Biologists Take Evolution Beyond Darwin -- Way Beyond

Nice, I am a "religious dogamtic type", hey THANKS A LOT!! I appreciate it, really I do. Didn't Darwin say something to the effect that if the "missing link hasn't been found in a generation then the theory is wrong?" At least this what I have been told. Hey how about that Nebrasa man thing that was uncovered? Oh, wait that is right the tooth turned out to belong to an extinct PIG....

Ferris Haven't you noticed that the evolutionists of all types are a happy tolerant lot who are always willing to discuss the inconsistencies or problems with their theories?

Finger Prints of Creation presents a problem for evolutionists and proponents of billions upon billions of years time for all to come to todays status pitiful and woebegone as it is across the wide wide world.

Polonium halos as a rationale for creation. Bunk.

The reason the National Academy of Sciences hasn't taken up the challenge is that they don't have to. It's already been disproven. When time after time someone tells you that 2+2=5, and won't change their mind about it, you tend to ignore them.

OOOOOOOPS Nebrasa should have been Nebraska .....Well the one thing that I can say is that if I am wrong in my faith, at least I believed in something, someone "positive" that helped to provide values and morals. If I am right, correct, in my faith, then the threads author is going to be sorry.

Yes, I know that MANY, MANY things have been done/perpetrated in the name of religion. But if you look closely, they were brought about by a greedy S.O.B.'s that were mainly lookig to fill up their coffers.

Cheers

More journalistic jingo from someone who has never really thought about origins.

<"...widely accepted by scientists....", is quite untrue.

Most scientists who have carefully researched evolution, find out that it is just a Theory, that is all.

It has been convenient for those who orchestrate the masses, to push the Theory of Evolution, at every opportunity.

Kind Regards....

Those who preach evolution are proponents of the tactic that "if you say something often enough (especially if the media buys in), then it must be true". A number of GW proponents (and others that push the latest "science") also fall into this category. Too bad that the people that make all the noise are the ones that get the media attention, but then, if the media didnt have sensationalist tripe to write about they would be out of a job.

Spent the last 2 months in Florida (instead of icy Ohio). I learned that the weather forecasters there are no better than they are in Ohio. No one can predict farther than 1 day ahead (if that) anymore. At least when I was growing up in the 1940's, if it was raining out they could get that right. Not any more.

Yes, all scientists accept Evolution as a theory. If you think that means the theory is in doubt, you should probably study what theory means in a scientific context. And as for pushing Evolution at every opportunity, why do you assume this is done. What's the desired outcome?

I'm not a religious dogmatist either and I dont think evolution works without the help uv a guiding intelligence.

Dr. Micheal Behe does an excellent job uv exposing the shortcomings uv 'def, dum & blind' evolution in hiz books.

"The Bible teaches you how to go to Heaven, not how the heavens go."

Galileo during his inquisition.

Why Behe is wrong:

February 1997: Behe and the Blood Clotting Cascade
December 1999: Behe, the Krebs Cycle, and Models of Origins of Complex Biochemical Structures
October 2003 runner-up: Why Behe's Black Box Is Empty
September 2006: Irreducible Complexity as an Evolutionary Prediction

I'm not a religious dogmatist either and I dont think evolution works without the help uv a guiding intelligence.

But then who created the "guiding intelligence"? (by which we all know you mean "God"). I usually hear the answer that "God has always existed". But then I point out that it seems simpler and more logical to say that "the order of nature has always existed". Not literally in the sense of discrete molecular structures having always existed, but rather in the sense that order results directly from the laws of nature which have always existed. Who designed the laws? They have always existed (before our Big Bang, the laws still existed within the Eternal Metaverse of which our universe is an infinitesimal portion).

Well it's good to hear that the creationists won't take this lying down. You folks have forgotten to mention the 'scientists' who carbon dated a BIC lighter as being millions of years old, and - oh yeah - the Grand Canyon was cut by Noah's flood, and ....oh let's not forget the one about the existence of a watch proves the existence of a watch-maker, and .....

All this childish nonsense in defense of ancient texts written by a small tribe of goat herders a few thousand years ago, who tried to imagine how this wonderful world came in to being, and how to go about the business of living in it.

Do you really think that 'believing in something' means believing some old stories? Do you really think that the idea of evolution is so inherently evil that no self respecting god would ever use it as a part of a creation? Do you really think that morals come out of a book? Do you really believe in a god who is such a jerk as to bury 'dragon' bones deep in the earth to try and mess with our heads? Do you really think that religion is some magical revelation from a god, and not just a useful tool for social organization that has allowed some 'colonies' of humans to thrive and prosper?

