Darwins 200th Bday

[DesertPirate]

An interesting article on CNN

http://www.cnn.com/2009/TECH/science/02/12/darwin.birthday/index.html

A snip:
"The most recent Gallup poll on the issue, conducted in May, found that only 14 percent of Americans believe that humans developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life. Forty-four percent believe that God created human beings almost overnight within the past 10,000 years, and another 36 percent believe that God guided humans' evolution from animals over a much longer period of time."

 

[trysail]

An interesting article on CNN
A snip:
"The most recent Gallup poll on the issue, conducted in May, found that only 14 percent of Americans believe that humans developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life. Forty-four percent believe that God created human beings almost overnight within the past 10,000 years, and another 36 percent believe that God guided humans' evolution from animals over a much longer period of time."

If the poll is accurate, it's a sad commentary. The geological, biological and paleontological evidence demonstrating the strong probability of the evolution of species based on natural selection is enormous, if not absolutely conclusive.

Thanks for starting this thread; the bicentennial of Darwin's birth should be observed. He and Alfred Russel Wallace made important contributions to human knowledge.

 

[rgraham666]

I notice how the person they bought in for 'equal time' isn't a biologist. Again.

 

[oggbashan]

The 36 per cent who believe that God guided human evolution over a long time aren't too far removed from Darwin's own views. Together with the 14 per cent who believe that humans developed over millions of years that is 50 per cent of those polled.

How many US citizens believe they were abducted by aliens?

How many US citizens believe that Elvis is still alive?

Those percentages are scary.

Believing in evolution and a divine creator aren't mutually exclusive.

Og

 

[rgraham666]

Another error in the article is that the theory of evolution severely damaged the basis for racism. This isn't true.

When the mistaken belief was that animals 'improved' through evolution the racist published tons of stuff to prove white people were more advanced than other races.

When it was shown that what created humans was neoteny, the retention of juvenile traits in the adults of a species, the racists worked busily to show that white people had more juvenile traits than other races thereby proving that other races were closer to, if not actually, animals.

This shows one of the biggest misunderstandings about science; that it is an ethical construct, it says something about good and evil. It doesn't. It's just a tool and like all tools can only be used the way its users want it to be used. They bear the blame, not science itself.

 

[elfin_odalisque]

An interesting article on CNN

http://www.cnn.com/2009/TECH/science/02/12/darwin.birthday/index.html

A snip:
"The most recent Gallup poll on the issue, conducted in May, found that only 14 percent of Americans believe that humans developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life. Forty-four percent believe that God created human beings almost overnight within the past 10,000 years, and another 36 percent believe that God guided humans' evolution from animals over a much longer period of time."

I go with the 14 percent. I can see few signs that, as a genus, we are evolving.

Did Darwin deal with regressing?

 

[xssve]

I go with the 14 percent. I can see few signs that, as a genus, we are evolving.

Did Darwin deal with regressing?

No, I think that was Marshall McLuhan.

 

[DesertPirate]

The 36 per cent who believe that God guided human evolution over a long time aren't too far removed from Darwin's own views. Together with the 14 per cent who believe that humans developed over millions of years that is 50 per cent of those polled.

How many US citizens believe they were abducted by aliens?

How many US citizens believe that Elvis is still alive?

Those percentages are scary.

Believing in evolution and a divine creator aren't mutually exclusive.

Og

A priest told me once that there was no problem. If you read Genesis in the Bible, nowhere does it say how! It only says why he created this place.

Think about it

 

[sadangel]

I am one of the strange people.

I believe that God created it all...but I have no idea the time frame for it. Thousands or millions or billions of years ago. I don't know. I don't think it really matters.
I believe that evolution plays a part in it all. That everything is ever evolving.

 

[R. Richard]

How many US citizens believe they were abducted by aliens?

Og

Beliving that you were abducted by aliens is a sign of mental instability. Believing that aliens have landed on earth and are driving the car in front of you [because they have no earthly idea what the hell they're doing] is just reasonable observation.

 

[mynameisben]

The greatest weakness in Darwin's Theory of Evolution's is that scientists still call it a "Theory." When are they going to give that up and just call it the Law of Evolution, as it rightfully should be called? The evidence for evolution is overwhelming. But more than that, evolution is repeatably observable and predictable in laboratory experiments involving simple life forms, and it has been so for nearly a century. Explanations in every other branch of science which involve processes with repeatable, predictable results are called "laws." So, why not call it Darwin's Law of Evolution?

