Help on flaws in "Shattering the Myth of Darwinism"?

[lucaspa]

Maybe the hot water over Darwinism is because creationists engage Darwinism as biology understood it at the time of Darwin. When creationists say Darwinism they are in fact attempting to engage a dead person in debate on some scientific fact that has evolved since then.

 

I don't think so. The hot water is because some people try to deny everything creationists say, instead of thinking about the consequences to science. In this case, since creationists say "Darwinism", then they try to separate Darwinism from evolution. Instead, as I read the literature (see below), those accepting evolution use Darwinism and evolution (biological) as meaning the same thing. I still maintain that creationists use Darwinism and Darwinist as synonyms for atheist.

 

Yet for the purpose of creationists they don’t debate this, they debate Darwin, and neglect the rest with empty or ignorant arguments such as the misuse of entropy.

 

Some creationists will try to look only at what Darwin said. However, creationism as a whole has engaged the Modern Synthesis, which discusses mutation as a source of variation, with the claim that "all mutations are harmful". We saw that with Milton's book. Darwin didn't discuss mutations because he didn't know about them. Creationists also engage the "information" in DNA and some studies on natural selection. Again, Darwin didn't know about DNA so they can't be engaging him! The studies creationists look at are the Galapagos finches study by the Grants and the peppered moth. Neither were known to Darwin. In fact, of Wells' Icons of Evolution, none of them have anything to do with Darwin, as I recall.

 

Sometimes, yes, creationists focus on Darwin alone and ignore recent data. Both of us have seen that tactic. But they also engage more recent data.

 

So at the door when you hear a term like Darwinism, you have to check on what’s being used or what the term Darwinism is composed of from the user, is it debating a dead guy about the theory of evolution at that point in time, or is it debating the theory or evolution now and how the term Darwinism can still be attached to it very much?

 

Again, you need to check to see if the "Darwinism" is being used as a synonym for atheism. Even if you are atheist, you must disagree. Science is agnostic, not atheist.

 

In every engagement I have had to endure with creationists, religious types bent on killing evolution, or intelligent designers, its not so much about evolution being right or wrong as much as its about simply wanting it out of the way so they can be comfortable with themselves and the universe because of a belief they hold. This is why ID exists, it has to conform evolution to a super natural deity in order to or be fit…

 

1. The problem Darwinism poses for some (not all) non-Christian theists (i.e. Fundamentalists) is that it negates the Argument from Design. When Darwin discovered an unintelligent process that gives designs -- natural selection -- it meant that the Argument from Design was no longer a "proof" of the existence of deity. Creationists reason that if they get rid of natural selection then the Argument from Design becomes valid again. That is the whole point of Behe's Darwin's Black Box and Dembski's Complex Specified Information. Natural selection supposedly can't produce either irreducible complexity or CSI, so therefore they have to be "designed".

 

2. Creationists tend to equate evolution as meaning "God did not do it". I.e. atheism. What creationists have done is two things:

a) made a literal Bible their god.

b) made a tragic logical mistake and said "if God did not create using creationism, then God did not create and does not exist." You can easily see the non-sequitor here.

 

In all these engagements Darwin is typically hated I find, and typically evolution the word is not used as much as say Darwinism.

 

Now, I've been looking at my textbooks in evolutionary biology. I have Mayr's What Evolution IS, Futuyma's Evolutionary Biology, and Ridley's Evolution. The last 2 are common college-level textbooks.

 

Both use Darwinism = evolution and Darwinist/Darwinian = evolutionist. They switch back and forth between the terms. For instance, "Darwinism" is listed 7 times in the index in Evolution. When I go to those pages I often don't actually see the word "Darwinism". Instead, I see discussion of evolution. One exception is page 15 where Ridley states "The reconciliation between Mendelism and Darwinism soon inspired new genetical research in both the field and laboratory". In the preceding pages, he had simply been talking about "evolution".

 

Mayr uses Darwinism and evolution as synonyms.

 

Pages 275 and 277 are part of a section entitled "Short Answers to Frequently Asked Questions about Evolution". First page 275

 

"3. What is the Darwinian theory

This is the wrong question. In On the Origin of Species and his later publications, Darwin advanced numerous theories among which five are most important (see Chapter 4). Two of them, evolution as such and the theory of common descent, were accepted by biologists within a few years of the publication of Origin in 1859 (see Box 5.1). This was the first Darwinian revolution. The other three theories, gradualism, speciation, and natural selection, were widely accepted only much later, during the time of the evolutionary synthesis in the 1940s. This was the second Darwinian revolution."

 

On page 277

 

"6. Is Darwinism an unalterable dogma?

All theories of science, including Darwinism, are vulnerable to rejection if they are falsified. ... There are numerous cases in evolutionary literature of provisional evolutionary theories that were eventually rejected. The belief that a gene can be the direct object of selection is one such refuted theory. The formerly widely accepted theories of transmutationism and transformationism were also rejected."

 

"9. Have the molecular discoveries required a change of the Darwinian paradigm?

Molecular biology has made great contributions to our understanding of the evolutionary process. However, the basic Darwinian concepts of variation and selection were not affected in any way. Not even replacement of proteins by nucleic acids as the carriers of genetic information required a change in evolutionary theory. Indeed, an understanding of the nature of genetic variation has contributed greatly to strengthening Darwinism. For instance, it confirmed the finding of the geneticists that an inheritance of acquired characters is impossible. Also, the use of molecular evidence when added to the morphological evidence has led to the solution of many phylogentic puzzles."

 

Ah, I just looked in the Glossary of Ridley's Evolution. "Darwinism: Darwin's theory that species originated by evolution from other species and that evolution is mainly driven by natural selection."

 

The people in Phil's list agree with the first part about the origin of species. So, even at the worst, they are "half" Darwinists.

 

Now, Darwin is typically hated by creationists. My opinion is that this is a projection of a weakness of religion onto science. In religion, if you destroy the character of person doing the revelation, then you destroy the revelation. We can see this operating in modern religion in the scandals of the clergy. The Catholic Church is suffering a crisis of confidence in their theology due to the pedophilia of some priests. Fundamentalism has taken a hit with the discovery that two prominent Colorado ministers had gay affairs.

 

So creationists project this onto evolution: destroy Darwin's character and they think they can destroy evolution. They don't understand that, in science, the idea or theory is separate from the personal character of the person who proposed it. Darwin could be another Adolf Hitler (actually, Darwin's character is exemplary) and it wouldn't matter.

 

But some creationists think that, if they can link Darwin to supporting racism, sexism, plagiarism, etc, then that will call Darwinism into question.

[lucaspa]

I've heard scientists (Dennett isn't a scientist) using "Darwinism" to talk about evolution by natural selection, and sometime, to denotes selectionists, but they're not referring to the theory of evolution as a whole. ... Simple, natural selection is only one of the mechanism of evolution, it's simply part of the theory of evolution.

 

You never told us what the "theory of evolution" is.

 

If you apply the term "Darwinism" to mean evolution by natural selection, but exclude people who think there are other mechanisms of evolution than natural selectio, then even Darwin is excluded! If you read Origin of Species and Darwin's other work, you see that Darwin also included sexual selection and inheritance of acquired characterists as mechanisms of evolution. So even Darwin thought that natural selection is only one of the mechanisms of evolution and that natural selection was just part of the theory.

 

Surely any definition of "Darwinism" that excludes Darwin can't be correct.

[Phi for All]

Yes, I did. And I gave you the reasons why. You didn't address those reasons, just resorted to "ridiculous". I may have been mistaken, but the reasons show I was not being "ridiculous".

 

These are science forums, after all. If the Moderators can't discuss rationally without resort to ad hominem, how do you expect the rest of the participants to do so?

What makes you think Phil is a Moderator?

[foodchain]

I don't think so. The hot water is because some

But some creationists think that, if they can link Darwin to supporting racism, sexism, plagiarism, etc, then that will call Darwinism into question.

