Criticism Of Evolution Can't Be Silenced

Eagle Forum ^ | August 16, 2006 | Mrs. Schlafly

[jla]

Criticism Of Evolution Can't Be Silenced

---

by Phyllis Schlafly, August 16, 2006

---

The liberal press is gloating that the seesaw battle for control of the Kansas Board of Education just teetered back to pro-evolutionists for the second time in five years. But to paraphrase Mark Twain, reports of the death of the movement to allow criticism of evolution are grossly exaggerated.

In its zeal to portray evolution critics in Kansas as dumb rural fundamentalists, a New York Times page-one story misquoted Dr. Steve Abrams (the school board president who had steered Kansas toward allowing criticism of evolution) on a basic principle of science. The newspaper had to correct its error.

The issue in the Kansas controversy was not intelligent design and certainly not creationism. The current Kansas standards state: "To promote good science, good pedagogy and a curriculum that is secular, neutral and non-ideological, school districts are urged to follow the advice provided by the House and Senate Conferees in enacting the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001."

This "advice," which the Kansas standards quote, is: "The Conferees recognize that quality science education should prepare students to distinguish the data and testable theories of science from religious or philosophical claims that are made in the name of science. Where topics are taught that may generate controversy (such as biological evolution), the curriculum should help students to understand the full range of scientific views that exist, why such topics may generate controversy, and how scientific discoveries can profoundly affect society."

The newly elected school board members immediately pledged to work swiftly to restore a science curriculum that does not subject evolution to criticism. They don't want students to learn "the full range of scientific views" or that there is a "controversy" about evolution.

Liberals see the political value to teaching evolution in school, as it makes teachers and children think they are no more special than animals. Childhood joy and ambition can turn into depression as children learn to reject that they were created in the image of God.

The press is claiming that the pro-evolution victory in Kansas (where, incidentally, voter turnout was only 18 percent) was the third strike for evolution critics. Last December a federal judge in Dover, Pennsylvania, prohibited the school from even mentioning Intelligent Design, and in February, the Ohio board of education nixed a plan to allow a modicum of critical analysis of evolution.

But one strikeout does not a ball game win. Gallup Polls have repeatedly shown that only about 10 percent of Americans believe the version of evolution commonly taught in public schools and, despite massive public school indoctrination in Darwinism, that number has not changed much in decades.

Intelligent judges are beginning to reject the intolerant demands of the evolutionists. In May, the Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit overturned the decision by a Clinton-appointed trial judge to prohibit the Cobb County, Georgia, school board from placing this sticker on textbooks: "Evolution is a theory, not a fact, regarding the origin of living things. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully, and critically considered."

Fortunately, judges and politicians cannot control public debate about evolution. Ann Coulter's new book, "Godless: The Church of Liberalism," has enjoyed weeks on the New York Times best-seller list.

Despite bitter denunciations by the liberals, funny thing, there has been a thundering silence about the one-third of her book in which she deconstructs Darwinism. She calls it the cosmology of the Church of Liberalism.

Coulter's book charges that evolution is a cult religion, and described how its priests and practitioners regularly treat critics as religious heretics. The Darwinists' answer to every challenge is to accuse their opponents of, horrors, a fundamentalist belief in God.

Although the liberals spent a lot of money to defeat members of the Kansas school board members on August 1, they are finding it more and more difficult to prop up Darwinism by the censorship of criticism. The polite word for the failure of Darwinism to prove its case is gaps in the theory, but Ann Coulter's book shows that dishonesty and hypocrisy are more accurate descriptions.

Evolutionists are too emotionally committed to face up to the failure of evidence to support their faith, but they are smart enough to know that they lose whenever debate is allowed, which is why they refused the invitation to present their case at a public hearing in Kansas. But this is America, and 90 percent of the public will not remain silenced.

---

Further Reading: Evolution

Eagle Forum • PO Box 618 • Alton, IL 62002 • phone: 618-462-5415 • fax: 618-462-8909 • eagle@eagleforum.org

Read this article online: http://www.eagleforum.org/column/2006/aug06/06-08-16.html

[dread78645]

It is interesting that Ms. Coulter points out in her book the problem with the "Cambrian explosion" where we have all this fossilized evidence of these complex organisms, but nothing pre-dating this period showing the change happening to get there.

Spriggina floundersi

Parvancorina minchami

yet-to-be published "soft-bodied trilobite"

Ann Coulter needs to avoid the creationist websites. They'll rot her brain.

[Dante Alighieri]

"So I simply challenged you to live up to your statement that this was obvious and irrefutable, I have quoted from the 'opponents' of this view, and I have Googled for most of the information on opposing views. (If I can find one biologist who disagrees with you, you are wrong, I found them and you question my honesty. Interesting, not attractive, but interesting.)"

