Evolution - Beyond the Popular Science 777
| Patterns and Processes of Vertebrate Evolution | |
| author | Robert L. Carroll |
| pages | 448 |
| publisher | Cambridge University Press |
| rating | 9 |
| reviewer | Danny Yee |
| ISBN | 0-521-47809-X |
| summary | An uncompromising but accessable overview of modern evolutionary theory. |
In Patterns and Processes of Vertebrate Evolution Carroll undertook an ambitious project - nothing less than to update George Gaylord Simpson's classic works from the 1940s and 50s, Tempo and Mode in Evolution and The Major Features of Evolution. The result is a "broad picture" overview of the processes of evolutionary change, centred on paleontology but attempting to integrate that with the rest of biology. Patterns and Processes is aimed at students of paleontology and specialists in that and related fields, but it should also be considered by general readers: while it goes into quite involved details, they are always used to illustrate broader ideas and there is solid motivation for persevering with them. It is especially recommended to those unhappy with the lack of substance in popular debates over the theory of punctuated equilibrium, which Carroll critically appraises. Patterns and Processes is effectively illustrated with line-drawings and figures and has a useful glossary.
Carroll begins with an overview of current problems in evolutionary theory and in particular of the "gap" between short- and long-term processes in evolution, and between paleontology and other disciplines. He also discusses the choice of the vertebrates as a testing ground (which is picked up at the end of the book in a brief comparison with invertebrate metazoa, prokaryotes, protists, and vascular plants). He then provides an overview of theories of evolution, at the level of populations and species, from Darwin through Dobzhansky and Mayr to Gould and Eldredge.
Two chapters present some essential background. The first looks at evolution in modern populations, in particular at rates of evolution among the Galapagos island finches, where significant directional change does occur and doesn't appear to be correlated with speciation. The second considers some of the limitations of fossil evidence, the irregularity of fossilization and other stratigraphic issues and problems with the dating of events and processes and the measurement of rates of evolution.
Next come two case studies. The rates and directions of change among late Cenozoic mammals are examined with an eye to testing theories of punctuated equilibrium and species selection. Many lineages exhibit stasis "of particular characters and character complexes," but in none is there stasis of all characters and phyletic evolution is common. And "no major trends involving a complex of character changes can be demonstrated as having resulted from species selection." In contrast, the rapid radiation of the cichlid fish of the East African Great Lakes provides some evidence for species level evolution, and a bridge between macroevolution and microevolution.
Four separate chapters focus on related disciplines, in an attempt to reunify different fields. Taxonomy influences our basic concepts of evolutionary patterns as well as providing tools for discovering them; phylogenetic systematics (cladistics) has been particular influential, offering "an objective way to compare patterns of large-scale evolution from group to group and within groups over time" and forcing reconsideration of traditional naming schemes in the vertebrates. With evolutionary genetics Carroll presents some basic models, focusing on quantitative traits; he touches on the enigma of low selection coefficients and on genetic constraints.
Turning to developmental biology, Carroll surveys heterochrony, homeobox and Hox genes, and the phylotypic stage. He then applies this to the origin of craniates and skull and axial skeleton development, but above all to tetrapod limbs, to their origins, developmental processes, morphogenesis, and evolution. He also considers the integration of developmental biology with the evolutionary synthesis and its possible connections with macroevolution. Other constraints are imposed by physics: Carroll considers vertebrate locomotion in water, in the air, and on land, and touches on membrane transport, heat transfer, and size scaling.
Three chapters then look at large scale structure and patterns in evolution. A chapter on "major transitions" focuses on movements between environments: the most detailed study is of the origin of birds, but others cover the origins of terrestrial vertebrates, mosasaurs, and whales. Critical periods saw rates of change exceeding those in ancestral and descendant groups, but not those observed in modern populations; more importantly, directions of change were sustained for long periods. Turning to radiations, Carroll treats at length the Cambrian explosion and the radiation of early Cenozoic mammals: occurring in intervals of 10 million years or less; these differ from other, slower radiations into already occupied environments and "can certainly be attributed to factors that were not considered by Darwin". At the largest scales, vertebrate evolution has been irregular, driven by "forces" that can't be extrapolated from those operating at the level of populations and species: among them sustained evolutionary trends, continental drift, and mass extinctions.
Among Carroll's overall conclusions:
"Evolutionary forces that can be studied in modern populations are sufficiently powerful to account for the amount and rate of morphological change throughout the entire course of vertebrate history."
and
"Transitions between environments governed by major differences in physical constraints do not necessarily require special evolutionary processes."
but at the same time
"Large-scale patterns of evolution cannot be fully explained by processes that are directly observable at the level of modern populations and species.... the patterns, rates, and controlling forces of evolution are much more varied than had been conceived by either Darwin or Simpson."
And macroevolution is essentially historical, with each major event "unique and worthy of detailed study in its own right".
Patterns and Processes in Vertebrate Evolution combines clear exposition of details - and what appears to be an encyclopedic knowledge of vertebrate history - with a willingness to tackle big questions. Sometimes Carroll seems to take both sides of debates, but that is a reflection of respect for complexity, not of unengaged fence-sitting. The result is a useful overview for students or outsiders; it also seems to have established itself as a minor classic within the field.
You might want to purchase Patterns and Processes in Vertebrate Evolution from bn.com or read some of Danny's other evolution book reviews. Slashdot welcomes readers' book reviews -- to see your own review here, read the book review guidelines, then visit the submission page.
All things considered (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:All things considered (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:All things considered (Score:3, Interesting)
However, if she is a YEC then the strongest arguement against a young earth is the obvious age of the earth as demonstrated by geology.
For myself Angular Unconformities are the best example fo a common geologic feature that requires an earth older then 6 to 10k years. For example here is a picture I took recently in Yellowstone NP of a fine speciman [sammcgees.com] of a unconfromity. Angular unconformities occur when the strata are tilted with respect to each other, rather than lying horizontally one on top of the other. This is generally caused by tectonic processes tilting the lower layers before the higher layers were deposited. This requires:
Deposition
Lithification (hardening to rock)
Tilting
Erosion
Deposition
These processes take time and is difficult to ascribe to a 40 day flood.
For the above example in Yellowstone (Mt Everts next to Mammoth hot springs) there are thousands of feet of Jurassic age sendiments with fossils. The layer on top is volcanic tuff that also appears to be tilted so add one more tilting step to the above processes. I have seen examples where the lower layer is tilted vertical making a T shaped unconformity.
YEC and Geology (Score:2)
For example, here is a picture of two layers of lava flows [sammcgees.com] separated by depositional layers. So I ask which layer is the "Flood" layer? The answer I have received so far is that all the depositional layers are flood layers.
Re:All things considered (Score:3, Insightful)
But I have to ask folks to realize that "Faith" is not the only reason that religious people have problems with evolution. Look at the bigger picture. Many of us want an explanation for everything that goes on around us which fits together into a cohesive understandable whole. You can not simply look at evolution by itself and point to the evidence and say, "That proves it and anyone who thinks differently is an ignorant fool."