 

*I would have split your post up but I really did not have the time overall, I hope its no burden to you.*

 

Yes, and I agree fully with what you are talking about. The point that I am trying to make, which in the post you quote I do extend though not to the level of detail as your post did, they attack primarily on Darwin, and for the life of me I cant understand this fully simply because the science of evolution or really the understanding of what the word applies to has gone far beyond what Darwin knew of when he put the theory together. I would suggest though that the idea of atheism and Darwinian thought is only possible on some levels, personally I am an agnostic, simply because I desire to follow fact and we don’t have this in all areas, saying yes or no to a question that really in all reality requires faith currently, yet I am an ardent supporter of evolution and definitely do not support ID, creation thought or any of that simply because there is currently not a drop of scientific evidence to support any of it at all, I mean at the end of the day, such tactics as ID take what science knows, and calls it ID while it uses the gaps in such understanding overall as proof by injecting something that cannot be studied by science currently if ever for proof or evidence really.

 

As for science being agnostic, I don’t agree with that point. Science is a framework based on a method. Such as most people that argue against evolution don’t understand the meaning to the word theory, its abused in relation to its technical meaning. That is another way to detect someone that may not really desire to debate the scientific merits of evolution but rather simply want to denounce such for personal/emotional reasons.

 

Yet you don’t see such a large scale attack on the "theory" of gravity, Why is this?

 

Evolution has more meaning to it on a multitude of levels in relation to humanity, and in particular America, this is a bit of a problem, simply because for as long as evolution has existed, by now I would suggest with rather ease that for one, there would be no mountain of evidence to support evolution, and two it would take for such a lie if you will to have not only survived through the ages would take all of science that deals with it to perpetuate such, yet this does not impact a creationist, ID follower or anything at all. It basically is to say that biology in whole is a group of people attempting to perpetuate a lie for some agenda or reason, or at least that’s what I get from it.

 

They also go on to say that evolution is a product of natural philosophy, why I can understand in some respect where this comes from, the reality is the idea that science in total has discovered, documented and proved evolution, what that can lead to is possibly subjective, but the objective reality is that evolution exists in the real world and its history.

 

So lastly the point about it is to shatter Darwinism, what is that to mean? Is it to mean that Darwin did not know everything when he was working on evolution? Is it attacking evolution itself, or in large is it a product of a very non scientifically motivated body of individuals that for lack of better words simply want to deny living in a factual reality?

 

I mean if you cant get the fact of evolution accepted as it stands now, from the perspective of the molecular, chemical, all the way up to the entire physiology, which just about everything biological that can be studied in relation to evolution has been studied in relation to evolution, and did nothing but support evolution, is shattering Darwinism anymore based on fact or pure emotion?

 

What point can you claim you shattered Darwinism, is it because biology does not know everything yet? Is that even remotely realistic? Lastly it really sucks because its made biology as a whole a somewhat attacked scientific discipline. In real life when I am motivated to talk about such around people, I personally avoid the use of such words because I don’t care to deal with the irrational emotional responses it can provoke.

[PhDP]

If you apply the term "Darwinism" to mean evolution by natural selection, but exclude people who think there are other mechanisms of evolution than natural selectio, then even Darwin is excluded! If you read Origin of Species and Darwin's other work, you see that Darwin also included sexual selection and inheritance of acquired characterists as mechanisms of evolution. So even Darwin thought that natural selection is only one of the mechanisms of evolution and that natural selection was just part of the theory.

 

Sorry about my impatience, but I hate to be misquoted.

 

However, here I think you got it wrong. Darwin found only one mechanism of evolution; natural selection, sexual selection being only a specific case of natural selection, it's not a different mechanism. The inheritance of acquired traits wasn't discovered by Darwin. Also, "Darwinism" doesn't exclude those who think there are other mechanism, it's just used to emphasize "natural selection", and it's why it should be be considered synonymous with "evolutionary theory". When Vincent and Brown wrote "Darwinian Dynamics", their approach was based on Darwinism; natural selection, but I'm 100% certain that they acknowledge other mechanisms. However, they were writing a book about game theory and adaptation, and only natural selection was considered...

 

Personally, I also dislike "neo-Darwinism", even if some scientists are still using it, I think we're really beyond this. One of the reason, I think, that Darwinism can be seen as a pejorative term when it's used to mean "evolution", and not just evolution by natural seleciton, is precicely that it implies that evolution IS natural selection. Darwin discovered natural selection, but not the other mechanisms of evolution, and while some mechanisms like drift were thought for some time to be unimportant, we now know how important they are (even though the relative importance of the other mechanisms is still a hot topic). Evolution is many things, mostly natural selection, drift and mutations, but it's not only selection, only drift, or only mutations.

 

You never told us what the "theory of evolution" is.

 

The definition you took from the NAS is fine.

[lucaspa]

However, here I think you got it wrong. Darwin found only one mechanism of evolution; natural selection, sexual selection being only a specific case of natural selection, it's not a different mechanism.

 

Sorry, but yes, sexual selection as used by Darwin was different from natural selection. It is the preference of the females, not for traits that help survival. Darwin's example was the male peacock. That huge tail does not help the peacock earn a living; it is there solely (as Darwin saw it) because the females demand it for them to mate.

 

Within the past 20 years, there have been several papers showing that sexual selection is linked to adaptive traits. But that's over 100 years after the 6th edition of Origin.

 

The inheritance of acquired traits wasn't discovered by Darwin.

 

I never said Darwin discovered it. I simply said that Darwin used it as a mechanism of evolution. And Darwin does so in Origin of Species, particularly Chapter 6 of the first edition. So, if Darwinism is solely natural selection as a mechanism for evolution (as you implied), then Darwin can't be a "Darwinist". My logic is that any definition of Darwinism that excludes Darwin can't be correct.

 

Also, "Darwinism" doesn't exclude those who think there are other mechanism, it's just used to emphasize "natural selection", and it's why it should be be considered synonymous with "evolutionary theory".

 

If this is the case, then everyone on your list is also a Darwinist. Because if Darwinism doesn't exclude those who think there are other mechanisms, then the people on your list are included. All of them think that natural selection operates. Remember those 5 theories of Darwin's. Remember that 2 of them are "evolution as such" and another is "common ancestry". It is why Mayr and others use Darwinism as synonymous with "evolution as a whole". Even the list of people that you cite does not argue against those 2 theories. They are arguing, if they actually do such, against the primacy of natural selection, and I don't even think they do this. Instead, they have a strawman version of neo-Darwinism that they are arguing against. So, they may not be "neo-Darwinists" (although I think they do accept the Modern Synthesis) but they are Darwinists.

 

When Vincent and Brown wrote "Darwinian Dynamics", their approach was based on Darwinism; natural selection, but I'm 100% certain that they acknowledge other mechanisms. However, they were writing a book about game theory and adaptation, and only natural selection was considered...

 

Because .... nothing else produces adaptations. So considering drift isn't going to get them anywhere, because drift cannot produce adaptations.

 

Personally, I also dislike "neo-Darwinism", even if some scientists are still using it, I think we're really beyond this.

 

Futuyma doesn't use "neo-Darwinism". He refers to the Modern Synthesis. It's not "beyond". The Modern Synthesis still works, because no one is discarding the heart of the Modern Synthesis: the application of Mendelian genetics to natural selection. What we have are 1) the argument that not all traits of an organism are due to natural selection, 2) other mechanisms for variation than simple mutations in single alleles -- such as evo-devo and endosymbiosis, and 3) arguments against the strawman version that the Modern Synthesis requires minute changes in single alleles.

 

One of the reason, I think, that Darwinism can be seen as a pejorative term when it's used to mean "evolution", and not just evolution by natural seleciton, is precicely that it implies that evolution IS natural selection.

 

Then object to the erroneous implication! Don't try to change the meaning of "Darwinism"! As the glossary from Ridley's book states, Darwinism does not mean that evolution is natural selection. Don't let the creationists set the terms of the debate! Fight for the correct use of the term "Darwinism". Darwinism is neither atheism nor solely natural selection. It is evolution as such and commmon ancestry.