I have it on reliable authority from the Easter Bunny, who spoke to the Tooth Fairy, who said that the last time she talked to Santa he had mentioned that Jesus said that his dad was sort of impressed that we had at least figured out the crude outline of how this 'evolution' thing worked. He was also hoping that maybe we could wake up to the wonder and complexity of the actual creation, the universe we live in, and stop worshiping a book written by some very wise but long dead people living in a small corner of a desert.

John,

After reading your opinion on God, creationists, religion and your opinion of other people of faith, I have to wonder whether you have ever taken the time to read and truly ponder what is written in the Holy Scriptures by that small tribe of uneducated goat herders long ago. I find that most people that actually take the time to read through these writings a few times will find that those goat herders were much wiser than you have given them credit for being. They certainly knew more about life, human nature and how to get along as a society than the majority of people currently alive. The levels of crime and debauchery tolerated in society are the root of all kinds of society's problems. If we were wise, we as a people would start to heed what those goat herders have to say and begin living by the morals expounded in that "book".
A challenge: Try once reading completely through the texts you have such disdain for, before making judgements.

Umm, perhaps you yourself should read through these texts if you believe they knew more about how to live together as a society...I however think they are an example of a few quiet wise men who like to write rather than talk about what they see, cause no one will listen. This is very similar to today's world.

I have read a few of these texts cover to cover and find them preposterous. To follow them as morals--yes they will do more than fine, along with the stories of bunnies talking, and wolves blowing down piggys' houses. However to even begin to take them as something to follow word by word for the origin of the universe, or on how things change through time...

John, I am sorry if someone ruined it for you when you were a kid and told you that Santa wasn't real , or the tooth fairy was actually your parents, or whatever but if you don't believe then you do not believe. Honestly, I feel if you are to say that we were "created in one form and then evolved into another" then yes I would agree with evolution. 'We' as a species are changing, adapting to our lives. Something as small as a flu vaccinantion changes you in some small way and thus you have "evolved" in a way.

I do not believe that some random lightning strike happened to hit the right spot, in the right ocean with the proper amount of whatever it is that started out as the beginings of DNA and then presto chango here we are a few billions of years later.

If this is the circumstance of our beginnings, then WHY can't I just go outside and get some sun light and feel nurished like a plant? Why can't I produce Oxygen, instead of Carbon Dioxide, again like a plant? What, was it a different lightning strike that produced a photosynthesizing forebear?

Remember this: No matter what it is that you feel about GOD and or Jesus they love you. Don't like it? Deal with it.......

Again, whatever you want to name the almighty I am sure there is something there for you. And again like I said in my earlier comment: if I am wrong then at least I will have believed in something positive, you... Well, you if I am right then are in for a real Hell of a time

Cheers

A well written response, John. I also have read Darwin's work and I agree with it (to a point). I believe the problem with Evolutionary Theory comes about when the demonstrated aspects of the theory are extrapolated and "results" are assume to be facts far beyond the ability to prove the data.

If I correctly perceive your concept of God, you prefer to accept a Creator that after a single act of creation said "the heck with this mess" and went about his other business, leaving us and the rest of creation to our own devices. I prefer to believe in a personal God who remains actively involved in the lives of the things He created and is still involved. But that's just me.

To All, Perhaps the Creator, call it what you choose, chooses to create through evolution, or random chance, or some other method that is a combination of many things. The point is that there is a possibility that ALL the creation myths have a grain of truth in them. Our purpose may not be to find the "true" path but to be true to ourselves and each other.

And get along, damn it!!!

If in fact the Theory of Evolution is true, why has it now stopped. Sure individual species may be "evolving" (changing) but I have yet to see one new species "evolve" in recorded history. They have been manipulating fruit flies for years upon years, but have they ever gotten anything but a fruit fly? They have been able to produce many mutations all of which were detrimental not beneficial. I can not see how an educated person can truly believe that everything on this earth cam from a single one celled organism but they cannot believe that God created everything. To me it takes more faith to believe in evolution then it does to believe in God.

What proof do you have that it's stopped? You've provide a number of anecdotes (misunderstandings). How about some proof?

You ask for proof. Just take a look outside, look at the diversity and complexity of nature. think about it, could all this have really came from one tiny microbe? Besides that conventional science has already dis-proven the Theory of Evolution. How you might ask. Has it not been proven time and time again that matter can not come from nothing. They say that our Universe was created by the Big Bang, and that over millions and billions of years life evolved. Answer this question if you can. Where did the matter that made up that Big Bang come from?

