arstechnica.com— A panel at the American Association for the Advancement of Science tells us what we should know about what we know when it comes to major events in evolution.
Feb 27, 2008View in Crawl 4
I'm not sure where the dialog of ethics and religion came in. The closest we got was one scientist stating that evolution was a foregone conclusion. "The evidence is so overwhelming that Relethford feels that any remaining argument is simply between two religious perspectives on that fact; science has moved on."That statement is not explained in the article, and I couldn't find a transcript.I appreciated the admission that the *origin* of life is ultimately a mystery. However, life was defined as "capable of darwinian evolution."In a sense, these scientists are completely foregoing any debate on the ethical and religious elements. They define life in terms of evolution, so the theory of evolution must be accepted if we accept that life exists at all. Then they say the evidence makes evolutiuon a foregone conclusion. It can't be challenged or questioned. Where is the debate or discussion in this? What if the evidence is wrong? What if we disagree with the definition life -- Newton defined it saying "growth is the only sign of life." And how do we determine if any life form *is* capable of darwinian evolution?I for one believe the religious debate belongs at the philosophical level -- a level they acknowledged in the "origin" debate -- not the scientific. Evolution does not -- and never will -- preclude the existence of God. And vice-versa. But my sense is that these scientists are leaving no room for question or debate, nor did they even come close to addressing anything their panel title suggested they would discuss.-Pie
It's not that evolution isn't up for debate, but just that the given the amount of time the theory has been around and the amount of evidence we have for it, the price of admission to that debate is high. In any field of science, challenging the status quo is difficult (sometimes more than it should be), but not impossible. Let's suppose for a moment that the scientific community is fundamentally wrong about some aspect of how natural selection works, but the vast majority of scientists don't realize it. If someone could come in and change the paradigm, that would be huge. Yes, it would require extraordinary proof and probably a decent amount of persistence on the part of the scientist who proposes a fundamental change to evolutionary theory. Once those obstacles were overcome, I don't think scientists would be as turned off from the idea as some people seem to think they'd be. I speak as a scientist who works in fields that are built on top of evolutionary theory.
"You simply cannot take small changes like a moth being born with 6 wings instead of 4 and say it's evidence it used to be a totally different variety of creature."Then your problem is a fundamental misunderstanding of evolution. Creatures do not morph from one form to another. They evolve from common ancestors."A question to you, how many transitions should there be between apes and humans? "None. We share a common ancestor.There is the weak link in your understanding of evolution.Contemplate that for a bit before posting again.
Evolution requires heritable variation, which is not enough to explain all of the developments necessary to get from the RNA world to a unicellular organism. RNA molecules can be driven to evolve in laboratory conditions, but evolution simply by definition cannot produce abiogenesis (which is a necessity for the origin of life). I'm not arguing against the RNA world, I'm just saying that the processes that get from it to unicellular organisms are not all governed by natural selection. The biggest problem is getting the biochemical reactions necessary for life inside of a membrane - it had to happen by chance first and then RNA molecules adapted to that scenario and started exploiting it. That's not something you can attribute to evolution as it is most commonly defined, although there are completely plausible scientific explanations for how it happened. Evolution is a great explanation once you have cells, but before that the problem is much much murkier. Obviously you still have replicating molecules involved, but you can't describe the processes as pure evolution.
I think we may have a different definition for the word 'fact'. The reason that you can't reference the books written during his life is because they do not exist.
More people know about American Idol than they do about evolution. There is a lot of proof for evolution but that would require actually reading when every Sunday they get a competing theory with no proof at all that they aren't going to read either. Religion is a guidebook for the intellectually lazy.
What I am telling you is common knowledge among historians. I will not bother to reference something you can google in 10 seconds. I have a VERY well researched position, and it is your freedom to attack and insult me because I choose not to reproduce 1000 or so hours of research here on digg.If you have something to say, you are welcome as far as I am concerned, but please leave the insults home.
There is not a shred of evidence in support of abiogenesis. How could there be evidence supporting a specific chemical reaction that happened so long ago?? You must be referring to a hypothesis or 2, which amounts to an educated guess at best, and superstition at worst. Have we ever observed order coming from chaos, or greater order coming from lesser order apart from the assistance of greater order? I submit to you that if we have not, then believing that it happened at some point in the past is bordering on superstition. Scientists have not been able to create a living cell despite all their efforts over the last several decades. Saying it could happen unintentionally is like saying an equally complex device could arise by chance.
