Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/7


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Evolution is a basic, biological process
Soplar
Inactive Member


Message 1 of 306 (171000)
12-22-2004 10:09 PM


As a retired scientist (PhD in Physics), I have followed with dismay the debate surrounding Evolution. In many of the places I have lived, there have been well organized and dedicated groups determined to impose their views on "non believers", in particular the educational system
To begin with, Evolution is a process which affects all living organisms — a process that is presently ongoing and easily detectable with modern techniques. The "theory of evolution" is merely the latest and as far as can be known, best explanation of the process. A basic problem with understanding the evolutionary process is that it is an extremely slow process and requires a keen observer who knows where and how to look to detect it. One of Darwin’s principal claims to fame is that he was the first "keen observer" who gathered enough information to detect/discover the process. Of course, there are those who believe Alfred Wallace, who had also detected the process, might have been first. What is important is to emphasize that if Darwin had not discovered the process of evolution, some one else would have -- all he did was point out what any other observer could also see, and eventually did.
With regard to Darwin’s theory of evolution, Darwin’s name is associated with the theory as he was the first to publish. But Darwin made only modest contributions to our understanding of the evolutionary process. Darwin detected the process, and, other than noting that, in general, the strongest species will survive, that’s all. Darwin had no clue as to how the process operates. It has been only within the past 50 —60 years the we have determined that the evolutionary process is driven by mutations that occur when cells divide and errors are made in the copying of DNA the copying errors accumulate and ever so slowly give rise to new life forms, the fittest of which, usually, survive.
A simple demonstration of evolution proceeds from the following noncontroversial/provable facts
All humans are comprised of microscopic cells
All cells contain DNA
All cells divide to replace cells that die
Average human has complete replacement of cells every 5-7 years
DNA copying errors lead to mutations
Mutations that are not too severe gradually lead to the changes we term aging
Significant mutations lead to cancer
All of this occurs because of the process of evolution
An obvious reason for the conflict over evolution arises from to the fact that the current explanation is not the first one. Humans have always wondered how and why things are the way they are. Unfortunately, early explanations were based upon faulty explanations of either incorrect or incomplete observations. As and example, until relatively recently, everyone believed/knew that the sun goes around the earth (unfortunately, amazingly, some still do) and when a correct explanation was arrived at by Copernicus, the explanation was suppressed with the same vigor being applied to evolution. With respect to evolution, an explanation of the "evolution" of life on earth is contained the book of Genesis, a book that was somehow written by a supernatural being, God, and hence infallible. Thus, we have the "revealed" truth of the Bible in conflict with the vast amounts of verifiably experimental truth
An aspect of the debate which doesn't seem to get much exposure is the fact that it is now possible to observe the process of evolution in almost real time. For example, the evolutionary process manifests itself in the mutations that give rise to anti-biotic bacteria or strains of HIV which allude the AIDS antiretroviral drugs; a process that can be observed on a relatively, unfortunately, short time scale.
Modern biology is unintelligible without an understanding of the evolutionary process. Thus, it is almost criminal to try to insert religious theories such as intelligent design into biology courses. Modern biology is complicated enough without having to cope with some mysterious designer.
Regarding the intelligent designer, we have the somewhat ludicrous situation where this intelligent designer is creating harmful strains of bacteria and viruses. Of course it might be argued that there are two intelligent designers, a good one and a bad one (God an Satan) with the bad one making the antibiotic resistant bacteria.

Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by AdminNosy, posted 12-23-2004 12:08 PM Soplar has replied
 Message 6 by TheLiteralist, posted 12-31-2004 5:48 AM Soplar has replied
 Message 253 by Flying Dodo, posted 01-26-2005 4:02 PM Soplar has replied

AdminNosy
Administrator
Posts: 4754
From: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Joined: 11-11-2003


Message 2 of 306 (171124)
12-23-2004 12:08 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Soplar
12-22-2004 10:09 PM