 

Darwin discovered natural selection, but not the other mechanisms of evolution, and while some mechanisms like drift were thought for some time to be unimportant, we now know how important they are

 

No, drift is still unimportant. Because for drift to have a fighting chance of fixing an allele, the population has to be under 50 at most. Even at 10 the odds of fixation are not good. Also, if the population is over 10,000, the time it would take for an allele to be fixed is too long. We've done this in other threads. That you are still arguing that genetic drift is "how important" shows that even you won't accept data that you don't like and will keep repeating falsified claims. Most importantly, drift doesn't give you the designs in living organisms. It gives you irrelevant characteristics.

 

The definition you took from the NAS is fine.

 

Gee, I'm sure the NAS is thrilled to have your seal of approval! They can get a good night's sleep now because they don't have to worry that Phil would reject their definition.

 

Phil, of course the definition is fine. The question was whether YOUR definition was "fine". Unfortunately for your argument, that definition is Darwinism!

[lucaspa]

What makes you think Phil is a Moderator?

 

You temporarilly closed a the chimp-hybrid thread and stated you had to discuss "with the other moderators". Only mods can close threads, right? Did you misstate about the consultation ?

[PhDP]

That's a circular discussion... However I want to say a last thing about some of the things you said about evolution;

 

Sorry, but yes, sexual selection as used by Darwin was different from natural selection. It is the preference of the females, not for traits that help survival. Darwin's example was the male peacock. That huge tail does not help the peacock earn a living; it is there solely (as Darwin saw it) because the females demand it for them to mate.

 

Sorry, but get back at your textbooks Or just read wikipedia's article on "Natural Selection", sexual selection is really just a particular case of natural selection, that's EVO101.

 

That you are still arguing that genetic drift is "how important" shows that even you won't accept data that you don't like and will keep repeating falsified claims. Most importantly, drift doesn't give you the designs in living organisms.

 

There's no consensus about genetic drift vs. selection in molecular evolutionary biology, except this; genetic drift is much more important than initially thought. I never said drift was leading to adaptations, but everything is not about adaptations. Again, you would have to read about what modern scientists are writting on the subject. I suggest "Selectionism and Neutralism in Molecular Evolution", Molecular Biology and Evolution 2005, 22(12):2318-2342.

 

They are arguing, if they actually do such, against the primacy of natural selection, and I don't even think they do this. Instead, they have a strawman version of neo-Darwinism that they are arguing against.

 

So you're basically arguing with me about people you don't know about ? And YES, they are contesting the primacy of natural selection (not the primacy of natural selection when it comes to adaptation, however). But you would have to read what they have to say before saying they have a "stawman" version of neo-Darwinism, it's not the case.

[lucaspa]

Yes, and I agree fully with what you are talking about. The point that I am trying to make, which in the post you quote I do extend though not to the level of detail as your post did, they attack primarily on Darwin, and for the life of me I cant understand this fully simply because the science of evolution or really the understanding of what the word applies to has gone far beyond what Darwin knew of when he put the theory together.

 

Foodchain, I tried to explain to you about that. In religion, the integrity and character of the person at the head of the religion is necessary for the validity of the religion. Christianity falls apart if Jesus were a pedophile. Judaism falls apart if Moses lied about the Ten Commandments and just jotted them down himself.

 

So creationists are projecting (in the psychological sense) a weakness of religion onto science. If they can attack Darwin's character, then they think that calls evolution into question.

 

The other part -- using specific mistakes Darwin made -- is also projecting. They are treating Darwin as they treat their literal Bible: either Darwin is all right or all wrong. IOW, they are treating Darwin as they would treat the authors of the Bible: (in their minds) if it can be shown that the authors deliberately lied about anything, then everything comes crashing down.

 

They are also making a strawman of evolution by insisting evolution be what Darwin stated. Since some of what Darwin stated is wrong, then if evolution is only that, they can "falsify" evolution.

 

Now, I obviously don't agree with any of these thinking processes of creationists. I am only pointing them out so you can understand them. I find that it helps your ability to discuss a topic rationally if you understand the thought processes of others -- even when those thought processes are in error. If you understand what is going on, it makes it easier to find the errors.

 

I would suggest though that the idea of atheism and Darwinian thought is only possible on some levels, personally I am an agnostic, simply because I desire to follow fact and we don’t have this in all areas, saying yes or no to a question that really in all reality requires faith currently, yet I am an ardent supporter of evolution and definitely do not support ID, creation thought or any of that simply because there is currently not a drop of scientific evidence to support any of it at all,

 

Science is not atheism. Evolution is not atheism. It is only possible to equate science with atheism if you make 2 mistakes: 1) use god-of-the-gaps theology and 2) insist that God can only create one particular way and exclude what science discovers as a way to create.

 

Your reason for rejecting ID and creationism is flawed. We reject them because there is evidence against them. I have pointed this out several times: there is scientific evidence for practically ANY idea, if that is all you look for. So yes, there is "evidence for" ID and creationism if you look at that evidence in isolation. There is also evidence for flat earth, phlogiston, and aether if you look at the evidence in isolation. The reason we don't consider these valid theories anymore is not because there is no "evidence for" them, but because we have evidence against them. It is evidence against that trumps.

 

Also, you need to realize that "creation" and "creationism" are 2 different things. Creation is a theological statement "God created". Creationism (and ID is part of creationism) is a particular, specific mechanism by which God created. I mention this because there is a huge number of people, including at least 50% of all evolutionary biologists, who believe that what science discovers, including evolution, is the specific mechanism by which God created. IOW, they believe in creation, but also accept evolution.

 

I mean at the end of the day, such tactics as ID take what science knows, and calls it ID while it uses the gaps in such understanding overall as proof by injecting something that cannot be studied by science currently if ever for proof or evidence really.

 

There you have hit upon a theological problem with ID: they are using god-of-the-gaps theology. They are saying that God can be found in the gaps of scientific knowledge. Christianity rejects god-of-the-gaps and looks upon the processes discovered by science as simply the way God works.

 

As for science being agnostic, I don’t agree with that point. Science is a framework based on a method.

 

Oh boy. Such a complicated subject boiled down to 2 simple assertions! Sorry, Foodchain, but it is much more complicated than that. Science is agnostic: it can't tell you whether God exists or created or not. In fact, science simply can't comment on the existence of God. We as scientists would like to be able to comment, since our knowledge of reality is not complete until we can determine whether deity exists or not. But, using the methods of science, we are simply unable to comment.

 

You define science as "a framework based on a method". In the 19th century scientists and philosophers of science did try to define science that way. It failed, because science is not a method, but uses several different methods. What's more, many of the methods used by science are also used by other disciplines. For instance, science's method is often said to be the hypothetico-deductive method. But both the Documentary Hypothesis in Bible studies and Trinity in theology are the product of the hypothetico-deductive method!

 

Such as most people that argue against evolution don’t understand the meaning to the word theory, its abused in relation to its technical meaning. That is another way to detect someone that may not really desire to debate the scientific merits of evolution but rather simply want to denounce such for personal/emotional reasons.

 

Yes, trying to warp the meaning of "theory" to be "wild guess" is one tactic of creationists. Unfortunately, it has led the NAS and other scientists to also mangle the word "theory" and use theory to refer ONLY to currently valid theories.

 

But yes, when people use theory as "wild guess", you know they are arguing theism vs atheism instead of evolution. Another way you can tell they are arguing theism vs atheism is when they include abiogenesis as part of evolution.

 

Yet you don’t see such a large scale attack on the "theory" of gravity, Why is this?

 

Because gravity doesn't threaten a literal reading of Genesis 1-3. The creationist attack against science is based on bad theology and bad logic. The bad theology is that creationists don't worship God anymore, but worship a literal Bible. Thus they are guilty of false idol worship. The bad logic is: God must create by a literal Genesis 1-3 or God does not exist and does not create. Thus, science threatens statements of ultimate meaning for creationists.

