Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,819 Year: 3,076/9,624 Month: 921/1,588 Week: 104/223 Day: 2/13 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Has there ever been anything that made you think twice about evolution's validity?
Mammuthus
Member (Idle past 6476 days)
Posts: 3085
From: Munich, Germany
Joined: 08-09-2002


Message 16 of 25 (45935)
07-14-2003 4:09 AM
Reply to: Message 14 by Percy
07-13-2003 1:54 PM


Having worked in a lab with a former student of Alan Wilson (of Out of Africa fame) I can vouch for Percy's assessement that many of the individuals involved in the study of human evolution really HATE each other, frequently misrepresent each others hypotheses to score points, and otherwise behave unscientifically. However, there are cooler heads on the periphery of the field that are able to maintain objectivity, glean what they need from the published data from the guys bonking each other on the head and do their own research...science really does not depend so much on one or another individual or even groups. And actually all the animosity is helpful in that it means every data set is pored over very rigorously even though the motivation is often to make the producer of the data look like a fool...for my part, I will stick with mammoths, sloths, and muskoxen...nobody takes their phylogeny or evolution as an insult

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by Percy, posted 07-13-2003 1:54 PM Percy has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by Dr_Tazimus_maximus, posted 07-14-2003 4:33 PM Mammuthus has replied

  
Mammuthus
Member (Idle past 6476 days)
Posts: 3085
From: Munich, Germany
Joined: 08-09-2002


Message 17 of 25 (45937)
07-14-2003 4:23 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by KellyCampbell
07-11-2003 7:56 PM


And now for Mammuthus to post on topic
Doubts about evolution? no. Nothing has been presented that makes me question the occurrence of evoltion. Like Percipient though I think there are major holes in certain aspects much in the same way gravity is not fully understood or developmental biology. I would not question that embryos develop but that does not mean that I know how each developmental pathway works or that those proposed are correct. The same with evolution. There are certain aspects that are only beginning to be understood and some of the current paradigms will be discarded when they are found to be in conflict with future evidence. Science is a process of attempting to describe and explain natural phenomena and I have yet to see a better system (regardless of conflicting personalities among scientists) developed.
However, I must add that watching Silvio Berlusconi take over the rotating presidency of the EU has made me seriously question if there is intelligent life in the EU ..at least continental EU

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by KellyCampbell, posted 07-11-2003 7:56 PM KellyCampbell has not replied

  
sr
Inactive Member


Message 18 of 25 (45956)
07-14-2003 9:59 AM


Why to consider that creation is not made on evolution?

  
derwood
Member (Idle past 1876 days)
Posts: 1457
Joined: 12-27-2001


Message 19 of 25 (45962)
07-14-2003 11:23 AM


and now for the broken record...
Like a few others, I never really douibted evolution - it all seemed to make perfect sense to me, even as a child. I was, however, for the first part of my life what I guess would be called a "theistic evolutionist", that is, I also believed that the god in the bible was real. Sure, there were things that made me think - I was, I am embarrassed to admit, taken in by the claims of "marine fossils on mountain tops" as late as my late teens. Of course, in my late teens I knew nothing of basic geology and such.
Are there things that make me "stop and think"? Sure, all the time. I believe that is what those that like to think of themselves as being involved in science are supposed to do. However, even when I stop and think, I have yet to conclude that evolution is in big trouble.
Frankly, considering the evidence - as incomplete as some of it might be - there is no doubt in my mind that some sort of evolution most certainly did occur and continues. The only place I can see room for some non-'natural' input is in the origin of life, and of course, that is where the more sophisticated creationists are targetting now.
As Percy and Mam have mentioned, I too am troubled by the shenanigans of some in the paleoanthropology field. I cringe every time I hear of the latest "missing link" in our "lineage". Because I know that there is a good chance that in a year or two, it will be shelved for the next "direct ancestor."
A year or so ago, Bernard Wood announced a discovery of one of these "direct ancestors." Creatioists pounced on it, and fellow that, at the time, was a regular at the CARM board sent him an email, asking him and his associates to tone it down, as cretins were making much of each such announcement. His response was sometihng along the lines of "We will do no such thing just because some of your countrymen use it for political points."
Now, I have met Bernard Wood, and he is a great guy, but like all (most?) paleoanthropologists, he is something of an egomaniac.
And we will have to deal with their pontifications for all time.
------------------
(2) "A second characteristic of the pseudo-scientist, which greatly strengthens his isolation, is a tendency toward paranoia," which manifests itself in several ways:
...(3) He believes himself unjustly persecuted and discriminated against...(4) He has strong compulsions to focus his attacks on the greatest scientists and the best-established theories. ..

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by sr, posted 07-14-2003 11:55 AM derwood has not replied

  
sr
Inactive Member


Message 20 of 25 (45964)
07-14-2003 11:55 AM
Reply to: Message 19 by derwood
07-14-2003 11:23 AM


Re: and now for the broken record...
__________________________
Like a few others, I never really douibted evolution - it all seemed to make perfect sense to me, even as a child. I was, however, for the first part of my life what I guess would be called a "theistic evolutionist", that is, I also believed that the god in the bible was real...
__________________________
In fact the god in the bible is a religion's god, who may have an abode, personal aspect, who may give religion's rules to be followed, people to be protected, his foes, and so on. This is a dual god and he is a by-product of one's mind only.
This is god not the Absolute, who is a non-dual substance who should harmonize all the opposites and thesis like theism and atheism, his personal and not personal aspects, creation and evolution, destruction and rebirth, chaos and order.
The Absolute may harmonize evolution as the way that creation is evolving according to time and space. No religion's god can harmonize conflicting ideas such as creation and evolution.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by derwood, posted 07-14-2003 11:23 AM derwood has not replied