Where did the matter that made up that Big Bang come from?

Read any introductory astrophysics text and all will be made clear to you.

No, it hasn't ever been proved that matter can not come from nothing. It has been proven that matter comes from energy. It's happening in the sun above at this very moment.

And the theory of evolution nowhere implies that matter comes from nothing. The universe is overflowing with matter. The theory of evolution deals with how that matter becomes arranged into what we call life.

OK so where did the Energy come from?

No one (including Moses) knows. We have no way of seeing beyond the origin of energy in the universe.

"Read any introductory astrophysics text and all will be made clear to you.

No, it hasn't ever been proved that matter can not come from nothing. It has been proven that matter comes from energy. It's happening in the sun above at this very moment."

That begs the question. Where did the energy "for the so called and unproven theory" of the Big Bang come from? Just another WAG?

Theories, theories everywhere and nary a proof in sight.

You're one post behind. Please try to keep up.

Hi Stan,

If you're looking for proof, study trigonometry. I think here in the real world there is not and never has been the kind of 'proof' you have somehow come to expect. Except for a few 'laws' for gravity, thermodynamics, etc., theories is what you get. Even the laws may someday need modification. There is no proof, only increasing levels of measurable certainty.

"Has it not been proven time and time again that matter can not come from nothing."

Time and time again, it is shown as such, which means we cannot create a big bang circumstance as of our current knowledge/technology, however does not eliminate the possibility of the big bang material appearing, nor does it eliminate the possibility of a god that created it. But, if the theory that everything comes from something, then where does your god come from? --If it could ever be "proven" that a god exists and did in fact start off/create the big bang, the new question would be where did god come from. If you then say from a belief stand point that god always was, then why couldn't the big bang always be. This is a double standard, and therefore this question you ask need not be asked because it does not further the argument.

As for evolution, new species are often described as a new "evolutionary creation" that can no longer breed with other members from its parent species. This often happens when a species is separated by some kind of boundary (often a land boundary) and as the two subspecies evolve according to their environments they may eventually come to a point where they can no longer mate and create offspring. At this time they are considered two different species. The problem with not "seeing" this happen, as was said with fruit flies in laboratories, is that the method of reproduction for the fruit flies remains the same, while scientists change other characteristics such as eye color, or wing type.

-Note this applies to "normal" organisms of the species--ie ones without diseases that prevent them from reproducing. I personally am not sure how these are classified for a species, perhaps someone can enlighten me .-(No offense meant or any such by "diseased" just a scientific term for any abnormality that may exist.)

where did god come from.

You are right I can not explain were God came from; just as no one can explain were the material for the big bang came from. That is exactly the point that I was trying to make. we all believe something that cannot be "proven" or dis-proven by science. That is were faith comes in. It is much easier for me to believe that an all powerful being created the universe than it is to believe that it all just "happened"

One illustration that I heard goes something like this

A certain college professor had a model of our solar system hanging in his office. when asked by one of his students who made this amazing model. the professor replied no one it just happened the wind blowing through the open door and the dust swirled and there it was.

Pretty far fetched, we know that someone built the model just as surely as I know that God created our Universe.

Hi Escape Pod,

(1) I believe that this certain college professor referred to in the story was Issac Newton.

(2) If you find that you need some kind of certainty in your life, then by all means feel free to get some. Science is not about certainty. It's about probability. If a high degree of probability is not good enough for you that's fine. For the rest of us mere mortals it seems like a great gift. Otherwise we feel like we're just making stuff up, to fill the void where our ignorance lies. To me this would seem kind of like bearing false witness, but maybe that's just my take on it.

(3) I think it was Mark Twain who said (I paraphrase), It's not the guy who doesn't know something that scares me, it's the guy who knows something for sure that just ain't so. Nobody knows or can know if there is a Creator behind all this. If you choose to believe that there is thats fine, unless you use your belief as a weapon to belittle others who have made another choice.

From the previous universe. Cycle after cycle after cycle. Were there guiding minds behind it? Yes, but not what is currently believed by any religion.

Evolution has not stopped, and new species are being created in front of our very eyes. The "I've never seen a new species evolve, therefore species don't evolve" argument is one of those tired old creationist arguments (like the "no intermediate fossils" argument) that keep getting repeated, even in the face of contradictory evidence.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/07/0727_050727_evolution.html

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/10/051028140816.htm

http://www.icr.org/home/resources/resources_tracts_scientificcaseagainstevolution/

Now that you're quoting Morris, I know that I can discount your arguments, totally. I've been reading his books for 30 years (and this article) and every argument he has ever made is demonstrably false.

