Evolution... good, bad or ugly?

[outside looking in]

I started a discussion on this topic at another message board under the same title a while back. It turned into a very informative discussion that spanned hundreds of posts and several months. I would be quite pleased if the members of this discussion board approached that level of civility (though, at times, the discussion did become quite inflamed).

Why start a discussion like this? Well, it's not to try and change people's minds (though that would be nice), and it's not a contest of intelligence. Rather, it's simply a mental excercise, as I have found that deep discussions like this help me to refocus my logic, sharpen ideas that had begun to fade, and it gives me an excuse to read material that I otherwise wouldn't be as interested in.

What is my view? I believe in evolution, that it formed all life on this planet in a continually branching process of replication with mutation acted upon by natural selection. I believe that humans are descended from simpler life forms, and that the Earth is ~4.6 billion years old. I believe that the fossil record combined with genetic and cellular evidence gives overwhelming proof that evolution has occured. I also believe that all attempts (that I have ever read) of reconciling evolution with Biblical accounts are futile.

I also am utterly shocked every time I hear the statistic that roughly half of all US citizens believe that humans were created in their current form by God less than 10,000 years ago. What say the masses here?

 

[Scanty]

I also am utterly shocked every time I hear the statistic that roughly half of all US citizens believe that humans were created in their current form by God less than 10,000 years ago.

woah. I second that shock.

 

[Shadowfax]

i believe in evolution, i don't believe that the human race was 'created' by some higher power, but that the human race developed itself by the means of natural selection.

there isn't much more i can add to OSLI's opinion actually perhaps later in the thread

 

[PT]

Evolution, it's the only reason that can explain how we have come to be. I've never been a real religous person, even though I was raised Catholic, I just don't believe the divine creation theory.

 

[Jeslek]

I believe in Creation. Ah well, neither can be proved anyways, its one of those things you have to convince yourself of. Personally, um, I'd just like to know where the matter came from if there was nothing....

 

[Scanty]

...assuming there was 'nothing'.

 

[outside looking in]

I believe in Creation. Ah well, neither can be proved anyways, its one of those things you have to convince yourself of.

Not true. Either could be proved with direct or indirect evidence. So far, there is only evidence in support of evolution. With the vast amount of evidence from diverse fields such as molecular biology, genetics, geology, astrophysics, paleontology, cosmology, etc., I think declaring one proved is not so unimaginable after all.

Personally, um, I'd just like to know where the matter came from if there was nothing....

That's a good question, and to say that anyone really knows is not true. However, there are some compelling theories, and in the end the answer seems to be "nothin." Strange, to be sure, but it doesn't violate any physics as currently understood. In time, when we better understand the most fundamental level of reality (be it membranes, strings, point particles, or whatever), then we might finally have an answer.

However, evolution can be partitioned into three distinct arguments (two really, with an extension for the third). One is the argument over the origin of species, in which historical evolution from earlier life forms has been established as fact. The second is the evolution of life from non-life. There are some clues, and some wonderful theories, but there isn't enough evidence yet to make any grand pronouncements. The third is separate from the evolution of life, and concerns the origin of the universe (which you alluded to).

You must realize that ignorance of the third, or even the second, is not an argument that the first isn't true. That is, God could have created the universe, and seeded the Earth with life, and yet evolution still created the diversity of life we see today. In other words, the evidence in support of evolution is overwhelming, even if you don't think it could go all the way back to the very beginning. The two arguments are separate.

 

[Jeslek]

So far, there is only evidence in support of evolution.

Noah's ark on Mount Ararat...

With the vast amount of evidence from diverse fields such as molecular biology, genetics, geology, astrophysics, paleontology, cosmology, etc., I think declaring one proved is not so unimaginable after all.

Hm, I'm not sure where this "vast" amount of evidence is from, but I was wondering... Where is the proof of all the steps of evolution? Why have we not found evidence, such as fossils, of all the intermediary steps that took place from the blob of goo to humans?

 

[freako104]

i believe in evolution so i say good. my parents would say the same. the only thing i find ugly is the controversy.

 

[Jeslek]

Nah I don't care what you believe... As long as you teach Creation in school and not just evolution, because there is no concrete proof for evolution. Neither is there for Creation, but teach students both and let them decide, or don't teach it to them at all.

 

[PT]

Noah's ark doesn't prove anything. It was a ship. Doesn't necessarily mean anything even if it was Noah's, and even if the world did flood, which it surely did after the ice age, still explained by natural instances.

As for why we have not found evidence from all stages of existance, it's uncertain. What we have found is evidence from a variety of steps, just not all. Perhaps there were different customs to disposing of the dead other than burial for a few thousand years. Suppose the custom was to burn the dead. That would explain a gap of fossil history.

 

[Jeslek]

That would explain a gap of fossil history.

Yes it could, but a few hundred million years? Thats a bit big I think.

 

[outside looking in]

Noah's ark on Mount Ararat...

Which is hardly concrete. In fact, it's about as controversial as the most controversial evidence in support of evolution. That's really another argument, but we can surely discuss such things here as well if you'd like.