Now what?
Welcome!
That is a good, clear, well-written opening post (OP).
But I'm not sure what to do with it. It touches on more than one topic and that is a problem in opening posts. The following discussion then tends to go all over the map.
I'm not sure what forum it should go in even.
You don't ask any questions or indicate where you think the discussion should go.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Soplar, posted 12-22-2004 10:09 PM Soplar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by Soplar, posted 12-23-2004 1:08 PM AdminNosy has not replied

Soplar
Inactive Member


Message 3 of 306 (171134)
12-23-2004 1:08 PM
Reply to: Message 2 by AdminNosy
12-23-2004 12:08 PM


Re: Now what?
Thanks for your reply. I wasn't sure how to proceed, so I just put down some general thoughts. Let me digest your feed back and I will provide some focus and some questions
Regards
Soplar

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by AdminNosy, posted 12-23-2004 12:08 PM AdminNosy has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 4 by Soplar, posted 12-23-2004 7:42 PM Soplar has not replied

Soplar
Inactive Member


Message 4 of 306 (171219)
12-23-2004 7:42 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by Soplar
12-23-2004 1:08 PM


Re: Now what? second reply
Dear AdminNosy
In my OP, I try to make the following points which I haven’t seen in other discussions of this topic (of course, I am not comversant with all writings)
Evolution is a biological process driven by mutations due to DNA copying errors that occur when cells divide, that is currently ongoing and that is easily demonstrated
The Theory of Evolution is merely the explanation of this process
Understanding the evolutionary process leads to an understanding of cancer and the development of antibiotic resistant bacteria; and therefore provides the basis for finding ways to combat these scourges
While Darwin’s name is attached to the Theory of Evolution in accordance with the practice of recognizing pioneers (e.g., Newton’s Laws of Motion), Darwin actually made relatively little contribution to the theory. People like Watson and Crick who deduced the structure of DNA and Craig Ventnor who led the team which mapped the human genome, made significantly greater contributions to our understanding of the evolutionary process
The basic reason for the evolutionary debate is that evolution conflicts with religious teachings that were established thousands of years ago when people were searching for answers to questions like where did all living things come from. As with many other religiously based teachings that have been supplanted, such as the original idea that the earth was the center of the universe, evolution should supplant religious teachings.
Explaining the evolutionary process does not require an intelligent designer unless one desires to ascribe the development of antibiotic resistant bacteria to this intelligent designer
Re questions, the only question I can think of is why respondents to questionnaires on this subject either partially (37%) or totally (45%) reject evolution.
The direction I would hope the discussion of this thread would take is for persons to either agree with these points or to disagree and state why they disagree. In my brief perusal of you BB, I saw some rather bizarre statements such as evidence for the great flood is everywhere but no mention of where the water came from to cause the flood (of course there is no place where the water could have come from)
Regards
Soplar

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by Soplar, posted 12-23-2004 1:08 PM Soplar has not replied

AdminNosy
Administrator
Posts: 4754
From: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Joined: 11-11-2003


Message 5 of 306 (171237)
12-23-2004 9:44 PM


Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.

TheLiteralist
Inactive Member


Message 6 of 306 (172475)
12-31-2004 5:48 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Soplar
12-22-2004 10:09 PM


Hi Soplar,
Your opening statements touch on many issues.
One of them seems minor, but, since you mentioned it, I wanted to examine it briefly.
Soplar writes:
Regarding the intelligent designer, we have the somewhat ludicrous situation where this intelligent designer is creating harmful strains of bacteria and viruses. Of course it might be argued that there are two intelligent designers, a good one and a bad one (God an Satan) with the bad one making the antibiotic resistant bacteria
Your reasoning seems to be as follows:
PREMISE:
An Intelligent Designer would not have designed infectious diseases.
OBSERVATION:
There are infectious diseases.
CONCLUSION:
There is no Intelligent Designer.
Have I correctly summarized your reasoning on this matter?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Soplar, posted 12-22-2004 10:09 PM Soplar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by Quetzal, posted 12-31-2004 9:44 AM TheLiteralist has not replied
 Message 14 by Soplar, posted 01-01-2005 9:27 PM TheLiteralist has not replied

