Posted on 05/26/2012 9:47:00 PM PDT by eekitsagreek
Richard Leakey predicts skepticism over evolution will soon be history.
Not that the avowed atheist has any doubts himself.
Sometime in the next 15 to 30 years, the Kenyan-born paleoanthropologist expects scientific discoveries will have accelerated to the point that "even the skeptics can accept it."
"If you get to the stage where you can persuade people on the evidence, that it's solid, that we are all African, that color is superficial, that stages of development of culture are all interactive," Leakey says, "then I think we have a chance of a world that will respond better to global challenges."
(Excerpt) Read more at sfgate.com ...
Very sincere people make mistakes and incorrect assumptions. And unscrupulous people do make stuff up (global warming data).
No, the article in National Geographic doesn’t provide the evidence about the lizards. Nat’l Geo isn’t that kind of magazine.
National Geographic loves to print pictures. There should have at least made a sketch.
I’m sure the scientists in both cases have published their evidence somewhere. Go find it, if you’re curious.
I am not really, any more than I would be curious about someone's "abducted by aliens" story. It is your point, not mine. I am not going to help you make it.
Tiktaalik: they didn’t have B. They predicted it would be found between A and C, and it was. Testable prediction, confirmed. What were you saying about glass houses?
They are drawing the conclusion they wanted to about a lump of - something - they wanted to find. They apparently don't have a complete skeleton and they have not ruled out that it is simply another species or even that it is not alive today. You are jumping to the conclusion you want to reach.
’ve heard the “species already has the genes” argument before. I’m not impressed, because the people making it never try to identify the genes the species has beforehand and thereby predict what changes they will undergo.
Ever hear of a dog? I laugh to think of what kind of evolutionary picture you could draw of the various breeds of dogs if you were digging them up as fossils.
Yeah, nobody claims lizards change, or will change, into cats. Saying such a thing is a telltale sign of complete misunderstanding of how evolution works.
Are you saying that because some form of lizard has not been identified as a direct evolutionary ancestor of the cat?
Very sincere people make mistakes and incorrect assumptions. And unscrupulous people do make stuff up (global warming data).
And you have no reason to believe either one is happening in this case. You just don't want to believe them.
National Geographic loves to print pictures. There should have at least made a sketch.
You missed the photo? Here.
I am not going to help you make it.
It's become clear that by your rules, I will never be able to make it. Anything I find, you'll just say that they're making incorrect assumptions or are making stuff up. See "tiresome," above.
They are drawing the conclusion they wanted to about a lump of - something - they wanted to find.
See? Now you're turning fossils into "a lump of something." This is a pretty detailed "lump." But you can't acknowledge that the ToE made a successful prediction, so you have to wave that away too. And don't forget, the paleontologists who found it might have been unscrupulous--maybe they made it all up!
Are you saying that because some form of lizard has not been identified as a direct evolutionary ancestor of the cat?
No, I'm saying that because there already are cats. This is another common mistake of anti-evolutionists: the unspoken assumption that today's endpoints are the only ones available. If those lizards continue to evolve for as long as it took cats to evolve from the common ancestor of lizards and cats, they'll end up as something you've never seen before.
Here's the thing: while you and Behe are quibbling and caviling and insisting that the whole theory is going to come crashing down any day now, thousands of researchers are doing practical, productive work on the assumption that the theory is correct. That's why you saying something like "you don't have enough stuff" is kinda funny. Who cares that we don't have enough stuff to convince hopespringseternal, when entire companies are built on the successful application of the theory?
So, as the kids say, I'm outie. You can stand there commanding the tide not to come in as long as you want, but I'm not going to bother arguing for the tide any longer.
Science doesn't work on the "trust me" principle. Anything assumed to be true because it is not fully tested or accounted for must be clearly stated. Anything demonstrated must be fully documented.
You missed the photo? Here.
One photo. Where is the change? How do you know the change is due to evolution. If it occurs in 36 years, that is a pretty good indication mutation and natural selection have nothing to do with it. Now you're turning fossils into "a lump of something." This is a pretty detailed "lump.
This is not the photo at the original link. While this is a much better fossil, the point still stands -- it is an assumption that it is a transitional form between two other species. This is what is called "pattern matching." You need to demonstrate that these fossils are descendents of older fossils and ancestors of later fossils to know that it is transitional. It is that science thing I mentioned earlier.
