[Little Kid]

Quote

Everyone will agree with you that the theory of evolution has gaps that so far aren't filled, whether they believe in evolution or not. It won't make for a very interesting discussion...

I never claimed it would, but hardly anybody seems to want to discuss what I would have liked to discuss. The most interesting part for me, was just ignored by most. I just wanted to provide some feedback on what the discussion for msot did seem to revolve around, at least to the extent I could make sense of some of the posts.

[mikeh]

Little Kid, on Jan 30 2009, 03:40 PM, said:

In the OP I asked about concrete evidence of the mechanisms generating novel gene traits, not just observed examples of them happening today or the past(eg. citrate metabolising E. coli or the classic example of the speckled moth) or even the mechanisms that "could" do so.

However, It seems that little of you seem to be interested in that and rather debate about the theory of evolution itself. Personally I feel that the evidence for this is fairly strong but that it has not yet been investigated to such an extend that all the gaps are filled. Before I get accused of being ignorant creationist again I'll back up my views and provide you with a few thoughts from prominent scientists in the field of evolution. They were asked what they thought to be the "biggest gaps" remaining in evolutionary theory.


"We still don't know what the last common ancestor of the humans and chimpanzees looked like, where and how it lived, and what processes sent us down our separate evolutionary paths. There are now a few important fossils from Africa in the likely time period of between 7 and 5 million years ago, but for me they have not necessarily brought us close to an answer."

Chris Stringer, Department of Paleontology at the Natural History Museum in London


"The biggest gap in evolutionary theory remains the origin of life itself. We know that life began, probably near volcanically active zones, about 3.8 to 3.5 billion years ago, at a time when tehre was no free oxygen in the atmosphere. In the laboratory it has been possible to replicate such conditions and produce amino acids, primitive membrane-like structures and some of the building blocks of DNA and RNA. More recently, it has been found that, along with protein enzymes, RNA can catalyse chemical reactions, and it has even been possible to construct RNA molecules that can copy parts of themselves. But the gap between such a collection of molecules and even the most primitive cell remains enormous."

Chriss Wills, biology professor at University of California, San Diego


"Which facts of evolution had to be true and which just happened to be true? Did the genetic code have to be digital in order for natural selection to work? Could any other classes of molecules have substituted for proteins? How inevitable was the evolution of sex? Eyes? Intelligence? Language? Consciousness? Was the origin of life itself a common event, and therefore is life common in the universe?"

Richard Dawkins, evolutionary biologist at the University of Oxford


"Evolution's biggest gap? Quite simple, old boy." Professor Mortimer leaned back and grinned. "Evolution equals change? Naturally, but that is only one step. What is life? A spectacular tightrope walk on a gossamer thread between the vast regions of crystalline immobolity and chaotic flux. If you don't like that metaphor, try thinking of a pack of cards a mile high with an elephant perfectly balanced on top. And then there is this uncanny self-organisation. Cells to consciousness - impressive isn't it? Darwin got it right, but so did Newton. But then physics had Einstein. Perhaos now it is biology's turn."

Simon Conway Morris, professor in Department of Earth Sciences at University of Cambridge

If these quotes truly represent your concerns.. well, I owe you an apology. I must have misunderstood you. I see NO example of any supporter of evolution as ever having posted the opinion that the current version of the darwinian theory is in a final or complete state, or that issues of extreme importance remain to be resolved.

I had understood that you were concerned with 'flaws' in the current theory, in the sense of 'errors' or the existence of facts that contradicted the current theory... but if all you meant were that there remain (many) areas for further investigation... heck, we agree! And IF on exploration, the theory needs revision, great... and IF it needs abandoning for another theory altogether.. also great! in the sense that we will have learned even more about this fascinating topic.

[blackshoe]

The fact that there are "gaps" in the theory of evolution does not suggest that the Creationists are any more likely to be right.

[kenberg]

Little Kid, on Jan 30 2009, 03:40 PM, said:

In the OP I asked about concrete evidence of the mechanisms generating novel gene traits, not just observed examples of them happening today or the past(eg. citrate metabolising E. coli or the classic example of the speckled moth) or even the mechanisms that "could" do so.