Quetzal
Member (Idle past 5872 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 7 of 306 (172502)
12-31-2004 9:44 AM
Reply to: Message 6 by TheLiteralist
12-31-2004 5:48 AM


Hi TL! Hope your holidays were safe and happy.
I think you're misunderstanding Soplar's point on the ID issue. S/He is exploring the implications of the existence of a designer (or if you prefer, Designer). I think a re-statement of his point would be more along the lines of:
1. Infectious diseases exist.
1.5 This is a bad thing.
2. If there's a Designer, by definition s/he/it must have also designed infectious diseases.
Conclusion: The Designer isn't very nice.
edited to add: BTW, Soplar gave you a nice out: all you had to do was agree that the nasty bits were designed by an "evil" entity, thus transferring the blame away from the Nice Designer.
This message has been edited by Quetzal, 12-31-2004 09:46 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by TheLiteralist, posted 12-31-2004 5:48 AM TheLiteralist has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by jar, posted 12-31-2004 10:20 AM Quetzal has replied

jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 8 of 306 (172506)
12-31-2004 10:20 AM
Reply to: Message 7 by Quetzal
12-31-2004 9:44 AM


WhileI personally believe that life as we see it was not designed by a designer but shaped by the universe itself, your example only holds up if you assume that the designer held a human centric viewpoint.
The example,
1. Infectious diseases exist.
1.5 This is a bad thing.
2. If there's a Designer, by definition s/he/it must have also designed infectious diseases.
is flawed at 1.5. If the designer were, for example, virus centric then it is a great design. The designer was smart enough to provide all the hosts from the various infection sources.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by Quetzal, posted 12-31-2004 9:44 AM Quetzal has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by Quetzal, posted 12-31-2004 10:49 AM jar has replied
 Message 11 by coffee_addict, posted 12-31-2004 2:29 PM jar has not replied

Quetzal
Member (Idle past 5872 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 9 of 306 (172508)
12-31-2004 10:49 AM
Reply to: Message 8 by jar
12-31-2004 10:20 AM


Heh. True. However, the Designer in the context that the IDists use for reference is not only anthropocentric, but merely a very thinly disguised God of the Christian Bible, n'est-ce pas? Personally, I think that the Designer, if s/he/it exists, probably designed everything to accommodate insects or bacteria...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by jar, posted 12-31-2004 10:20 AM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by jar, posted 12-31-2004 11:00 AM Quetzal has not replied

jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 10 of 306 (172510)
12-31-2004 11:00 AM
Reply to: Message 9 by Quetzal
12-31-2004 10:49 AM


If one is willing to look at the idea of a designer seriously, the system as a whole MUST be considered. From that perspective, much of the inconistencies of the ID movement are removed, they no longer are an obstacle.
One big problem with ID is that the designs are pretty piss poor, eyes built backwards, left over parts in the critter, designs like the throat where a single passage goes to two different sub-functions with no adequate means of directing traffic so that the critter chokes on the very fuel needed to survive.
If the purpose was to design man, then the designer was at best, incompetent.
But if the purpose was directed towards the virus, the amoeba, the ring-worm and all the other nasties of the world, then all makes sense. Then, it doesn't matter if the host is poorly designed, the host is simply slop for the hogs.
There is a case for ID and if carried to any reasonable conclusion, I doubt it would get the support it now enjoys.
This message has been edited by jar, 12-31-2004 10:01 AM

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by Quetzal, posted 12-31-2004 10:49 AM Quetzal has not replied

coffee_addict
Member (Idle past 477 days)
Posts: 3645
From: Indianapolis, IN
Joined: 03-29-2004


Message 11 of 306 (172542)
12-31-2004 2:29 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by jar
12-31-2004 10:20 AM


jar writes:
...for example, virus centric then it is a great design.
Not necessarily. Dangerous pathogens are imperfect parasites simply because the hosts tend to die or disabled. The more they harm the hosts, the less chance they have of surviving as a species.
So, even if we use the virus centric view, it would still be a very bad design.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by jar, posted 12-31-2004 10:20 AM jar has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 35 by Parasomnium, posted 01-03-2005 3:08 PM coffee_addict has not replied