This is another common mistake of anti-evolutionists: the unspoken assumption that today's endpoints are the only ones available.
No, the actual endpoint is irrelevant. I could just as easily say "not lizard" to cover every possible base.
Here's the thing: while you and Behe are quibbling and caviling and insisting that the whole theory is going to come crashing down any day now, thousands of researchers are doing practical, productive work on the assumption that the theory is correct.
Then you have nothing to worry about.
Who cares that we don't have enough stuff to convince hopespringseternal, when entire companies are built on the successful application of the theory?
Entire companies are built around global warming and helping people scam medicare.
I'll assume that you mean, has ever been observed within our lifetimes, because if you don't limit the statement like that, and leave it open, then we've observed humungous scale changes that have occurred over about 3.5 billion years or even longer. Even with the limit, numerous examples have occurred and been documented extensively within the literature. Often, such findings are publicized in the press. The fact that you personally do not read those articles does not mean they don't exist. Let me draw your attention to this abstract from an article that documents genetic drift in a couple of experimental populations taking place over a period of 15 years.
The rate of genetic drift is largely a function of the generation time. The reason we see so much genetic drift so quickly in bacteria is because they can produce a new generation every 20 minutes. We see it in larger organisms, too--just not as quickly.
There is no possible road. Pointing out something in the middle suggests there might be a path, but it doesn't define the path.
Your desire to not see any road does not equate to the non-existence of a road. Those of us who don't have an emotional attachment to the idea that the creation stories in the book of Genesis are actual literal accounts of real events are busy mapping the roads between A and C, measuring wheel ruts and examining tread marks, and gathering and analyzing the artifacts dropped along the way.
I'll assume that you mean, has ever been observed within our lifetimes, because if you don't limit the statement like that, and leave it open, then we've observed humungous scale changes that have occurred over about 3.5 billion years or even longer. Even with the limit, numerous examples have occurred and been documented extensively within the literature. Often, such findings are publicized in the press. The fact that you personally do not read those articles does not mean they don't exist. Let me draw your attention to this abstract from an article that documents genetic drift in a couple of experimental populations taking place over a period of 15 years.
The rate of genetic drift is largely a function of the generation time. The reason we see so much genetic drift so quickly in bacteria is because they can produce a new generation every 20 minutes. We see it in larger organisms, too--just not as quickly.
There is no possible road. Pointing out something in the middle suggests there might be a path, but it doesn't define the path.
Your desire to not see any road does not equate to the non-existence of a road. Those of us who don't have an emotional attachment to the idea that the creation stories in the book of Genesis are actual literal accounts of real events are busy mapping the roads between A and C, measuring wheel ruts and examining tread marks, and gathering and analyzing the artifacts dropped along the way.
This is funny. You're so desperate to deny evolution that you have to denigrate pattern matching, one of our primary tools for figuring out how things work.
Scientist: "I have noticed that the air pressure drops before a storm. Perhaps we can use that to predict storms."
hopespringseternal: "You're just pattern matching."
Doctor: "Everybody who got sick drank from the same fountain!"
hopespringseternal: "Means nothing. Just a pattern."
First of all, the earliest we can verify that life existed was 3.5 billion years ago, not 1 billion years ago.
Second, I don't put a great deal of significance on the fact that we need a supercomputer to help figure out some biological systems. Actually, for most of the evolutionary analyses that I do as part of my research, an ordinary PC works just fine. But if I were to move into the area of trying to determine exact protein structure, then I might start using supercomputers. The fact that we need supercomputing capacity to figure out exactly how a specific protein folds, however, doesn't lead me to think, "Oh, man, this protein folding is so complicated--God must be folding each and every protein in every single cell of every organism on earth, because proteins are obviously way too complicated to fold by themselves!" Nope, I actually don't believe God is personally folding an unimaginably large number of protein molecules every second. They fold by themselves.
I am glad you are finally recognizing your theories as beliefs and not scientific fact. You are making progress.
For example, h. erectus and h. sapien. A crossover with some cranial features of h. erectus and some of h.sapien. From the neck down the two species are identical so it would just be the cranial structures we are talking about. But like I said any mammal will do.