The only quotation from biologists I see was from Dawkins and William Provine. (http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1684487/posts?page=298#298

How is that if you find 'one biologist' I am wrong? You also seem to challenge that most scientists accept evolution. The '97 Gallup survey concluded that approximately 95% of scientists in the U.S. (where the controversy is centered) accept evolution and in '87, it was concluded that about 99.84516~ % of scientists in the related life science and earth science fields accept evolution. There is no controversy in the scientific realm. (http://www.religioustolerance.org/ev_publi.htm)

"It is interesting to note that quoting from a source that you referred me to by saying I was using their methodology was reviled as basically 'Bad form' I posted opposing views and was almost immediately attacked with questions about my intelligence, and honesty. I have never found a subject which creates groups so willing to impute base motives to the opposition as this fight seem to engender on both sides."

I questioned your honesty because you posted clearly false information. As for your intelligence, this is due to the idea that I cannot understand how a person cannot look at the evidence and not support common descent.

"Most is not all, under pressure, you retreat from your stated position."

No. I made an error and I admit it. Most estimates put it around circa 12 MYA but the length remains in debate.

"Strange, neither you (I assume) nor I (I admit) have actually studied the rocks in question. Since neither of us has direct evidence, we are both going off of what we read."

Non-sequitur. You did not respond to the evidence in question and instead proposed a red herring. By your logic, when scientists go out to do research, when they cite a paper in support of their research, they should entirely re-do the research to verify that, and in turn, re-do the research cited by the supporting paper, and...

"Then in the same post you use that tactic your self to try to silence criticism."

How?

"Having a knowledge of Hybridization, I have looked over your articles about the plants and concluded they would be easy to fabricate, and or simply be mistaken about. Since the 'Science' of evolution is replete with fakes, and falsified evidence (Piltdown man, peppered moths, embryo drawings, etc) I hope you will understand my skepticism when presented with something I consider too pat and yet easy to fake."

Red herring. You've moved onto speculation. Also, concerning Piltdown, while indeed a hoax, I wonder why do you seem to present it as if the fraud itself defeats evolution? If anything, the exposure of Piltdown was a vindication of human evolution as Piltdown completely threw off research in human evolution for a while as biologists were incapable of deriving a phylogenetic tree from Piltdown.

The moth experiments weren't fakes. What are you talking about? Are you referring to the photographs?

Haeckel was discredited, although, amusingly enough, it remains factual that vertebrate embryos are similar.

"So, which is it are you a scientist, or a philosopher, degrees in both? How do you know fossils exist? They could be a figment of your imagination, or I could, or Free Republic, computers… Hey, where’d every thing go…

Descartes walks into a bar, the bartender asks hey buddy, want a beer, Descartes responds I think not (poof!)… Nothing follows /Humor...

I understand you philosophy, I once would have agreed with it, once. If you won’t admit that you exist, well, there is no point in talking to someone who does not exist, and in absence of an opposing view, I guess I have to conclude that I (being the only remaining voice) am correct. Dang, I was just asking questions, and now I am having a pointless discussion with myself. (Again /Humor)"

I'm not arguing that. I'm just pointing out that you're using the solipsistic argument incorrectly. I'm no solipsist; just pointing out the argument is only applicable to the self, not others.

Science does not hold that any discovery it makes, any research conducted, et cetra is infalliable. In that, it's correct. If it was completely correct, then it is not subject to change. However, science doesn't do that do allow for self-correction and change.

"ID never said it did."

That's precisely the problem. New theories must encompass previous theories to explain why predictions made by previous theories were accurate. That ID doesn't do that is one of the criteria it fails in being a scientific theory.

"The point is saying 'this is science, so you must agree' falls apart when closely followed by 'but we have to keep our options open, because we’ve been wrong a lot.' (It’s just not a good argument, don’t use it.) BTW you get that I’m laughing a lot while writing this, right? (One of my friends pointed out that if he didn’t know me he wouldn’t get half of my jokes here, I should use more humor tags…)"

You misunderstand. This relates directly to encompassing a theory. I completely agree that the theory is arguable and debatable and should be debated. But, what I find that I cannot understand is how people can deny evolution all together. Quantum mechanics and relativity did not deny Newtonian physics all together. That so much evidence exists for evolution in the sense of common descent (the mechanisms are debatable) is precisely what biologists agree with. Common descent is accepted, the way it happened is arguable.

"This is a common statement made by evolutionists that gives opponents a toe hold, don’t use it. To a non evolutionist, it sounds like “I can’t prove it because my proof didn’t fossilize like everything else, and give me more time, I can find my homework. All rolled into one excuse."

No, it isn't an excuse. This is precisely what to expect from the fossil record. Of course fossilization is necessarily a rare event and we should not expect complete species to species transitions. However, sometimes we do find particularly impressive preservations, such as reptile-bird transitions or cetacean transitions.

"There is a tree that was found diagonally crossing several million years worth of strata."

