Replies

Of course they can.
You just don't like the explanations, because they don't fit your religious ideas.

I don't like the explanations because they are not explanations, just statements of dogma. All Darwin or any subsequent biologist has proved is that most forms of life are exquisitely adapted to their environment, and that it is very likely that changes within species have occured to explain the fine adaptation. Species-to-species evolution has not been observed (quite unsurprisingly), but more pertinently no theoretical models exist for how most of the changes happened.

For example, it is supposed, due to anatomical similarities, that elephants are cousins to the extinct woolly mammoth. Now I'm just asking how the woolly mammoth lost its wool, grew bigger and flappier ears for better ventilation, modified its tusks and changed its diet from grass to mostly tree limbs, in addition to a myriad of other changes. If you don't know, then you don't know. I never learned it in my biology classes. Are there some super-secret biology departments where these evolutionary changes have plausable models but are kept from being imparted to the general public. Of course not.

We cannot observe the Earth and Sun being formed, but astronomy has plausable models which are quite easily unstood by intelligent laymen, about how they did form. This is not true of speciation. We just hear the same old line that change occured at random in incremental steps until an entirely separate species, well-adapted to its environment, came to be. And you call that an adequate scientific explanation?

Ah, but TIME! Given enough time all the right mutations will come together and culminate in new species. Yes, possibly so, but IMO some intelligence either inherent in Nature or guiding Nature from a non-material realm is more plausible. Of course, I could be wrong and within a few years, using super-computers, the precise mechanisms of speciation may all be explained. Heck, science may even explain how carbon chains floating in a warm ocean can form themselves into extremely complex, self-duplicating DNA molecules, complete with protective cell membranes, RNA and mitochondria and all the other accoutrements necessary for the simplest life. Well, there are simple viruses which lack DNA and invade host DNA, but that presupposes that the more complex life form existed before the virus could arise, doesn't it?

(Note: The Panspermia theory suffers from the same problem, BTW. If life on Earth came from other stars or galaxies, how did the first life emerge? It just pushes the ultimate question further back. If you can guide me to books with real answers for these problems, please do so. But if you even mention Stephen Jay Gould, I will probably never reply to you again.

-- ARFAR

Have you read Darwins book on the origina of species? An important part of his thinking on evolution was derived from observing finches on the Galopagus (sp?) Islands. He believed that one species of finch had been blown there from the mainland, and then the different forms had evolved over time to fill different biological niches. For example some finches were born with bigger and stronger beaks, and were able to eat bigger, harder seeds. Eventually, there were finches that had such large, strong beaks that they were a different species. He observed a number of different finch species, each of which had developed different characteristics to live in the various Islands and their varied living conditions. They had elso become different species. Read the book.

Another excellent book is Sean Carrol’s “Endless Forms Most Beautiful. One fascinating experiment described an eye gene with a genetic flaw in mice, fruitflies and humans. Scientists grafted eye genetic material from a mouse on to the leg of a fruitfly. Amazingly, the mouse material began to develop into insect compound eye structure. Apparently, the evolutionary process is able to reuse genetic material, but alter it in some amazing ways over time. For example, the segmented worm, segments of a lobster, and the human spine also have genetic material that has been reused and modified over time.

ARFAR: "I don't like the explanations because they are not explanations, just statements of dogma."

"Dogma"? Is that a word they taught you in Philosophy class, or was it Biology?
Do you even know what the word means?

Dogma has nothing to do with science, it's a term describing religious ideas, sometimes contrasted to the public preachings of kergyma, "dogmata" were the often secret doctrines of some religious group.

Science has no "dogma".
What science has are first, confirmed observations = facts,
second, unconfirmed explanations of facts = hypotheses,
third, confirmed explanations = theories.
Yes, we could add a fourth, laws, but these are simply mathematical expressions and normally restricted to precise circumstances.

So with Evolution, the scientific facts include 1) Descent with modifications and 2) natural selection
The confirmed theory of Evolution simply projects these facts backwards in time and concludes that all, or nearly all, life descended from common ancestors.
Unconfirmed hypotheses relating to Evolution include abiogenesis, panspermia and remotely possibly even Intelligent Design, though how this could ever be expressed in real scientific terms I can't even guess.

ARFAR: "Species-to-species evolution has not been observed (quite unsurprisingly), but more pertinently no theoretical models exist for how most of the changes happened."

That is simply not true.
Evolution of species can be seen any day, in a zoo for example, which has multiple species of, say, zebras, horses and donkeys -- some of which can interbreed successfully, others only partially (i.e., mules) and still others not at all.
It can also be seen in the fossil records for each of these species going backwards in time to their apparent common ancestors.
And the precise -- atom by atom -- records of evolution can be seen in comparisons of the various species' DNA.

As for the "mechanism" which you keep saying doesn't exist, I've explained it now several times.
So what, exactly, is you problem with it?

ARFAR: "For example, it is supposed, due to anatomical similarities, that elephants are cousins to the extinct woolly mammoth.
Now I'm just asking how the woolly mammoth lost its wool, grew bigger and flappier ears for better ventilation, modified its tusks and changed its diet from grass to mostly tree limbs, in addition to a myriad of other changes.
If you don't know, then you don't know.
I never learned it in my biology classes. "

I keep telling you, you have a good case for educational mal-practice, and you should demand your money back, with damages too!
Make them pay for mis-educating you. ;-)

African elephants, Indian elephants, mammoths and mastodons all evolved from common ancestors over several million years.
Here is a chart over-simplifying how that happened:

So the exact mechanism for how woolly mammoths became woolly should be pretty obvious.
It begins with separations of breeding populations, when one group migrates out of Africa into colder and colder climates further and further north.
Now the further north they migrate, the fewer "naked" elephants survive, and the more "woollys" live and reproduce.

So I'll ask again, what exactly is your problem with that?

ARFAR: "We just hear the same old line that change occured at random in incremental steps until an entirely separate species, well-adapted to its environment, came to be.
And you call that an adequate scientific explanation?"

No, I don't call your explanation very "scientific".
In scientific-ese, the truth would be expressed somewhat differently.
Too bad they never taught you that.

The actual rate of evolutionary change can be measured whenever DNAs of different species are compared to each other, and with reference to fossil records of potential common ancestors.
Whether DNA mutations always, or even usually, occur "at random" is, I think, debatable.
Some mutations seem more likely to occur than others, for examples, larger or smaller sizes, more or less hair covering, and other adaptations to variations in climate.

As for "incremental steps", some mutations can produce larger effects than others, and so the "increments" might be quite large if they improve survival rates.

ARFAR: "Ah, but TIME! Given enough time all the right mutations will come together and culminate in new species.
Yes, possibly so, but IMO some intelligence either inherent in Nature or guiding Nature from a non-material realm is more plausible.
Of course, I could be wrong and within a few years, using super-computers, the precise mechanisms of speciation may all be explained."

Why are you demanding computer models for everything?
What, are you a super-computer salesman?
Do you make your living convincing scientists they need ever bigger / faster / better computers to model all of the known and unknown Universe?
Why? What does it matter?

The scientific explanation of Evolution is entirely reasonable (as a alleged Philosopher, you should understand the concept of "reasonable").
And all of the confirmed observations (=facts) we have support the theory of evolution.
Furthermore, there is no -- zero, zip, nada -- alternative scientific hypothesis, much less confirmed theory.

So why is that not enough for a reasonable person to accept as most likely the true explanation?

ARFAR: "But if you even mention Stephen Jay Gould, I will probably never reply to you again."

See, that's why I doubt if this is really all about science or philosophy or theology.
Sounds more like a personal problem to me... ;-)