I realize because there aren't any it doesn't disprove your beliefs but I am willing to explore I just don't see any signs of smooth linear evolution. One species disappears then another appears. No transitions.
Seriously, my opinion of Behe is only based on what I've read about him? And there is no possibility whatsoever that I could have judged his qualifications based on my personal examination of the publically available information on his scientific career?
Oh, I certainly agree that there are charlatans in intelligent design and creation science. If they are the main brains behind "intelligent design" (ID) or creation "science" (CS), they are charlatans. Otherwise, they are misguided followers. Since neither ID nor CS are scientific disciplines, and cannot be used to inform and guide actual hands-on bench research (refering to the lab bench on which we set up experiments), the logical conclusion is that they are inventions meant to convey the illusion that religion is a functional science.
He has said that evolution science has not bothered to really put evolution through Darwin's own test and given specific examples.
He's said nothing of the sort. Given that evolutionary theory is the backbone of the life sciences, every aspect of that theory has been tested countless times. The scientific community has added to and refined that theory numerous times; a huge amount of evidence supports it.
I should take a minute to clarify that the word "theory" as used by scientists does not have the same meaning as the word used by laypersons. A scientific theory is a framework that unites all the known facts into a coherent whole, and provides for making testable predictions (hypotheses) of new facts. The process of evolution was known to the ancient Greeks; a number of theories were proposed to explain it, and the theory that turned out to most accurately explain the process and have the most robust predicting powers was Darwin's version. The refinements that have taken place over the 1.5 centuries since Darwin made his proposal have strengthened the theory and made it an even better reflection of the physical processes. Do we have every detail correct? Probably not; that may be an impossible goal. Is the current theory of evolution adequate to point researchers in the right direction and keep us on track? Absolutely.
What level of education would that be? I have no claims with regard to my education that I recall. As I posted before, you don't have to be a tailor to know the emperor is naked. If evolution is really so esoteric that you can't defend it to the masses you should stop trying to market it to the rest of us. You don't want an open mind, you want an audience of bobbleheads.
I'll be blunt: everything you have said so far indicates that your knowledge of science is based on literal, young-earth creationist literature. That hardly qualifies as a well-rounded science education. If you have a genuine interest in science, I highly recommend staying away from the ID or CS literature and reading the science literature or taking some classes at your local community college.
The problem is not that science is so esoteric that we can't defend it to the masses. The problem is that charlatans whose major concern is personal profit exploit people's natural doubts about their religious faith (and, face it, everyone has occasional doubts) while promising that they have all the answers that will erase those doubts drown us out. We're trying to communicate; within our community, we're trying to figure out how better to reach out to the general public. But our quiet and rational voices can't compete with the boisterous hubbub of quacks promising miracles.
You have yet to point out any flaws in my posts. You've made it quite clear that you dislike what I am saying, but that doesn't mean that what I have said is flawed.
I said “challenge a theory” which you turned into “like a theory”. A challenge is evidence, regardless of the source or motive, that a theory has a flaw, one that may be sufficient to overthrow the theory. No one has an obligation after demonstrating the flaw to offer a correction to the theory or an alternative theory.
Let's put it this way: someone who likes a theory, who finds that every prediction they make based on the theory pans out, is unlikely to challenge it. Someone who finds that the theory falls short and does not adequately explain observations, or does not inform accurate predictions, probably does not like the theory and is more likely to challenge it. Most likely, they will challenge the component of the theory that they find inadequate. The fact that components of a theory are frequently challenged does not mean that the entire theory can be thrown out. The theory of evolution has been revised and refined numerous times, because scientists have challenged it. Literal young-earth creationists do not, in fact, challenge the theory on a scientific basis, nor do they demonstrate any interest in the science. They want the entire theory to be tossed out, and offer no alternative.
As for your assertion that "No one has an obligation after demonstrating the flaw to offer a correction to the theory or an alternative theory," I'll just say that it is difficult to conceive how someone would demonstrate a flaw if they did not, in fact, already have an alternative hypothesis in mind.
