science, matter of fact we love science, we just don't agree with some of the things MAN has made/done with science. So no, we don't want to do away with science as some of you have clearly claimed up to this post

To those like Brent that kept some civility Good Job!!!

To those who couldn't, you need some help, and yes I include myself in this group...

My only insistence is that religion is not the way to figure out what has happened since the moment creation occurred. This was Darwin's stance, and he was correct. Anyone who is worth anything scientifically is open to a system that will better explain what has gone on and is going on if it is presented and the evidence supports it. Until we have a better grasp of the system that drives this, evolution on a macro scale has far more evidential support than anything else.