Richard Dawkins explains why evolution is a fact beyond reasonable doubt in his latest book, The Greatest Show On Earth:
Evolution is a fact. Beyond reasonable doubt, beyond serious doubt, beyond sane, informed, intelligent doubt evolution is a fact. The evidence for evolution is at least as strong for the evidence for the Holocaust, even allowing for eye witnesses to the Holocaust.
It is the plain truth that we are cousins of chimpanzees, somewhat more distant cousins of monkeys, more distant cousins still of aardvarks and manatees, yet more distant cousins f bananas and turnips… continue the list as long as desired. That didn’t have to be true. It is not self-evidently, tautologically, obviously true, and there was a time when most people, even educated people, thought it wasn’t. It didn’t have to be true, but it is. We now this because a rising flood of evidence supports it.
Evolution is a fact, and this book will demonstrate it. No reputable scientist disputes it, and no unbiased reader will close the book doubting it. (p. 8-9)
I agree with Dawkins that the evidence for evolution is overwhelming for someone who looks at it with an open mind. Though I’m not sure about the “no reputable scientist disputes it” part. Perhaps that should be “no reputable biologist disputes it,” because that is their discipline — a biologist who denies evolution is like a computer scientist who denies operating systems.
I’m sure there are Christian scientists (the career, not the cult) who dispute evolution, but that doesn’t mean they are not reputable physicists or geologists. It just means they’re brainwashed into believing the Bible over reality.
Dawkins also says, “no unbiased reader will close the book doubting [evolution].” But how can a reader be unbiased? Does such a specimen even exist?
Speaking of cults, vote here (h/t Pharyngula and PZ Myers) on whether the Catholic Church is a force for good in the world:
http://www.catholictruthscotland.com/
:O
The Catholic Church is a force for good in the world
True [2%]
False [98%]
I almost feel bad for them. Almost.
mmm… banana’s and flood in the same bit of text… are we sure Dawkins is not Ray Comfort?
It’s very possible that Dawkins’ personal definition of “reputable scientist” excludes anyone who disputes evolution.
In which case he’s using circular logic for that bit.
It’s also possible he’s using it as a shorthand for “scientists who wear sports jackets and bow ties”, but there’s really no evidence to suggest that’s the case, is there?
WRONG.
A credible scientist could dispute evolution, but they would be expected to come up with an alternative hypothesis and a way to then test it and then submit it for peer review.
It’s really not hard to be a credible scientist. You don’t even have to agree with anyone.
I know.
I was just kidding :)
It’s more that no one who has the first idea what they’re talking about has ever posited a credible alternative to evolution that is also compatible with the (in some cases, literal) mountains of evidence currently supporting the ToE.
I don’t know about you guys, but I anticipate a creationist leaving a comment within the next couple of days about evolution being false and leading to eugenics, whereupon the thread explodes.
What’s the over/under on that? Sooner? Later? Before Friday? Since today was Veteran’s Day in the US, I guess I could cut some creotards some slack. And it’s also Wednesday (aka Hump Day)–is So You Think You Can Dance? on tonight? That may affect some drive-bys. ;-)
Certainly not unbiased, but in that context, I think Dawkins is using “unbiased” as a shorthand for “a reader willing to be swayed by evidence and compelling argument.” Certainly one doesn’t need to be unbiased for that condition to apply, but one does need to be less emotionally attached to one’s biases.
Which is why I prefer the term “open-minded” to “unbiased.”
Unbiased means a reader coming to the debate with no pre-existing belief on the matter, and yes, I really think there are a lot of people out there who are unbiased on the issue of evolution. Someone who has heard that lots of scientists believe in evolution and some other people don’t, but doesn’t really know what the arguments either way are would be unbiased. Someone who comes to the argument with a pre-existing belief that the bible was literally true and that this belief was incompatible with evolution would not.
There of course biases running in the other direction; but that doesn’t mean that it’s not possible – even for someone who has other biases when it comes to religion – to come to the debate on evolution unbiased.
Confused,
I find it hard to believe that anyone does not have some bias in the evolution creation issue. The real truth is most people have a bias before they know what the word means. Creationist beliefs are rarely given a just hearing the mainstream today. While evolution is deemed as fact in spite of its many shortcomings. People like Richard Dawkins are viewed as brilliant when they must resort to faith to believe what they believe as much as a creationist.
Whatsupwiththis
@Whatsupwiththis
“While evolution is deemed as fact in spite of its many shortcomings”
Care to expand on this or even better present you version without resorting to evolution is wrong therefore creationism is right …
“.. when they must resort to faith to believe what they believe as much as a creationist.”