There are three experiments that challenge the invariance of the speed of light (Fermi Lab, Rio and CERN). Other researchers revisiting the Michelson-Morely data believe they may have been too ruthless eliminating data as background noise and may have reached a wrong conclusion as a result. If any one of the experiments can be reproduced and no systemic or logical flaws are found, then it can be proved that the speed of light is not invariant. If any one or all three experiments do the same, the General Theory of Relativity will either need a major overhaul or replacement. None of the experimenters is required to do the overhaul or propose the alternative. That would be a ridiculous burden. Science doesn't work that way and you should know better. Yet I see you repeat this claim in a later post.
I'm not sure what your point is. The fact that the speed of light is not invariant is taught in first-year physics classes; the speed of light is affected by the medium through which it travels and the gravitational field. I seem to remember doing several experiments showing exactly that in the physics lab courses. I think, if you're going to discuss relativistic aspects of light, you need to define your terms a bit more precisely.
Again, your assertion that "None of the experimenters is required to do the overhaul or propose the alternative" is just plain wrong. If those experimenters set out to challenge an aspect of the general theory of relativity, they had an alternate explanation in mind long before they conducted the experiments (hint: it was written into their grant proposals). If they didn't have an alternate in mind, they wouldn't have been able to design experiments. Designing a hypothesis and corresponding null hypothesis are absolutely crucial to the research process, and no scientist would ever insist that they are dispensable. To my knowledge, the theory of general relativity has been refined, but is in no danger of being outright rejected.
Rejection of a theory does not bring research to a halt and in fact, has exactly the opposite effect. From the description of some work you did, you said you had to account for the effects of evolution on a cell line. Actually, you were accounting for the fact the cells would mutate. A mechanism, or theory explaining the reason for the mutation was irrelevant as long as you had a sound method based on experimental data to account for those mutations.
Outright rejection of a working theory--the goal of young-earth creationists--*would* bring all life sciences research to a halt. Remember--research isn't possible without formulating at least one hypothesis and null hypothesis. And those hypotheses and nulls are formulated based on the principles of the theory of evolution. Why do I have to account experimentally for the effects of mutation on my cell line (or my bacteria or yeast)? Because the theory of evolution tells me that evolution is a continuous process, whose effects we see in mutations. Put into the most simple form I can think of, evolution is the process by which the genome of a given population changes over time. This is not the theory; this is the process observed throughout history that the theory was devised to explain. If you want to show that evolution does not happen, you'll have to show that genomes (at the population level) do NOT change over time. That's impossible...
Quite the contrary. A mathematician is not required to have an understanding of the physics behind the development of the Field Equations to validate or invalidate a particular solution of those equations. In fact, the prediction of the existence of blacks holes was based on a purely mathematical solution.
Hmm, I'd really like to see the mathematician who can derive all of those equations describing physical phenomena without actually knowing anything about the physics. Although, I suppose it is possible to derive equations in the absence of a physical context; it still requires a scientist to recognize that the equations can be applied to a physical phenomenon.
It is astronomers, not physicist that are turning up the evidence to support the mathematical solution. Whether the astronomers have training is theoretical physics or not is irrelevant to their discoveries and only relevant when they try to explain the nature of what they observe. Biology is no different because if it were, it wouldn't be a science. Trying to shield a theory from scrutiny on the pretense you suggest is anti-scientiffic.
Astronomy is, as far as I can tell, a special branch of physics. I'm not going to get into a discussion of "theoretical" physics vs. some other type of physics, since I do not see how theories can be proposed in the absence of some sort of experimental testing. All of the "hard" sciences deal with physical objects and can be considered off-shoots of physics, whether we call them "biology", "chemistry", "molecular biology", "geology", "meteorology", or whatever.
And no one is trying to "shield a theory from scrutiny," as you put it. We're defending science from the anti-scientists who want to shut down life sciences research because--let's face it--they believe it goes against the will of God.
Considering you have no idea of who I am, my education, experience, interests and beliefs, you prove exactly what I stated, that you are a narrow minded person who, if you cannot defend the criticism of the science, attack the critic, making up whatever you want about them as you go. That is being devious and disingenuous.
The language you use and the assertions you have made about the scientific process tell me a great deal about your educational background. You have said that you program computers, and you mentioned working with engineers. I probably don't know much about your interests or life experience (although I could probably read through your posting history and find out, if I wanted), and your beliefs are pretty evident. I could be wrong, but I'm also guessing that you're a guy, based on the fact that physics and computer programming don't interest females nearly as much as they do males.
