Posted on 06/24/2005 4:07:28 AM PDT by 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.
You have a citation for this?
Here is a quick response from a biologist friend of mine to one of your earlier statements.
[quote] from R. Norman
But there is a more serious idea floating underfoot, here; the difference between physics and biology. Some people learned in school that science is equated with strategies useful in physics, especially mathematical physics where systems are perfect and simple: F = m a, E = I R,. These, indeed, are simple, elegant, short and sweet, just as your respondent desired. There are no "weasel words" like "can be", "often", "may", the ones he counted. Unfortunately Newton's laws only applies to systems large enough not to involve quantum mechanics and slow and stodgy enough not to involve relativity. Engineers have spent a great effort creating systems where wires have virtually no resistance and isolated discrete components have pure capacitance with negligible inductance or capacitance and still the law holds only for reasonable magnitude currents and a limited (although wide) range of frequencies.
Biology is very different and things just don't work as
deterministically. The notion of a "point mass" engaging in "purely elastic collisions" simply doesn't extend to nature. By abstracting all the complexities and variables and so "simplify" the system, you merely kill it completely. Many hotshot physicists have tried going into biology thinking that they could clean it up and make it "respectable" and quantitative. Some have become excellent biologists, learning what is truly involved, others simply get swallowed in the morass of variability that exists in the natural world. So biological relations (once you get past the purely biochemical and biophysical aspects of cell function) are expressed in different language and biological "laws" and "theories" are really of quite a different nature than those of physics.
Just tell you correspondent that "science does not equal physics".
[/quote]
You may be "driven nuts" by the comment that the evolution theory has major holes in it, but clearly it does.
You said: geology, paleontology, DNA studies, etc. etc. ALL point to evolution being the cause of the various species. But does it? Where are the fossils of the steps between the "original creature" and the blue whale? Where are the steps between the "original creature" in the "tree of life" and the hummingbird? How do you logically explain why a small creature would "evolve" into a blue whale and require tons a plankton a day to survive? I haven't heard good answers to these questions yet, and I am looking. Saying that these aren't good questions unless I can answer them myself isn't an answer, is it?
A well established theory such as evolution certainly does. It is corroborated by many interdependent disciplines, and of the many ways it might be shown to be incorrect, none have done so. This compares with you "shooting holes" in it. As I previously said, you can shoot holes in anything, so doing so with evolution means nothing.
String theory is a relatively new discipline compared to evolution, and is used by very few scientific fields. That your relatives work in string theory is in flux is irrelevant compared to evolution.
Sorry to say it, but geology, paleontology, DNA, as well as astronomy, physics, chemistry and more fields support evolution. Some of these fields have no direct evidence in the affirmative for evolution, but most of them could disprove it, for example by showing a young earth that had not existed long enough for evolution to occur.
Your claim to want "all the transitionals" in blue whales or something is typical creationist thinking. You set the goal post farther away on every new discovery of science, even while the folks at the Discovery Institute pushing ID discover nothing, and research nothing (except real scientists quotes).
Species exist. They got here somehow. Evolution has zero genuine competitors vying to explain that fact, despite the bravado of the creation scientists.
Religion sees the gain of knowledge as a threat, and is attempting to roll back knowledge beginning with evolution. If I were you, I would worry about religious leaders that depend on keeping their followers ignorant. How far back down the trail toward the dark ages where religion was all-powerful will they go?
There's another problem I have with this mindset. It is basically destructive. Rather than finding an affirmative theory to replace evolution (which, by the way, would make the discoverer world famous and rich), you seek merely to destroy evolution for some unstated agenda.
That is not the way of science, which seeks answers, not the destruction of answers.
Religion has targeted the destruction of evolution, and I suspect all of science, because it is a threat. Despite the fact that religion has no answers outside the emotional, it does have one serious advantage. Laziness. It is much easier to hold your ears and say "la-la-la-la I refuse to listen" than it is to actually study and learn.
