Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Sigmoid Curve Suggests God is not actively involved in evolution
PinkPixie
Inactive Member


Message 1 of 8 (360191)
10-31-2006 5:02 PM


I am writing a research paper right now for my paleontology class and I think it would be helpfull to get some different opinions on my topic.
First, I am a christian who has come to accept the theory of evolution, so I guess you could call me a theistic evolutionist. Throughout history, scientists have tried to better understand God by studying the natural world around them, and that is also what I am trying to do. Within the theistic evolution community I know there has been some debate as to what extent God has played a part in the creation of the universe. Some believe God created all the materials and natural laws and then just let the system go while others believe that God has been actively involved, personally guiding all the billions of miniscule mutations that have resulted in evolution of organisms. Previously, I did not hold fast to either one of these ideas because I found nothing that could prove one over the other, until just recently.
I read an article written by the late Stephen Jay Gould titled "Is the Cambrian Explosian a Sigmoid Fraud?" (published in 1977 in Ever Since Darwin). In this article Gould argues that the Cambrian explosion of life (for those who don't know the goelogic timescale, there was a monumentous increase in the number of organisms alive on Earth about 540 million years ago, at the beginning of a time period called the Cambrian, hence we call it the Cambrian explosion), anyway Gould says this explosion is really not any big mystery but can simply be explained by the notorious Sigmoid Curve. It has been proven that almost every aspect of life, from the growth of a population to the course of a relationship follows the form of a sigmoid curve. It is believed that the Cambrian explosion simply reflects the log phase of a Sigmoid Curve. In my paper I am trying to make the argument that the Sigmoid Curve is a physical law created by God, just like gravity or Newton's three laws. After that I will argue that if the sigmoid curve is a natural law and the evolution of life can be explained by a sigmoid curve, then it makes more sense that God did create the materials and natural laws of the universe and then he just sat back and watched his creation unfold. Based on this I don't believe God has been personally guiding evolution throughout history....
So what do you think? I would appreciate any comments on this, especially if anyone can think of any books or journal articles I should read, that would really help me with my paper. Thanks.

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by PaulK, posted 10-31-2006 5:48 PM PinkPixie has not replied
 Message 5 by RAZD, posted 10-31-2006 8:06 PM PinkPixie has not replied
 Message 8 by Jon, posted 12-28-2006 7:14 AM PinkPixie has not replied

  
AdminNWR
Inactive Member


Message 2 of 8 (360203)
10-31-2006 5:39 PM


Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.
Placed in [forum=-34], so that those of our members who avoid science forums can still comment on the theological implications.
Edited by AdminNWR, : No reason given.

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 3 of 8 (360207)
10-31-2006 5:48 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by PinkPixie
10-31-2006 5:02 PM


Gould's article is pretty old and this is an area where a lot of progress has been made and continues to be made.
Gould himself changed his mind somewhat (see his book Wonderful Life). Ironically it seems that he was wrong - it later turned out that the Burgess Shale fauna had been misinterpreted. See Conway-Morris's The Crucible of Creation. Fortey's Trilobite has a good chapter on the Cambrian Explosion, too.
Even that is out of date. New discoveries keep turning up now that we know of the phosphatised fossils found in the Doushanto formation.
At present it sems that the Cambrian explosion is to a large extent an artefact of the fossil record - most of the earlier life being too small to show up as ordinary fossils (Fortey got that right).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by PinkPixie, posted 10-31-2006 5:02 PM PinkPixie has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 4 by subbie, posted 10-31-2006 7:17 PM PaulK has replied

  
subbie
Member (Idle past 1255 days)
Posts: 3509
Joined: 02-26-2006


Message 4 of 8 (360237)
10-31-2006 7:17 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by PaulK
10-31-2006 5:48 PM


At present it sems that the Cambrian explosion is to a large extent an artefact of the fossil record - most of the earlier life being too small to show up as ordinary fossils (Fortey got that right).
Are you saying, then, that there was no "explosion" of life in the Cambrian explosion but, instead, perhaps an "explosion" of more-likely-to-become-a-fossil life?

Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin Franklin

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by PaulK, posted 10-31-2006 5:48 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by PaulK, posted 11-01-2006 2:34 AM subbie has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 5 of 8 (360251)
10-31-2006 8:06 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by PinkPixie
10-31-2006 5:02 PM


Welcome to the fray PinkPixie, and I wish you joy on your search.
In my paper I am trying to make the argument that the Sigmoid Curve is a physical law created by God, just like gravity or Newton's three laws.
Care must be taken to avoid assuming a mathematical model is a true reflection of reality, as math can only reflect what is already there, the computations can generate predictions ... until one goes wrong.
... just like gravity or Newton's three laws.
Which has been superseded by relativity, especially where it fails to predict things like light bending around a star even though photons have no mass (space curves instead).
The great thing about science is that whenever a prediction goes wrong, that you start over with your evaluation and build a new model that includes the new data (it is accumulative).
Thus we see that the old view of the cambrian "explosion" is really a reflection of two things: some of the first bodies hard and large enough to fossilize, a punk-eek dispersal of such a beneficial form, and lots of mysterious life before hand that may be equally if not more diverse.
Enjoy.

Join the effort to unravel {AIDS/HIV} {Protenes} and {Cancer} with Team EvC! (click)

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by PinkPixie, posted 10-31-2006 5:02 PM PinkPixie has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 6 of 8 (360327)
11-01-2006 2:34 AM
Reply to: Message 4 by subbie
10-31-2006 7:17 PM


I'm sayng that an increase in size (and probably an increase in mineralised skeletons) makes fossilisation far more likely, and that accounts for much of the apparent explosion. They probably do not account for all of it - and they themselves are fairly significant changes (although more in that it is widespread and involving many species than in the amount of change to a single species).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by subbie, posted 10-31-2006 7:17 PM subbie has not replied

  
Equinox
Member (Idle past 5142 days)
Posts: 329
From: Michigan
Joined: 08-18-2006


Message 7 of 8 (362923)
11-09-2006 3:22 PM


Go For It!
Overall, I think your idea is really cool - a way to test different ideas, based on the evidence. So, though there are plenty of caveats to take into account (as other posters have mentioned), I bet you have a good idea for the core of a paper. Of course, do take all those things mentioned above into account, see if there is still a Sigmoid curve, etc.
In fact, even if there isn't, your paper could then talk about looking for the Sigmoid curve and deciding that it wasn't here in this case. Either way, sounds like a cool idea to me.

-Equinox
_ _ _ ___ _ _ _
You know, it's probably already answered at An Index to Creationist Claims...
(Equinox is a Naturalistic Pagan -  Naturalistic Paganism Home)

  
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 8 of 8 (372512)
12-28-2006 7:14 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by PinkPixie
10-31-2006 5:02 PM


the Sigmoid Curve is a physical law created by God, just like gravity or Newton's three laws.
How will you be proving this? How will you show that this Sigmoid Currve is something created by God?
then it makes more sense that God did create the materials and natural laws of the universe and then he just sat back
However, you must first show that God created the stuff you attribute to Him.
Hope that makes sense and is on topic... I don't post in these forums often.
J0N

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by PinkPixie, posted 10-31-2006 5:02 PM PinkPixie has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024