Since when are polystrate fossils problems with geology? Geologists understand that the rate of sedimentation is not constant and rapid sedimentation occurs. This is a fallacious argument. (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/polystrate/trees.html)

"There is fossil with a human foot print super imposed on a dinosaur foot print"

Paluxy? The so-called human footprints turned out be either dinosaur footprints or the effects of geology. (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/paluxy.html)

"there just isn’t enough time for all the mutations necessary to happen in the time they would have to (Precambrian to Cambrian since that has been brought up here)."

Wrong. You amischaracterize evolution. Evolution is not a brute-force random search where random keys are entered until *one* gets it. No. Variation is introduced by mutations, genetic drift, gene flow, recombination, duplication, et cetra and selection then converges upon those traits.

"I know, I know, they did so there was, and the fittest are what survive because they are more fit and you know this because they survived…"

Strawman. Survival of the fittest was a term invented by *Herbet Spencer* and isn't a biological term.

"Genetic Mutation is random, and you get way more bad mutations. The more you deny it the more stupid you look."

Wrong. Most mutations are neutral. Every time your DNA replicates, you have an average of 4 mutations occuring. Some are corrected, others are not. Do you actually think that all those mutations are harmful?

"Um, ID posited that the so-called Junk DNA would have a purpose, and now we are discovering that some of it is used after all. (Some Non-Coding DNA is used by the Coding DNA kind of like a DLL is used by multiple programs as I understand it.) You assume that Non-Coding DNA proves Evolution, IDers assume that we just don’t know what everything is for yet. On this I would have to side with them since they have a chance of being proven right, while if you insist it’s junk you will not be looking, and therefore are less likely to learn anything at all about it"

The evidence suggest against that:

"At a recent debate with me Dr. Gish cited a review in Science entitled "Mining treasures from 'junk' DNA" (263:608, 1994), seeming to imply that this review suggests functions for pseudogenes and retroposons that would be consistent with the creationist view that they were designed to function similarly in similar species. In fact, this review discusses evidence for possible functions of centromeric and telomeric repetitive sequences, minisatellites, introns and 3' untranslated regions. It mentions pseudogenes and retroposons but makes no suggestion that these particular elements have function, so this review offers no argument against the points made in this essay. Nevertheless, since there have been other speculations about possible functions for DNA outside gene coding sequences, it is worth considering why scientists generally accept the notion that most of this DNA is junk.

First, we know several mechanisms by which DNA length can be increased through genetic accidents such as DNA duplications and insertion of retroposons, which have been observed in the lab or occurring in humans without apparent effects; so it is reasonable to suppose that these mechanisms operated in the past to increase genome size without affecting function. There appears to be little or no selective pressure to reduce the size of vertebrate nuclear genomes; and there is no apparent mechanism to selectively eliminate useless DNA. Large deletions that eliminate functional DNA are selected against. These observations would predict the accumulation of useless DNA as the result of random genetic accidents, so when we see DNA that seems non-functional, we shouldn't necessarily assume that it has function that we don't understand.

Second, when DNA sequence is compared between species like human versus mouse, sequences that are known to have function -- coding sequences of genes in particular -- are found to be highly similar, consistent with selective pressure that weeds out individuals that have deleterious mutations in these functional regions. Conversely, DNA regions with no known function -- e.g. non-coding sequences between genes -- generally behave as if they are under no selective pressure, that is they apparently accumulate mutations at a much higher rate so there is little sequence conservation between distantly related species. As an exception that probes the rule, comparisons of non-coding sequence across species occasionally detect "islands" of short conserved sequence in non-coding regions. Some of these have turned out to correspond to regulatory regions like promoter or enhancer elements that control when a nearby gene is expressed. An example of such an "island" conserved between rabbit, mouse and human was discovered in my own lab [Emorine et al., Nature 304:447, 1983]; it turned out to represent an important enhancer. These kinds of regulatory regions generally take up much less DNA than the coding sequences of the genes they regulate, so they cannot represent a likely function for most non-coding DNA. The good correlation between function and sequence conservation lends support to the idea that most poorly conserved sequences do not have function. However, it should be noted that for most of the "islands" of conserved sequence in DNA between genes (Shabalina et al., Trends Genet 17:373, 2001), no function has yet been discovered. Some may include RNA species that function without being translated into protein.

A third but related argument derives from the observation that the insertion of a retroposon into a functional sequence is a potent way to destroy that function. Examples of naturally occurring insertions were discussed in section 5.2 above; and intentional retroposon insertion is being widely used as a laboratory tool to create panels of mouse, drosophila or yeast strains with different gene functions destroyed. However, most examples of retroposon insertions between genes do not have any apparent affect on individuals harboring them; for example the Alu sequences that are polymorphic in human DNA appear to be harmless when present. Therefore, it is reasonable to infer that these insertions did not interrupt any functional sequence. (Of course it is impossible to rule out the formal possibility that some hypothetical functional sequences outside genes can still function despite the presence of a retroposon insertion.)