eatingpieFeb 27, 2008
I'm not sure where the dialog of ethics and religion came in. The closest we got was one scientist stating that evolution was a foregone conclusion. "The evidence is so overwhelming that Relethford feels that any remaining argument is simply between two religious perspectives on that fact; science has moved on."That statement is not explained in the article, and I couldn't find a transcript.I appreciated the admission that the *origin* of life is ultimately a mystery. However, life was defined as "capable of darwinian evolution."In a sense, these scientists are completely foregoing any debate on the ethical and religious elements. They define life in terms of evolution, so the theory of evolution must be accepted if we accept that life exists at all. Then they say the evidence makes evolutiuon a foregone conclusion. It can't be challenged or questioned. Where is the debate or discussion in this? What if the evidence is wrong? What if we disagree with the definition life -- Newton defined it saying "growth is the only sign of life." And how do we determine if any life form *is* capable of darwinian evolution?I for one believe the religious debate belongs at the philosophical level -- a level they acknowledged in the "origin" debate -- not the scientific. Evolution does not -- and never will -- preclude the existence of God. And vice-versa. But my sense is that these scientists are leaving no room for question or debate, nor did they even come close to addressing anything their panel title suggested they would discuss.-Pie
eir574Feb 27, 2008
It's not that evolution isn't up for debate, but just that the given the amount of time the theory has been around and the amount of evidence we have for it, the price of admission to that debate is high. In any field of science, challenging the status quo is difficult (sometimes more than it should be), but not impossible. Let's suppose for a moment that the scientific community is fundamentally wrong about some aspect of how natural selection works, but the vast majority of scientists don't realize it. If someone could come in and change the paradigm, that would be huge. Yes, it would require extraordinary proof and probably a decent amount of persistence on the part of the scientist who proposes a fundamental change to evolutionary theory. Once those obstacles were overcome, I don't think scientists would be as turned off from the idea as some people seem to think they'd be. I speak as a scientist who works in fields that are built on top of evolutionary theory.
dopplerduckFeb 28, 2008
The real truth is that I may be a donut, but you're a cube! :-D
geomonFeb 29, 2008
"You simply cannot take small changes like a moth being born with 6 wings instead of 4 and say it's evidence it used to be a totally different variety of creature."Then your problem is a fundamental misunderstanding of evolution. Creatures do not morph from one form to another. They evolve from common ancestors."A question to you, how many transitions should there be between apes and humans? "None. We share a common ancestor.There is the weak link in your understanding of evolution.Contemplate that for a bit before posting again.
gabberwokFeb 29, 2008
Evolution requires heritable variation, which is not enough to explain all of the developments necessary to get from the RNA world to a unicellular organism. RNA molecules can be driven to evolve in laboratory conditions, but evolution simply by definition cannot produce abiogenesis (which is a necessity for the origin of life). I'm not arguing against the RNA world, I'm just saying that the processes that get from it to unicellular organisms are not all governed by natural selection. The biggest problem is getting the biochemical reactions necessary for life inside of a membrane - it had to happen by chance first and then RNA molecules adapted to that scenario and started exploiting it. That's not something you can attribute to evolution as it is most commonly defined, although there are completely plausible scientific explanations for how it happened. Evolution is a great explanation once you have cells, but before that the problem is much much murkier. Obviously you still have replicating molecules involved, but you can't describe the processes as pure evolution.
rambleFeb 29, 2008
It's fine if you don't care what he thinks, but if your only defense is personal attacks, then no-one will care what you think.
nitsujFeb 29, 2008
I think we may have a different definition for the word 'fact'. The reason that you can't reference the books written during his life is because they do not exist.
ozziedogMar 1, 2008
More people know about American Idol than they do about evolution. There is a lot of proof for evolution but that would require actually reading when every Sunday they get a competing theory with no proof at all that they aren't going to read either. Religion is a guidebook for the intellectually lazy.
Closed AccountMar 2, 2008
What I am telling you is common knowledge among historians. I will not bother to reference something you can google in 10 seconds. I have a VERY well researched position, and it is your freedom to attack and insult me because I choose not to reproduce 1000 or so hours of research here on digg.If you have something to say, you are welcome as far as I am concerned, but please leave the insults home.
Closed AccountMar 2, 2008
There is not a shred of evidence in support of abiogenesis. How could there be evidence supporting a specific chemical reaction that happened so long ago?? You must be referring to a hypothesis or 2, which amounts to an educated guess at best, and superstition at worst. Have we ever observed order coming from chaos, or greater order coming from lesser order apart from the assistance of greater order? I submit to you that if we have not, then believing that it happened at some point in the past is bordering on superstition. Scientists have not been able to create a living cell despite all their efforts over the last several decades. Saying it could happen unintentionally is like saying an equally complex device could arise by chance.
thecatspantsMar 4, 2008
oops - wrong place
hklrsApr 27, 2008
The hypothesis that a "god" created anything is one that gives more questions then it answers (most of them impossible to answer, due to the "supernatural" elusive characteristics of "god"), that's why it wont be examined by most scientists.On the complexity of the issue you are relating to, read this: <a class="user" href="http://arstechnica.com/articles/culture/state-of-the-art-evolution.ars">http://arstechnica.com/articles/culture/state-of-t ...</a>
lolo2007Jun 24, 2008
I never understood why people thought that evolution explained the orign of life. Seriously it is a totally different subject. It is sad though because you cannot have an intellegent conversation with anyone with out someone screaming "WELL THEN WHEN DID THE FIRST ORGANISM EXIST." Im like cool down evolution just explain how simple organism evolved not how they were created<a class="user" href="http://vb.paramegsoft.com/12620.html">http://vb.paramegsoft.com/12620.html</a><a class="user" href="http://vb.paramegsoft.com/12616.html">http://vb.paramegsoft.com/12616.html</a><a class="user" href="http://vb.paramegsoft.com/12615.html">http://vb.paramegsoft.com/12615.html</a><a class="user" href="http://girls.paramegsoft.com/category/2/2">http://girls.paramegsoft.com/category/2/2</a><a class="user" href="http://girls.paramegsoft.com/category/7/7">http://girls.paramegsoft.com/category/7/7</a>