 

Please note that Christians are NOT threatened by evolution. And, in fact, it is Christians that have led the fight against teaching creationism in public schools! Christians read Genesis 1-3 for the theology that is there, and the theology is not threatened by evolution. As one prominent Christian theologian stated: "Christians should look on evolution simply as the method by which God works." James McCosh, theologian and President of Princeton, The Religious Aspects of Evolution, 2d ed. 1890, pg 68.

 

In fact, if you look from the period 1860-1890, you see Christians looking on evolution as a savior from the problems posed by special creation!

 

It basically is to say that biology in whole is a group of people attempting to perpetuate a lie for some agenda or reason, or at least that’s what I get from it.

 

That there is some vast atheistic conspiracy to support evolution is one of the ways creationists try to get rid of data they don't like.

 

The answer to this is that young earth creationism was the accepted scientific theory up to 1831. It was scientists, all of whom were Christians and many of whom were ministers, that showed it to be wrong. The idea of special creation remained the accepted scientific theory until 1860. However, scientists who were Christians were showing flaws in the theory between 1831-1860. Then Darwin (who was a devout theist in 1859) and other Christian scientists (Hooker, Gray, etc) showed that special creation was wrong.

 

So, how can there be a "conspiracy" if the adherents of creationism are the ones that showed it to be wrong? (remember, Darwin started out the voyage of the Beagle as a creationist)

 

So lastly the point about it is to shatter Darwinism, what is that to mean? Is it to mean that Darwin did not know everything when he was working on evolution? Is it attacking evolution itself, or in large is it a product of a very non scientifically motivated body of individuals that for lack of better words simply want to deny living in a factual reality?

 

"shattering Darwinism" means disproving atheism. Remember, when creationists say "Darwinism", they mean atheism. To do that means, in the minds of creationists, disproving evolution.

 

You need a bit more history to understand what is going on. Prior to 1859 the Argument from Design was valid as "proof" of the existence of God. It is obvious that living organisms have designs: legs for running, fins for swimming, lungs for breathing, hands for manipulating, etc. Before 1859, the only viable theory for getting designs was to have them manufactured by an intelligent entity. That's how human designs are made, afterall. So what intelligent entity could there be that could make plants and animals? Only God.

 

Darwin discovered an unintelligent process that gives design: natural selection. Suddenly the Argument of Design as "proof" of the existence of God was invalid. Notice that God was not invalid, but the "proof" was invalid. Plants and animals are designed by natural selection, not manufactured directly by God. What creationists want to do by disproving evolution is to get the Argument from Design back. That's why ID says that irreducible complexity and complex specified information cannot be made by natural selection. The implication is that they must be made directly by an intelligent entity (God).

 

is shattering Darwinism anymore based on fact or pure emotion?

 

"shattering Darwinism", if you mean the scientific theory of evolution, is a wish. A fantasy on the part of creationists. If you mean (like creationists should mean) atheism, then creationists are fighting the wrong battle on the wrong battlefield. Arguing against individual scientific theories is not the way to argue against atheism.

 

What point can you claim you shattered Darwinism, is it because biology does not know everything yet? Is that even remotely realistic? Lastly it really sucks because its made biology as a whole a somewhat attacked scientific discipline.

 

First, biology isn't the only discipline attacked by creationism. Geology, physics, and cosmology also get their share of attacks. So someone else has the pain, too.

 

Second, there was data that, if found, would have refuted Darwinism. Darwin himself named a couple that would have falsified natural selection. Here is one:

"If it could be proved that any part of the structure of any one species had been formed for the exclusive good of another species, it would annihilate my theory, for such could not have been produced through natural selection." Origin, pg 501.

 

There were considerable possibilities to falsify common ancestry. All of them but one have been tested and have NOT falsified common ancestry or "evolution as such". That one is finding mammalian fossils in Cambrian or pre-Cambrian rock. If such were found, they would constitute a "shattering" of Darwinism.

 

In real life when I am motivated to talk about such around people, I personally avoid the use of such words because I don’t care to deal with the irrational emotional responses it can provoke.

 

My strong opinion is that, for the healthy future of science (and religion), we do have to talk about it and endure the emotional responses. Otherwise creationists simply reinforce each other with their falsehoods.

[lucaspa]

Sorry, but get back at your textbooks Or just read wikipedia's article on "Natural Selection", sexual selection is really just a particular case of natural selection, that's EVO101.

 

Hasn't anyone told you that Wikipedia is NOT a scholarly source?

 

"This leads me to say a few words on what I have called sexual selection. This form of selection depends, not on a struggle for existence in relation to other organic beings or to external conditions, but on a struggle between the individuals of one sex, generally the males, for the possession of the other sex. The result is not death to the unsuccessful competitor, but few or no offspring. Sexual selection is, therefore, less rigorous than natural selection. ... Thus it is, as I believe, that when the males and females of any animal have the same general habits of life, but differ in structure, colour, or ornament, such differences have been mainly caused by sexual selection:" Origin of Species, 6th edition. http://darwin-online.org.uk/content/frameset?itemID=F391&viewtype=text&pageseq=1

 

See? Sexual selection is separate from natural selection, not a sub-category. It is included in the chapter entitled "natural selection" but Darwin views it as separate.

 

There's no consensus about genetic drift vs. selection in molecular evolutionary biology, except this; genetic drift is much more important than initially thought.

 

Define "important". Do you mean "prevalent" or do you mean "responsible for the traits of organisms"?

 

"in most studies of simply morphological polymorphisms, there is evidence, or at least reason to suspect, that the allele frequencies are affected not only by genetic drift, but also by natural selection ... In contrast, many investigators have argued that many biochemical polymorphisms are affected only slightly or not at all by selection -- although this is a very controversial subject (see Chapter 13)" Futuyma, Evolutionary Biology, pg 307.

 

To chapter 13:

"Although the neutralist-selectionist debate over molecular evolution is far from resolution, evidence is mounting that selection is a major cause of divergence in DNA sequences among species and variations withing species (Kreitmen and Akashi, 1995). ... For example, even synonymous substitutions that do not alter amino acid sequencs are influenced by weak natural selection. Evidence bearing on the neutralist-selectionist controversy is described in Chapter 22." pg 395

 

To chapter 22:

"The neutral theory is supported by the higher variation and rates of divergence found in sites or sequences with relatively weak functional constraints (or none). However, instances of selection on nucleotide sequences have been suggested by several lines of evidence, including (a) rapid change in experimental populations, (b) higher than expected variation in rates of sequence divergence among lineages, © greater rates of nonsynonymous evolution, (d) convergent evolution of functionally similar proteins, (e) differences in the ratio of synonymous to nonsynonymous substitutions among species compared with varation within species, (f) elevated variation in certain parts of genes, taken to indicate linkage to a balanced polymorphism, (g) reduced variation in regions of the genome with low recombination rates, which might indicate linkage to recently fixed advantageous mutations, and (h) "deep" gene geneologies, including polymorphisms that are older than the species in which they occur." pgs 644-645 (this is a summary of the chapter, much more detail is in the chapter)

 

That's quite a bit of evidence against the neutral theory and its "importance" (= prevalence).

 

I never said drift was leading to adaptations, but everything is not about adaptations. Again, you would have to read about what modern scientists are writting on the subject. I suggest "Selectionism and Neutralism in Molecular Evolution", Molecular Biology and Evolution 2005, 22(12):2318-2342.

 

 

Is it possible that you obtained a partisan book and are placing too much emphasis on it? (Kind of like Mamkros and placing emphasis on Milton?) This is why I am referring to textbooks that seek to present the entire picture. It looks like you are basing your statements on one particular group, not "modern scientists" in general. Because Futuyma makes primary references to recent peer-reviewed articles your attempt to gain authority by "modern scientists" is going to work. The other data is just as "modern" and the scientists just as "modern" as the neutralists.