Finally, several examples are known of pairs of species that have similar apparent complexity but widely different genome size (C-value paradox). The pufferfish Fugu has about one fourth the genome size of other fish species but about the same number of genes. The main difference is a smaller amount of DNA between genes in Fugu DNA (e.g. see Elgar et al. Genome Res 9:960, 1999). Although questions remain about the interpretation of this difference, it would seem that much of the DNA between genes in most fish genomes (and probably in ours also) is dispensable. (Conversely, the small regions of non-coding sequence that are conserved between Fugu and Homo frequently correspond to functional regulatory sequences.)

It is impossible to prove absence of function for any region of DNA. Moreover, it is likely that some function may be found for a few additional short regions of non-coding DNA that are not currently recognized to have function. Nevertheless, as indicated above, scientists draw tentative conclusions based on data currently at hand rather than on hypothetical possibilities of future data; and the arguments I just presented based on presently available evidence suggest that most DNA sequences that appear to be functionless are just that."

(http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/molgen/)

For example, biologists were capable of removing millions of nucleotide base pairs from mice. No effect was observed. Junk DNA is indeed more or less junk.

"No, the Piltdown man… See my earlier list, Evolution has proponents who have been proven to be willing to “Manufacture evidence” to “Prove evolution is right” unfortunately, that has raised the bar on the honest scientist who would never do such a thing."

See above.

"I have never said that I am a creationist; you have also accused me of being an IDer earlier, if you must know, I am a theist in that I believe in God, I believe that he created the heavens and earth, but did not tell us exactly how. I believe God could have set everything up, and touched off the big bang so that we evolved, or dipped his hand in periodically ID, or done it all (including fossils) in six days. I really do not have a dog in this hunt because my faith is not at risk."

Why did you mention polystrate fossils or Paluxy tracks?

"God has reasons; he just didn’t tell you (or me) why he does what he does, must he?"

That's why creationism/ID is unscientific - the Designer is not falsifiable. You are speculating but you cannot offer hard evidence indictating the Designer's intentions. *Anything* fits into a Creationism/ID framework - all can be explained away as "God's mysteries" etc.

"Code reuse?"

Speculation and how what would a chromosomal fusion accomplish? What would be the point?

"To say other wise is to be intellectually dishonest."

It was a term invented by Herbert Spencer, a *philosopher.* It is not a scientific statment. Your strawman remains a strawman.

"Gibbs Free energy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gibbs_free_energy So that’s the amount of energy available to do work, what does that have to do with constructively doing that work? Just because energy is available, and could be used to organize does not mean it will, there is lots of free energy in a tidal wave, I have yet to see an instance of one doing something constructive."

The information content of Gibbs free energy is the important thing. John Avery devoted a book to the topic. (Gibbs Free energy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gibbs_free_energy So that’s the amount of energy available to do work, what does that have to do with constructively doing that work? Just because energy is available, and could be used to organize does not mean it will, there is lots of free energy in a tidal wave, I have yet to see an instance of one doing something constructive.)

Also, you seem to be mentioning how energy will not organize itself. You are incorrect. Snowflakes form spontaneously, tektites form, and other such things occur where energy is spontaneously organized.

"hey, it’s an analogy"

A wrong analogy. That it is not living makes all the difference.

"There are lots of models, but, they are not random"

Which is another reason why it is a wrong analogy. It is not subject to evolutionary pressures.

"Survival of the fittest"

That's not the definition of selection. Selection requires that organisms survive and reproduce to pass on heritable characters.

"See above for common association"

See above. It still remains the bicycles are not subject to selection.

"sn’t this c?"

They're related but distinct. Selection is the actual process whereas selection pressures are the forces that proliferate it.

"Heat alone will not perform the action we desire."

And yet, heat alone causes the complex wind currents. You were saying?

[Virginia-American]

Haeckel was discredited, although, amusingly enough, it remains factual that vertebrate embryos are similar.

His so-called biogenetic law was shown to be false, but the facts that he based it on won't go away. Ontogeny really does recapitulate phylogeny, just not quite in the way Haeckel thought it did. Examples include:

The egg teeth of marsupial fetuses. These are never used.

The hind limb buds of fetal whales. Sometimes these don't get reabsorbed, and the whale has vestigial legs.

The movement of the ear bones from the jaw to the ear in mammalian development. This recapitulates a famous fossil sequence.

The tooth buds of fetal platypuses. These never erupt.

The circuitous path of the recurrent laryngeal nerve. In the early fetus and in fish, it's a straight shot, but in mammalian development it's constrained by blood vessels; in giraffes it's 15 feet longer than an intelligent designer would have made it.

and many, many, more. See Some More of God's Greatest Mistakes

[DelphiUser]

I could continue to beat upon the drums of point and counterpoint. I had a specific goal on this thread, and that goal is achieved with the following statement.