Realize that my Faith fits what I see in the world. From the question of WHY I exist, to why anything exists, to why I should treat anyone well, to why civilization is desireable, to whether anything matters, to what my place is in the universe is answered by my Faith (Christianity for those keeping score at home). I find that 99% of everything I see, hear, feel, and experience fits what my Faith would predict. It tells me that human life has value, and my observations bear this out. It tells me that the rules of the universe should be constant because the Creator who made it is faithful, and science bears this out. It tells me that evil is real and that it is worth fighting it, and my life shows this to be true. Et cetera.
When my Faith fits 99% of what I see every day and can find elsewhere, and Evolution happens to fall into a 1% that does not fit does that mean I am a fool for questioning Evolution? No, it means I am working with what has been proven to work, and am trying to work out the rest of it and see how things come out. Does that mean I will never accept evolution? Not necesarily. Science may disprove it, I may find a way to integrate the two, or I may go to my grave not being smart enough to reconcile the two. We shall see.
Re: All things considered (Score:3)
> I find that 99% of everything I see, hear, feel, and experience fits what my Faith would predict.
That's because faith is a wildcard explanation, and doesn't really predict anything at all.
For instance, last night ABC news reported on the drought in the southeastern USA, and showed a brief clip of a public prayer meeting people were having in order to seek relief. But does faith predict the outcome? Of course not. If it rains, they'll say "goddidit". If it doesn't, they'll say god has motivations that we don't understand. Either way, faith decides that faith was correct.
> It tells me that human life has value, and my observations bear this out.
You certainly didn't learn that human life has value from reading the bible.
And besides... what are those observations that bear out your belief?
> It tells me that the rules of the universe should be constant because the Creator who made it is faithful
You didn't learn those two things from the bible either.
Re:All things considered (Score:2, Insightful)
"AMEN!"
Creationism, Evolution... They're both theories.
Any scientist who says one "did" absolutely positively happen is practicing a faith, not science. In essence, they're both religions, with whacko irrational devotees on both sides.
Re:All things considered (Score:2, Insightful)
Any scientist who says one "did" absolutely positively happen is practicing a faith, not science. In essence, they're both religions, with whacko irrational devotees on both sides.
Evolution is like gravity, both fact and theory. The fact is that it does, has, and will continue to happen. The theory is how it happens. Darwin's contribution was not evolution's existence; this much was already known. His contribution was a mechanism for evolution to happen--descent with modification due to natural selection.
Claiming that evolution and creation are both "just theories" shows an astounding ignorance of science. "Theories" are models used that best fit the available evidence. Putting both creation and evolution in this category would need several steps up just to get to "wrong." Where evolution is concerned, we have physical evidence, genetic evidence, laboratory evidence, and observation. Where creation is concerned, we have....A book that says it happened.
Re:All things considered (Score:3, Informative)
Evolution is a fact. Things change.
The "theory of evolution of biological species by natural selection" is a scientific theory to explain the observed variation and "relatedness" of biological organisms, and their change through time as observed in the fossil record.
The "theory" of creationism is a load of pseudo-scientific mumbo-jumbo used to prop up some people's faith in the Almighty in the face of evidence that contradicts the primary literary source of their belief.
Ergo, stating the belief that the theory of evolution and the theory of creationism are both scientific theories of equal merit demonstrates a profound lack of understanding of science and its rigid reliance on fact and observation. Q.E.D.
Re:All things considered (Score:2)
Yes, we have witnessed one species becoming two different species.
No. There is the Theory of Evolution. There is Einstein's Theory of General Relativity. There is no scientifically-viable Theory of Creation.
Re:All things considered (Score:2)
Yes.
Where was I?
Not on Faroe Island, where imported mice rapidly (over approx. 250 years) diverged from there orginal stock enough to no longer be of the same species.
Rather, we have witnessed dogs get big, small, and get new colors, shorter tails, bigger eyes, But over thousands and thousands of years, they're still dogs.
Could you please define what a dog is, and how much divergence is needed for you to consider a dog breed to be a different species?
Re:All things considered (Score:2)
If I recall my 7th grade science class correctly, two organisms are considered to be the same species (at least among sexually reproductive species) if by mating the two you can produce fertile offspring. I seem to recall a story about a frog (or toad?) species with three subspecies. (Let's call them A, B, and C.) A and C could not mate successfully, but A and B could, and B and C could, so it was possible (through a couple of generations) that the A and C populations could share genetic material. Thus, by the existence of the B population, A, B, and C were all considered to be the same species.
The existence of mutt dogs proves that most or all dog breeds are still the same species.
Re:All things considered (Score:2)
The reason why I asked is that many creationists use the arguement "sure it's changed over time, but it's still a [insert whatever type of life form you so desire]", and unless they give a concreate defination of what defines that life form (many do not accept inability to successfully breed with fertile offspring), it really is impossible to say when it has evolved enough to meet their requirements.
Re:All things considered (Score:3, Insightful)
OK, I'll take the troll bait....
I don't think you (or most people) really understand what evolution is. It's not one species suddenly becoming another, like monkeys turning into people, or a thing that happened once or twice in the distant past. It is a continous process of change, small or large, that is happening now. The example you cited about the dogs is actually an excellent example of biological evolution, even though the evolution in this case is artificially accelerated and forced down certain paths by man. Evolution is also happening right under your skin, as we speak. Our immune system is constatnly spawning new species (yes, species) of antibodies to fight foreign invaders. We end up with millions of species of antibodies by the time we die.
No, it is indeed called the theory of evolution, but gravity is also called the theory of gravity. ( So you shouldn't mind if I throw you from the roof of my building [thomasprop...sgroup.com]. You'll have about 4 or 5 seconds to fold your arms and explain how gravity is just a theory before you become part of the pavement on Market Street.) Don't confuse "theory" with "unproven idea". In fact, the scientific definiton of theory is nearly the opposite of "unproven idea". A theory [dictionary.com], according to Dictionary.com is "[a] set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena." I would say Creationism hardly falls under that classification.
Re:All things considered (Score:2)
Re:All things considered (Score:2)
Re:All things considered (Score:2, Insightful)
Creationism, Evolution... They're both theories.
Um... The first is based on faith, the second on careful observation of the natural world. Hardly equal terms, I'd say.
Alternatively, taking your argument further:
You may have a theory that the earth will continue to rotate for another 24 hours. Of course, it's just a theory, and all theories are equivalent. So I should not feel obligated to come up with ones that match reality. I have a new theory, that the earth will stop rotating in eight hours. Just try and prove me wrong *right* *now*!
Re:All things considered (Score:3, Insightful)
Therefore, in a scientific sense, evolution is by far the strongest theory.
Re:All things considered (Score:5, Insightful)
Calling evolution a religion is either dishonest or an exercise in destroying the meaning of "religion" and making the word so vague that you can call anything a religion. Take your pick.
Re:All things considered (Score:2)
As long as some creationists are using them, then it's not a strawman to rebut them.
To find out what thinking, educated creationists think, have a look at www.reasons.org. This organization is devoted to building a viable scientific theory of creation.
I went their, and found the website hard to navigate. I was looking for a summary (with evidence) of what thinking, educated creationists think, but all that I could find where reasons for me to send them money. The few examples of science were pretty flawed (the deep sea vents article on their front page was extremely one sided, and lacked objectivity).
