Evolution Looking into the 21st Century [Galapagos World Summit]

Universidad San Francisco de Quito via Newswise ^ | 23 June 2005 | Staff

[PatrickHenry]

USFQ (Universidad San Francisco de Quito) hosted the World Summit on Evolution from June 9-12 at the island of San Cristóbal in the Galapagos Archipelago. This one-of-a-kind conference brought together the world’s most prominent biologists to discuss and debate what is evolution, the different fields of study, and what are the future horizons for evolution biology. This conference was unique because it compromised all subfields of evolution from microbes to humans, plus participants came from all around the world (more than 20 countries represented).

The format was also special because it consisted of a presentation given by a speaker followed by a talk given by a commentator in the same field. Once all speakers and commentators presented their work a discussion was opened to the public. This procedure created a unique mechanism of feedback and interaction among all participants.

During the various sessions speakers, commentators and session chairs debated old and new ideas. In some cases participants called for a radical reorganization of approaches to their subfield, i.e., sexual selection (Roughgarden) and genetic drift (Provine). Others such as developmental biologists (Wagner) talked about how they are able to answer centuries-old questions of morphological evolution using genetic techniques. Other ideas debated were: early evolution (Lazcano, Mexico), lateral gene transfer in microbes, selection in natural populations (Peter and Rosemary Grant, USA), selection at multiple levels (Avilés, Ecuador), and symbiogenesis (Margulis, USA).

Graduate students were also an integral part of the conference. Students from outside Ecuador were chosen from lists submitted by the speakers, among them six Ecuadorean students were included. Funding provided by the National Science Foundation (NSF) made it possible for more than two dozen students attend the conference and present their recent research in a poster session.

The success of this conference lies in the broad impacts it will offer the world regarding evolution theory, research and its diffusion. All speakers and commentators agreed the need for a dissemination of all the ideas and research presented at the event. Carlos Montúfar (USFQ) and Antonio Lazcano are leading the group that will edit a volume containing the proceedings of this meeting. As a corollary, many scientists including the NSF made a call for more diffusion of evolution theory in US schools to combat the rise of Intelligent Design Theory. As Michael Shermer, who gave a vivid and controversial talk on the rhetoric that this movement employs, put it, “IDT [Intelligent Design Theory] is nothing more than creationism under the guise of pseudo-science.”

As a summary of the impacts of this conference it is clear the need for future conferences on evolution that will address specific problems in evolution biology, as well as developing strategies to deal with creationism and Intelligent Design Theory in schools and at a public level. Furthermore, several academic institutions, among them the University of Illinois, sealed cooperation agreements with USFQ (GAIAS) to do research in the islands.

A video documentary of this conference is being produced by John Feldman and Hummingbird Films with cooperation of the College of Communication and Contemporary Arts of USFQ. This documentary to be released in the US by the end of this year gathers interviews with scientists such as Will Provine, Richard Michod, Frank Sulloway, Antonio Lazcano, Peter and Rosemary Grant, Geoff McFadden, Joan Roughgarden, Daniel Dennett, and Laura Katz who discuss the major questions of evolution from their subfields.

Rarely have so many experts been gathered to discuss their views and projections within an area of study. It is expected that this documentary will become a long lasting document of the state of evolution at the beginning of the 21st century.

The World Evolution Summit 2005 is a project of Universidad San Francisco de Quito (USFQ) and its Galapagos Academic Institute for the Arts and Sciences (GAIAS), established in 2002. This meeting was made possible thanks to the collaboration of private businesses such as OCP Ecuador S. A., Hilton Hotels, Metropolitan Touring, Time Warner Cable, Skeptic Magazine, and public and cultural institutions such as the National Science Foundation (NSF), UNESCO, WQLN, NPR, Ecuadorian Government, Ecuadorean Ministry of Tourism, and the Consul of Ecuador in Turkey.

[Fester Chugabrew]

Science depends on all observers using the same evidence and tools to get the same results.

How convenient of you to formulate your own definition and understanding of science. How inconvenient that so many observers have arrived at the conclusion, based upon solid evidence, that intelligent design was involved not only with the creation of the universe, but is also responsible for sustaining it to this very moment. Since their evidence and observations are not in alignment with your own presuppositions they are suddenly deemed "not scientific, and "not capable of understanding science."

That tune's been whistling in the dark for 150 years. Reckon it will continue.

[malakhi]

solid evidence, that intelligent design was involved not only with the creation of the universe, but is also responsible for sustaining it to this very moment.

What evidence, let alone "solid evidence", exists that 'intelligent design' is, right at this moment, sustaining the universe in existence?

[b_sharp]

"I don't know. I'm a Feces myself."

Born late in the year were you?

[Fester Chugabrew]

What evidence, let alone "solid evidence" . . .