This, plus the emotional attraction, puts religion as a difficult competitor for science. Normally I hold to the idea that "the truth will out". But I don't underestimate the laziness of humans, and the emotional attractiveness of religion, which may win out over the truth in the long run.
All kinds of scientists have ulterior motives to things. It's like archeologists who get grants because they have a thesis and then they go on a dig and manipulate the evidence to support their thesis rather than letting the evidence speak for itself. If we don't let people from all sides ask questions, how will we arrive at meaningful answers?
DNA does not necessarily support evolution because animals with homologous body features have different DNA. Fossils don't support evolution from an original creature. Also, as you know, some things that used to be presented as facts to prove the theory of evolution, turned out to be crap, like Haeckel's embryos. If people hadn't bothered to study and compare real embryos, then people would still be looking at the drawings from 150 years ago and accepting it. I think that's a big issue.
Do you read the work of scientists who question Darwin's theories? Or is it you who is blocking your ears and saying 'I don't need to listen because I already have all the answers?' Do you think it's wrong if schools present questions that scientists raise about the evolution theory along side teaching evolution? I think the more people who think and question, the better. Most Americans agree.
"A fair result can be obtained only by fully stating and balancing the facts and arguments on both sides of each question." -- Charles Darwin
There are people, plenty of them, who, rather than having normal careers in a society like ours, would rather rule a nation of ignorant mud-hut dwellers, and preen like a bunch of Ayatollahs about their alleged mastery of all things.
By the way, I think this is a very good definition of the "scientific method" from one of the links you gave me:
1. Observe some aspect of the universe.
2. Invent a tentative description, called a hypothesis, that is consistent with what you have observed.
3. Use the hypothesis to make predictions.
4. Test those predictions by experiments or further observations and modify the hypothesis in the light of your results.
5. Repeat steps 3 and 4 until there are no discrepancies between theory and experiment and/or observation.
I suspect most of the well-known, career creation "scientists." People like Hovind, Ham, Gish, and Morris come to mind, and there are probably a few thousand like them. I also have these suspicions about the people behind the Discovery Institute. But I don't know them, so I can't be certain of what their secret desires may be. Some may just be cahing in on some easy money, in the same way that people write books about the Bermuda Triangle.
That is not science. That is B.S.
Because virtually all people attacking evolution do so for religious purposes. Even if that is not your motivation, virtually all of the anti-evolution materials have been distributed by religious people, so you're on their side anyway.
I'm curious to learn more and I'm asking questions. I think shutting down people who ask questions reflects negatively on those who are rigid about evolution.
Asking questions is fine. Scientists do that all the time, which is exactly why this summit was held. To study the inside-baseball stuff about evolution, because more is being added to our understanding of it every day.
But you should know that you're joining a side that does not seek to add to knowledge, and does seek to destroy a branch of science for their own agenda. If you get offended by me lumping you in with them, sorry. You picked the bed to lay down in.
I brought up the physics stuff because creative minded people like Einstein didn't just stop at Newton, and why should anybody?
Newton wasn't "replaced" by Einstein. The knowledge of Newton was added to by Einstein. Again, this is what the conference in the article did. ADD to evolution, not seek to destroy it with no alternative theory that explains all of the existing evidence in a superior manner.
All kinds of scientists have ulterior motives to things. It's like archeologists who get grants because they have a thesis and then they go on a dig and manipulate the evidence to support their thesis rather than letting the evidence speak for itself....Also, as you know, some things that used to be presented as facts to prove the theory of evolution, turned out to be crap, like Haeckel's embryos.
Yes there are bad scientists. But they and their research don't last long. You give one example, and there are a couple more that creationists regularly trot out. But claiming that an entire branch of science with 10's of thousands of correct data points is bad because of a couple of bad apples is not the correct conclusion. And the interesting thing is that all the errors such as the embryos that creationists cite WERE DISCOVERED BY SCIENTISTS. Which discounts the claim that evolution studies are marred by any kind of deliberate fraud, or hiding of past errors.
DNA does not necessarily support evolution because animals with homologous body features have different DNA.