Do you know of a good page on their site which relates what they believe, and what evidence there is to back up these beliefs?
Re:All things considered (Score:2)
Re:All things considered (Score:5, Insightful)
By no criteria is creationism a theory (but those of extreme relativists like Feyerabend -- who also considers voodoo a scientific theory). To take just one problem, it is not potentially falsifiable. Evolution is.
I know this sucks for you, since you dislike evolution on non-scientific grounds. So rather than slander it or science more generally, why don't you do some research and make some informed criticisms. You don't need a Ph.D -- go read how Bishop Berkely's criticisms on religious grounds of the infinitesmals of Newton's theory were logically sound, and led eventually to its reformulation in the nineteenth century around the concepts of limits.
Any scientist who says one "did" absolutely positively happen is practicing a faith, not science.
This is a straw man argument on at least two fronts.
First, almost all scientists understand scientific theories to be hypotheticals, approximations to the truth. This is why (most) scientists don't prance around saying their theories are true, but rather useful to the degree they make sense of existing empirical data, successfully predict the outcomes of future experiments, support technological applications, etc. (Creationism does none of these, I might add.)
Second, the question is not whether some scientists mistakenly think that there is incontrovertible evidence that uniquely establishes a theory. Scientists are human beings, and make mistakes. (You think Jesus or most Christians approve of those nuts who bomb abortion clinics and kill in the name of their peaceful religion? Hell no.) The question is whether creationism is a legitimate scientific theory. The answer is no. It neither meets any criteria scientists have for their theories nor does it find any empirical support anyway.
People like you turn others away from Christianity.
Re:All things considered (Score:2)
But one could certainly create a theory that objects fall because invisible angels grab them and throw them down
The fact that both are theories does not put them on anything like an equal basis.
Remember "theory" is just scientific jargon for "generalization" or "explanation". It is fact that over and over, objects have been seen to fall when dropped. But once you generalize, and say "things fall when dropped," you have created a theory, albeit one strongly supported by observational data.
Re: All things considered (Score:2)
> Creationism, Evolution... They're both theories.
Not both.
At the most basic level a theory is just a model for what we see in nature. That's what the theory of evolution is.
I suppose creationism could be a theory in that sense, but in practice it isn't. That's because it's proponents aren't interested in explaining what we see in nature; they're only interested in explaining away all the things we see that are contrary to their religious beliefs.
A theory, by its very nature, is beholden to the facts. That's why newtonian physics has been replaced by relativity and quantum physics: they explain the facts better. If scientists had been so dogmatic about newtonian physics that they jumped through hoops to preserve it in the face of contrary evidence - the way creationists do to preserve their dogma - then yes, you could have said that science was a religion. But it didn't happen that way, because science and religion operate on completely different principles.
> Any scientist who says one "did" absolutely positively happen is practicing a faith, not science.
At this point you need to start making a distinction between "the fact of evolution", what we see in nature, and "the theory of evolution", the model that explains what we see in nature. You should view the ToE not as a rival to your religion, but rather as a model that explains the facts. If we get new facts the theory may have to change, but the old facts aren't going to go away.
And those old facts are completely incompatible with creationists' beliefs, regardless of the status of the theory that we use to explain them with. Few creationists know enough about the history of science to realize it, but any literal interpretation of Genesis was ruled out by geologists decades before Darwin published his famous book.
For creationists to believe that their beliefs are on a par with the theory of evolution, or that a refutation of the theory of evolution would make their beliefs tenable again, is just ignorance.
Reminds me of a Bill Hicks routine... (Score:5, Funny)
Hicks: "If the Earth is really as young as you say it is, how do you explain dinosaur fossils?"
Creationist: "God put them there to test our faith."
Hicks: "I think God put you here to test mine."
Re:All things considered (Score:2, Interesting)
correction faith is not something you can argue against through reason. after years of arguing with people using my limited understanding of evolution and quantum theory, i concluded it's irrational to argue faith with reason. But the problem i have with it is not that people hold their beliefs to be truth, but that they belief it's important to convince others that it's truth. To which i found that the only way to make a stand is to argue faith through faith. The basic idea is that since god is truth when you learn about it and you dig deep you'll understand their truth to be your truth. I find that these days all i say is "well i've digged deep meditated on the idea of truth and my faith simply told me it's not my truth, it very well can be your truth, but i don't see it through faith. It's not that i don't have faith in anything, it's just my faith tells me to keep searching both through reason and through faith."
Re:All things considered (Score:2)
Re: All things considered (Score:2)
> Both points of view require faith, it's just the Evolutionist have faith in Random Chance whereas Creationists have faith in an Omnicient-Omnipotent God.
Actually, "Random Chance" is not the predominant effect in the theory of evolution.
Scientists don't believe the universe is a random place any more than creationists do. The difference is that when something "odd" is noticed, creationists pin it on a god and scientists pin it on the orderly operations of the universe. The theory of evolution happens to be the explanation for why the fossil record and the genomes of living organisms aren't completely random, just as the theory of gravity explains why the direction something falls when you drop it isn't completely random and the atomic theory explains why the result of mixing two chemicals in a beaker isn't completely random.
Randomness may play a role in the universe, but so do the laws of nature. For the most part, scientists are more interested in the latter.
Re:All things considered (Score:2)
Natural selection is anything but random chance.
Evolution, Explanation, and Prediction (Score:3, Interesting)
For example, evolution can explain what is happening in a system of living beings in a certain environment, and can can explain the changes in the population given shocks, but predicting the precise pattern of changes occuring within the population is impossible. In terms of pure theory, this has been one of the stumbling blocks to an otherwise beautiful idea.
Re:Evolution, Explanation, and Prediction (Score:5, Insightful)
Is this really a problem? As much as we'd like to think, we can't calculate/predict everything exactly, without perfect knolwedge of all inital conditions. Our understanding of weather patterns is quite good as is our ability to explain why current weather patterns exist (ie why it is raining today, why it is windy, etc). It is also impossible to (accurately) predict weather one month in the future. A stumbling block in meteorology? No, just the nature of reality.
SammyJ
I'd rather be rich than stupid.
-Jack Handy
Re:Evolution, Explanation, and Prediction (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Evolution, Explanation, and Prediction (Score:2)
If you search for texts by adaptionists, you will find explanations of how a theory of evolution will predict that we find adaptions that have ocourred. The prediction of discovering emperical evidence that is in accordance with the theory is similar to predictions made by General Relativity that are also investigated and confirmed experimentally. Thus, I would disagree with the statement that evolutionary theory cannot predict. It does. I believe I ran accross more of this in Darwin's Dangerous Idea by Daniel Dennett, or maybe it was some other Dennett book in which he discusses such claims from a philosophical position.
Additionally, one of the simplest predictions is that we can predict that careless treatment of bacterial disease with antibiotics will breed bacteria resistant to that treatment. This is simply a matter of applying selection pressures to the population and then witnessing the evolution of it.