 

This gets us back to the definition of "important". Most of the time in evolution we are concerned with how morphological traits are determined: resistance to disease, origin of flight, fish to amphibian transition, etc. These are the "important" traits -- adaptations. Polymorphisms at the biochemical or base sequence level that do not cause morphological change are less important. For instance, changing the third base in a codon but keeping the same amino acid in the protein is a new allele. And, because the protein is the same, there is no change in the organism. So such an allele is neutral for natural selection -- the "neutralism" in "molecular evolution". So genetic drift may eventually fix the allele or eliminate it. However, at the organismal level there is no change. So how "important" is genetic drift in determining traits? At the molecular level does it happen quite often (prevalent)? How much does it modify an organism for "descent with modification"?

 

BTW, notice that Futuyma cites studies where 3rd base is under selection even tho it does not change the amino acid. I have seen a very recent paper (fall 2006) where such a 3rd base change affected how the protein was folded. It turns out that, since the codon is much less common, it took longer to add the base because of waiting for the correct transfer RNA showing up. This resulted in a different conformation of the protein with new properties -- properties that were beneficial to the cell and selected for (in this case it was a cancer cell and resistance to chemotherapeutic agents). I'll try to find that reference again.

 

 

 

So you're basically arguing with me about people you don't know about ? And YES, they are contesting the primacy of natural selection (not the primacy of natural selection when it comes to adaptation, however). But you would have to read what they have to say before saying they have a "stawman" version of neo-Darwinism, it's not the case.

[Phi for All]

You temporarilly closed a the chimp-hybrid thread and stated you had to discuss "with the other moderators". Only mods can close threads, right? Did you misstate about the consultation ?

Are you confusing me, Phi for All, with Phil? I can see the similarity in our usernames.

 

If not I would ask you to point out where I made use of ad hominem in my arguments. It's one fallacy I'm usually careful to avoid. Slippery Slope is usually my weakness.

[Pangloss]

Moderators have bolded names in the left panel, btw.

[foodchain]

Foodchain, I tried to explain to you about that. In religion, the integrity and character of the person at the head of the religion is necessary for the validity of the religion. Christianity falls apart if Jesus were a pedophile. Judaism falls apart if Moses lied about the Ten Commandments and just jotted them down himself.

 

So creationists are projecting (in the psychological sense) a weakness of religion onto science. If they can attack Darwin's character, then they think that calls evolution into question.[/Quote]

 

 

Yes but this roles into my stance on the use of science. It takes a human being to arbitrarily label science, or Darwinism atheist, or agnostic. These labels will also vary depending on what expert you talk to because its more of a human perception issue. I mean taking peoples view of religion in general into account the bible is not one happy story of peace and love but that has not slowed it down any, and also Darwin himself was a self labeled agnostic that from what I can understand basically still agreed with a creator being behind evolution, so how can Darwinism be atheist?

 

 

The other part -- using specific mistakes Darwin made -- is also projecting. They are treating Darwin as they treat their literal Bible: either Darwin is all right or all wrong. IOW, they are treating Darwin as they would treat the authors of the Bible: (in their minds) if it can be shown that the authors deliberately lied about anything, then everything comes crashing down.

 

They are also making a strawman of evolution by insisting evolution be what Darwin stated. Since some of what Darwin stated is wrong, then if evolution is only that, they can "falsify" evolution.

 

Now, I obviously don't agree with any of these thinking processes of creationists. I am only pointing them out so you can understand them. I find that it helps your ability to discuss a topic rationally if you understand the thought processes of others -- even when those thought processes are in error. If you understand what is going on, it makes it easier to find the errors.

 

Yes, it would be a great benefit to understand a persons thought process but to simply use fact as the basis of an argument is not something that I would say any of the groups typically aiming to falsify evolution via attacking Darwin stick to, so what does that say?

 

Your reason for rejecting ID and creationism is flawed. We reject them because there is evidence against them. I have pointed this out several times: there is scientific evidence for practically ANY idea, if that is all you look for. So yes, there is "evidence for" ID and creationism if you look at that evidence in isolation. There is also evidence for flat earth, phlogiston, and aether if you look at the evidence in isolation. The reason we don't consider these valid theories anymore is not because there is no "evidence for" them, but because we have evidence against them. It is evidence against that trumps.

 

Also, you need to realize that "creation" and "creationism" are 2 different things. Creation is a theological statement "God created". Creationism (and ID is part of creationism) is a particular, specific mechanism by which God created. I mention this because there is a huge number of people, including at least 50% of all evolutionary biologists, who believe that what science discovers, including evolution, is the specific mechanism by which God created. IOW, they believe in creation, but also accept evolution.

 

There you have hit upon a theological problem with ID: they are using god-of-the-gaps theology. They are saying that God can be found in the gaps of scientific knowledge. Christianity rejects god-of-the-gaps and looks upon the processes discovered by science as simply the way God works.

 

Yes but no proof exists for that. Its a matter of opinion, and I am sorry there is nothing scientific about that. As for labels what’s to stop a person from saying Satan is the one behind evolution? IT would not work out in the arguments and not because of fact but it does not fit into the currently accepted patterns of subjective thought on the issue that in no way can you study via the scientific method in any way. It all goes back to the FSM, not to be rude but it does.

 

Oh boy. Such a complicated subject boiled down to 2 simple assertions! Sorry, Foodchain, but it is much more complicated than that. Science is agnostic: it can't tell you whether God exists or created or not. In fact, science simply can't comment on the existence of God. We as scientists would like to be able to comment, since our knowledge of reality is not complete until we can determine whether deity exists or not. But, using the methods of science, we are simply unable to comment.

 

You define science as "a framework based on a method". In the 19th century scientists and philosophers of science did try to define science that way. It failed, because science is not a method, but uses several different methods. What's more, many of the methods used by science are also used by other disciplines. For instance, science's method is often said to be the hypothetico-deductive method. But both the Documentary Hypothesis in Bible studies and Trinity in theology are the product of the hypothetico-deductive method!

 

You could have also called it reductionism I think. The point I am trying to make is science is a framework built to attempt to gain fact about the world around us. Doing chemistry in itself is not an endeavor you would take on in a philosophy class. Of course philosophy lead to science but the main point of what I am trying to get at is science really is just a method. It was not devised to be any particular human label such as saying science is religious is about as phony as saying science is atheist or science really works to further the agenda of Chuck Norris.

 

Because gravity doesn't threaten a literal reading of Genesis 1-3. The creationist attack against science is based on bad theology and bad logic. The bad theology is that creationists don't worship God anymore, but worship a literal Bible. Thus they are guilty of false idol worship. The bad logic is: God must create by a literal Genesis 1-3 or God does not exist and does not create. Thus, science threatens statements of ultimate meaning for creationists.

 

Save for intelligent falling. I also don’t remember the bible explaining gravity, though I think if such exists it would help out the field of physics a lot and of course every other scientific discipline. Again its a subjective perceptual issue that decides what science is bad or good in relation to religion.

 

That there is some vast atheistic conspiracy to support evolution is one of the ways creationists try to get rid of data they don't like.

 

I agree, but it leads me to feel sorry for atheists.

 

The answer to this is that young earth creationism was the accepted scientific theory up to 1831. It was scientists, all of whom were Christians and many of whom were ministers, that showed it to be wrong. The idea of special creation remained the accepted scientific theory until 1860. However, scientists who were Christians were showing flaws in the theory between 1831-1860. Then Darwin (who was a devout theist in 1859) and other Christian scientists (Hooker, Gray, etc) showed that special creation was wrong.

 

So, how can there be a "conspiracy" if the adherents of creationism are the ones that showed it to be wrong? (remember, Darwin started out the voyage of the Beagle as a creationist)

 

That’s not my point. My post is that for people in general to simply denounce evolution is basically claiming a great deal of science to be a conspiracy. Its one of the points I try to use against other arguments, in that for evolution to be false all of science that deals with it would have to be not only ignoring the scientific method but be working on some vast conspiracy, to me if you can believe that I have an ocean to sell you but that is a rude remark.