>>I completely agree that the theory is arguable and debatable and should be debated.

With the addition of the words “in schools” my point is made, I retire from the field.

Be well.

[DelphiUser]

My point was that there were those who are willing to falsify evidence both for and against Evolution (its’ so heated because people think it will either prove, or disprove God). Therefore there is a higher standard for data and the skepticism are understandably higher than say in the field of atomic physics (you cheat, things go boom, then, it’s hard to hide your cheating)

[Virginia-American]

My point was that there were those who are willing to falsify evidence both for and against Evolution ...

Haeckel wasn't presenting evidence for or against evolution; he was presenting evidence for his biogenetic law. See Ichneumon's discussion with a list of references for further reading. Excerpt

... then why all the fakery?

All *what* fakery? Your current example has fallen flat. Even if Haeckel's drawings were "fakery" at all (and they could instead be the result of laziness, etc.), they were fakes in support of a *failed* hypothesis about evolution which was discreded over a 100 years ago. They weren't fakery produced in support of Darwinian evolution or any descendant of it.

Do you -- does anyone -- have any *real* examples of actual "fakery" done in an actual attempt to falsely bolster evolutionary biology itself in the view of those who might be "on the fence"? I'm familiar with a lot more of the history of science than most people on this forum, and *I'm* not aware of any such attempts. So drop the goofy conspiracy theories, please.

Instead, Wells's accusations are examples of *creationist* fakery -- he twists the facts to give a false appearance of scientific conspiracy, where none exists.

And such lies are *incredibly* common from creationists. How about a few hundred for starters? Here's a *small* sampling of creationist dishonesty ...

[snip ...]

10. After a few decades of being a staple in various textbooks (due to some textbook writers carrying over material from earlier textbooks, etc.), and although some biologists had noticed from time to time that the illustrations weren't really accurate but hadn't made a big stink about it because textbooks generally have a *lot* of sloppy or oversimplified material in them (and doing them perfectly right would cost far more than most school districts could afford -- the classic "close enough for government work"), finally in 1997 a biologist raised the issue of Haeckel's drawings in a paper (again, as historical background) in a way that reminded a wider audience that Haeckel's drawings had some serious flaws. And that's when the creationists went nuts.

Note, however, that it was an *evolutionary biologist* who actually raised a big flag about the drawings. It wasn't a creationist "blowing the lid off" a longstanding conspiracy of evolutionist "fraud". The creationists were just the ones who decided they could misrepresent a case of inaccurate work by an early biologist and subsequent laziness by some textbook authors into some kind of Smoking Gun(tm) which allegedly demonstrated that those evil evolutionists have been knowingly lying to everyone all these years. It's horse manure, but that hasn't stopped the creationists in the past, and it wasn't going to stop them this time.

What's really funny about the creationist accusations that evolutionists have "knowingly" used Haeckel's inaccurate drawings in order to "fraudulently" make a "better" case for evolution than "actually" exists is this following observation, by the same biologist who raised the issue:

"Ironically, had Haeckel drawn the embryos accurately, his first two valid points in favor of evolution would have been better demonstrated."

-- Michael K. Richardson, et al., "Haeckel, Embryos, and Evolution," Science (Letters), Vol. 280 ( May 15, 1998), pp. 983-985 [emphasis mine]

[snip ...]

Keep in mind that Haeckel's theroy was known not to be true by 1900, and that his drawings were not considered accurate; in fact, most modern books use photos.

However, the main point remains: the whale hindlimbs, platypus teeth, marsupial eggteeth, ear bone migration, etc etc, are indeed evidence for common descent and evolution.

[courtesy ping to Ichneumon - thanks Ichny! ]

[DelphiUser]

>> ... then why all the fakery?

I don’t know why you are replying to me with something I did not say.

>> Do you -- does anyone -- have any *real* examples of
>>actual "fakery" done in an actual attempt to falsely
>>bolster evolutionary biology itself in the view of those
>>who might be "on the fence"? I'm familiar with a lot
>>more of the history of science than most people on this
>>forum, and *I'm* not aware of any such attempts. So drop
>>the goofy conspiracy theories, please.

So, in your opinion, was Piltdown man real, or fake? http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=Piltdown+man

The peppered moths? http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=peppered+moths+fake

Embryo Drawings? http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=embryo+drawings+fake

Strike three, you’re out. I specifically mentioned these, but you didn’t even Google for them. Of course you are not aware of what you will not look for. There are credible examples of fakery by individuals who would like the “Fame” and the reputation that comes from “Proving” anything in science, I am not saying this is common, but the relative success that these hoaxes have had in being accepted (decades often pass before they are “Found out”) it is understandable that I would recommend caution when approaching something that is difficult to prove.