You are unsatisfied with the responses. There are, I think, reasons. The original post and some of your subsequent comments contain words I don't know and make references to arguments that I don not know the details of. My first impression was that while this might well be over my head I might still find it interesting. But in response to posts you say "I got those examples off the top of my head (knowing little about biological evolution)" and "I must confess however that my mathematical analysis skills are not so advanced and that I can't quite intuitively make sense of the article."

So if biological arguments (which I also know little about) and mathematical arguments (here I have more knowledge) don't move you then it's really a little disingenuous to phrase your original post as if you were asking for a really scientific discussion.


I am more than happy to acknowledge (hell, I insist) that I lack the training to intelligently discuss the various technical aspects of evolution. I perhaps know slightly more (very slightly) about quantum mechanics. In both cases, I put my general trust in the scientific process and accept the general consensus as likely to be the best explanation available for the facts at hand. No doubt I, or anyone, could find aspects of quantum theory that seem unlikely from a common sense viewpoint. To list these as objections, and then rule out mathematics and physics as counter arguments, doesn't seem right. Same for evolution.

[luke warm]

mikeh, on Jan 29 2009, 07:16 PM, said:

luke warm, on Jan 29 2009, 06:58 PM, said:

Quote

But speculating that some entity was responsible begs the question of how it exists, where and when it exists, how and why it created the universe, how it came to be, who or what created it.. thus for every question, about our universe, to which 'god' is the answer, we are driven, are we not, to ask exactly that question about the god?

your attempts at argument are filled with fallacies of every sort, so you should be careful when tossing out phrases like "beg the question"... and no, we are not "driven" in the direction you suggest... as todd (i think it was) said, some of us don't deny the existence (or possible existence, if you prefer) of metaphysical entities - things such as non-material laws

Would you care to explain to an ignorant materialist, what you mean by 'non-material laws'?

Would you care to explain how such laws are testable, in terms of objectively verifiable outcomes?

or is this all a matter of faith?

sorry, i posted on this in another thread (it's hard to keep them together in my mind - probably my theistic training interferes)

jdonn, on Jan 29 2009, 07:58 PM, said:

I realize Mike just questioned this portion of your post, but I certainly am wondering some things about it.
- Why do you think he should be careful about saying "begs the question" and very similarly about not being "driven" to ask those sorts of questions about god? Are you trying to imply that questions about god's origin aren't worth asking, or can only be answered based on faith, or....what?

i think i answered this in my response to him - begging the question is a logical fallacy, and he needs to be careful when he accuses someone of fallacious argumentation, given his posts... that's all

Quote

- I agree many people don't deny the existance of god, or some god-like thing (most people in fact.) So what? Are you saying that means those sort of questions aren't important? I guess I don't understand your purpose in that comment, it sounds like something that means "we have no particular motivation to question god since many people believe he exists."

no josh, i was replying to his statement that we are "driven" to such ends... read it again

Quote

- Redundant to last post, but what is a non-material law?

answered in the other thread

[hotShot]

I really hate it when scientists are vague or inaccurate.

The strength of scientific theories is that they can be used to transfer knowledge gained at one spot to conclusive explain what has not been observed at another spot.
It is great whenever fossils or even living beings are discovered that are missing links in the chain of ancestors of existing species. Each finding strengthens the concept of evolution. Not having found remains of the the last common ancestor of humans and chimpanzees yet, is sad, but hardly a thread to the theory of evolution, since comparisons of the genome show a close relation.

Evolution theory explains the development of multitude of species, it was never intended to explain the origin of life. This is like blaming the theory of gravity for not explaining electricity.
The theories that are used to explain the origin of molecules needed for cells are just chemistry. There is indeed no experimental prove that a cell can evolve that way, but that is an expected result. Chemists know that the formation of a cell from a "soup of ingredients" is highly unlikely. Nature had several millions or even a billion years to do that. It will hardly happen in a scientists lifetime.

