Evidence for Evolution

[Insidious Rex]

Well heck they took a whole rib from us guys. I think some DNA molecules aint asking too much.

[Rían]

I read the volcano link. As someone who believes evolution is wrong, based upon the data I see, I agree with those who get irritated and feel it's ethically and scientifically wrong to talk about evolution as a fact. I also feel it promotes closemindedness to talk about evolution as a fact.

Perhaps those of you here who think evolution happened don't really notice it, but it's VERY common for it to be presented as a fact in the mainstream media, as well as at schools. I happen to notice it because it irritates me. My guess is that those who think it is a fact just don't notice it. Just today I read an article in Reader's Digest (that fun magazine) that spoke of it as a fact yet again, and made some very silly deductions about it - very irritating.

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Jonathan

Scientists no longer believe we are the descendants of the Neanderthals.

Why is that?

[Last Child of Ungoliant]

because the evidence points to it not being so, that is why

[Spock]

Did you ever think we might be an accident? :;

[Nurvingiel]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

I read the volcano link. As someone who believes evolution is wrong, based upon the data I see, I agree with those who get irritated and feel it's ethically and scientifically wrong to talk about evolution as a fact. I also feel it promotes closemindedness to talk about evolution as a fact.

As a fan of ToE, this also annoys me. I feel it detracts from the scietific goodness of the theory.
But banning it? IIRC the Volcano documentary merely mentioned Evolution. That's like banning the new "King Arthur" movie because the Saxons had cross-bows, which we know is wrong since they were invented in the 10th (or 11th perhaps, is there a history buff in the house?) century and the movie was set in the 5th century.

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

Perhaps those of you here who think evolution happened don't really notice it, but it's VERY common for it to be presented as a fact in the mainstream media, as well as at schools. I happen to notice it because it irritates me. My guess is that those who think it is a fact just don't notice it. Just today I read an article in Reader's Digest (that fun magazine) that spoke of it as a fact yet again, and made some very silly deductions about it - very irritating.

Reader's Digest isn't exactly the literary pinnacle of science literature though. When I was in high school they did present ToE as fact, along with the Bohr model and other things that aren't facts. (I do love the Bohr model - I'm not criticizing it here.) I think this isn't due to bad science, per se, but rather the misguided idea that teenagers can't grasp complex theories, or have to have everything simplified for them first. I think this idea is silly. Teenager's brains won't explode if there's the possibility of a theory having flaws or something.
When I was in first year university, our Cell Biology prof pointed out at the beginning of the class that the theory of Evolution was, in fact, a theory. She said it was a good theory, and then explained the fine points. My first year Chem prof also shared the flaws of the Bohr model with us. You can do this without overwhelming your students - he also mentioned there were other aspects of the Bohr model beyond the scope of the course, but at least he said they were there. Then we went away knowing we knew something about Chemistry, but also knowing that we didn't know everything. I don't think it's too much of a stretch to do that in high school too.
Basically I think universities are much more academically responsible than high schools.

[Insidious Rex]

I was never taught it was a "fact" in high school. Just that it was clearly the most aligned with the evidence. They even taught us about spontanious generation and what not. its not as if they hid stuff from us. Its just as I ON MY OWN learned more and more about evolution it became more and more clear that it was a rock solid way of looking at how nature works. No matter what particular discoveries we find out about its inner workings in the future.

[Spock]

Microchip designers often embed microscopic messages on the surface of the chip as a way of signing their work.

- DNA has a lot of "junk" parts that don't seem to have any function.

- A lot of people think evolution is obviously "designed" by someone.

I wonder if any cryptographers have looked at that junk DNA to see if it's a message from the designer. I'm guessing that it's a code that says something like, "I am Kaloopah, from the star system Nebulon IV. I have sent this evolution program into space as my eighth grade science project."

I imagine that a few thousand years from now, when scientists have learned to manipulate DNA, we'll be launching evolution programs into the cosmos, programmed to seek any planet that has the right environment. The rocket will land and spill its primordial goo, programmed with evolutionary preferences such as gender, eyeballs, limbs, mobility, and the urge to sit in cubicles while complaining about coworkers.