As for linking me to a post that is huge, go read this http://www.google.com/ and get back to me when you’re done.

Sheesh.

Are you saying that no one has ever faked anything to prove evolution correct?

So, to you grinding down an orangutan’s jaw staining it to match a skull and burying them in a gravel pit so they will be discovered on the next day is not fake? Attaching dead moths to a tree so you can photograph them and make claims about how they got there is not fake? Claiming drawings are accurate that are not is not fake?

I am not saying this proves anything accept that some individuals in science got a little, um, excited at the prospect of being first. I am not saying they are the norm, I am not saying it is unique to the “Evolution” debate, I am saying that emotions here get higher than say atomic physics because people perceive their faith to be at stake.

Are you saying no one ever fakes anything?

Are you willing to make an absolute statement that no one has ever faked anything in evolution to make their point?

If not, then get off my case, because I do not think the “Fakes” quoted here prove anything about evolution itself except that it is an emotionally charged issue that causes some people to act rashly and do things in the “Heat of the moment” that I am sure they later regret. (Who wants to be a famous faker?)

[DelphiUser]

accept = Except

Proofread, bonks head on monitor!

[Dante Alighieri]

Certainly. The theory, like all other scientific topics, is debatable. While common descent is not so debatable, the evolutionary theory itself is debatable. For example, one great topic to teach in school might be the frequency of punctuated equilibria. However, of course, the evolutionary theory remains a solid theory that has withstood 150 years of scientific scrutiny. While debates over the precise importance of mechanisms of evolution or the interpretation of the historical data is debated, that evolution is real should not be a topic of debate in schools anymore than any other well-backed theory.

[Dante Alighieri]

Piltdown man was indeed fake. However, I again I am confused why do you present it as if it refutes evolutionary theory. While Piltdown was not discovered to be fake, it entirely threw off human evolution and cast serious doubts over the entire area. When it was revealed as a fraud, it vindicated evolution.

As for the moth experiments, they were not fakes. Are you referring to the photographs? The photographs were done for the purposes of illustration, not actual research. It was done to illustrate the relative camoflauge the different moths, light and dark colored, on different backgrounds. That some of the photographs were staged has no bearing on the actual research Kettlewell conducted. Most pictures of insects are staged anyway.

Again, as with Haeckel, he was discredited, but interestingly, recapitulation is well-observed in the development of organisms and it remains factual that vertebrate embryos are similar.

[MEGoody]

Evolution is a scientific theory, a well-supported explanation of a broad range of related phenomena, observed either directly or indirectly.

I would agree that evolution is a theory, built upon evidence (e.g. bones and fossils) and the interpretation of that evidence by various scientists.

To embrace one interpretation over another requires belief.

So yes, evolution is a belief.

[Dante Alighieri]

"To embrace one interpretation over another requires belief."

No, it isn't. You give a contorted definition of belief. By your logic, accepting genetics over pangenesis is a belief, accepting the Big Bang theory over steady-state theory is a belief, and accepting the Alvarez theory over gradualistic extinction is a belief. These aren't beliefs; they're simply theories with the most evidence and the most accurate explanation for the current data.

[DelphiUser]

The definition of “Well-Backed” will also doubtless be debated (Grin).

>>Piltdown man was indeed fake. However, I again I am confused why do you present it as if it refutes evolutionary theory.

Not disproving Evolution, it means when you see something that seems to end the debate, be suspicious. For or against Evolution, don’t end the debate prematurely. I am sure you could find some hoaxes attempting to disprove evolution, the ones hoodwinking “Scientists” just made more of a splash that’s all.

>>When it was revealed as a fraud, it vindicated evolution.

See my comment above :-)

>>Are you referring to the photographs?

Yes, don’t stage photos of your proof period. The actual research was not as dramatic as the photos, hence it was a lie. (it’s that little bit of Dog poop in the Brownies that I was talking about earlier).

>>Again, as with Haeckel

Yes, but my point with bringing him up was I intend to be skeptical until things are validated, preferably by someone who is trying to prove it wrong.

[Dante Alighieri]

"Not disproving Evolution, it means when you see something that seems to end the debate, be suspicious. For or against Evolution, don’t end the debate prematurely. I am sure you could find some hoaxes attempting to disprove evolution, the ones hoodwinking 'Scientists' just made more of a splash that’s all."

Then, why did you present it as if evolution was at fault as a result of the fraud?

"See my comment above :-)"

That doesn't change the fact that it vindicated human evolution.

"Yes, don’t stage photos of your proof period."

If the purpose is to illustrate the crypsis of the moths, what is the problem with staging photographs? The entire purpose was to show the camoflauge of the moths against different backgrounds. How that is deceptive eludes, especially considering that most insect photographs are staged anyway.

"The actual research was not as dramatic as the photos, hence it was a lie."