Just imagine how much intellectual wiggle room would be eliminated by calling it Darwin's Law. As a scientific law, evolution could no longer be dismissed with the wave of a hand as simply "just a theory." Evolution would be taught in more schools. Students would feel obliged to read and understand it's basic principles. Minds would open. The world over, humans would embrace their animal brethren in a fellowship of peace and understanding. Vegans would rule the planet.

It's not called Darwin's Law, of course, because there are millions upon millions of people throughout the world who hear the word "evolution" and reflexively seal their ears shut and curl up into the fecal position, clutching their bibles. History teaches that small-minded religious zealots are the most dangerous people on Earth and have been since the dawn of civilization. Neither scientists nor governments will likely call it Darwin's Law any time soon, because they sensibly fear the violence of retributions from tiny minds. Socrates was poisoned, Galileo was burned at the stake. That it is not called Darwin's Law of Evolution (even though it should be called that) is just another example of the survival of the fittest.

 

[cantdog]

This is the legacy which will require the longest time to defeat. It is a greater blow by radical superstition than the WTC thing could ever match.

Enough kids have grown up with this anti-science malarkey that we have a generation of repair to do. America has lost the tech edge already, thanks to these meddling religious asses, and the trend will be down for a while before we can ever drive it back up. And all for the most buffoonish set of unexamined crapola imaginable.

We can be thankful that the zeroes lined up and then the years rolled on by without ado. Maybe the millennial craziness will subside now. In the meantime we can get high tech from Asia.

 

[Hooper_X]

The greatest weakness in Darwin's Theory of Evolution's is that scientists still call it a "Theory."

It's only a weakness to those who don't understand the meaning of the word, theory, in the context of empirical verifiability.

 

[Hooper_X]

...Forty-four percent believe that God created human beings almost overnight within the past 10,000 years...

Those people should be locked up, as they present a danger to themselves and others.

 

[cantdog]

It's as much a fact as the theory that thunder is caused by lightning. Evolution by natural selection is as observable and verifiable as toast.

 

[al_Ussa]

This is the legacy which will require the longest time to defeat. It is a greater blow by radical superstition than the WTC thing could ever match.

Enough kids have grown up with this anti-science malarkey that we have a generation of repair to do. America has lost the tech edge already, thanks to these meddling religious asses, and the trend will be down for a while before we can ever drive it back up. And all for the most buffoonish set of unexamined crapola imaginable.

We can be thankful that the zeroes lined up and then the years rolled on by without ado. Maybe the millennial craziness will subside now. In the meantime we can get high tech from Asia.

Well said my friend, well said.

 

[Hooper_X]

Evolution by natural selection is as observable and verifiable as toast.

I am virtually 100% certain in the truthfulness of evolution through natural selection. However, I don't see how it could be considered observable and verifiable to a scientific standard, as it occurs over millions of years. Sure, you can look a marine Galapagos iguana and say that it almost certainly evolved from garden variety iguanas who can't sneeze out salt, but you didn't see it happen. Therefore, it isn't empirically verifiable... at least not as "empirically verifiable" was explained to me.

 

[cantdog]

I am virtually 100% certain in the truthfulness of evolution through natural selection. However, I don't see how it could be considered observable and verifiable to a scientific standard, as it occurs over millions of years. Sure, you can look a marine Galapagos iguana and say that it almost certainly evolved from garden variety iguanas who can't sneeze out salt, but you didn't see it happen. Therefore, it isn't empirically verifiable... at least not as "empirically verifiable" was explained to me.

Well, next time you need an antibiotic, tell 'em you don't believe the little bastards evolved, because you believe it'd take millions of years. Be sure to request Penicillin, and under a million units.

Sorry about the sarcasm. We observe it in any organism which has a brief enough cycle of reproductive generations.

 

[WRJames]

It's as much a fact as the theory that thunder is caused by lightning. Evolution by natural selection is as observable and verifiable as toast.

Here is an interesting article that sheds some light on why discussions of evolution become so confusing Evolution is a Fact and a Theory/[URL]

What is incontrovertable fact is the common ancestry of all life. The fossil and genetic evidence is overwhelming.

What is theory is the mechanism or mechanisms that shaped the differentiation of the species. And while I agree that evolution by natural selection is certainly observable and verifiable, I do not think that it is in itself an adequate explanation of our origins.

Erosion is an observable and verifiable mechanism for rock formation, but it does not explain Mt. Rushmore.