Those unable make predictions based on evolutionary theory may need to try harder to find the right type of predictions.Re:Evolution, Explanation, and Prediction (Score:2)
Turns out I was right. In about 5 years, the Bt in the corn isn't worth squat. And anybody who knows a bit about insects adapting to poisons (think of cockroaches as an extreme example) could have predicted it as well.
Re:Evolution, Explanation, and Prediction (Score:4, Informative)
The second issue is complexity- both organisms and the environment are phenomenally complex. In order to predict evolutionary change, we would need to know exactly how the environment will change. Ecologists have worked on this for the last 100 years, and while they have made great progress, we are along way from knowing for certain (and probably never will be all the way there.)
Finally, to predict evolutionary change, we would need know why specific variants have their respective fitnesses in various environments. If we knew this, then we would truly understand why natural selection has operated the way it has. Many people are working (slowly) towards a predictive theory of evolution. For example, my lab [sunysb.edu] has shown that we can predict fitness of E. coli in simple environments based on our understanding of metabolism [nih.gov] .
So yes, evolution does differ from some sciences (like chemistry) in that is deals with historical explanation. (In shares this with astronomy and geology.) But many of us are also concerned with prediction.
Re:Evolution, Explanation, and Prediction (Score:2)
But I stand behind my wariness about the strength of evolution as a scientific theory. Sure, it can explain, and yes, it can be tested by observation and experement. And, to limits of complexity and the state of the art, it can predict. It is certainly more beautiful and more pragmatic than creationism.
But to what extent is the modern theory of natural selection falsifiable? What would a legitimate scientist (not some creationist quack) have to do in order to show that modern evolution theory is fundamentally wrong? BTW, these are legit, not metaphorical, questions. I'd really like to know!
Re:Evolution, Explanation, and Prediction (Score:2)
For example, the field of molecular evolution spent a great deal of time in the 70s and 80s arguing about whether most genetic varation at the level of protiens was selectivly neutral or affected fitness. In the end, the deabte fizzled out unresolved, I think becuase people decided that the interesting question is "Under what circumstances is genetic variation neutral, and when is it selective."
So what we have to do is try to come up with a general description of how things work. If we find an exception, then the question is how often does it work that way. A single experiment which seems to go against modern theory is likely to be thought of as an oddity until it can be shown to be a general phenomenon, or until we can connect the mecanisms which cause it and other (dis)simmilar events. And then, assuming uniformitarianism (like all historical sciences) apply these princples back in time.
Does that help, or have I just confused the issue?
Re:Evolution, Explanation, and Prediction (Score:2)
At least that's how I understand it.
Define order, Define disorder (Score:2)
Re:Define order, Define disorder (Score:5, Informative)
Someone did. His name was Boltzmann. The more ordered a system is, the fewer microstates available to it. What does that mean? Well, a macroscopic example is this: imagine you have a bunch of books you're putting on a shelf. There's only one way to put the books alphabetically (assuming you have no duplicate copies). But there's a really large number of ways to put them on if you put them every which way. So let's compare the order of two systems. Our first system is our books on the shelf, restricted to alphabetical ordering. The second is our books on the shelf. The first system has only one way it can be arranged; the second (assuming we have more than one book) has more. So the first system is more ordered.
This is a little simplistic, but it gets the point across.
Trust me, entropy really is a well-defined concept. Or don't trust me; read for yourself.
Re:Define order, Define disorder (Score:2)
Believe me, the entropy of your bedroom is the unchanged regardless of how many socks and T-shirts you have lying on the floor vs. folded neatly in the dresser.
definitions of species (Score:4, Interesting)
As an example closer to home take a look at common dogs. I can bet that some biologist in the far future (say 100 million years from now) is going to find all of these dog fossils, especially in pet cemetaries, etc. and conclude that these were all different species of animal. A chihauhau vs a Saint Bernard? the same species? come on now.... ;-)
This loose grey zone is probably part of the problem. and I can see them trying desperately trying to find the intermediate forms in the fossil record. They will have just "mysteriously appeared"
Re:definitions of species (Score:2)
Re:definitions of species (Score:4, Insightful)
We classify organisms into species in order to make some sense of what we observe, but we should always keep in mind that the classification is artificially imposed, and somewhat arbitrary. The fossil record of any group of related organisms shows discrete snapshots of a continuous variation through time and geography (punctuated equilibrium does not refute this, it just says that the rate of evolution is not constant).
The species model describes evolutionary change as "creatures evolving from species A to species B to species C", with the implicit understanding that these are just arbitrary markers along the continuous evolutionary path, not coincidentally placed where there are well-preserved examples in the (incomplete) fossil record.
Unfortunately, this implicit understanding doesn't really get through to popular understanding of evolution; hence the many heated debates about speciation and how to tell when it occurs, when in fact speciation is not a real phenomenon at all, but a classification tool.
Re:definitions of species (Score:2)
Re:definitions of species (Score:3, Informative)
The definition of species is, and always has been, "A group of animals that can and do produce viable offspring."
If this seems vague to you, good! The definition of species *is* vague. It has to be. "Species" is a concept that humans invented to help them describe the world around them. Very very often, it doesn't work. There's no way to change it so that it will work.
Re:definitions of species (Score:2)
Anyway. Humans isolated on an island for a long period of time, like several thousand years, would absolutely be considered a separate species by this definition. Of course, the second they're discovered, if they can still interbreed, they're no longer a separate species.
Also, who says homosexuals don't breed? Three of my best friends have gay parents. It doesn't matter for the definition, though. People who don't breed aren't separate species, they're just unsuccessful members of their species.
Re:definitions of species (Score:4, Informative)
The advent of the use of genetic markers for classification provides some greater degree of accuracy and standardization in the process, but it does not eliminate the inherant flexibility in the definition. (From a bioinformatic standpoint, there is a whole other set of problems with trying to accurately portray evolutionary distances from genetic variation.)
Consider a group of animals with a continuous distribution over a very large area. All the members of this population are capable of interbreeding, and the uninterrupted distribution allows for genetic drift throughout the entire population. Individuals from different geographic regions will have subtly different physical characteristics, but the whole population is still considered a single species. This is a fairly classic situation. (The benefit of a large gene pool likely outweights the benifit of these subspecies differentiating into wholly different species, if you want to look at it that way.)
Then, consider a group of animals with a discontinuous distributuion over a large range. Individual populations may be able to interbreed with one another, but there is no natural genetic exchange among these separate populations. Subtle differences between the groups may, in this case, warrent classification as separate species, because they represent different gene pools drifting in different directions.
The complexity of the issue compounds when one looks outside the animal kingdom. For instance, essentially the entire family or orchids, with some 1000 genera and 20,000 species, exhibits a high degree of genetic plasticity, with species readily hybridizing across genera. And again, the definition of "species" must be reevaluated when one considers the bacterial world.
Anyway, the point of all this is to show that the grey zone is there for a reason. The alternative is to explicity redefine taxonomic criteria for every different group of organisms, which defeats the entire purpose of a single classification system.
The Rise of Evolution Fraud (Score:2, Interesting)
Evolution is always promoted as being founded on scientific facts that were collected by Darwin, and this was why it gradually gained acceptance in the universities, schools etc. This book demonstrates that it was promoted for many years before Darwin, his Origin of Species only appearing at the right time.