Care to expand on that as well … on the one side mountains of evidence and on the other, well just some made up stuff. It’s hardly the same is it?
Well to begin with the fossil records are extremely incomplete and do not support nearly what is claimed, by many evolutionist. There are many great advances on modern science but the fossil record does not back up what people like Dawkins claim. Also there are many advances in DNA research, but again what is claimed cannot be substantiated by evidence. I am not saying there is no evidence, but to say that Evolution is Fact is going way beyond what can be substantiated.
Where did the molecular particles come from that all matter is to have evolved from. There had to be a beginning. Most evolutionist assume the existence of matter. In what way does this take less faith than assuming the existence of God.
Most evolutionist assume the existence of matter. In what way does this take less faith than assuming the existence of God.
Most everyone assumes the existence of matter. I imagine you’re assuming the existence of matter of which your computer’s keyboard is composed, no?
He/she/it can’t even spell evolutionist(s) for jeebus sake!
“Most evolutionist assume the existence of matter”
*blink*blink* Wha…?
What you are asking is that evolution – a mechanism that occurs in living organism – be used to explain the astronomical process of matter generation and solar disk accreation.
Thats a bit like demanding a Flash website programmer be able to explain why microchips work. Sure it might be handy, but COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT to the issue at hand.
Well to begin with the fossil records are extremely incomplete and do not support nearly what is claimed, by many evolutionist.
Name an example – including a few fossils that don’t show what evolutionists say it does.
Put up or shut up.
(Why yes, I am activing argumentative bitch mode, why do you ask?)
“Well to begin with the fossil records are extremely incomplete and do not support nearly what is claimed, by many evolutionist.”
Name three. No hand-waiving and emotional appeals that somehow science has gotten it all wrong. Name them and we can discuss them.
“Also there are many advances in DNA research, but again what is claimed cannot be substantiated by evidence.”
Name three more. You’re making alot of specious claims here, it would be nice to have you back them up.
“Where did the molecular particles come from that all matter is to have evolved from. There had to be a beginning. Most evolutionist assume the existence of matter. In what way does this take less faith than assuming the existence of God.”
Evolution deals with biologic systems, Rocks do not evolve into cars. You keep wanting to bring up the beginning of the universe. This is something that Evolution does not address at all. It would be helpful to you and your cause if you kept your arguments on the topic at hand instead of uselessly diving into other subjects. It will also stop you from looking like an idiot that hasn’t even superficially attempted to understand the topic.
So sorry to hear that the enormous evidence supporting evolution doesn’t meet your personal standards. Scientists the world over seem pretty okay with it, not to mention laypeople who actually understand the implications of that evidence.
“Where did the molecular particles come from that all matter is to have evolved from.”
So you actually seem to expect evolution to explain the existence of matter?
Just because your creation myth purports to explain the origins of the species we see today alongside the origins of the universe, does not mean that the scientific theory which explains how these species evolved should also explain the existence of matter.
Evolution doesn’t care about that. Evolution says that life evolves. Whether it was created, farted out or sneezed into existence at first, it’s not evolution’s problem. Once it exists, it evolves – period.
It’s abiogenesis that deals with how life came about and the origin of molecules themselves I suppose falls on chemistry’s shoulders, or molecular physics.
That creationists try to muddle this line is utterly disingenious.
Silly me. Assuming the existence of matter. OK, I no longer have faith in matter.
/immediately falls through chair onto floor. Falls through floor into basement. Falls through basement floor onto Earth. Falls through Earth into…. space?
Nah, you can’t “fall” if matter doesn’t exists as there wouldn’t be gravitation else.
But you reminded me that quote about “reality is what is left once you stop having faith” or something like that…
Cheryl,
Please climb out of you trip to space and evolve back through your basement, floor and chair, and understand the it is the origin of the existence of matter and not the exist of mater itself that is really in question. The question is, about overstepping evidence and calling something a fact prematurely.
Oh whatsupwiththis, lovely to see you already backtracking on your arguments. “Most evolutionist assume the existence of matter. In what way does this take less faith than assuming the existence of God.”
Matter takes no faith to believe in. Faith=belief that is not based on proof.
Matter is easily proven. Try walking through a wall and you will have your proof. What would take faith is to disbelieve in matter. God on the other hand has no proof. So no, believing in matter and God are vastly different.
“Please climb out of you trip to space and evolve back through your basement, floor and chair, and understand the it is the origin of the existence of matter and not the exist of mater itself that is really in question. The question is, about overstepping evidence and calling something a fact prematurely.”
Please understand that the questions, which the theory of evolution provides factual answers to, have absolutely nothing to do with “the origin of the existence of matter”.