 

[cantdog]

I thought Rushmore was chosen because it was a very large dike of igneous rock. Made for a reasonable thickness of fairly homogeneous rock with no strata in it. Such dikes are common enough, though one the size of Rushmore is unusual. They had to reposition Jefferson, but otherwise the thing went through with few hitches, especially hitches because of the geology of the site.

 

[cantdog]

We belong to a species which itself has caused hundreds of extinctions. We also belong to a species which is not even a million years old.

 

[cantdog]

But none of this affected the wackos who have been editing science texts to the point of nullity, for reasons, if you can call them reasons, equivalent to the reasons for driving airplanes into NYC office buildings.

They are not just contemptible, they have been devastating to the education of millions.

 

[mynameisben]

I am virtually 100% certain in the truthfulness of evolution through natural selection. However, I don't see how it could be considered observable and verifiable to a scientific standard, as it occurs over millions of years. Sure, you can look a marine Galapagos iguana and say that it almost certainly evolved from garden variety iguanas who can't sneeze out salt, but you didn't see it happen. Therefore, it isn't empirically verifiable... at least not as "empirically verifiable" was explained to me.

Evolution isn't so much a matter of "millions of years" as it is a matter of generations. Evolutionary experiments performed with certain microorganisms, which breed a new generation every 15 minutes or so, can show genetic mutations and adaptations to variations in their environment after only a few months of close observation.

40,000 generations takes a million years for humans. But microorganisms can churn through the same number of generations in approximately one year. The cool thing about experiments with microorganisms is that mutagens can be introduced into their environments that dramatically speed up the evolutionary process, so that observable adaptations can be seen in mere months.

 

[cantdog]

What mynameisben said...

People are still going on about randomness not being able to explain the development of species, when in fact, that was exactly the philosophical problem that Darwin's formulation solved!

Faced with the incontrovertible fact that randomness wouldn't make a whale, a snake, or a megatherium, some other understanding had to be found to explain them, and it is the simplest, most profound little idea. Once you get it, it's so damn inevitably correct! Any entity, living or not, capable of A., interacting with its environment and B., reproducing will have to exhibit the effect. Once those criteria come into play, randomness no longer drives the relevant processes.

People also go on and on about the first chemical process to meet those criteria, which is the real "origin of life," "primeval soup" idea. That scene, man, precedes natural selection, which doesn't come into effect until you have a reproducing entity. Evolution by natural selection doesn't address it because it isn't concerned with it. It's an effect. It can be seen immediately when its base criteria are met, but not until then.

But reason is not the point for these yahoos. They didn't begin their destructive yapping because of reason, and they are not using reason to either form or defend their delusional notions.

 

[cantdog]

Back to you, WR James.

Speciation is a slippery concept. The conventional definition, before genetics, of what made a species separate and distinct from related forms was that it could only reproduce effectively with members of its own group. That means, no mules. Horses and asses can fuck and have offspring, but they are mules, and that is the term used universally for a creature which cannot reproduce. Lions and tigers can make two different forms this way, but neither is viable.

But the real world gives us examples, as always, which defeat our neat categories. There's a bird with a wide range, for instance. It is two species for some classifying biologists, and one species for others. It changes color and shape, gradually but perceptibly, from the western end of its range to the eastern end. A far-eastern bird of this species, brought west as an experiment, is not recognized as the same species by members of the western form of it. They do not spontaneously reproduce, but act like they have met some bird of a different kind. And yet, all along the range, the neighboring birds reproduce together. Where along the cline do you draw the line? Where do you say, here one species ends and the next begins?

The real world's complexities make easy, clear discussion of speciation difficult, and so all such discussions are hedged about with careful talk to avoid confusion. Perhaps neanderthalensis was such a phenomenon as this bird. The fossils are distinct enough, mostly, but borderline examples exist. Some people speculated that we did not so much kill off or out-compete neanderthalensis as interbreed with them, and so erased the distinction. Genetic data refines the discussions, but still leaves the community of biologists divided into "splitters" and "lumpers," people who prefer to recognize small differences with a new species name, and people who would rather call them the same species if they are similar enough.

Recently, based especially on genetic similarities, the justification for considering chimpanzees (Pan) and men (Homo) to be different genera was called into question. Chimpanzees are the older genus, but the convention is to go with the older name as used in the literature. So some biologists are proposing calling chimps Homo.

All this, the definitions by which different genera and species are classified, is before you even get to the level of exact mechanism of speciation. So yes, there is a lot of fun and colorful difference of opinion in the science. Doesn't cast a damn bit of doubt on the idea of evolution, though.