Non-sequitur. That doesn't make sense. How was the research not dramatic? In 1848, the carbonaria form of the Biston betularia was only beginning to appear and by 1895 it consituted approximately 98% of the population in Manchester. Kettlewell sought out to find the selection pressures behind the spread of melanism in the moth populations, and he concluded that it was due to bird predation. Other researchers, such as Majerus, came later and found that bird predation was one predominant factor of the spread of the traits, but not the only factor. The research is abundantly clear.

"Yes, but my point with bringing him up was I intend to be skeptical until things are validated, preferably by someone who is trying to prove it wrong."

I don't understand what you mean by validated. How has evolution not been validated?

[MEGoody]

I said: "To embrace one interpretation over another requires belief."

You said: No, it isn't.

Interesting. So what would you call embracing one interpretation over another?

By your logic, accepting genetics over pangenesis is a belief, accepting the Big Bang theory over steady-state theory is a belief, and accepting the Alvarez theory over gradualistic extinction is a belief.

Of course.

they're simply theories with the most evidence and the most accurate explanation for the current data.

And there are varying theories depending on one's interpretation of the data. So you choose to either believe one interpretation of the data, or you choose to believe another. It is belief.

I realize that for evols, that's a terrifying word, so they avoid it like the plague. Seems quite irrational to me.

[Dante Alighieri]

"So what would you call embracing one interpretation over another?"

Provided that the hypothetical situation in which you propose, wherein an interpretation A explains a data set C and an interpretation B similarly explains a data set C, except with greater evidence and confirmed predictions, I would call it accepting the evidence and the interpretation provisonally.

"Of course."

And how precisely are these beliefs? Pangenesis, for example, is horribly wrong; of course we accept genetics. You're fallaciously claiming that each interpretation is equally valid when they are not.

"And there are varying theories depending on one's interpretation of the data. So you choose to either believe one interpretation of the data, or you choose to believe another. It is belief."

Wrong. Scientists accept theories provisionally based on the evidence supporting theories, studying contradictions, and studying confirmations of predictions. If this process is a belief, then you've given a strawman version of belief. A belief is the conviction in the truth of a proposition, usually with little to no evidence. Since science, by the principles of tentativity and falsifiability, expressly prohibits conviction in a proposition as irrefutably true, the process of accepting theories is not a belief.

[DelphiUser]

>>Then, why did you present it as if evolution was at fault as a result of the fraud?

I did not intend that interpretation, indeed if I gave that impression, please tell me which post so I can improve my communication.

>>>>"Yes, don’t stage photos of your proof period."

>>If the purpose is to illustrate the crypsis of the moths, what is the problem with staging
>>photographs? The entire purpose was to show the camoflauge of the moths against
>>different backgrounds. How that is deceptive eludes, especially considering that most
>>insect photographs are staged anyway.

Fine, state that the photo is for illustration only, don’t present it as a “Nature shot” of actual Peppered moths on a tree trunk (Peppered moths don’t usually rest on tree trunks so how they looked “There” was not a factor in the change in coloration) – More Dog poop.

IMHO, Scientists should always tell it like it is, no marketing, never exaggerate, and never color what they see.

>>Non-sequitur. That doesn't make sense. How was the research not dramatic?

Oh please, not the grammar police bit again?

Fine, the research was “dramatic”, the photo was exaggeration of a dramatic event and therefore since presented as an un-staged photo, was a lie.

>>>>"Yes, but my point with bringing him up was I intend to be skeptical until things
>>are validated, preferably by someone who is trying to prove it wrong."

>>I don't understand what you mean by validated. How has evolution not been validated?

Validated: http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=validated

I prefer 3 for this context “To establish the soundness of; corroborate.”

How about Corroborated? I don’t want to jump to a conclusion based on one (or even like minded scientists test. I will accept something once it has proof and cannot be disproved by others who are opponents to that position.

Evolution has not been validated, it has been backed up by new discoveries, and sometimes the theory has changed to accommodate them, but we do not yet “know” it’s true.

I’m kind of partial to that pink unicorn theory of yours, my daughters would like it.

[Dante Alighieri]

"Fine, state that the photo is for illustration only, don’t present it as a 'Nature shot' of actual Peppered moths on a tree trunk." It was never intended to be. It was never portrayed as a nature shot. Interestingly, when Majerus improved upon Kettlewell's research, he viewed typica and carbonaria Biston betularia naturally staying in differing backgrounds, and compared them to the staged photographs Kettlewell used, and concluded that there was little or no difference.

"Peppered moths don’t usually rest on tree trunks so how they looked 'There' was not a factor in the change in coloration"

Peppered moths rest on tree trunks about 25% of the time. Also, whole trees are covered in pollution, which includes branches, the trunk, even the ground. The coloration of anywhere on the tree represents the crypsis of the moths.

"Scientists should always tell it like it is, no marketing, never exaggerate, and never color what they see."

They didn't. The photos nor the experiments were exaggerated.