The mutations assumed for evolution can happen without any purpose. The theory states that if a mutation leads to an advantage over other specimens of the original species over time the population of the "old genome" will get smaller while the population of the "new genome" will grow.
The theory is not designed to answer question about chemical alternatives, or the purpose of mutations.

The number of unsolved problems in science is endless, and for a lot of interesting questions, science will not provide an answer any time soon. There is lot of room for religion and/or philosophy to provide concepts and beliefs.

Just ask yourself how your "free will" is transformed into cell chemistry to create the nerve impulse to control the muscles.

[jdonn]

Lukewarm, this is why I so often have difficulty having discussions with you. Unless prompted all you do is ask questions. So sometimes I prompt, and you are certainly happy to answer questions asked of you, but I would say over 90% of the time (such as all 3 cases above) I either have no idea what your answer means, or am quite sure it is completely meaningless. So then I am faced with the choice of stopping (which I invariably do though perhaps after more time), or getting into some detailed debate about some off-topic semantic point in which case original interesting point of the debate gets completely obscured.

For example, I have no idea what you mean when you say "begging the question is a logical fallacy." Nor do I think it matters since it's just an expression. And even if you could show me what you mean, I would have no idea why you don't answer what it seems obvious to me was originally meant instead of objecting to a question because you perceive a fallacy in the technical wording.

Then when you say "no josh, i was replying to his statement that we are "driven" to such ends... read it again" I don't even know what to think. I read it again and my natural reaction is this: Ok, so why didn't you answer my question? What I just read again was exactly the same as I recall from reading it the first time.

Then when I ask about nonmaterial laws, you list some in another thread (though not explaining what any of them mean - maybe an example?) but I can't see how any of what you listed has anything to do with your post in which you used that term.

So how can I possibly continue such a discussion? This seems to always happen when I engage with you.

[Winstonm]

You can engage with me, Josh. I don't think we've finished our crop circle, yet.

[luke warm]

jdonn, on Jan 30 2009, 07:07 PM, said:

Lukewarm, this is why I so often have difficulty having discussions with you. Unless prompted all you do is ask questions. So sometimes I prompt, and you are certainly happy to answer questions asked of you, but I would say over 90% of the time (such as all 3 cases above) I either have no idea what your answer means, or am quite sure it is completely meaningless. So then I am faced with the choice of stopping (which I invariably do though perhaps after more time), or getting into some detailed debate about some off-topic semantic point in which case original interesting point of the debate gets completely obscured.

For example, I have no idea what you mean when you say "begging the question is a logical fallacy." Nor do I think it matters since it's just an expression. And even if you could show me what you mean, I would have no idea why you don't answer what it seems obvious to me was originally meant instead of objecting to a question because you perceive a fallacy in the technical wording.

Then when you say "no josh, i was replying to his statement that we are "driven" to such ends... read it again" I don't even know what to think. I read it again and my natural reaction is this: Ok, so why didn't you answer my question? What I just read again was exactly the same as I recall from reading it the first time.

Then when I ask about nonmaterial laws, you list some in another thread (though not explaining what any of them mean - maybe an example?) but I can't see how any of what you listed has anything to do with your post in which you used that term.

So how can I possibly continue such a discussion? This seems to always happen when I engage with you.

i'm sorry josh (really)... i'll try

Quote

Why do you think he should be careful about saying "begs the question" and very similarly about not being "driven" to ask those sorts of questions about god? Are you trying to imply that questions about god's origin aren't worth asking, or can only be answered based on faith, or....what?

i didn't take mike's 'begs the question' remark to be just an expression, i read it as him trying to point to a hole in another's argument... looked at that way, i was objecting to him pointing out logical fallacies to another

Quote

I agree many people don't deny the existance of god, or some god-like thing (most people in fact.) So what? Are you saying that means those sort of questions aren't important? I guess I don't understand your purpose in that comment, it sounds like something that means "we have no particular motivation to question god since many people believe he exists."