Perhaps you are floating in space. Perhaps the fundamental elements in your neighborhood are non-existent. As for myself, I was born into a universe that demonstrates logic, order, purposeful aggregations of matter, and communication of the same to my senses. It goes against the grain of logic to assume these things were formed by, or are driven by, unguided processes.

[b_sharp]

"To me, the tree of life looks extremely primative and silly."

Well, if it looks extremely primitive and silly then it could not possibly be accurate could it?

If you have a better method if diagramming a nested hierarchy I suggest you present it here for all to see.

[b_sharp]

"Perhaps you are floating in space. Perhaps the fundamental elements in your neighborhood are non-existent. As for myself, I was born into a universe that demonstrates logic, order, purposeful aggregations of matter, and communication of the same to my senses. It goes against the grain of logic to assume these things were formed by, or are driven by, unguided processes."

What logic would that be? Care to spell it out?

[ChessExpert]

I have learned many things from these posts. Post 65 taught me that Christians are liars - "Snake oil Salesman. Everyone of you." I think this may have directed at you. I've learned that Jonathan Wells and his arguments should be ignored, no matter how persuasive, because of his religious beliefs (post 99).

From the intensity of the answers to your posts, it seems clear that the fact of evolution has been established. But there remains a theoretical question. Is the massive fossil record replete with transitional forms (Darwin, Dawkins), or does it indicate stasis and sudden appearance (Gould)? Of course, this question doesn't really matter anyway, as it is merely theoretical, and might take away from an established fact.

[longshadow]

Since I am only janatorial [sic] staff,

Well, obviously you're not a proofreader.....

;-)

[ChessExpert]

You go girl!

or to put it differently,

I think you made valid points in a reasoned way. Don't let these joksters intimidate you. Many of the posted replies are designed to intimidate rather than to illuminate. Reason and fact may lead toward, or away from, evolution - only you can decide. I can see that you will remain resolute in thinking for yourself.

[Cinnamon Girl]

Why does the answer from so many who are married to evolution, when questioned, have to be "well where's your better idea?" Is it not possible for holes to be poked in a theory without offering an alternative? Perhaps by first accepting that there are holes in a theory, one can then be open to looking at new possibilities.

[Cinnamon Girl]

I'll look into the links you offered. Hopefully, they will address some of the interesting questions the scientists on the documentary "Icons of Evolution" raised.

[js1138]

I think the principal point to be made about the age of the earth is not that it somehow "proves" evolution, but that it was originally raised as an objection to evolution.

It's a matter of semantics. Darwin's theory required the earth to be several hundred years old. That could be rephrased to say evolution predicted an earth at least that old -- the first accurate prediction based on an observed rate of change. Other predictions -- based on the saltiness of the oceans or the gravitational collapse of the sun -- were off by great margins.

[WhiteKnight]

Perhaps by first accepting that there are holes in a theory, one can then be open to looking at new possibilities.

Great question, but a better one would be; what is the "theory of evolution"? So far b_sharp hasn't been able to (or won't) produce the "theory of evolution". I was hoping he would on a previous thread, but to no avail. In other words, why bother punching holes in something that isn't even good science. The simple fact is, the "theory of evolution" does not pass the rigors of the scientific method and is therefore bad science.

At your service, WhiteKnight

My apologizes for sticking my nose into your post

[ChessExpert]

"Darwin's theory required the earth to be several hundred years old."

I suppose you meant "several hundred million years old."

I believe Crick (of Watson and Crick fame) currently thinks life must have originated off earth, as he believes there was not enough time for life to originate on the earth.

You've clearly given this some thought. If dating methods differ, what does this imply about dating methods? Do you think there is a reliable way to date the earth? If so, what? And how old? I'd be curious to know your views.

[js1138]

Several hundred, several hundred million -- what's the difference among friends?

[PatrickHenry]

It's a matter of semantics. Darwin's theory required the earth to be several hundred years old. That could be rephrased to say evolution predicted an earth at least that old -- the first accurate prediction based on an observed rate of change.

True. One could look at the age of the earth as either a failed objection to the theory, or as a successful prediction of the theory. Pretty good either way. The most important thing, I think, is that the theory is consistent with other fields of science. Including things learned in fields that didn't even exist at the time he developed the theory.

[ChessExpert]

Modern dogma requires that we believe in Darwin and reject racism. This may not be so easy. Consider the alternate title of The Origin of the Species:

The Origin of the Species by Means of Natural Selection
or
The Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life

"Favoured Races"? Tut-tut. If Darwin anticipated the scientific racism of the 1920s and 1930s, perhaps this too could be considered confirmation of his theories.

[RightWingAtheist]

What logic would that be?

Illogic, of course :)

[TAquinas]

"As someone who is open-minded on the subject, can you tell me one aspect of the Theory of Evolution which has been scientifically verified, and can be be stated to be true beyond a shadow of a doubt."

None. Evolution is pseudo science with the ultimate agenda to kill God and, hence, Western culture.

[Dataman]

What logic would that be?

Fester, should I? Naaa. It's not fair.