 

"shattering Darwinism" means disproving atheism. Remember, when creationists say "Darwinism", they mean atheism. To do that means, in the minds of creationists, disproving evolution.

 

You need a bit more history to understand what is going on. Prior to 1859 the Argument from Design was valid as "proof" of the existence of God. It is obvious that living organisms have designs: legs for running, fins for swimming, lungs for breathing, hands for manipulating, etc. Before 1859, the only viable theory for getting designs was to have them manufactured by an intelligent entity. That's how human designs are made, afterall. So what intelligent entity could there be that could make plants and animals? Only God.

 

Darwin discovered an unintelligent process that gives design: natural selection. Suddenly the Argument of Design as "proof" of the existence of God was invalid. Notice that God was not invalid, but the "proof" was invalid. Plants and animals are designed by natural selection, not manufactured directly by God. What creationists want to do by disproving evolution is to get the Argument from Design back. That's why ID says that irreducible complexity and complex specified information cannot be made by natural selection. The implication is that they must be made directly by an intelligent entity (God).

 

"shattering Darwinism", if you mean the scientific theory of evolution, is a wish. A fantasy on the part of creationists. If you mean (like creationists should mean) atheism, then creationists are fighting the wrong battle on the wrong battlefield. Arguing against individual scientific theories is not the way to argue against atheism.

 

Yes, but it takes a human mind to say evolution is atheism. To me evolution is simply a fact about the world around us, you cant go in any direction past that fact in terms of fact without studying such for fact, so in essence to say its(evolution) atheism is really to say anything you want, because there is no difference to me. You cant prove that evolution is anything more then that really, to say so is a matter of opinion that is relative to the person. To attempt to go the other way is to take what is subjective and move it into the realm of being objective.

 

My strong opinion is that, for the healthy future of science (and religion), we do have to talk about it and endure the emotional responses. Otherwise creationists simply reinforce each other with their falsehoods.

 

I agree.

[PhDP]

lucaspa,

 

I'm not going to debate with you about sexual selection or the definition of "important" in evolution. A quick search with google about Darwinism and sexual selection should have settled the issues, and the relative importance of each mechanism is a very complicated issue. If it was as simple as you make it sounds, it would be solved for quite some time (and BTW, you seem to think "neutral" mean "silent", which is not always the case). If you can read Molecular Evolution by Graur and Li, and the article I quoted from MBE, you could understand why it's so complicated.

[GutZ]

Are you confusing me, Phi for All, with Phil? I can see the similarity in our usernames.

 

If not I would ask you to point out where I made use of ad hominem in my arguments. It's one fallacy I'm usually careful to avoid. Slippery Slope is usually my weakness.

 

Dudes, you guys are so confused!!!!

 

He was refering to Mokele!

[lucaspa]

Yes but this roles into my stance on the use of science. It takes a human being to arbitrarily label science, or Darwinism atheist, or agnostic. These labels will also vary depending on what expert you talk to because its more of a human perception issue.

 

It is not a human perception issue. You can look at what science is and how science is done and reach a conclusion based on data. Just like you evaluate any scientific theory (collection of statements). As it turns out, science is agnostic. There is no doubt of that.

 

Darwin himself was a self labeled agnostic that from what I can understand basically still agreed with a creator being behind evolution, so how can Darwinism be atheist?

 

That's one argument against Darwinism being atheistic. However, at the time Darwin wrote Origin of Species, Darwin was (according to his own words) a staunch theist. It was only later in life that he had "wild" swings of belief: from theist to agnostic. He said that he was "more and more, but not always" an agnostic.

 

Yes, it would be a great benefit to understand a persons thought process but to simply use fact as the basis of an argument is not something that I would say any of the groups typically aiming to falsify evolution via attacking Darwin stick to, so what does that say?

 

I have no idea what this says. Really, I don't understand your meaning. Please try again.

 

In order to find the flaws in reasoning and logic, you must know what the reasoning and logic are to begin with.

 

Yes but no proof exists for that. Its a matter of opinion, and I am sorry there is nothing scientific about that.

 

What is "that"? The belief that evolution is the method God used to create?

 

Did I say there was "proof"? NO! I labeled it clearly as belief: "I mention this because there is a huge number of people, including at least 50% of all evolutionary biologists, who believe that what science discovers, including evolution, is the specific mechanism by which God created. IOW, they believe in creation, but also accept evolution."

 

Notice how I was careful to use "believe" when applied to the idea that God created and "accept" applied to evolution. We "accept" scientific theories as provisionally true. Accept because of the data.

 

As for labels what’s to stop a person from saying Satan is the one behind evolution?

 

This isn't a label, but rather an ad hoc hypothesis trying to save creationism from falsification. The reason it doesn't work is because it violates the data creationists are working from: the Bible. We can test the hypothesis by going to the Bible and seeing if Satan has ever messed with Creation. Nope. Only God created. Not Satan. Therefore all the data that led us to accept evolution had to come, by the internal logic of creationists, from God. Not Satan.

 

You could have also called it reductionism I think. The point I am trying to make is science is a framework built to attempt to gain fact about the world around us. Doing chemistry in itself is not an endeavor you would take on in a philosophy class. Of course philosophy lead to science but the main point of what I am trying to get at is science really is just a method.

 

And the point I'm trying to get at is that science is NOT "just a method". Particularly not a method, as in singular. Science does not use one method. Science is the study of the physical universe. That said, it is impossible to come up with a criteria to say "this is science but this is not". All attempts to do this, including yourse that "science really is just a method" does not work.

 

You have to come up with a better idea of what science is.

 

It was not devised to be any particular human label

 

You just applied a human label to science! You said science is just a method! And science does not "gain fact". Instead, the ultimate production of science is theories.

 

Again its a subjective perceptual issue that decides what science is bad or good in relation to religion.

 

It's not just "subjective". Given the premise that the Bible is literal and inerrant in that literalness, then it is objective that science refutes inerrant literalness of the Bible. There is no doubt that what we have discovered thru science tells us that the earth is NOT young or that each species was NOT specially created.

 

Let me try this another way. What creationists have done is take a literal reading of the Bible and construct a number of scientific theories from that: the earth is young, all geological features are due to a world-wide flood, species are manufactured and independent from other species, etc. Those theories can be, and have been, evaluated just like we evaluate other scientific theories. And that objective evaluation shows that the theories are wrong.

 

The "perceptual issue" comes from an error on the part of creationists: tying the scientific theories to the ultimate existence of God.

 

My post is that for people in general to simply denounce evolution is basically claiming a great deal of science to be a conspiracy. Its one of the points I try to use against other arguments, in that for evolution to be false all of science that deals with it would have to be not only ignoring the scientific method but be working on some vast conspiracy, to me if you can believe that I have an ocean to sell you but that is a rude remark.

 

Yes. But the point I wanted to get across to you is that those "conspirators" were also creationists. You try to say "there is no vast conspiracy because there are too many conspirators". I am saying "So, how can there be a "conspiracy" if the adherents of creationism are the ones that showed it to be wrong? (remember, Darwin started out the voyage of the Beagle as a creationist)" IOW, there can be no conspiracy "for evolution" because all the original evolutionists were creationists. They should have stayed creationists. There is no need for them to have a "conspiracy".

 

Yes, but it takes a human mind to say evolution is atheism.

 

It takes a human mind to say anything! So what is your point?

 

You use your human mind to say "To me evolution is simply a fact about the world around us," It takes a human mind to say that.

 

And, in fact, you are wrong. Evolution is a theory, not a fact. It is such a well-supported theory that we regard it as (provisionally) true, but it is not a fact. Facts are observations. Theories are collections of statements. Evolution is a collection of statements (actually 5 theories) that is well-supported by facts.