Evolution on that new planet would be programmed to develop over a few billion years to resemble us, obviously, because we're spectacularly vain, so we'd write the DNA program to turn out that way. There'd be no point in going to all that trouble just to create the Giant Chipmunk Planet.

This doesn't answer the question of who created the original aliens. But I suspect that the only way time can be infinite is if the past connects to the future like some huge Mobius strip-wormhole kind of deal. All you need to make this hypothetical system work is people like us who evolve and create new planets, who in turn evolve and create more new planets, until time loops back to our past and we get created again. In other words, we'd HAVE to evolve to the point where we could create a new planet or else we wouldn't exist in the present. Freaky, huh?

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Spock

Did you ever think we might be an accident? :;

Sure! It's definitely a possibility, but I don't think it's probable, based on the available evidence.

[Spock]

To correct the quote, it should have read:

When you have eliminated all which is impossible, then whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.
...Sherlock Holmes

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

Reader's Digest isn't exactly the literary pinnacle of science literature though.

No, I'm not saying it is at ALL! But I am saying that in day-to-day life, I find that evolution is typically mentioned as a fact in the general media (TV, magazines, newspapers, etc.), and I think this promotes close-minded and erroneous thinking.

In my experience, I've also found that evolution is presented as a fact in schools, as well as the general media. I'm glad to hear that IRex's school didn't teach this, tho.

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Spock

When faced with a problem, eliminate the possible. Whatever remains no matter how impossible, is the answer.
.....S.H.

How do you think that quote applies to our discussion here?

[Spock]

..sometimes stuff happens....no reason,

[Count Comfect]

All generalities promote close-minded and erroneous thinking. Teaching evolution as fact rather than "theory with no major scientific competitors" may do so too, but I don't think it is a particularly egregious example of doing so. Everyone I know is quite aware that evolution is a theory not a proven fact, although they (as I) happen to believe it is probably true.

[Insidious Rex]

Originally Posted by Spock

This doesn't answer the question of who created the original aliens. But I suspect that the only way time can be infinite is if the past connects to the future like some huge Mobius strip-wormhole kind of deal. All you need to make this hypothetical system work is people like us who evolve and create new planets, who in turn evolve and create more new planets, until time loops back to our past and we get created again. In other words, we'd HAVE to evolve to the point where we could create a new planet or else we wouldn't exist in the present. Freaky, huh?

N = N* fp ne fl fi fc fL

[Jonathan]

Originally Posted by Spock

I wonder if any cryptographers have looked at that junk DNA to see if it's a message from the designer. I'm guessing that it's a code that says something like, "I am Kaloopah, from the star system Nebulon IV. I have sent this evolution program into space as my eighth grade science project.".

Personally, I doubt a cryptographer would find anything of interest in the junk DNA. Not in DNA that actually codes for something either, because theoretically there could be hidden messages in there too .

Anyway, bacteria and viruses evolve a lot more frequently than we do, and they lack "junk" DNA. If there had been hidden "evolution program" messages in our DNA, then bacteria and viruses should have had "junk" DNA with these messages too.

Originally Posted by Spock

I imagine that a few thousand years from now, when scientists have learned to manipulate DNA, we'll be launching evolution programs into the cosmos, programmed to seek any planet that has the right environment. The rocket will land and spill its primordial goo, programmed with evolutionary preferences such as gender, eyeballs, limbs, mobility, and the urge to sit in cubicles while complaining about coworkers.

But evolution isn't anything that's programmed! There is nothing in our genes that predicts how we will evolve in the future. If we were to program certain things into a primordial goo, it wouldn't be evolution. I don't think it would qualify as directed evolution either.
Interesting idea though

[Last Child of Ungoliant]

this is a few hours late, but in the UK there are not many, if any schools, that teach evolution as fact, you go to a science lesson and learn that ToE is the theory most supported by empirical scientific data, but may be wrong, and then you can go to a BVT lesson and learn about creation myths or what have you, i never went to BVT/RE lessons, though, so i am not sure what actually went on in there

[Earniel]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

To me, the big deal is when magazines and supposedly scientific tv programs and even college professors (like my friend's professor) say, incorrectly, things like the PBS series said - "all known scientific evidence supports [Darwinian] evolution" as does "virtually every reputable scientist in the world." My friend's college professor actually said that in her class, except she went even further and said "ALL scientists". And this is a college professor! These statements are just wrong, IMO, and lead to wrong thinking and close-mindedness - the antithesis of science.