TheLiteralist
Inactive Member


Message 12 of 306 (172663)
01-01-2005 1:32 AM


Where's Soplar?
I was hoping to engage Soplar on this issue. Oh well.
A few points:
1) If there is an Intelligent Designer, then we are the things designed. Wouldn't that make it difficult for us to figure out what the Intelligent Designer's motives for various aspects of His design are?
2) The God of the Bible seems very aware of infectious diseases and various maladies (like blindness) and takes credit for them and uses them for HIS purposes (which might be vastly different from OUR purposes).
3) The Bible also indicates that we live in a wrecked version of the original creation (wrecked via the Flood). If it's wrecked, I would naturally expect things to work imperfectly.
The point is, that if Soplar is aiming this particular comment at the God of the Bible, this line of reasoning (even if Quetzal's reasoning is a more accurate representation) has no real substance, imo.

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by Quetzal, posted 01-01-2005 9:45 AM TheLiteralist has not replied
 Message 22 by Steen, posted 01-02-2005 6:40 PM TheLiteralist has not replied

Quetzal
Member (Idle past 5872 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 13 of 306 (172726)
01-01-2005 9:45 AM
Reply to: Message 12 by TheLiteralist
01-01-2005 1:32 AM


Re: Where's Soplar?
1) If there is an Intelligent Designer, then we are the things designed. Wouldn't that make it difficult for us to figure out what the Intelligent Designer's motives for various aspects of His design are?
Not necessarily. As with any other process in nature that can be observed, although we may not be able to discern "motive" in some entity so far removed from our normal existence, we should be able to see the "fingerprints" as it were of Its activity. This is where the entire ID premise falls flat - there have been NO (as in zero, zip, nada) unequivocal signs that any non-natural process has been at work over the history of life. Or, as far as that goes, any indication that natural processes could NOT have produced the diversity of life we see. That is Soplar's entire point, IMO.
2) The God of the Bible seems very aware of infectious diseases and various maladies (like blindness) and takes credit for them and uses them for HIS purposes (which might be vastly different from OUR purposes).
What conceivable purpose could the Guinea worm or trypanasomes serve? How about Ebola or the other hemorrhagic diseases? How about non-human diseases such as rinderpest or feline parvovirus? If we're reduced to "God/ID works in mysterious ways", we'll never be able to come to grips with these scourges. Are we (and our commensals) supposed to simply suffer? Is this some kind of test?
3) The Bible also indicates that we live in a wrecked version of the original creation (wrecked via the Flood). If it's wrecked, I would naturally expect things to work imperfectly.
Okay. However, even granting the absurd premise that all modern humans are somehow cursed because of something that occurred thousands of generations ago, why are the other animals on the planet forced to suffer? They certainly had nothing to do with the Adamic curse, n'est-ce pas?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by TheLiteralist, posted 01-01-2005 1:32 AM TheLiteralist has not replied

Soplar
Inactive Member


Message 14 of 306 (172863)
01-01-2005 9:27 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by TheLiteralist
12-31-2004 5:48 AM


Yes, you have correctly summarized my reasoning. I have been away, and note a number of comments re this piece of my OP, see below please

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by TheLiteralist, posted 12-31-2004 5:48 AM TheLiteralist has not replied