 

to say its(evolution) atheism is really to say anything you want, because there is no difference to me.

 

Then I am really sorry for you, because there is a big difference between evolution and atheism.

 

What you seem to be doing is introducing your own philosophical subjective opinion into science. Yes, evolution happened. Evolution is the material explanation for the diversity of life on the planet. BUT, can you validly extrapolate beyond that to either 1) God exists or 2) God does not exist (atheism)? No. The facts won't let you.

 

 

PS, you use FSM -- flying spaghetti monster -- as tho it is a valid argument. If FSM has the characteristics of God, then it is God. A rose by any other name ... All you've done is shown your own failure to grasp the facts and your belief that, because you call deity something other than "God", you have somehow denied deity. You haven't. You could say "gristhnorp burns in the presence of oxygen to form water." I would reply "you mean hydrogen". You would say "no, I mean gristhnorp and because I said grishthnorp then hydrogen does not exist."

[the advocate]

I found this book a while ago, and managed to read most of it. It challenged my ideas at the time but, looking back with an analytical approach, I find that some thing don't seem to sound quite right. If anyone else has read this book, please tell me what you think.

 

How much of what is said is true at face value, and how much is made up of facts that have been specifically worded to create the wrong impression? Also, how much of the 'facts' are merely oppinions stated as facts? I would like to know how reliable this information is.

 

Click on this link to Amazon.com to view the book.

 

I was given a copy of the above book by one of my workmate. I come from a physics background and was unable to answer a lot of his points, which were evidently taken from the above book. I looked around the web and found this thread but I was dissappointed to find that the thread quickly went off topic. I was hoping to find answers to some of the major criticisms mentioned in the book, but this was apparently delt with sufficiently by referring to a web site which attacks creationism! Thereafter, it was established that Milton must be a closet creationist. Then the meaning of Darwinism was discussed from the point of view of creationists, aetheists, different scientists etc. (and I thought physics had problems right now)

It would have been helpful to know who actually read the book. I prefer to deal with these problems by establishing whether or not 'facts' can be trusted or not before proceding to attack unsound claims one at a time. Instead, the thread followed the path predicted in the book of attacking the authors character rather than the claims. Please get me started by explaining how the first self replicating cell came about. Is this something that can be explained through Darwinism or microbiology or something else.

[foodchain]

I was given a copy of the above book by one of my workmate. I come from a physics background and was unable to answer a lot of his points, which were evidently taken from the above book. I looked around the web and found this thread but I was dissappointed to find that the thread quickly went off topic. I was hoping to find answers to some of the major criticisms mentioned in the book, but this was apparently delt with sufficiently by referring to a web site which attacks creationism! Thereafter, it was established that Milton must be a closet creationist. Then the meaning of Darwinism was discussed from the point of view of creationists, aetheists, different scientists etc. (and I thought physics had problems right now)

It would have been helpful to know who actually read the book. I prefer to deal with these problems by establishing whether or not 'facts' can be trusted or not before proceding to attack unsound claims one at a time. Instead, the thread followed the path predicted in the book of attacking the authors character rather than the claims. Please get me started by explaining how the first self replicating cell came about. Is this something that can be explained through Darwinism or microbiology or something else.

 

Well if you happen to look at other books this guy has produced he seems to basically hate Darwin or anything that has to do with evolution. I have never read the book or plan to be quite honest, I am sure its a long list of offensive statements made by a person that cares little about evolution really. If you want to know why the book is wrong just consult biology in general really, for I don’t think they will be dropping evolution or natural selection anytime soon for various empirical reasons to numerous to list.

[PhDP]

Instead, the thread followed the path predicted in the book of attacking the authors character rather than the claims.

 

Nobody here has the time (or interest) to write a complete rebuttal of a complete book, but if you point out an argument we can talk about it, although I doubt it would be supported by serious references.

 

I would suggest, however, that you read a basic book about evolution, I don't see the point of reading a "criticism" of evolution if you don't know what is criticised.

[the advocate]

Well if you happen to look at other books this guy has produced he seems to basically hate Darwin or anything that has to do with evolution. I have never read the book or plan to be quite honest, I am sure its a long list of offensive statements made by a person that cares little about evolution really. If you want to know why the book is wrong just consult biology in general really, for I don’t think they will be dropping evolution or natural selection anytime soon for various empirical reasons to numerous to list.

 

I looked around the net and was unable to find any evidence that the other books this guy Milton produced point to him being a Darwin hater. Neither does "The Facts of Life" appear to contain any offensive statements. He even seems to be open minded to the idea of evolution. Just not with natural selection as the driving force.

 

I'm sorry foodchain but your answer is just not what I was hoping for. This is exactly the stance taken by most evangelical Christians nowadays when I refer them to texts which point to anomalies in the Bible. They ignore the specific point I raise. They then attack the critic as an enemy of Christianity and tell me to take a basic bible course, while believing that somewhere out there some scholar has already worked out a plausible answer. They never read the book.

 

When this approach is taken by scientists, it leaves us open to the charge of having double standards.

 

Nobody here has the time (or interest) to write a complete rebuttal of a complete book, but if you point out an argument we can talk about it, although I doubt it would be supported by serious references.

 

I would suggest, however, that you read a basic book about evolution, I don't see the point of reading a "criticism" of evolution if you don't know what is criticised.

 

I know what you are saying Phil. No one has time to rebutt a whole book. The problem is if we all take that line, invalid points go unchallenged and misinformation spreads through our negligence. Science works best when it attempts to break problems down into manageable chunks.

 

I did not ask you to rebutt the whole book but simply asked for help with one point which was particularly troubling me. I repeat, how did the first self replicating cells emerge. The emergence of such a self replicating cell with cell machinery and DNA is obviously an essential precursor to evolution by natural selection.

I have read Darwins "The Origin of the Species (By Means of Natural Selection)" and he does not appear to touch on this point. Have subsequent advances in science helped us to approach this fundamental question?

[Ophiolite]

It uses the word "darwinism". Nobody uses that word except creationists, who hold the idiotic belief that if they somehow find a flaw in evolution, everyone will accept their magic sky god.

The problem with this statement is that it is wrong. Wholly, utterly, tragically wrong.

I call it tragic, because in delivering a passionate, but wholly inaccurate critique of the use of the word, Mokele calls into question other observations and 'facts' he may offer up.

And the consequence of that? The casual reader, perhaps one poorly schooled in the sciences, on the point of deciding between rational Darwinism and irrational creationism is disillusioned when he finds the Darwinist has 'lied'.

To defeat the nonsense of creationism we need to ensure that our counter arguments are well founded. Careless oversights of this sort, in my opinion, serve us ill.

 

A couple of examples of use of the term Darwinism by non-creationists:

 

Stephen Gould - http://www.stephenjaygould.org/library/gould_tautology.html

 

Stephen Pinker

The Blank Slate (2002)

“It is not clear whether these worldly thinkers are really convinced that Darwinism is false or whether they think it is important for people to believe that it is false.”

Michael Ruse

Darwinism Defended (1982)

 

 

In my book, if it's good enough for Gould, it's good enough for me.

[lucaspa]

I was hoping to find answers to some of the major criticisms mentioned in the book, but this was apparently delt with sufficiently by referring to a web site which attacks creationism!

 

Advocate, there are so many creationist books attacking science that we don't have time to read them all. If I did, I wouldn't have time to read the scientific papers I need to read. So, you need to walk us thru the claims from the book that you find appealing and we will deal with them one by one.

 

It would have been helpful to know who actually read the book. I prefer to deal with these problems by establishing whether or not 'facts' can be trusted or not before proceding to attack unsound claims one at a time.

 

Claims and facts are entwined. You use facts to test claims. And you test with the idea of showing the claim to be false. You can always find "facts" to support a claim -- if that is all you are looking for. So saying Milton's "facts" are accurate is not the whole story. What you need to do is look for facts that contradict Milton's claims -- and those facts are not likely to be in Milton's book, are they?