The ground work for the acceptance of evolution was laid by Charles Lyell in his Principles of Geology. He quickly befriended Darwin when he returned from the Beagle voyage and the circumstantial evidence is that it was he who suggested to Darwin he should write about evolution. Darwin had no thought of it before then.
Throughout the famous Beagle voyage, Darwin was far more interested in geology than biology. He did NOT think of evolution whilst visiting the Galapagos and seeing the various beaks of the finches. This was pointed out to him by the ornithologist entrusted with his collection AFTER he had returned to England. He made many such (false) claims in his "biography" which he wrote late in his life.
Re:The Rise of Evolution Fraud (Score:2, Insightful)
Darwin's contribution. (Score:2, Informative)
What Darwin did was find an explanation for evolution - a mechanism by which it occurred. Undoubtedly Lyell believed in, and pointed out to Darwin, the operation of evolution. And the ornithologist certainly pointed that all the finches he had brought back (and carelessly jumbled up) appeared to be descended from a singel ancestor. His book is titled "On The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or The Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life", and it is the "Means of natural Selection" bit that is original.
To assert that Darwin claimed to have discovered Evolution is like claiming that Columbus discovered the Atlantic. Columbnus dicovered how to cross the atlantic, and Darwin discovered hopw to explain Evolution.
Why Fundamentalist "Christians" Care (Score:4, Insightful)
Without god, there are no moral absolutes, goes the argument. And without moral absolutes, why, what's to prevent all sorts of immorality?
Therefore, attempts to debate the theory of evolution with "christian" fundamentalists, or their fellow travelers, is pointless, because you are challenging their entire world view, not objectively evaluating competing scientific theories.
FWIW, almost all thinking non-fundamentalist Christians, as do most educated people regardless of religious belief/nonbelief, realize evolution is a scientific reality.
And we, the vast majority, further realize that evolution doesn't imply anything about morality, or the existence of god, one way or the other.
And therefore there is no reason to waste time in high school science classes teaching theories like creationism that are neither theologically nor scientifically interesting.
Re:Why Fundamentalist "Christians" Care (Score:2, Insightful)
I know it's nitpicky but evolution is a scientific "possibility". It is still regarded as a theory after all. And I know this non-fundamental Christian believes God could have used evolution to create us.
I would say it's the most likely theory. Ahead of the "we came from another world" theories for certain. But "scientific fact" which was actually "scientific theory" has been proven wrong so many times in the past. And we laugh at those "scientists" of the past and wonder HOW they could have been so stupid but yet we repeat that mistake ourselves.
Theory != Some vague possibility (Score:5, Informative)
All things short of a methematical 'proof' in science is theory, including gravitation and even cause-and-effect itself. The word 'theory' in science has an entirely different connotation to what it has in common parlence, and in particular to the way you use it here.
What you are equating evolution with is a hypothesis, not a theory, and the two are very different. Or, put another way,
The theory is not did evolution happen. We already know evolution did and does happen, there is a mountain of factual data underscoring that point. What is theoretical and debated (by scientists) is what the mechanism is by which primates became human and dinasaurs became birds. The fact that it happened is denied only by those with a religious agenda, whose fragile beliefs are challenged by the factual data collected by thousands of researches all over the face of the planet.
And I know this non-fundamental Christian believes God could have used evolution to create us.
And I know this Athiest believes aliens could have seeded the Earth with proto-human life, but until I see some sensible evidence indicating that such might be the case, I'm not going to pay the notion much heed.
Re:Why Fundamentalist "Christians" Care (Score:2)
No it is not. Evolution is accepted as fact by any scientist who subscribes to the scientific method. There are mountains of evidence to back it, no counterexamples to it, and speciation has been directly observed through rigorous experiment. It's as much theory as the "germ theory of disease" or the "theory of relativity".
I could post a link, but just google for talk.origins FAQ and do some reading.
Re:Why Fundamentalist "Christians" Care (Score:3, Informative)
Evolution is a fact - it has been observed to happen, which cannot be disputed. HOW it happens is the theory of evolution by natural selection.
BTW, a theory in science isn't anything like the commonplace notion of a theory. Theories aren't haphazard guesses, they are fully supported by fact and represent the most powerful explanation that we can devise.
Example: The theory of gravity is "only" a theory, but does anyone go around saying that it's hardly proven to exist?
Re:Why Fundamentalist "Christians" Care (Score:2)
Evolution as the origin of the species is a theory.
This is because we can't go back in time and observe it directly, while we *can* observe the process itself today.
Re:Why Fundamentalist "Christians" Care (Score:2)
Re:Why Fundamentalist "Christians" Care (Score:4, Insightful)
In fact, 'creationists' would build a stronger basis for their faith if they'd just acknowledge this truth. Clinging to their literal interpretation of scripture is vain, even blasphemous.
Re:Why Fundamentalist "Christians" Care (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Why Fundamentalist "Christians" Care (Score:2)
Re:Why Fundamentalist "Christians" Care (Score:5, Insightful)
Nonsense.
What bothers you most as a christian is that you believe that somehow evolution implies something about the truth of your beliefs. Otherwise, it's such an esoteric and complicated theory you wouldn't waste your time coming up with examples.
For example, it is rare indeed to see a statement such as "what bothers me as a christian about the infectious theory of disease is..." or "what bothers me as a christian about the theory of musical harmony.."
Just like disease theories and musical theories, evolution implies nothing about either your religion or about how to behave and discussing the theories is totally irrelevant.
Therefore, attempts to argue the truth of evolution with someone arguing "as a christian" is pointless. Again, it has nothing whatsoever to do with christianity as most people understand the religion.
However, what IS germane is to point out, over and over again, is that the argument for creationism is really about the effort to force a particular, and IMO very ugly, moral agenda into public schools. An agenda which, again, squares not at all with the moral agenda of most practicing religious people.
Re:Why Fundamentalist "Christians" Care (Score:3)
Why is it a valid argument? It presumes the answer, and you either take it on faith or not. There's no argument part to it.
The best site I've found on this topic is Science Against Evolution
Which has a section "Christianity versus Evolution". That's not science; it's about as believable as the cigarette companies claiming smoking doesn't cause cancer.
the one about the insurmountable difficulties of reptilian-to-mammal evolution. If you believe that one happened, I've got a bridge to sell you...)
And yet you believe that some being could just wish this world into existence in one piece? In any way the world was created, extraordinary things happened.
The Science Against Evolution site is written and managed by "Do-while Jones" a nom de plume for David Pogge, who in 1990 was given the considerable honor of being made a Fellow at the US Naval Weapons Center at China Lake. He is one of the world's most accomplished programmers
What does a programmer know about biology? Would you let him diagnose your illness? History is ripe with smart people speaking nonsense outside their field of knowledge.
read Not By Chance! (Score:3, Interesting)
On second thought, don't bother. Your mind is made up and you wouldn't want to be confused with the facts. And Spetner offers no religious alternative, so you cannot attack him as a religious fanatic, so what strawman argument will you fall back on instead?