  
Dr_Tazimus_maximus
Member (Idle past 3217 days)
Posts: 402
From: Gaithersburg, MD, USA
Joined: 03-19-2002


Message 21 of 25 (46000)
07-14-2003 4:33 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by Mammuthus
07-14-2003 4:09 AM


Mammuthus, If you want HATE
did you ever listen to the barbs exchanged between Gould and Dawkins? Both very intelligent men, both have contributed to the field but MAN did they hate each other. Dawkins poked at Gould in his books and was poked at in return. I always found it rather unprofessional, although I have to admit that I have told people that they were wrong in less than flattering terms myself.
------------------
"Chance favors the prepared mind." L. Pasteur
Taz

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by Mammuthus, posted 07-14-2003 4:09 AM Mammuthus has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by Mammuthus, posted 07-15-2003 4:28 AM Dr_Tazimus_maximus has not replied

  
Mammuthus
Member (Idle past 6476 days)
Posts: 3085
From: Munich, Germany
Joined: 08-09-2002


Message 22 of 25 (46050)
07-15-2003 4:28 AM
Reply to: Message 21 by Dr_Tazimus_maximus
07-14-2003 4:33 PM


Re: Mammuthus, If you want HATE
Hi Taz,
I only saw Gould once, short before he died when he gave a really lame talk on the implications of the human genome project. A funnier exchange came from some political wonk and Jeremy Rifkin...I thought they would have a good old fashion throw down by the end. While I can imagine the vitriolic exchanges between Gould and Dawkins I am talking more of group efforts to snuff out the careers of scientists that oppose them and scream fests at meetings etc. And what is said and done behind the scenes is even worse...luckily this seems mostly restricted to a few topics in evolution particularly human evoluton...people don't seem to get to riled up about mussel phylogeny. Though many may disagree, I met Milford Wolpoff once at a meeting in Italy (he is a major proponent of the multi-regional hypothesis of human evolution) and expected him to be as bad as the characters from the Out of Africa crowd. He was actually really mellow and pretty reasonable to talk to...
And before anyone thinks that really nasty rivalries are specific to evolutionary biology...go to a human genetics meeting...just once...have to sweep the eyeballs off the floor by meetings end...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by Dr_Tazimus_maximus, posted 07-14-2003 4:33 PM Dr_Tazimus_maximus has not replied

  
Peter
Member (Idle past 1479 days)
Posts: 2161
From: Cambridgeshire, UK.
Joined: 02-05-2002


Message 23 of 25 (46054)
07-15-2003 5:27 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by KellyCampbell
07-11-2003 7:56 PM


I have seen no evidence that, upon close inspection, actually
undermines ToE.
Likewise, I have seen few arguments that cannot be dismissed
reasonably quickly ... well to my satisfaction anyhow

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by KellyCampbell, posted 07-11-2003 7:56 PM KellyCampbell has not replied

  
MrHambre
Member (Idle past 1393 days)
Posts: 1495
From: Framingham, MA, USA
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 24 of 25 (46095)
07-15-2003 11:11 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by KellyCampbell
07-11-2003 7:56 PM


You have to remember that there is a mountain of evidence that confirms the core hypotheses of evolutionary theory. This mutually corroborating evidence comes from diverse disciplines such as geology, molecular biology, astronomy, genetics, physics, agronomy, paleontology, viral pathology, and so forth.
When you see a microbe through a microscope, you're not only physically looking through glass lenses, you're also using the conceptual lens of optical theory. This is exactly what we do when we consider raw data in the lab or field: we see it through the lens of evolutionary theory. The fact that this explanatory framework continues to illuminate our understanding of the biosphere is what makes it so important.
Many say that this is circular reasoning. We first assume the validity of evolution, and only the data that fit our framework is considered relevant. Problematic areas are ignored, and information that runs counter to evolution is suppressed. We then assert that evolution is supported by the evidence.
However, the history of scientific progress during the last two hundred years proves that evolution is not simply a convenient tautology. Archaeological finds first led to the understanding that there were patterns of biological change visible throughout history. The existence of nested hierarchies of extant species pointed to patterns of common ancestry. Genetics demonstrated predictable patterns of heritable change, and breeding demonstrated the power of cumulative selection. Monumental discoveries such as DNA and plate tectonics have increased the ability of evolutionary theory to account for these pervasive patterns of change throughout the history of life on Earth.
This is why the existence of one piece of evidence that 'contradicts' evolution is considered so irrelevant by those of us who appreciate the power of the theory. Darwin's contribution to science has been so well confirmed and so important in generating further progress that it would require more than a few anomalies to render his theory obsolete.
------------------
Quien busca, halla

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by KellyCampbell, posted 07-11-2003 7:56 PM KellyCampbell has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by compmage, posted 07-15-2003 5:14 PM MrHambre has not replied

  
compmage
Member (Idle past 5153 days)
Posts: 601
From: South Africa
Joined: 08-04-2005


Message 25 of 25 (46146)
07-15-2003 5:14 PM
Reply to: Message 24 by MrHambre
07-15-2003 11:11 AM


MrHambre writes:
We first assume the validity of evolution, and only the data that fit our framework is considered relevant. Problematic areas are ignored, and information that runs counter to evolution is suppressed. We then assert that evolution is supported by the evidence.
Sorry, I was just thinking about certain people using out of context quotes to support their faith before reading your message. It strikes me that the section I quoted above would suit them perfectly.
------------------
He hoped and prayed that there wasn't an afterlife. Then he realized there was a contradiction involved here and merely hoped that there wasn't an afterlife.
- Douglas Adams, The Hitch Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by MrHambre, posted 07-15-2003 11:11 AM MrHambre 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