"the photo was exaggeration of a dramatic event"

No, it wasn't. Please see above.

"therefore since presented as an un-staged photo"

Kettlewell's photos were not presented as un-staged. However, Majerus, who took unstaged photographs, noted that the difference between the photographs were minimal.

"was a lie."

Not really.

"Evolution has not been validated, it has been backed up by new discoveries, and sometimes the theory has changed to accommodate them, but we do not yet 'know' it’s true."

Of course, scientists do not 'know' if a theory is true. This is impossible because it would contradict tentativity. Entities in science are by definition tentative and subject to correction and change. Nothing in science is truly 'known' without a doubt to be true. Of course, overwhelming evidence may exist.

I still don't understand how evolution has not been validated. Comparative genomics agrees, and there have been numerous successful predictions made by evolutionary theory.

Here's a recent one: "The study, published in June in The Journal of Heredity, analyzed and compared DNA sequences from 233 species and used the results to create a new family tree for spiny-rayed fishes. That group includes many types of toadfish, scorpionfish (lionfish are a type of scorpionfish), surgeonfish, rabbitfish, jacks, stargazers and saber-toothed blennies.

The family tree shows how the species are related, and which evolved from the same ancestor. Based on the tree, the researchers predicted which species should be venomous. Then, to test their predictions, Dr. Smith dissected 102 specimens, looking for venom glands and delivery systems like spikes, fangs or sharp fins.

Of the 102 species he examined, previous research had suggested that 26 were venomous. But the new analysis predicted that 61 would be venomous — and the dissections bore that out. "

News Link: http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/22/science/22fish.html?ex=1313899200&en=16ed0b6f64a3212f&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss

Journal Article: http://jhered.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/97/3/206

[Virginia-American]

So, in your opinion, was Piltdown man real, or fake?

fake

The peppered moths?

Nothing at all fake there. The actual study was on differential rates of predation. The photo simply showed the raw materials of the study

Embryo Drawings?

Haeckel's drawings are not correct. His take on recapitulation was wrong. But recapitulation is real, and is well illustrated with photos and other drawings.

Are you saying that no one has ever faked anything to prove evolution correct?

Yes. I've never heard of such a thing.

So, to you grinding down an orangutan’s jaw staining it to match a skull and burying them in a gravel pit so they will be discovered on the next day is not fake?

Of course it's fake. But it wasn't used to "prove evolution correct"

Attaching dead moths to a tree so you can photograph them and make claims about how they got there is not fake?

Show me where there was a claim "about how they got there". The claim was that the moths that contrasted the most with the background were eaten more often, and that this made the protective coloration more common in subsequent generations.

Claiming drawings are accurate that are not is not fake?

He illustrated a popular book (not a scientific paper, AFAIK) with somewhat misleading, simplified, drawings. Nowadays, it's a moot point.

Are you willing to make an absolute statement that no one has ever faked anything in evolution to make their point?

One-and-a-half cases in 150 years: Piltdown and the embryo drawings. Are there any others?

If not, then get off my case, because I do not think the “Fakes” quoted here prove anything about evolution itself except that it is an emotionally charged issue that causes some people to act rashly and do things in the “Heat of the moment” that I am sure they later regret. (Who wants to be a famous faker?)

On-and-a-half cases in 150 years hardly supports this claim.

[DelphiUser]

Moths:
>>The photo simply showed the raw materials of the study

No, the photo showed a carefully arranged visual for the study performed with dead moths glued to the tree (he admitted it later, look it up)

Embryos:
His drawings were knowingly faked, and he guessed right on some of the stuff. Hardly my idea of “Good science” (Hey, I guessed right, so what’s the problem?)

IF that’s good enough for you, well I’m happy for you.

>>Of course it's fake. But it wasn't used to "prove evolution correct"

Um Yeah, right.

>>The claim was that the moths that contrasted the most with the background were eaten more often, and that this made the protective coloration more common in subsequent generations.

Yes, that was the claim. The proof (photo) was just faked. So have you looked at “Picture kill” the photographer who “Enhanced” his photos of damage in Lebanon? Is that fake to you?

>>Nowadays, it's a moot point.

Obviously Scientists being willing to fake proof of something is moot to you; to me it raises the bar on future “Evidence”. But hey you probably bought “Fake but accurate”. As for me I would Rather not be fooled.

>>On-and-a-half cases in 150 years hardly supports this claim.

Just curious, you have 2.3 children huh? / Humor

to me, half a truth is a lie, if told purposefully. Did you read my Brownies and dog poop example? To me either some thing is “True” or it is not. I do not deal in half of this .432578 truth of that. Maybe that’s why you are a proponent of evolution, and I am a skeptic.

Oh well, Rest well in your certainty, and have a good day.

P.S. My point in posting to this thread has already been achieved, so I may not post back if what you say is not interesting.