Just for the record, I do not personally believe in "creation science", nor do I think that science can explain how "creation" occurred, but I am amazed at how completely fooled Slashdot readers are by the completely discredited neo-Darwinian theory of evolution. If Darwin were here, I think he'd slap you all upside the head.
RussP.org
Re:read Not By Chance! (Score:5, Interesting)
Let's say I toss 10,000,000 coins, and make a careful record of the sequence of heads and tails. Now, I calculate the probability of that exact sequence, and discover that it is exactly as low as the probability of having them all come up heads. Have I proved that the coins are weighted? Or influenced by God? No, because every sequence of coins has exactly the same very low probability, but nevertheless one of them has to come up. This is the falacy of calcuating probabilities backwards. Every attempt I've seen to calculate the probability of evolution falls into that same basic error.
Remember, also, that natural selection is not a random process, even though it has random elements. For example, it is possible to use an evolutionary simulation to solve an equation, even when there is only one possible solution--and it is far more efficient than trying to guess the answer randomly.
Re:read Not By Chance! (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:read Not By Chance! (Score:2)
Also, you're getting the algorithm wrong for how evolution works. It's not random like flipping a coin at all. Think of how you play the game mastermind - you don't make random plays until you get it, you keep what's good and change what's wrong. A good player can win the game in a very low number of moves.
Re:Non-Zero Probability (Score:2, Insightful)
Is it just Evolution Vs. Christianity (Score:3, Interesting)
That is kinda strange as all religions believe in creationism. However, people of most other religions seem to realize the distinction between faith-based religious beliefs and scientific facts like evolution. Also, this debate seems to be the hottest in America alone. Why is that?
I don't want to hurt anyone's sensibilities, but history is filled with instances of the Christian church condemning the scientific world and trying to regulate what the scientists say.
I am interested in knowing the views of all you calm people out there as to why evolution is so vigorously attacked by America's religious Christians alone and not so much by other religions/countries?
Re:Is it just Evolution Vs. Christianity (Score:3)
This is an interesting question. First, though, I would like to point out that it is not only Christians, and not only in America, that evolution is attacked by religious fundamentalists on religious grounds. This does happen in many countries, and typically by many religions. That being said, your point is well taken, that it is mostly Christians, and definitely mostly in the United States, where religious attacks on evolution are prevalent.
One factor which contributes to this, in my mind, is America's notion of egalitarianism. (Ironically, possibly) There is a notion which I have only seen held by Americans which goes something along the lines of "Everyone's opinion is as good as anyone else's, so to hell with the experts, our opinion needs to be part of the debate". So what's the connection? I think the connection is that a lot of Americans, no matter what their level of education, feel competent to speak on scientific matters. As one might imagine, this typically leads to a lot of expressed opinions which are, to say the least, ill-informed. This is in contrast to other countries, where this attitude of "everyone's opinion is equal" seems much less prevalent. (I grant that I don't have much data to back up the above, so you can fairly categorize it as anecdotal.) What this leads to is that people ignore the experts' opinions on (say) evolution, and think that whatever they feel is a convincing argument for (say) creationism is as good as what the scientific community thinks. This is, IMHO, a specifically American trait, and this is why you see this manifested so much in the US.
----Now, don't get me wrong. As an American, I think that usually, this egalitarianism is a great thing. It leads us to have what is probably the closest thing to a meritocracy as is possible in 2002, and I think that is a Good Thing. Just sometimes, it causes a little trouble.----
Another thing which I think contributes is that Americans are more distrustful of centralized authority than any group of people I can think of. Americans don't believe anything the government says. Conspiracy theories are a staple of American culture. Now, there are other countries which have a CT subculture (France and India do come to mind), but in the US, CT is completely mainstream. I'm reminded of this article [slashdot.org] just recently on /. Anyway, I think that this massive distrust of authority leads to more belief in creationism (and further many other types of pseudoscience). Anything which the Scientific Establishment tells us, but is obvious wrong just by common sense, must be wrong, right?
A third factor is that many people of my parents' generation (just pre-Baby Boom), and most people of my grandparents' generation, were taught creationism in school. Neither of my parents were taught anything but lip-service concerning evolution, and were explicitly told by their science teachers that evolution was wrong. (I have in my mind's eye a teacher saying "Well, the damnyankees made us put this in the book, but...") Ok, perhaps this is in the South and not over the rest of the country, but this definitely plays a role. I mean, I admit that I have trouble thinking of Kazakhstan as a country (or, hell, even Germany) because it wasn't around when I was in grammar school. I mean, I'm up to date only on the things which I do. Certainly nonscientists will not hear anything about the evolution vs. creationism debate after they finish their eduction, so whatever they heard as kids sticks. Now, I don't have any idea what kids in other countries were taught 40 years ago, so this may or may not be a factor. It will also be interesting to see whether or not these people will be common in my age group in 30 years or so.
All in all, I could be completely wrong and none of the above plays a role, but it does sound right. And it is an intruiging question: Why American Christians have this one issue, and rarely any other type of religous person makes a big deal out of it. For myself, I am both a practicing religious person and a working mathematician, and I see no conflict between my faith and the scientific method.
Another very interesting question which I have posed many times in my life, but never found a reasonable answer to is, essentially, Why do people find a conflict between their faith and science? In the context of this discussion, why do creationists feel a need to discredit the scientific community on the subject of evolution? This is something which seems like a complete waste of energy to me.
One who has faith could say
- I believe that there is no conflict between faith and science,
- I believe (say) in the Bible literally, and all of this science is crap, so to hell with you scientists, or even
- science is ok when it comes to engineering and rocketships, but I don't believe it has anything useful to say about the origins of man, so I will ignore science and listen to the Bible on this score.
All of these positions seem reasonable (at least philosophically) to me, even though I strongly disagree with the last two. But another alternative, which I have seen a lot and completely bewilders me, is that creationists try to debunk evolution, typically using a combination of both scientific and biblical arguments, and sometimes just scientific. This is analogous to the people who try to use archaeology to "prove" that Noah had an ark with all of these animals in it. First, this proposition strikes me as philosophically absurd, but more importantly, completely useless. Let's say that you prove that there really was a dude named Noah, he really did have an Ark, and it had all these animals on it. So what? Will that make me believe more in the Ten Commandments, or the Five Pillars of Islam, or whatever? I can't imagine that it would, and I can't understand people who think it would. For example, let's say that someone convinces me that the scientists are all wrong on evolution. This will cause me to believe in Jesus?I have just never understood this fourth position, since it seems like a complete waste of time. It's also philosophically sort of weird, since people are trying to use scientific arguments to prove the Bible is truth word-for-word. This seems, at least, ironic.
Well, anyway, just my 2 cents, and I hope the content justified the length.
an interesting discussion (Score:2)
For those who might be interested in the differences between the various creation theories in the Christian community, there is also part 1 [rbn.com] and part 2 [rbn.com] of a debate on the subject.
All three are RealAudio, about 25 minutes long.
Raising a good question: introductory texts? (Score:4, Interesting)
Frankly I don't trust many high school or freshman level textbooks in _any_ subject. So I'd like to know: can anyone recommend a scholarly, well-referenced textbook, aimed about about the twelfth-grade level, in biology, in particular one which does a good job of covering evolution? Any particular authors and titles stand out? Any good resources to reviews and critiques of popular science textbooks?