 

Please get me started by explaining how the first self replicating cell came about. Is this something that can be explained through Darwinism or microbiology or something else.

 

Getting the first cell is chemistry. Once you have the first replicating cell then you can have evolution. Let me tell you something: my experience is that when people ask about abiogenesis, they aren't really talking evolution, since abiogenesis isn't part of evolution. They are really arguing theism vs atheism and using god-of-the-gaps theology. Science isn't atheism.

 

But, to answer your question, you can get a self-replicating cell by dry heating amino acids. This will cause them to form proteins. Then add water. The proteins will spontaneously form cells that metabolize, grow, respond to stimuli, and divide. Go here to start: http://www.theharbinger.org/articles/rel_sci/fox.html

This page has a picture of one type of protocell: http://www.springerlink.com/content/dxq91868368083p2/

 

We can discuss this in more detail if you want. Probably make a new thread.

 

Now, from the Amazon reviews of Milton's book we get some specific claims Milton has made:

"the evidence for humankind's own evolution is actually nonexistent"

"Today, 'Java man' is thought to be an extinct, giant gibbonlike creature and not connected to humans."

 

Both of these are incorrect. We have fossils of transitional individuals -- between species -- linking us (H. sapiens) to H. erectus, erectus to H. habilis, and habilis to A. afarensis. I'll provide a partial list (because I haven't done enough research to get ALL those fossils) if you want.

 

"Java man" is actually H. erectus. This particular fossil is not on the direct line to H. sapiens because the transition from H. erectus to sapiens took place in Africa. However, anyone looking at pictures of these fossils and those of gibbons can easily see that they are not at all similar.

 

Now, if you would give us some quotes from the book or summaries of particular arguments, we'll deal with them.

 

I repeat, how did the first self replicating cells emerge. The emergence of such a self replicating cell with cell machinery and DNA is obviously an essential precursor to evolution by natural selection.

I have read Darwins "The Origin of the Species (By Means of Natural Selection)" and he does not appear to touch on this point. Have subsequent advances in science helped us to approach this fundamental question?

 

IF you read Origin of Species (you got the title wrong, BTW), then you came upon this passage at the end:

 

"There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved." C. Darwin, On the Origin of Species, pg 450.

 

What this says is that what you call a "fundamental question" is not a question for evolution! ALL scientific theories assume the existence of something. Relativity assumes the existence of spacetime. The triple helix theory of DNA assumes the existence of DNA. NO scientific theory explains everything. Cell theory doesn't explain gravity. Relativity doesn't explain the origin of species. Evolution does NOT explain the origin of life from non-life.

 

That belongs to the general field of abiogenesis. Abiogenesis today consists of many different theories. Protocells are one. RNA World is another. They are all based on chemistry.

 

Again, when someone says abiogenesis is "fundamental" to evolution, that tells me we really aren't talking about evolution. Instead, we are into the atheism vs theism fight and the person is using god-of-the-gaps and the supposed "gap' of abiogenesis to advocate for theism. If you are not doing that, then you need to convince me that this is not happening this time.

 

Back to Darwin. IF you really read Origin of Species, the page before you encountered the quote above, you came across this quote:

 

"To my mind it accords better with what we know of the laws impressed on matter by the Creator, that the production and extinction of the past and present inhabitants of the world should have been due to secondary causes, like those determining the birth and death of the individual." C. Darwin, On the Origin of Species,pg. 449.

 

The emphasis is mine. "Secondary causes" is a theological term common in Darwin's time but forgotten by creationists who insist on direct action by God. Theologically, secondary causes are material mechanisms by which God works. Gravity is the secondary cause by which God keeps the planets in orbit. Darwin is saying that evolution is the secondary cause by which God created the diversity of life on the planet. Similarly, for theists chemistry would be the secondary cause by which God created life from non-life. No "miracle" or direct manufacture of cells. Chemistry is sufficient as a material cause.

 

Now, you should go back and read the Fontispiece in Origin.

[foodchain]

I looked around the net and was unable to find any evidence that the other books this guy Milton produced point to him being a Darwin hater. Neither does "The Facts of Life" appear to contain any offensive statements. He even seems to be open minded to the idea of evolution. Just not with natural selection as the driving force.

 

I'm sorry foodchain but your answer is just not what I was hoping for. This is exactly the stance taken by most evangelical Christians nowadays when I refer them to texts which point to anomalies in the Bible. They ignore the specific point I raise. They then attack the critic as an enemy of Christianity and tell me to take a basic bible course, while believing that somewhere out there some scholar has already worked out a plausible answer. They never read the book.

 

When this approach is taken by scientists, it leaves us open to the charge of having double standards.

 

 

 

I know what you are saying Phil. No one has time to rebutt a whole book. The problem is if we all take that line, invalid points go unchallenged and misinformation spreads through our negligence. Science works best when it attempts to break problems down into manageable chunks.

 

I did not ask you to rebutt the whole book but simply asked for help with one point which was particularly troubling me. I repeat, how did the first self replicating cells emerge. The emergence of such a self replicating cell with cell machinery and DNA is obviously an essential precursor to evolution by natural selection.

I have read Darwins "The Origin of the Species (By Means of Natural Selection)" and he does not appear to touch on this point. Have subsequent advances in science helped us to approach this fundamental question?

 

biologists in the field of biology know that evolution does not stand at 100% perfect understanding currently. In contrast to say in our past understanding of evolution was at the zero percent marker or did not exist. that being said this books takes unknown variables in an equation for instance or example and basically uses them as leverage to apply anything that typically person might feel like using such for. Such is an overused tactic of anti evolutionists really. For biology to accept evolution as a scientific field with many disciplines that all study such one way or another, from medicine to molecular biology and not find evidence for evolution yet still support it is a preposterous idea by any means of rationality. Biology as a collective field has in what is my opinion so much empirical evidence to back the reality of evolution that its impossible for a single person to know it all. that’s why I don’t care to read the book to be honest. I can bear criticism to evolution, but only ones that happen to be something other then a product of an agenda that really has little to do with science and or understanding, peace and all that good stuff.

[Reaper]

How wrong are YEC's and advocates of intelligent design?

 

Here you go... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=amDERsZUVn0&mode=related&search=Evolution%20Intelligent%20Design%20ID%20Creation%20evidence%20facts%20education%20DNA%20mutation%20time%20human%20chimpanzee%20common%20ancestor

 

Enjoy

[the advocate]

Thanks for clearing up this point. It makes sense that the study of abiogenesis (as you call it) is considered separately. While Darwin recognised this as a major stumbling block to providing a complete explanation of how life might have emerged from inert matter, he had no choice but to leave it to future generations to ponder over.

 

I agree that you need to take some things for granted in any given field of science and that it was perfectly reasonable to omit this question from evolutionary study. I would prefer to call abiogenesis a problem to be put aside for later, rather than a founding axiom of evolutionary theory. It is inevitable that this problem would have to be reconsidered when advances in science allowed.

 

I checked out the article on protocells. While I was amazed to find protein molecules appearing to self organise into structures resembling cell membranes,no explanation for this behaviour was given. Also, term protocell is a bit misleading, as going by what I've found on the web so far, this is one plausible step in a long chain which would be required to produce something as complex as the cells we have today. I need to look into this area but my gut instinct is that there is more going on here than chemistry as we know it.

 

I believe the “god-of-the-gaps” mentality works both ways. It is misused even by prominent scientists on both sides of the atheism vs theism debate. Both extrapolate that based on scientific problems or discoveries that God either does or does not need to exist. The truth is that there is no compulsion to accept either view. The evidence is there, make of it what you will.

 

One complaint of Richard Milton is that Darwinism no longer turns up novel facts. He classes it a degenerating paradigm. He also claims that it is un-falsifiabil. I would be greatfull if someone could put these claims in perspective. I apologise if these problems are in no particular order i'm just presenting them according to my own preference and not following the book.