Can one of the apologists for evolution please explain:

How did life begin?

The theory of evolution does not claim to explain how or why life began, but rather how it changes over time. Just as the Big Bang theory does not claim to explain the ultimate origin our universe, but instead how it changes over time.

I have heard of a few hypotheses attempting to explain how (but not "why") life began on this planet. The panspermia hypothesis proposes that primitive life arrived here from space on meteorites and cometary material. We have already spectroscopically detected complex organic molecules in space. This hypothesis may seem to merely postpone explaining the ultimate origin of life. But it vastly improves the statistical chances of the non-directed origin of life since it simultaneously exploits events on billions of planets with a wide variety of conditions.

Another hypothesis suggests that primitive life originated on the surface of clay minerals (by using the crystalline order of the minerals as a scaffold for aligning genetic material, and using naturally occurring abiological vesicles for cell walls). This one appeals to some Christians because it reminds them of the passage in Genesis stating that God created Adam by breathing life into a lump of clay (note that some Christians view the Big Bang and evolution as part of God's "tool kit").

A more recent hypothesis suggests that the first organisms formed on the surface of ice crystals. This idea initially surprised me since chemical reactions slow down at low temperatures (but it turns out that chemistry can still occur even at freezing temperatures).

My favorite hypothesis proposes that the first "living" organisms had a metabolism but no discrete genetic material. This metabolism consisted of an autocatalytically-bound set of polymer molecules (a set of abiological polymers that depends on its members to catalyze each other's formation, with metabolic energy supplied by exothermic reaction of naturally occurring abiological organic compounds). Understanding how autocatalysis might lead to increasing complexity requires some very abstract mathematics, but those interested can read a very thorough mathematical description in "The Origins of Order: Self-Organization and Selection in Evolution" by Stuart A. Kauffman.

Notice my use of the word "hypothesis". The panspermia, catalytic clay, catalytic ice, and autocatalytic polymer ideas are only hypotheses (not theories) since they do not yet have supportive empirical data. A few research groups have discussed the possibility of testing Kauffman's hypothesis, but it turns out to be very difficult since it requires very large polymer sets interacting over very long time periods. But no doubt groups will try in the near future, or have already started testing. Unlike the "intelligent design" hypothesis, there exists the possibility of empirically testing these other ideas (i.e., they are falsifiable -- the main requirement of the scientific method).

There have never been any laboratory experiments to prove that life ever arose from non-life material(s).

Any biologist knows that the most elementary one celled animalcule is unbelievably complex and not amenable to self organization or self creation.

Ben Stein Exposes Richard Dawkins

Ben Stein Assails The Intelligentsia

Believe whatever you wish about your state of existence 50 or 100 years hence but you may be surprised to find yourself on the short end for not not giving serious consideration to the the question: What happens when a man dies?

There have never been any laboratory experiments to prove that life ever arose from non-life material(s).

Agreed. And neither have there been laboratory experiments to support any other hypothesis (including intelligent design). Therefore we simply do not know ("know" as in having empirical evidence) how life started. We might find a scientifically supported explanation someday, until then we speculate and try to find a hypothesis that we can test.

Any biologist knows that the most elementary one celled animalcule is unbelievably complex...

Complex yes, but not "unbelievably" complex. The complexity of nature does not look miraculous to those who understands how natural selection discovers and accumulates useful nanotechnology over billions of years.

... and not amenable to self organization or self creation.

Many biologists and chemists would disagree with the second part of your statement. And Ben Stein -- an actor with no scientific training -- sounds even less convincing than Michael Moore or Al Gore.

you may be surprised to find yourself on the short end for not not giving serious consideration to the the question: What happens when a man dies?

Actually I've pondered that question very much since puberty. This question has even motivated me to explore various religious traditions (Catholicism, Vedanta, Buddhism, and others). Just because I've come to a different conclusion than you does not mean I haven't thought about it (or that I must be wrong because I don't agree with your viewpoint). In answer to your question: I don't know what happens after death. And neither do you. You may *believe* in a certain type of afterlife, but belief relies on *faith*, not knowledge. I don't worry about an angry God awaiting me in the afterlife -- I respect the rights of others and do what I can to help according to my understanding and abilities. I reject the notion of a fascist God who would torture us eternally for making mistakes (frankly, I find that notion highly offensive towards God). Perhaps instead God will punish closed-minded zealots (with limited punishments), and reward free-thinkers who put their God-given powers of reason to use exploring and understanding God's creation.

An unusual story for a small town newspaper.

Speaking heresy in a Darwinian culture

Presents a view published in a small town newspaper on the subject.