no, that isn't what i meant... yes, certainly questioning any aspect of God's existence is allowed, and some even are important... my response to mike didn't mean that such questions aren't allowed or important, i was objecting to his statement that we are "driven" to answer such questions... some might be, some might not be... i can prove (at least to my satisfaction) that God is eternal and i can prove (again, to my satisfaction) that christianity is internally consistent (important for the "but why *your* god" arguments... you'll have to take my word that such internal consistency is important)... but these questions are separate, or should be treated separately, from one another... each takes a very long time to argue

Quote

Redundant to last post, but what is a non-material law?

law of entropy, laws of logic, law of identity

i apologize again if my posts have irritated you... you're right that i prefer to ask questions, usually it's because i want to know the answer (not always - sometimes asking the question can show where something "hurts")

[jdonn]

luke warm, on Jan 30 2009, 07:29 PM, said:

Quote

Why do you think he should be careful about saying "begs the question" and very similarly about not being "driven" to ask those sorts of questions about god? Are you trying to imply that questions about god's origin aren't worth asking, or can only be answered based on faith, or....what?

i didn't take mike's 'begs the question' remark to be just an expression, i read it as him trying to point to a hole in another's argument... looked at that way, i was objecting to him pointing out logical fallacies to another

Um...so what? It seems obvious to me he was merely saying if you say 'i believe blah blah blah happened because of god', then one will automatically wonder things about this god. Perhaps not everyone will, but at least anyone who is intellectually curious, or one who doesn't want to concede that his belief is completely based on faith.

I actually take a little humor in you objecting to another's argument as a logical anything, since as far as I'm concerned you are on record as refusing to answer the question "is your belief in god logical?", which I have long taken to mean you can not say it is.

Quote

Quote

I agree many people don't deny the existance of god, or some god-like thing (most people in fact.) So what? Are you saying that means those sort of questions aren't important? I guess I don't understand your purpose in that comment, it sounds like something that means "we have no particular motivation to question god since many people believe he exists."

no, that isn't what i meant... yes, certainly questioning any aspect of God's existence is allowed, and some even are important... my response to mike didn't mean that such questions aren't allowed or important, i was objecting to his statement that we are "driven" to answer such questions... some might be, some might not be... i can prove (at least to my satisfaction) that God is eternal and i can prove (again, to my satisfaction) that christianity is internally consistent (important for the "but why *your* god" arguments... you'll have to take my word that such internal consistency is important)... but these questions are separate, or should be treated separately, from one another... each takes a very long time to argue

I find this a mildly objectionable form of nitpicky wordsmithing. It's just another way to say the same thing as the 'begs the question' part. If god is posited, there will be questions about him.

Quote

Quote

Redundant to last post, but what is a non-material law?

law of entropy, laws of logic, law of identity

What can I even say. I complained that I didn't know what all these meant (granted I have some idea and I could also look them up, so no big deal), and that they seemed to me to, although literally answering the question, have nothing to do with the context in which you used the term. And your cure for that was to exactly repeat the same answer?

Quote

i apologize again if my posts have irritated you... you're right that i prefer to ask questions, usually it's because i want to know the answer (not always - sometimes asking the question can show where something "hurts")

I don't particularly mind that you tend to ask questions instead of offering opinions, since I have been fair to point out you answer questions too. What is irritating is your answers so often seem to me to be any of:
- A response that takes the question far too literally and ignores the intended point.
- A complete diversion from the point.
- A bunch of fancy words that might as well have been tossed with salad tongs.
It's not like I think I'm some magically good poster, but I believe one would have to admit people always understand me clearly and know my opinion, as well as the basis for it. I am aware of your general views, but always eventually become tired of trying to find out the basis of them.