Soplar
Inactive Member


Message 15 of 306 (172900)
01-02-2005 12:09 AM


Fellow members of EvC
Have been away and am still learning how to use the tools on this forum, so will make a general reply to the ID issue
Literalist begins with
One of them (issues) seems minor, but, since you mentioned it, I wanted to examine it briefly.
I don’t believe that this is a minor issue. Having failed to impose creationism on the public educational system, creationists are trying creation light, the idea that while evolution may be true, the universe is so complex evolution must have been assisted by an intelligent designer
Relative to:
PREMISE:
An Intelligent Designer would not have designed infectious diseases.
OBSERVATION:
There are infectious diseases.
CONCLUSION:
There is no Intelligent Designer
You have correctly summarized my reasoning that an ID leads to somewhat ridiculous conclusions
Quetzal carries the reasoning a bit further with
1. Infectious diseases exist.
1.5 This is a bad thing.
2. If there's a Designer, by definition s/he/it must have also designed infectious diseases.
Conclusion: The Designer isn't very nice.
And then Jar 8 objects with
the example is flawed at 1.5. If the designer were, for example, virus centric then it is a great design. The designer was smart enough to provide all the hosts from the various infection so
which introduces a virus centric ID, and which, while an interesting gambit, moves away from the main thrust.
Jar 8 also adds
One big problem with ID is that the designs are pretty piss poor, eyes built backwards, left over parts in the critter, designs like the throat where a single passage goes to two different sub-functions with no adequate means of directing traffic so that the critter chokes on the very fuel needed to survive.
If the purpose was to design man, then the designer was at best, incompetent.
While I didn’t discuss how well the ID has done the job of designing humans, Jar 8 is right on. The design of human body has many compromises. The single (actually dual) passage throat is needed to allow the head to rotate, an obvious evolutionary advantage. I could write extensively on why the human body has reached it’s present form, but the key item is that the current body plan does not require and ID.
With respect to purpose which usually arises in evolution discussions, before one asks what is the purpose for something, one has to establish that there is a purpose - often purpose is assumed with no basis for the assumption other than "there must be..".
Regarding life, the purpose of life is to survive. Once enough time had elapsed for assemblies of organic molecules to reach the level of complexity whereby they could metabolize food and reproduce, survival became paramount and everything life does is essentially devoted to that purpose. Humans are the single exception in that humans have progressed to the point where humans have spare resources and can thus indulge in nonproductive pursuits like art and music
Finally we arrive at these comments from Literalist
I was hoping to engage Soplar on this issue. Oh well.
A few points:
1) If there is an Intelligent Designer, then we are the things designed. Wouldn't that make it difficult for us to figure out what the Intelligent Designer's motives for various aspects of His design are?
2) The God of the Bible seems very aware of infectious diseases and various maladies (like blindness) and takes credit for them and uses them for HIS purposes (which might be vastly different from OUR purposes).
3) The Bible also indicates that we live in a wrecked version of the original creation (wrecked via the Flood). If it's wrecked, I would naturally expect things to work imperfectly.
The point is, that if Soplar is aiming this particular comment at the God of the Bible, this line of reasoning (even if Quetzal's reasoning is a more accurate representation) has no real substance, imo.
First, appologies for being absent, I will try to be more attentive in the future.
Regarding question 1), there is an implicit assumption that the ID has motives. Since the ID is undetectable/unobservable, then there is no way to determine what the ID’s motives are, if any, thus any consideration of them adds nothing to the debate.
Question 2 brings in the Bible. First, there is no proof that there is a God of the Bible anymore than there is proof that there is an ID. Thus, there is no evidence about whether this non existant being is aware of infectious diseases or not and worrying about what is the purpose of The God of the Bible lends nothing to the discussion of evolution. What is important to note is that the mechanisms whereby bacteria become resistant to antibiotics are well known and do not require either a God or an ID
Question 3 deals with the mysterious great flood for which there is again no proof. I presume the flood exists in our mythology for the reason that there were major floods of the rivers along which early civilization evolved and stories of these became imbedded in the folklore. Thus, there is no real evidence that the condition of the world is a product of a flood, but the result forces such as erosion, that are easily observed, but not so easily controlled as witnessed in the recent Tsunami tragedy.
Re the aim of my comment — it is toward the ID not necessarily towards "The God of The Bible
At the end of the day, neither God nor an ID is needed to explain the process of evolution. The process is driven by mutations that arise when cells divide.
I hope someone will discuss some of the other issues such as my premise that Darwin's contributions to the explanation of evolution were not all that significant other than detecting it in the first place
Soplar

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by TheLiteralist, posted 01-02-2005 3:45 AM Soplar has replied
 Message 18 by Quetzal, posted 01-02-2005 1:25 PM Soplar has replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024