Ah, the fossil record argument! It goes like this:
Scientist points out that fossil E probably descended from fossil A due to similarities.
Theist retard says “Nonononono! There’s no evidence for that! They’re completely different!”
Scientist find fossils B, C, and D which all show a clear gradual change from A to E. Radioisotope dating backs this up.
Theist retard says “Nononononono! They’re all different creatures! God created lots of very slightly different creatures! No evolution to see here! They’re still not the same!”
Scientist finds fossils A.5, B.5, C.5 and D.5, showing even more clearly the change from A to E gradually over time. Radioisotope dating backs it up again.
Theist retard says “Nope. Still different. Totally different. There’s no link fossil between A and A.5 or A.5 and B (etc. etc)”
Scientist finds fossils A.25, A.75 etc. etc. More backup from dating techniques.
Theist retard now demands link fossils between A and A.25.
My point is: It never ends. You could show a theist a billion fossils all different in the tiniest ways imaginable, flowing from one creature to another over billions of years – and they would still claim that each creature was a different, unrelated, species. Creationists are retards unworthy of pitty.
@whatsupwiththis
“Well to begin with the fossil records are extremely incomplete and do not support nearly what is claimed, by many evolutionist.”
… and would you care to give some examples?
“Also there are many advances in DNA research, but again what is claimed cannot be substantiated by evidence.”
… and again would you care to give some examples?
“Where did the molecular particles come from that all matter is to have evolved from.”
… and that has exactly what to do with evolution?
There are fossil records but there are no connecting records that legitimize the idea the on species actually evolved to another.
Gould, S.J. – “Evolution’s Erratic Pace”
The history of most fossil species include two features particularly inconsistent with gradualism:
1) Stasis – most species exhibit no directional change during their tenure on earth. They appear in the fossil record looking much the same as when they disappear; morphological change is usually limited and directionless;
2) Sudden appearance – in any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and ‘fully formed’.
Gould, S.J. (1977)
“Evolution’s Erratic Pace”
Natural History, vol. 86, May
First of all, for every million or so animals that die maybe 5 will become fossils. The only reason we have so many fossils is because there have been billions of billions of life forms on the earth.
Stasis-The reason that a species looks the same throughout its existance (in the fossil record) is because if it were to change enough to be recognizable as different then it has become a seperate species. Species do not change, new species emerge which are similar to their predecesors but not the same. It is analagous to you saying that a brown haired person cannot give birth to a blond haired person because we never saw the brown haired person turn into a blond haired person.
Sudden appearance-Same as above. If there was a species of dog that had no tail we wouldn’t say it was a dog that was evolving a tail (or evolving out of a tail). We would say it was a new species of dog that had no tail. Of course every species is “fully formed” when it was found. The species that comes after it will be different, but it too will be a “fully formed” species that “suddenly appears”. Besides, as I said in the before note, in modern times we can see the effect of the peppered moth changing its color. Such minute observations are impossible in the fossil record because there are milions of creatures dead for every living creature.
So, hypothetically, what would you consider good fossil evidence for evolution? You can’t claim that the evidence doesn’t fit unless you have some conception of what fitness is. So tell us, please, what would evidence for evolution look like?
Nice quote mining… typical creationist BS tactic.
Wait, 1977??? Nineteen-freaking-seventy seven!? That’s 32 years old. You don’t think that evolutionary biology research has come a long way in 30 years?
I know creationists go back to an old dusty book of mythology and ignore new evidence, but science works a bit differently. One of it’s strengths is that we’re always finding new things and adapting our theories to fit the data. I really wish religious people would do the same and realize that the collected folklore of bronze-age nomadic goat-herders is not a thing to base knowledge of the natural world on, and move on to something more in line with what we’ve actually discovered. Maybe then you’d stop quote-mining out-of-date materials.
Oh, and let me preempt the inevitable whine you’re about to let out… yes, Darwin’s On the Origin of Species is an old book, but we don’t take it as any kind of “gospel”. He got plenty of things wrong in it, and we’ve come along way in our understanding of evolution since then. But we RESPECT it (not revere it) because he was an incredibly smart guy with a brilliant idea that he put down on paper.
I’m with Jabster on this one. Exactly what “shortcomings” are you talking about?
“Creationist beliefs are rarely given a just hearing the mainstream today.”
Well, you need to come up with some new evidence to be given a just hearing.
So lets hear it. Or are you just regurgitating what your creationist told you?
Getting a creationist to comment on a story about biology would be tantamount to getting an astrologer to comment on what NASA’s been up to lately. I’m actually quite disappointed we see as much of that as we do. Seriously, journalists, there’s no need to manufacture “balance” when the people you’d turn to for that balance have been completely discredited.