If the definition of a "narrow-minded" person is someone who has an unquenchable desire to know everything about the physical world and has devoted years to getting an education towards that end, I wonder what the definition of a "broad-minded" person would be...
I've yet to see a literal creationist present a bona fide scientific criticism of the theories that guide life sciences. I'll go out on a limb here by stating my belief that no such criticism exists.
Scientists have no obligation to go out wasting time, money, and resources just because Behe snipes at them. If Behe has a legitimate criticism of any facet of evolutionary theory, he is free to do the research and present his results to the scientific community.
When Stephen Jay Gould did just that, his criticism of the ToE ended up being incorporated as an important refinement of the theory.
Even very long term studies of bacterial population do not see new species arise, or any particular drift to do so. Given that bacterial generation occur a half million times faster than humans, (20 minutes vs 20 years) we have certainly been studying bacteria long enough to have seen them evolve into a new species. How much DNA change supposedly happened to the human line in 100,000 generations?
Pointing to two different fossils and claiming evolution is not proving it.
Now you are arguing like a child. Without a scientific explanation of the physics involved, noticing a pressure drop is only the beginning of a scientific explanation. Does the storm cause the pressure drop, or the pressure drop cause the storm? Sometimes the pressure drops and there is no storm. Noticing a pattern is the beginning of the work, not the end.
If they are the main brains behind "intelligent design" (ID) or creation "science" (CS), they are charlatans.
LOL. I expect better reasoning out of my ten year old.
. Given that evolutionary theory is the backbone of the life sciences, every aspect of that theory has been tested countless times.
That is just delusional. I'll be blunt: everything you have said so far indicates that your knowledge of science is based on literal, young-earth creationist literature. That hardly qualifies as a well-rounded science education.
Oh please. You have the same black and white standard for everyone: Either you agree with me and are educated and scientific or you disagree and are therefore an ignorant rube in need of education. The problem is not that science is so esoteric that we can't defend it to the masses.
Every time you post a link and I explain what I get from it you accuse me of pretending to be more educated than I am.
But our quiet and rational voices can't compete with the boisterous hubbub of quacks promising miracles.
Who's promising miracles? You keep claiming that evolution is the key to all our understanding.
At least you're admitting that noticing a pattern has some value. Now take the next step: if you notice the pattern, and then make a prediction based on what you've noticed, you have a hypothesis. And when the prediction is borne out consistently, and is borne out for other people, you have a pretty good theory.
This is what's been going on with the theory of evolution for the past 150 years. No, we don't have a complete scientific explanation for how every single thing works. I don't know if we have a complete explanation for why air pressure drops in advance of a storm--I know I couldn't tell you without looking it up. But while you stand on the sidelines saying, "Sometimes the pressure drops and there is no storm!" and asking which came first, the rest of the world is buying barometers and knowing when to get out of the rain.
You don't have an explanation for how anything works. Back to Behe -- he is asking for evolutionary science to go to the basic chemistry of life and provide a pathway for how it evolved.
Not only that, I have yet to hear a convincing prediction of evolution.
Sure they do. That's really just an insane thing to say. People here have told you that they have to make a special effort to control for the evolution of cells they're trying to study. DNA changes every generation. Traits get selected for, just like when we're breeding dogs. That's how it works, no matter how much you and Behe go "nuh-uh!"
I have yet to hear a convincing prediction of evolution.
I gave you 3. That you are not convinced is just testament to your denial. It's funny how the people who actually study this stuff and do it for a living are convinced, but not some random guy on an Internet forum. And you don't even have a criticism of any of it or an alternative to offer, you just stand there saying "not good enough!" It's really not very impressive.
Mutation or just trait selection, not evolution. Words mean something. I promise you no scientist goes to bed at night wondering what species will be in the dish tomorrow or even next year. (Unless it is some artificial boundary created just to generate a headline.)
Traits get selected for, just like when we're breeding dogs. That's how it works, no matter how much you and Behe go "nuh-uh!"
Trait selection works on already-present genes. No matter how many dogs I cross I am never going to get something that is not a dog.
Define "dog."
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