[luke warm]

jdonn, on Jan 30 2009, 08:24 PM, said:

I actually take a little humor in you objecting to another's argument as a logical anything, since as far as I'm concerned you are on record as refusing to answer the question "is your belief in god logical?", which I have long taken to mean you can not say it is.

no i haven't, josh... of course my belief in God is logical, but i tried to explain that one can logically conclude that God is eternal... from there one would need to prove that *my* God (the christian God) is logical, and that leads to the internal consistency thing

Quote

Quote

Quote

I agree many people don't deny the existance of god, or some god-like thing (most people in fact.) So what? Are you saying that means those sort of questions aren't important? I guess I don't understand your purpose in that comment, it sounds like something that means "we have no particular motivation to question god since many people believe he exists."

no, that isn't what i meant... yes, certainly questioning any aspect of God's existence is allowed, and some even are important... my response to mike didn't mean that such questions aren't allowed or important, i was objecting to his statement that we are "driven" to answer such questions... some might be, some might not be... i can prove (at least to my satisfaction) that God is eternal and i can prove (again, to my satisfaction) that christianity is internally consistent (important for the "but why *your* god" arguments... you'll have to take my word that such internal consistency is important)... but these questions are separate, or should be treated separately, from one another... each takes a very long time to argue

I find this a mildly objectionable form of nitpicky wordsmithing. It's just another way to say the same thing as the 'begs the question' part. If god is posited, there will be questions about him.

well... okay

Quote

Quote

Quote

Redundant to last post, but what is a non-material law?

law of entropy, laws of logic, law of identity

What can I even say. I complained that I didn't know what all these meant (granted I have some idea and I could also look them up, so no big deal), and that they seemed to me to, although literally answering the question, have nothing to do with the context in which you used the term. And your cure for that was to exactly repeat the same answer?

i thought you wanted examples of what i meant when i use the term... it means that abstract entities (laws) exist... for example, the law of non-contradiction exists whether or not there is anyone around to label it as such

Quote

Quote

i apologize again if my posts have irritated you... you're right that i prefer to ask questions, usually it's because i want to know the answer (not always - sometimes asking the question can show where something "hurts")

I don't particularly mind that you tend to ask questions instead of offering opinions, since I have been fair to point out you answer questions too. What is irritating is your answers so often seem to me to be any of:
- A response that takes the question far too literally and ignores the intended point.
- A complete diversion from the point.
- A bunch of fancy words that might as well have been tossed with salad tongs.
It's not like I think I'm some magically good poster, but I believe one would have to admit people always understand me clearly and know my opinion, as well as the basis for it. I am aware of your general views, but always eventually become tired of trying to find out the basis of them.

i tend to take things literally, true, but i don't think i divert from the point... if i do, i'll try to improve

[PassedOut]

luke warm, on Jan 31 2009, 11:04 AM, said:

of course my belief in God is logical, but i tried to explain that one can logically conclude that God is eternal... from there one would need to prove that *my* God (the christian God) is logical, and that leads to the internal consistency thing

Although you can perhaps apply logic to evaluate the consequences of a belief in god, you can't really say that the belief itself is logical without either (1) shifting the meaning of the word "logic" or (2) starting from other premisses themselves not logical.

It is easy to create a formally consistent system with no basis in reality.

[luke warm]

PassedOut, on Jan 31 2009, 11:59 AM, said:

luke warm, on Jan 31 2009, 11:04 AM, said:

of course my belief in God is logical, but i tried to explain that one can logically conclude that God is eternal... from there one would need to prove that *my* God (the christian God) is logical, and that leads to the internal consistency thing

Although you can perhaps apply logic to evaluate the consequences of a belief in god, you can't really say that the belief itself is logical without either (1) shifting the meaning of the word "logic" or (2) starting from other premisses themselves not logical.

It is easy to create a formally consistent system with no basis in reality.

maybe you're right, but i haven't found it to be easy to do so while maintaining consistency

[shintaro]

There must be Evolution however was it responsible for George W ???

[PassedOut]

luke warm, on Jan 31 2009, 04:28 PM, said:

PassedOut, on Jan 31 2009, 11:59 AM, said:

luke warm, on Jan 31 2009, 11:04 AM, said:

of course my belief in God is logical, but i tried to explain that one can logically conclude that God is eternal... from there one would need to prove that *my* God (the christian God) is logical, and that leads to the internal consistency thing

Although you can perhaps apply logic to evaluate the consequences of a belief in god, you can't really say that the belief itself is logical without either (1) shifting the meaning of the word "logic" or (2) starting from other premisses themselves not logical.