DNA not only passivly supports evolution, but shows it off in spades. I don't have time to look up the posts now, but freeper Ichumon (sp?) has some wonderful examples of retro-virus DNA that on very rare occasions ends up inserting itself into the genome and inherited by descendants. These viral fossils can be traced in humans, gorillas, monkeys, etc. as more and different DNA fossils are added and the species branches. Tracking which species has which viral DNA confirms the speciation that was concluded from bone fossil studies.
This viral DNA isn't the only marker. There are many other idiosyncrasies of DNA such as "stutters" etc. and studying these differences between primates and humans also confirms the speciation.
And the DNA clincher that I love. Vitamin C. It was predicted by evolution scientists that since virtually all mammals can manufacture Vitamin C, that large primates and humans that cannot will have a Vitamin C genome, but that it would not work for some reason (and didn't need to, because primates eat fruit). Recently, it was confirmed that large apes and man indeed do have a Vitamin C DNA sequence, but that it is "broken" in the same spot. Again confirming a common ancestor between primates and humans.
Do you read the work of scientists who question Darwin's theories? Or is it you who is blocking your ears and saying 'I don't need to listen because I already have all the answers?'
I would, if they weren't the most recent in a 150 year long chain of people who challenge evolution. Enough already. They've utterly failed to find any bit of evidence to falsify evolution, and they've utterly failed to offer anywhere near the same magnitude of evidence for another theory. If the majority of such anti-evolutionists didn't have the baggage of religous agendas, then I might consider it. But these guys are obviously seeking to "prove God" by forcing a creation story to be accepted by science specifically including God. Science cannot prove, or disprove God, so these agendas I reject.
Do you think it's wrong if schools present questions that scientists raise about the evolution theory along side teaching evolution? I think the more people who think and question, the better. Most Americans agree.
The people who "raise questions" aren't scientists. They're propagandists who gave up trying to do their own science back in the early "creation science" period of the early 80's. Therefore there is no reason to teach their utterly rejected ideas, least we teach innumerable other rejected scientific ideas. It's a waste of valuable education time.
I really don't care if most Americans agree that this junk should be taught. A significant number of Americans think that we didn't go to the moon. A significant number, maybe majority, of Americans think we've been visited by extraterrestrials. A significant number of Americans believe in Ghosts. Science is not a popularity contest for Joe-down-the-street to vote on. Science is what it is, and creation science/Intelligent design isn't science.
That is not science. That is B.S.
Species exist. There is an explanation for them. Evolution is the best explanation so far. Replace it or it stands.
Let me add to that. Yes, there are a handful of ways that evolution could be "falsified" without coming up with another theory. But the challenges of the last 150 years have not falsified it. And since there are no competing theories that explain all existing evidence, evolution stands.
People not only believe strange things, but they reserve their greatest passions for the strangest.
That's a point I made earlier (might have been another thread)
Religion depends on ignorance to survive. If the rock worshiper knew that the rock was just a piece of lava, there wouldn't be a religion or priest in existence.
I used to think that I could convince creationists that Genesis and evolution did not conflict. Because I believed that.
But it DOES conflict. Because someone who understands enough science to understand evolution and the ways of astrophyics is someone who probably won't buy into Noahs ark or Jonah.
Religion requires ignorance. And some religious leaders are starting down the path to dumb down the people so that they can gain power.
It's no different than the democrats that refuse to teach high schoolers about how the economy really works and thus dumb down the population enough that they'll vote (D).
Which is why the theory of evolution is so strong. Steps 3 and 4 are continuously being repeated by scientists and the theory is improving daily.
And why should that be surprising? The person or persons who wrote Genesis may have been very clever, but it really would be too much to ask that they know everything about the world that we know today, or that Darwin knew in his day.
Religion requires ignorance.
Or at least a suspension of disbelief. If you can believe the claims of most religions, it hard to understand why you couldn't believe almost anything at all.
Your argument remains B.S. Species is a concept.
"....Species is a concept."
So is green. So what?
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.