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.
The The Tree of Life isn't a premise; it's a conclusion, based on the evidence, that all life is related by common descent. Let's hear how you would arrange that evidence to support a different conclusion. We're very open-minded around here. I'd like to know your views. Just wondering.
But the stars have changed. The constellations are no longer show the same designs as they did to the ancients. Stella Polaris used to reside in Draco before she moved to the Little Dipper; the Pointer Sisters didn't in those days.
Not that it has anything to do with a world summit on evolution, but if you are interested you can read more about Dr. Herrmann's view of "Holy Ghost verification" here. As I mentioned on another thread, this process is apparently, and self-admittedly, limited to a particular set of observers.
BEFORE the clepsydra had bound the days
Man tethered Change to his fixed star, and said:
"The elder races, that long since are dead,
Marched by that light; it swerves not from its base
Though all the worlds about it wax and fade."
When Egypt saw it, fast in reeling spheres,
Her Pyramids shaft-centred on its ray
She reared and said: "Long as this star holds sway
In uninvaded ether, shall the years
Revere my monuments--" and went her way.
The Pyramids abide; but through the shaft
That held the polar pivot, eye to eye,
Look now--blank nothingness! As though Change laughed
At man's presumption and his puny craft,
The star has slipped its leash and roams the sky.
Yet could the immemorial piles be swung
A skyey hair's-breadth from their rooted base,
Back to the central anchorage of space,
Ah, then again, as when the race was young,
Should they behold the beacon of the race!
Of old, men said: "The Truth is there: we rear
Our faith full-centred on it. It was known
Thus of the elders who foreran us here,
Mapped out its circuit in the shifting sphere,
And found it, 'mid mutation, fixed alone."
Change laughs again, again the sky is cold,
And down that fissure now no star-beam glides.
Yet they whose sweep of vision grows not old
Still at the central point of space behold
Another pole-star: for the Truth abides.
The theory hasn't stagnated, thus no explanation would be helpful.
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. Darwin's detractors said, in effect: "Very nice theory, Mr. Darwin, but the earth isn't old enough for all that evolving, so that shows you're wrong." Well, so much for that objection. (Except for the YEC gang, but they're totally nuts.)
Very nice. Where does it come from?
"Old Pole Star" by Edith Wharton.
The basics of science entail intelligence excercised upon an intelligbile universe. The basics of evolution entail one reasonable explanation among many as to how an intelligible universe has behaved over an unobserved, unspecified period of time. Science does not have the capacity to demonstrate the cause and effect that may or may not have produced a biological history beginning with living cells and ending with the current variety of modern man.
And as I mentioned on another thread, that is exactly why it isn't science.
Mad Magazine once printed a picture of the constellation Constellation. Or was it the Constellation constellation?
I stand by my assessement.
Science is definitely interested in making distinctions. Science begins with the observer. Not all observers are given the same evidence and tools for observation. Science is not like a world-wide church where only those who have the same experience are counted as "scientists."
Permit me a minor modification, inspired by creationism. The last two verses are unchanged:
Before the gods of old were known,I don't know what it means, except that I'm bored.
Before the pyramids had grown,
Before the Tigris and Euphrates thrived,
Before Stonehenge was contrived,
Man worshiped Uranus, mighty Uranus!Yet could the immemorial piles be swung,
A skyey hair's-breadth from their rooted base,
Back to the central anchorage of space,
Ah, then again, as when the race was young,
Should they behold the beacon of the race!Of old, men said: "The Truth is there: we rear,
Our faith full-centred on it. It was known,
Thus of the elders who foreran us here,
Mapped out its circuit in the shifting sphere,
And found it, 'mid mutation, fixed alone."
This is the assertion that many who object to teaching evolution as fact are making: that evolutionist don't want to let go of the theory of evolution because they don't have something to replace it with. Arguments that scientists in the documentary "Icons of Evolution" make seem reasonable to me and worth further investigation. Maybe you have answers for all that, which I'd be interested to hear. To me, the tree of life looks extremely primative and silly.
You are right about science not being like a world-wide church, however. Once can belong to any church, or even none at all, and still be a scientist. On the other hand, your idea of science seems to encompass the concept that only certain members of certain churches are capable of detecting ... something ... and that's science. It's not. Science can understand and use concepts and techniques whether they originated in the United States, India, or Japan (to name just a few of the possibilities). Your idea appears to imply that this isn't really the case or shouldn't be the case. So a vedic scientist could use vedic concepts (which, if attempted by a Baptist, would be useless), and a Dutch Reformed scientist would have at his disposal ideas and concepts that would work only for someone who is Dutch Reformed.
You confuse religion with science.
Father's words, my studies, and my prayers convinced me that I should devote my life to destroying Darwinism, just as many of my fellow Unificationists had already devoted their lives to destroying Marxism. When Father [Rev. Sun Myung Moon] chose me (along with about a dozen other seminary graduates) to enter a Ph.D. program in 1978, I welcomed the opportunity to prepare myself for battle.Icons of Evolution, by Jonathan Wells. Wells is a Senior fellow at the Discovery Institute.
If you're serious about wanting to learn, try The List-O-Links.
What is it the Moonies have against the theory of evolution, anyway? Is this like Scientology's antipathy for mainstream psychiatry? "Professional competition"?
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.