It is easy to create a formally consistent system with no basis in reality.

maybe you're right, but i haven't found it to be easy to do so while maintaining consistency

You are too modest.

[Cascade]

helene_t, on Jan 30 2009, 12:56 AM, said:

It is no more controversial than the idea that the Earth is round ...

Is that flat earth "round" or spherical "round"?

[PassedOut]

With Darwin's 200th birthday coming up on February 12, 2009, a lot of interesting pieces about him are appearing. Here is a review of a new book about Darwin's motivation that looks good: Hatred of slavery drove Darwin to emancipate all life

Quote

For someone who came up with what has justly been described as "the single best idea anyone has ever had", Darwin has been vilified to an extraordinary degree. Clearly, his achievement of uniting all species under a common ancestor outraged millions, and still does. This book spectacularly humanises him, showing how he was driven by the great moral cause of his day: opposition to slavery.

I'm going to buy and read it.

In the US, sadly, opposition to evolution continues even though slavery has been outlawed for well over a century: Evolution war still rages 200 years after Darwin's birth

Quote

Public opinion surveys consistently have shown that Americans are deeply divided over evolution. The most recent Gallup poll on the issue, in June 2007, found that 49 percent of those surveyed said they believed in evolution and 48 percent said they didn't. Those percentages have stayed almost even for at least 25 years.

Gallup found a political angle to the split. Two-thirds of Republicans rejected Darwin's theory, while majorities of Democrats and political independents accepted it.

A Harris poll published last December found that more people believe in a devil, hell and angels than in evolution.

Bush's philosophy is "Real men don't think things through." Still, it surprises me that two-thirds of republicans can't or won't accept plain truths. But maybe it shouldn't, given the past eight years.

[JLOL]

hotShot, on Jan 29 2009, 08:51 AM, said:

JLOL, on Jan 29 2009, 11:15 AM, said:

I know pretty much nothing about science and am an atheist to say the least,

I ask this out of genuine curiosity to those who are knowledgable, what are the legitimate holes in the theory of evolution? What needs to be proven in order for it to evolve from just being a theory?

Newtons physics was a great discovery and very useful and worked almost perfectly for most problems on earth that were big enough to handle.
When people started to think it was an indisputable fact, scientists found that submicroscopic particles of mater behaved like energy and that energy can behave like matter. Something that shook the physics foundations. There were also problems in the astronomic scale with Newtons physics.
Einstein could prove that Newtons physics is just a special case of a bigger theory, that is true for "small masses" next to a big mass (Earth) that is moving slowly compared the the speed of light.

Today scientist are more careful with their wording, almost everything is "just" a theory, because from our limited view on this universe, they don't know, if that what they found up to now, is not only part of something bigger they can't see or understand right now.

Thanks for this (and also to helene). Always wondered lol.

[Winstonm]

Quote

Gallup found a political angle to the split. Two-thirds of Republicans rejected Darwin's theory, while majorities of Democrats and political independents accepted it.

A Harris poll published last December found that more people believe in a devil, hell and angels than in evolution

The Republican Party has done a terrific job promoting itself as the party of family values, as pro-life, and as for law and order - all ideas that appeal to the Christian Coalition. The Christian Coaltion is made up of the evangelicals, and evangelicals are more apt to dismiss evolution and believe in a real Satan, hell, and angels.

[DrTodd13]

jdonn, on Jan 29 2009, 01:41 PM, said:

DrTodd13, on Jan 29 2009, 04:35 PM, said:

So, in short I would say that evolution is possible but failure to have a better explanation is not proof of the truth of the current best conjecture particularly when the same science giving us this explanation says its likelihood is extremely low.

If you are saying you only would believe an explanation for our existance if a priori it were extremely likely to occur, then I strongly disagree!

No, I believe that unlikely things have occurred but the more unlikely it is a priori the more evidence I would like to see before believing that it really happened.