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.
Can blind people see green?
And that is relevant because...?
Another service of Darwin Central? That is quite funny.
Gosh, you really ought to add me to your ping list. I keep stumbling onto these threads a day (longer even) or so later after the initial posts. Go ahead please.
Truth is, I have not made up my mind concerning the issues, and I likely will not soon. I do appreciate the debate though.
And your last paragraph about people believing in alien beings doesn't really relate to what I said. There are scientists who raise questions about evolution, and I don't believe that Americans who believe in presenting those questions in school are on par with the tiny group of Art Bell listeners who believe we didn't go to the moon.
They both start with an "A" so using "whole word" reading skills, you wouldn't be far off.
Can you name a scientist, trained in biology (any specialty) who has published a peer reviewed paper questioning any of the basic tenets of evouion?
They only do that because the vast majority of anti-evolutionists cite Genesis as their prefered replacement to evolution. Science doesn't concern itself with religion, but the majority of anti-evolution people are religiously motivated. If you're the exception, great. But you've lumped yourself in with religious people, so, well, what can I say.
A question I have regarding similarities in DNA is: does that mean that all the animals came from the same original source? Or does it just mean that living creatures must have certain components to allow them to live on earth?
No. The reason is that retrovirus DNA inserts itself in any old random place in host DNA. The fact that we've inherited these fossilized remnants of virus DNA in exactly the same position as monkey and ape DNA means that it originated from a single infection in a single individual millions of years ago. No other explanation (other than religious) can explain it.
And your last paragraph about people believing in alien beings doesn't really relate to what I said.
What it relates to is that you mentioned something (to paraphrase) about the majority of Americans wanting to teach alternatives to evolution. My point is that Americans believe all kinds of stupid stuff like alien beings, yet we don't teach it in school just because people believe it's true.
Also, I will have to read more about the retrovirus because what you said doesn't support evolution, in my opinion. It still operates on the assumption that if DNA is similar it must be from the same exact source. To me, that is a leap and the "missing links" haven't been found. Why stop with apes, though? If every creature came from the same original one, then aren't humans just as related to lizards, ultimately?
You figure it out.
"...Also, I will have to read more about the retrovirus because what you said doesn't support evolution, in my opinion. It still operates on the assumption that if DNA is similar it must be from the same exact source. To me, that is a leap and the "missing links" haven't been found.
When both the arrangement _and_ the location are too similar (they don't have to be identical) the odds are very much in favor of a common source.
That's how we recognize plagiarism. The word "four" is not likely to be recognized as plagiarized. If I write "Four score and twenty three apples jumped off a tree", guess what jumps to mind? Even with the change at positon 4 ("twenty" instead of "seven").
But all of the word have meaning in human converstion so it's not impossible for the phrase to have been spontaneously generated.
Fortunately, thanks to Lewis Carroll, we have a parallel to the viral insertion. He created some words and arranged them into phrases that have no prior independent meaning in human discourse.
Thus, if I say: Yesterday, when 'twas brillig, we can pretty much assume common source.
Or, we can assume "God (ID) did it. If we do that, however, there is no point in furher research because there is no significance to the finding, or to any finding. If the apple fell off a tree, well, God (ID) did it and it can change at any time. Silly? Yes, but the only reason for the hysteria over the recognition of evolutionary processes is that some people have a faith so weak that they can't get past those first few words of the Bible. If they are not literally correct, in the modern interpretation of the words, they the whole Bible goes out the window.
There is a less benign interpretation of the anti-science position but I'll omit that for now.
I'm not sure what you're talking about with "anti-science." Can you recommend a good source to explain how the original living creature came about? Michael Behe, a biochemist (who has been published in peer reviewed publications) believes there is evidence to support decent from a common ancestor but I think his question is "how does a complex biochemical system achieve its function?" So that's another two questions I have: how did the original common ancestor come about and how did it happen that all these extremely varied complex systems stemmed from it?
In other words, you can't answer those questions and haven't found good explanations? Behe's book Darwin's Black Box isn't outside his field. Saying that the origin of living creatures is outside the scope of evolution doesn't really make sense since Darwin's "tree of life" is based on the premise that there was an original creature. That seems like a tremendous shortcoming and surely it has been addressed somewhere. Also, I would like to read a good explanation of how these "accidental variants" came about since they are so many and varied and that they constitute a huge amount of "accidents" to make a snake, a sloth, a chicken and blue whale for example. These are real questions which must have been or should be answered through scientific method. Otherwise, they are big holes in Darwin's theory as far as I can tell.
!. The origin of living matter from non-living (if that's how it happened) would, as a scientific study be more in the fields of geology and biochemistry than biology. It's certainly not a part of evolution, never was and never will be. Evolution has to do with how species differentiate, a more than large enough field as it is.
2. Behe has no credentials in evolutionary biology that I am aware of. Would you like a link to a critique of his work?
3. The huge number of "accidents" involves a huge number of years and a huge number of organisms. When an environmental niche opens up tremendous differentiation can occur in a very short (geologic) time...then the less well adapted die out.
All responses postponed until I get back from work.
Also, you asked for a scientist who has been published in a "peer reviewed publication." Behe has been. You didn't say that then most scientists who espouse the theory of evolution have to agree with what he says. Obviously, the majority of scientists don't and won't. Does that nullify the question? I think questions should be answered, not "debunked." Can you personally explain how a blue whale accidentally happens? Wouldn't it be a more pragmatic species if it were smaller? How is being huge a logical adaptation? Where would I find these answers?
If I gave you a link providing information on the evolution of whales, would it make any difference to you?
I certainly won't disagree with you, current taxonomy is part of the reason creationists keep harping on the lack of speciation. Unfortunately, there are only a limited number of ways of visually showing nested hierarchy and trees seem to impart the most accurate information. I include cladograms in this since they are just, more or less, modified trees.
"You just don't see Lumpophyus earlius or Squiffodontus confusus on these "trees."
I not really sure I would like to see these 'transitionals' anywhere but on the same branch as Plene caecus.
What do you think I'm asking for sources to read for?
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.