The popular works have their place, but they're all deficient in some way. Gould is too scattershot--he's an essayist, really--and Dawkins is too polemical (frankly I think Dawkins has become an unmitigated jackass in recent years, and I'm not a creationist.)
hyacinthus.
Re:The biggest problem with evolution (Score:5, Insightful)
And those of you who were really paying attention would remember that the second law of thermodynamics states that in a closed system, disorder increases. The earth is not a closed system. Neither am I.
How stupid can you be to spout something like this? Who thinks that it's scientific fact that order can never increase locally? If your argument had any merit, we would conclude that I must be God because I can clean up my room, thus increasing order. Sheesh.
Right on. (Score:2, Funny)
Entropy
Trash Talk
Harm me with harmony.
Doomsday, drop a load on 'em.
Verse 1
Entropy, how can I explain it? I'll take it frame by frame it,
to have you all jumping, shouting saying it.
Let's just say that it's a measure of disorder,
in a system that is closed, like with a border.
It's sorta, like a, well a measurement of randomness,
proposed in 1850 by a German, but wait I digress.
"What the fuck is entropy?", I here the people still exclaiming,
it seems I gotta start the explaining.
You ever drop an egg and on the floor you see it break?
You go and get a mop so you can clean up your mistake.
But did you ever stop to ponder why we know it's true,
if you drop a broken egg you will not get an egg that's new.
That's entropy or E-N-T-R-O to the P to the Y,
the reason why the sun will one day all burn out and die.
Order from disorder is a scientific rarity,
allow me to explain it with a little bit more clarity.
Did I say rarity? I meant impossibility,
at least in a closed system there will always be more entropy.
That's entropy and I hope that you're all down with it,
if you are here's your membership.
Chorus
You down with entropy?
Yeah, you know me! (x3)
Who's down with entropy?
Every last homey!
Verse 2
Defining entropy as disorder's not complete,
'cause disorder as a definition doesn't cover heat.
So my first definition I would now like to withdraw,
and offer one that fits thermodynamics second law.
First we need to understand that entropy is energy,
energy that can't be used to state it more specifically.
In a closed system entropy always goes up,
that's the second law, now you know what's up.
You can't win, you can't break even, you can't leave the game,
'cause entropy will take it all 'though it seems a shame.
The second law, as we now know, is quite clear to state,
that entropy must increase and not dissipate.
Creationists always try to use the second law,
to disprove evolution, but their theory has a flaw.
The second law is quite precise about where it applies,
only in a closed system must the entropy count rise.
The earth's not a closed system' it's powered by the sun,
so fuck the damn creationists, Doomsday get my gun!
That, in a nutshell, is what entropy's about,
you're now down with a discount.
Chorus
Trash Talk
Hit it!
Doomsday, kick it in!
Re:The biggest problem with evolution (Score:2)
Yeah, but can most of the knee-jerk 14 year olds on slashdot do the same, or do their mothers have to yell at them first?
Re:The biggest problem with evolution (Score:2)
Yeah, but can most of the knee-jerk 14 year olds on slashdot do the same, or do their mothers have to yell at them first?
So Mom issues commandments that are followed by her "children"? She sounds like the God of the Old Testament.
Re:The biggest problem with evolution (Score:2)
While you're correct, both you and the "Put a glass of water in the freezer!" guy may want to come up with better analogies.
You take a local system, apply some God-like intervention and a fantastically improbable event happens. Do you think that's going to dissuade creationists?
Yeah, I understand that you cleaning your room = the sun feeding energy into the earth's system. But can you make a similar point without resorting to an intelligent intervention?
Re:The biggest problem with evolution (Score:2)
I was only trying to bash the World's Dumbest Argument Against Evolution. I'm delighted with your faith in my intelligence and wit, but if I could succinctly and eloquently explain the (as yet) not agreed upon mechanism for macroscopic evolution, I'd be very famous and I'd publish in Science.
Re:therein lies the real problem (Score:2)
You are wrong. There are many more. In fact, any system with a sustained energy flow will self-organize mechanisms around those energy flows. Hexagonal convection-cell patterns. Hurricanes. All you need is water, sunlight, gravity, and a rotating reference frame.
Re:The biggest problem with evolution (Score:2, Funny)
Re:The biggest problem with evolution (Score:2)
No no. By the dumb argument of parent's parent, snow is caused by God. We know that it's Scientific Fact (TM) that order never increases, so it must follow that God forms all those snowflakes himself. Isn't that sweet? :)
Re:The biggest problem with evolution (Score:2)
Come now. You know that Santa Clause is thermodynamically impossible [cvc.org].
Re:The biggest problem with evolution (Score:2)
No. This is not a question of time scales (and, uh, besides, the time scales on which the second law applies are certainly much much smaller than 10,000 years, or we'd have some very nice perpetual motion machines). You're right that the second law applies to the universe as a whole. As a whole, the entropy of the universe is increasing. However, that says nothing about the entropy of myself, or a bacteria.
How is it that my mother could increase order? How could she form this fetus, which eventually became myself, and how was it that I grew in such an orderly fashion? Why haven't scientists been all over this "violation" of the second law? Because my local increase in order was offset by a decrease in order elsewhere. I eat, converting carrots and bananas into random mush. I break down complex carbohydrates into carbon dioxide and water. I give off heat, increasing the disorder of my surroundings. This is what organisms have been doing since they first started: increasing order in themselves at the expense of their surroundings.
The second law says that disorder increases. It does not say that disorder increases uniformly, and luckily for our continued existence, it doesn't.
Re:The biggest problem with evolution (Score:2)
Re:The biggest problem with evolution (Score:2, Insightful)
Surely true. And the entropy of the Sun is increasing at an enormous rate. And the sun is deriving the heat-engine of the earth, the engine which drives evolution. The entropy of a closed system can only increase - but the earth is far from a closed system. If there were not vast amounts of energy poring into, sloshing around, and pouring out of the earth, evolution would stop, (So, actually, would life, but that is not the point in question.
Re:Troll. (Score:2, Insightful)
Some of us have gotten past all of that and have realized that you don't need a vengeful deity holding a metaphorical shotgun to your head in order to behave in a moral and ethical matter. But if you're not there yet, then please do whatever it takes, dude.
Re:Troll. (Score:2, Insightful)
Wrong. Morals are created by human beings.
The moral code YOU apparently believe in was created by a band of savage goat herders in the Middle East thousands of years ago, not by some spook. The spook part is just to delude the ignorant.
If you want to see the consequence of applying the moral code of savage Middle Eastern goat herders to the modern world, I direct you to Ground Zero, New York, New York.
You think Christanity or Judaism are any better? Try actually READING your Bible, rather than thumping it. Start with Numbers Chapter 31.
It may give you a whole different perspective on the presumed raping, killing, and murdering that you allege will be committed by nonbelievers.
Your moral code sucks. It was designed for ignorant savages. If you adhere to it, that makes YOU an ignorant savage.