Hm, I'm not sure where this "vast" amount of evidence is from

From literally every field in science. Daily little tidbits are found in the field, in a rock, in a telescope, or in a laboratory that support this tapestry that is the modern synthesis. These tidbits aren't revolutionary, or even necessarily news worthy, but they simply 'fit in' to the framework that evolution provides. When evolution predicts that XX would likely be found along side YY in such and such circumstances, and gives a nice explanation of why they should be found together, and then later several instances where they are found together, it becomes a very powerful argument in favor of that world view. This happens constantly, where pieces 'fit in' nicely.

On the other hand, almost any example of some randomly selected 'factoid' from a rock, or laboratory, or telescope becomes a true nuisance to try and 'fit in' to the Biblical account of creation. Can you not see the night and day difference between these two?

What I have noticed is that Creationists argue against evolution simply by attacking every piece of it... throwing stones at it as it is often called. At the same time, they seem completely satisfied with the gaping holes in their preferred alternative theory. While it is true that a failure of one theory does not prove the validity of another (and that goes both ways), Creationists have a hard time accepting that evoluion isn't the best theory supported by evidence, but the only one. There simply are no rivals.

but I was wondering... Where is the proof of all the steps of evolution? Why have we not found evidence, such as fossils, of all the intermediary steps that took place from the blob of goo to humans?

Simply because fossilization is a rare event. Based on our best understanding of geology and how fossilization occurs, we don't expect to find anything like a complete and uninterupted record. In fact, many paleontologists consider us to be very lucky that we have found some species records that are much more complete than they would have even hoped for. In short, we have found as many fossils as we would expect to find. Also, your comment about "blob of goo" raises another point: some species simply don't fossilize well. No doubt there are many species that don't have a single example in the fossil record, regardless of whether we could find it or not if it existed. Earlier forms tended not to leave as many fossils due to the generally smaller size, and older fossils are more difficult to find as well. But, that is really beside the point I guess.

Still... would you really expect to find a fossil of a 1 billion year old microscopic piece of goo? Get serious now, really.

 

[Luis G]

humans are such primitive creatures, we are all stupid, the world would be better if we were evolved or if we did not exist.

 

[Shadowfax]

humans are such primitive creatures, we are all stupid, the world would be better if we were evolved or if we did not exist.

you just made my day, luis. i feel even better now....lol

 

[outside looking in]

Nah I don't care what you believe... As long as you teach Creation in school and not just evolution, because there is no concrete proof for evolution. Neither is there for Creation, but teach students both and let them decide, or don't teach it to them at all.

With that I couldn't disagree more. Evolution is on the same level as the heliocentric theory or the 'round earth' theory. The evidence of historical evolution is undeniable. It happened.

On the other hand, there is a nearly perfect void of evidence in support of Biblical Creation, so why should it be taught in the classroom? As a tool simply to illustrate other ways of thinking, and as an example of how to keep an open mind? Fine, then I guess you would be in favor of also teaching the Hindu creation myths, and those of the Greeks, the Norse, Native Americans, etc. etc. etc. Right?

 

[Luis G]

i should not be forced to learn the wanker ideas some guy wrote, if you want to learn about your religion you either go to church, read a book, talk to a priest or become member of a religious school.

School is for science, not for beliefs.

 

[outside looking in]

To add a little fuel to the mixture, here's a quote from Daniel Dennett that summarizes my thoughts on your statement LL much more eloquently than I could ever hope to:

We are wise to respect these traditions... Save the Baptists! Yes, but not by all means. Not if it means tolerating the deliberate misinforming of children about the natural world. According to a recent poll, 48 percent of the people in the United States today believe that the book of Genesis is literally true. And 70 percent believe that "creation science" should be taught in school alongside evolution. Some recent writers recommend a policy in which parents would be able to "opt out" of materials they didn't want their children taught. Should evolution be taught in the schools? Should arithmetic be taught? Should history? Misinforming a child is a terrible offense.

If you want to teach your children that they are the tools of God, you had better not teach them that they are God's rifles, or we will have to stand firmly opposed to you: your doctrine has no glory, no special rights, no intrinsic and inalienable merit. If you insist on teaching your children falsehoods--that the Earth is flat, that "Man" is not a product of evolution by natural selection--then you must expect, at the very least, that those of us who have freedom of speech will feel free to describe your teachings as the spreading of falsehoods, and will attempt to demonstrate this to your children at our earliest oportunity. Our future well-being--the well-being of all of us on the planet--depends on the education of our descendants.

 

[freako104]

humans are such primitive creatures, we are all stupid, the world would be better if we were evolved or if we did not exist.

true but i say itd be nice if we evolved out of our primitve mindsets and started thinking about the consequences and started to end violence etc

 

[outside looking in]

Before this discussion wanders too far from the intended path, perhaps we should actually discuss evolution before discussing whether it should be taught in the classroom?

I'm perfectly happy to play the role that Creationists would have me play here: you cast a stone, and I will illustrate why it misses the mark. Fair enough? I promise to be civil, and to avoid insulting anyone's intelligence if at all possible, and I will do my best to genuinely answer any questions anyone might have about evolution, what it says, what evidence there is, etc. I'm not all knowledgeable in this subject to be sure, but as I said part of the reason for having such disscussions is the motivation to learn more, which I am happy to do to try and answer a question.