I see your point, however the only places I've heard evolution being referred to as an undeniable, unescapable fact are...well... creationist websites. Usually followed by speeches of how evolution is so terribly unscientific and impossible because of it.

Not trying to accuse anyone but I'm starting to think the 'evolution-is-cold-proven-fact'-claim is mostly something creationists try to put in the mouth of evolutionists to discredit the evolution-theory.

Now something else: Interesting article in the newspaper today! Unfortunately it's in Dutch so the translation's mine. They gave a website address with it but I was unable to locate the exact article. (and the website was very scientific, really over my layman head.)

Frog saw Dinosaur

There were already frogs hopping around when dinosaurs were crawling out of their eggs. Kim Roelants and Franky Bossuyt of the Vrije Universiteit Brussel has proven this by analysing the DNA of a large number of frog species.

The study of the Belgian researchers, that has received a prominent place in the scientific magazine Systematic Biology, solves an old discussion among biologists, who up to now had to use rare fossils to date the oldest frog species. According to Roelants and Bossuyt life on earth was going through a diversity crisis in the period where frogs and dinosaurs came into being, resulting in the extinction of several amphibians and reptiles. It is possible that because of that, such a large number of frog species came into existance, just like was the case with the dinosaurs.

The living decendants of the frog species from that time are now found all over the world. The study confirms too that the 'roaming' of the continents played a large part in the evolution of the frog. By its age, it should have already existed on Pangaea, an enormous primeval continent in which all continents were united. Afterwards their isolated evolution has led to the independant rise of the 5 000 different species our planet harbours.

source: systematic biology

[Rían]

y'know, your post made me realize something, Eärniel - I was probably not making myself clear.

When I speak of evolution being spoken of as a fact, like in that Reader's Digest article, very rarely am I saying that the actual words are "evolution is a fact!" What I mean is that you get things like this:

1. "As humans evolved over millions of years, their sense of smell developed to what it is today, and perhaps helped them to survive and pick out compatible mates."

2. "Coloration in the lion evolved over millions of years to what it is today."

3. "As the giraffe we see today evolved from its short-necked ancestors, those that had longer necks were able to reach higher into the trees and tended to survive better and reproduce."

Do you see what I mean? In every one of those sentences, evolution is mentioned as a cold, hard fact.

Now you DO get the people, like my friend's college biology teacher, that actually come out and say evolution is a fact. But that wasn't so much what I was talking about. It was more the sentences like I said above.

Over the last 20 years, sentences have totally changed from things like, "IF evolution indeed happened, then perhaps man's sense of smell developed for survival reasons" to "Man's sense of smell evolved over millions of years to what it is today, enabling him to survive and prosper." And I think the first sentence is better and more accurate.

We don't KNOW evolution happened. Personally, I think the evidence is against it happening, so that's why sentences like the first 3 examples at the top of my post catch my eye and irritate me. I don't really think a person that believes evolution happened would even notice the unspoken assumption that evolution happened in those first 3 sentences. Do you see what I mean now? Even though that sentence #1 has "perhaps" in it, the only thing the "perhaps" is referring to is how smell perhaps allowed humans to survive better and perhaps it was used to help pick out mates. The "perhaps" does NOT refer to evolution perhaps happening; evolution is completely and fully assumed to have happened. And THAT is a big change, and a HUGE (and erroneous) assumption, IMO.

[Last Child of Ungoliant]

i still find it extremely strange, in this day and age, that ancient philosophy is clung to like an old rag by a child, it is quite clear, IMHO, that all of the available evidece strongly points towards evolution being a highly quantifiable scientific theory