“People like Richard Dawkins are viewed as brilliant when they must resort to faith to believe what they believe as much as a creationist.”
What complete nonsense. No-one who accepts evolution does it by faith, they look at the evidence. Faith is what you need when the ISN’T any evidence – which is why religions are so hot on it.
“People like Richard Dawkins are viewed as brilliant when they must resort to faith to believe what they believe as much as a creationist.
I don’t understand where the “resort to faith” come in here. Faith has nothing to do with evolution.
I think a reader can be unbiased on the topic of evolution. Evolution does not, and the theories of Evolution does not even attempt to, explain the origin of life. I personally see no relevance between theism vs. atheism and evolution, they are completely separate topics.
I do happen to agree with Dawkins that evolution is a fact. That being said, I am interested in any additional (logical only please) theories that support the diversity of life on our planet.
The subject of the origin of life is, in my view, independent of the diversity of life on our planet given the enormous amount of evidence that supports evolution.
Goodman
One question that needs to be answered is where did the molecular particles come from that all life is to have evolved from? There has to be an origin somewhere, and that is where the debate regarding theism and atheism enters the picture. It is difficult for some to believe that all rational thought originated from an irrational process.
Whatsupwiththis
“where did the molecular particles come from that all life is to have evolved from?”
That’s within the realm of physics and early-universe cosmology; it has nothing to do with evolution.
“It is difficult for some to believe that all rational thought originated from an irrational process.”
True, but it’s also difficult for some people to understand concepts like general relativity or organic chemistry. Natural processes that are counterintuitive or difficult to believe are in operation all the time, even within our own bodies. It’s very anthropocentric to assume that all true things should be easy for us to understand or believe from our extremely limited human perspective.
Nick,
see the post above please
whatsupwiththis,
see Nicks post above yours made @ 3:11pm its like you didn’t even read it.
Nick,
I agree that there are many things that are beyond our limited human perspective. I also readily agree that there are things in operation right now that are difficult for us to understand. And, I certainly do not claim to have all knowledge. The extent of all that is knowable is far beyond me, or most human capacity. And, I agree that we should strive to know all that we can. There are tremendous biological advances that make our lives better, and some that probably endanger us. But, I cannot believe that something as intricate as the human body, or the environment that we live in, just by luck fell into place. Dawkins’ idea that a Replicator, which is probably a primitive form of RNA molecule, that he believes somehow developed by chance and chemical laws in a pre biological evolution. I cannot reconcile the intricacies of all that we see to chance. Dawkins’ and other evolutionary biologist tell us that random gene mutation were not directed by any kind of intelligent actions, or even by the desire of the creature that was evolving. There is no way to reconcile that with the engineering that we see in the universe. To think that random gene selection, that happened to take place is a grand sexual reshuffling of DNA created all the species that we know by chance, and that even the intelligent thoughts that you are having right now are the result unintelligent irrational processes, that just happened to occur by cosmic good luck requires more faith than creationism. How could all the genes be selected with no gene selector? Can a blind watchmaker approach to evolution like that of Dawkins. Produce complex systems and adaptive improvement by chance?
Deary me … so because you think it’s improbable (or more likely you don’t really understand the subject matter) you have deceided that an even more improbably event, an all powerful creator that itself required no creator, is obviously true. Of course you have absoultely zero evidence for this except to say I don’t understand it so goddidit … laughable really.
“But, I cannot believe that something as intricate as the human body, or the environment that we live in, just by luck fell into place”
The fact that you don’t believe it, or that you lack the necessary imagination, doesn’t change the fact about evolution.
Evolution is not luck neither chance. The STE precisely identifies a “force” that guides the process: natural selection. If you don’t understand even that, maybe you should read more about what you are trying to dismiss.
Finally, as you have been answered before, neither the origin of the universe nor the origin of life are objectives of evolution’s theory.
Wintermute;
You seem to have a very poor understanding of what naturalistic processes actually entail.
Two big problems I see are these:
You’re thinking in a top-down way that, if we were to extrapolate your arguments a little, is typically called the Anthropic Principle. This is the presupposition that somehow, the cosmos existed with the intent or the necessity of giving rise to sapient life like human beings.
Nothing could be further from the truth.
If you change your perspective a little, and start thinking in a bottom-up fashion, you can easily see that from that first replicator, life has always evolved to fit the conditions available. There are two primary factors that influence which species survive at any given time; environmental conditions, and competition for limited resources with other species or individuals. From this point, the most successful species (for their conditions!) survive, and give rise to species most fit for the conditions of environment and competition as they change through the ages. Humanity is simply the latest iteration of the process.