You ignorant savage... (Score:2)
If you do actually study The Bible, you'll see that the Isrealites never commited genocide without a direct order from God, as punishment on a completely corrupted race.
Apart from obedience to a direct order from God to carry out His judgement, the Isrealites could not have accomplished these military conquests within the bounds of the Moral Law. To do so would have VIOLATED their morality by presuming to pass judgement in God's place.
As for the events of 9-11-01, what makes you think those attacks were compatable with Hebrew morality? Don't assess a morality by those who don't adhere to it. The same goes for the Crusades. That whole series of atrocities may have happened in the "name" of Christianity, but not within any Christian morality or obedience to God. Don't mistake the Pope for God.
Re:Troll. (Score:2)
Even the infants?
Or do you believe that genocide can be considered justice?
Re:ok, I'll 'bite' (Score:2)
Next you'll ask why God allows us to hurt each other by sinning. Briefly, because this is a necessary component of the creation of creatures with free will. We have the free will to make choices. Those choices can impact the world around us. Also, there is a reason why we are given free will.
No such thing, really (Score:3, Insightful)
Let me give you an example. If I stand on one side of my living room and take tiny toe-to-heel steps, I will reach the other side of my living room within a minute or so. If I stand on one edge of my town and do the same thing, I'll reach the other side in a day or so. If I stand in New York and do the same thing, I'll reach Los Angeles in a few hundred years (just a guess, really.)
The point is this: in each of the three examples, the results are increasingly visible and dramatic, but the process is exactly the same. You would not, I presume, suggest that I was "micro-walking" in my living room and "macro-walking" across America. Some people seem to think that evolution is some sort of directed Black Magik. It's not. Biological evolution is variation in the gene pool of a population over time. That's it. That's all it is. The fact that its results are more visible and dramatic over time should not be particularly surprising to anybody.
Re:No such thing, really (Score:2)
In all fairness to the original poster that simply is not so. To simplisticly say that species originate in the same way that varieties of breeds withing species originate only over more time is simply false and provably so. To assert it IS so when it is not simply makes a nice big straw man for creationists to knock over.
Variation among different breeds or sub-species within a species is possible because of the genetic diversity that ALREADY EXISTS within the parent population. All of the genes to end up with either a chihuaua or a Saint Bernard were present in the earlier domesticated canine that was their common ancestor. And there are obvious limits to such breeding. You never get genetic information that the parents didn't have so your canine can never adapt in a gradual way to develop gills or wings to adapt to it's environment. As a matter of fact most of the really aggresively breeded types of dog are pretty much at the limit of variation such subdivision of original genetic information allows. Starting with a wolf and breeding for small size you can make dramatic changes in only a few generations. Starting with a chihuaua and breeding for small size and you can make only modest changes over many generations because you have already bred down to the smalles size dog possible with the genes available.
On the "microevolutionary" scale natural selection does the breeding rather than the American Kennel society. But the genetic mechanism is the same - different breeds are bred by selecting a sub-set of genetic characteristics from a larger set of genetic characteristics present in the parent population. Genes for finches with various beak characteristics, or lighter or darker wings on moths are all microevolutionary changes achieved by genetic mechanisms that can never by themselves explain the origin of species.
Unless you are positing that the earliest life was a single celled organism with a spectacular amount of genetic information sufficient to create by subdivision all of the genetic diversity we see in the species around us you need to add new information. Macroevolution needs mechanisms to add new genetic information to add new genetic information to the existing gene pool that natural selection is selecting from. Mutation (and other more exotic mechanisms like gene transfer) are the suggested mechanisms to turn microevolutiony varieties within a species into macroevolution which can breed species themselves. The argument is whether mutation and the other suggested mechanisms are sufficient to explain the existence of the species and the complexity of biological processes we see around us.
To use your analogy: the microevolutionary changes we usually observe in nature like finch beaks and moth wings are like the tiny heel-to-toe steps you describe but limited by being chained to a peg in the ground. You can go pretty far at first but then you are stuck until someone (mutation) adds a link to the chain. As you can see this makes your trip to LA a great deal more arduous than you (and Darwin) originally thought.
Re:No such thing, really (Score:2)
The fossil record is no where near complete. Evolution lets us make predictions, though, that those arguing for a separate creation of individual species have a difficult time explaining. With Archaeopteryx sharing many skeletal characteristics of therapod dinosaurs and one characteristic of Birds (feathers), it was easy to predict that there would be more fossils found with more dinosaur-like features and fewere bird-like features, and vice versa. The recent finds of feathered dinosaurs in China confirms this prediction.
Re:No such thing, really (Score:2)
It was only 500 million years ago that the first vertebrate animals lived (fish), and 400 million years ago that we see the earliest record of life on land (millipedes).
Land-based, vertebrate life has existed only during the most recent 20% of the history of all life, so it just isn't possible that all species were created at the same time, "more or less as they are now".
(source: Timeline of life on Earth [talkorigins.org])
Re:No such thing, really (Score:2)
You could certainly say that (many creationists do) and it would be impossible to disprove. Now, this is not a very scientific theory, and there's a question about whether it makes sense or not, but if people choose to believe that, then that is their business.
Are fossil records considered complete and accurate enough to 'prove' this was not the case?
Well, that doesn't really matter since you could just say that God created the fossil record too.
Re:7 day creationism (Score:2, Interesting)
Consider that I can substitue ANY imagined creature for God and end up in the same place.
Faires created species.. is as valid as God.. or..Zeus.. No I can't show you a fairy.. Nor you show me God.. It's an impasse.
What you end up with is what is sometimes called 'God in the cracks' That is, anything that we can't explain yet, is assumed to be the part that God did.
As soon as we fill in that crack with science.. God must move to the next problem.
Chuck
Re:7 day creationism (Score:2)
A 7-day creationism that allows for a creation "day" to be longer than 24 hours has a better chance, but one would still have to account for things like dinosaurs, which don't quite fit even in a stretched-out biblical creation timeline. Also, while the Hebrew word for "day," yom
Offhand, I'd say that 7-day creationism doesn't quite square with the current evidence.
Re:7 day creationism (Score:2)
Re:stupid, stupid, stupid (Score:2)
That's not true! Why just the other day, I cleaned my apartment. Bingo, order from disorder.
Seriously, you have a pretty bad grasp of the 2nd theory of thermodynamics there. Entropy must increase only for a closed thermodynamic system. Earth is not such a system, because we have a constant influx of energy in the form of light and heat from the Sun. Perhaps you've heard that the Sun is the source of all energy used by life on Earth; it is this energy that allows the order of complex life to arise from chaos of the proverbial primordial ooze.
why can't order come from disorder? (Score:2, Interesting)
Given a mass of matter, floating in space, its atoms interacting with one another making random combinations. Eventually, over billions or even trillions of years, every possible combination of molecular structures will be created from these random interactions.
What if one of these random structures coming out of this process naturally attempts to create copies of itself, using the resources around it? What if this structure doesn't make perfect copies, but creates copies that are the closest it can come to an exact copy with the resources around it? Exactly at what point does this molecular compound become life?
I'm not looking for flames, just good arguments why this can't happen. It's the most reasonable explaination of the source of life that I have come up with.