We are no accident, but neither were we preordained. We evolved from earlier primates, and our competitive advantages were fine motor control, group cooperation, and our enormous, problem-solving brains. All of these are somewhat minor alterations from previous iterations of hominids. In fact, were it not for the ice age that killed off Neanderthals, it is very likely that WE would have gone extinct, and that THEY would be sitting around, with their own versions of creationism and the anthropic principle. There is no guiding force in the universe that trends toward sapience. It emerged on earth as the result of a runaway arms race of competition and selection, and we would be foolish to say that its existence is in any way necessitated by the universe.
In summary, we evolved to fit our conditions. The conditions of our world were not created to allow us to exist.
And this is where problem #2 comes in. You say:
“How could all the genes be selected with no gene selector?”
There is, ABSOLUTELY, a gene selector. It’s the mechanism Darwin first proposed 150 years ago, called Natural Selection. Not only is this selecting mechanism undeniably true, it is so powerful a process that it even applies to processes outside of biology. Capitalism, for example, is a system regulated by natural selection, wherein companies best suited to A) the prevailing economic conditions and B) prevail against their competitors are the ones which survive. Your suggestion that there is no gene selector is quite frankly ludicrous, and it explains your erroneous statement that it actually takes faith to “believe in evolution.” No, what it takes is understanding, dispassionate and rational. “Faith” doesn’t even enter into it, and your assertion that it does only underscores your lack of understanding.
Please, please, PLEASE visit talkorigins.org to find answers to the questions you still have about evolution. Your personal lack of understanding can be fixed with an open mind and the willingness to fix it. And it should be fixed, because it in no way impugns the theory of evolution the way you seem to think it does.
Nick,
I appreciate your comments. I also appreciate your attempt to deal with the questions and statements. I will look at the sight. I can agree that there is much to be learned.
I appreciate that; I’m sure what you discover will fire your imagination and explain a great deal. Just remember, keep thinking from the bottom up, and don’t assume that evolution ever had a “goal” of producing intelligent life.
Oh, and if my more acerbic comment below gets approved by the mods, please take it with a grain of salt. I let my frustration get the better of me, and the links are great, even if the tone with which they are delivered is less than chraitable. :)
Oh my goodness, I’m sorry, that should have been addressed to “whatsupwiththis” not Wintermute. My bad, I must have Neuromancer on the brain or something.
“where did the molecular particles come from that all life is to have evolved from”
Whatsupwiththis, now is a good time to start reading more about evolution and other real science articles. This very sentence indicates that you are lacking real scientific background.
These basic life particles, the building blocks of life are created in Earths atmosphere because of the right amount of gases billions of years ago and lightning. Redoing the experiment with ned spectral analysers have shown that far more life building blocks were created than the original experiment showed.
Also astronomy is discovering these buildingblocks to be found everwhere in the universe so they are pretty common.
The question is where did the these building blocks come from? Everything has to come from somewhere. All known life forms began from matter, where did the matter come from? There has to be a beginning somewhere. If you are going to say that there is a process of evolving then you have to identify where the process begins. The first life forms had to have an origin what is that origin? For life to begin it has to have matter to begin from what is the source of that matter? You tell me that evolution is a fact, and that there is evidence. But I don’t see the evidence. Read a biology book you say but none of them have the answer to the question that I am asking. And, none of the writers will deal with the question, as no one here has. Where did life begin. If it evolves and has evolved what is its point of origin? Everything has to come from something. If life began with a single cell organism that formed from existing matter, where did that matter come from? And if DNA is the answer to evolutionary biology then show me the DNA connection between species? If there is all this evidence to show that life has evolved give me one connecting fossil record that proves it. And if you can’t, which you can’t then don’t tell me it is fact.
Evolution happened. Absolutely for sure. Homo sapiens evolved from ape-like ancestors, all life on Earth shares a common ancestor. How it happened, exactly, is up to a small amount of debate, but it’s certainly mostly by natural selection. That’s the “theory” part. Maybe there is a god, maybe it set the Cosmos in motion (though I don’t think there is any reason to suppose so). Modern evolutionary synthesis says nothing at all about where matter comes from.
Google “whale skeleton”. Tell me that didn’t used to have legs. Bam, evolution is true.
Oops, link fail: http://images.google.com/images?hl=en&sa=1&q=whale+skeleton
One of the things that the last few hundred years of earnest human learning has taught us is that special creation did not happen. Unless it was intentionally created to look exactly as if it had not been created, which is silly.
This discussion began by my saying that Dawkins oversteps his evidence by saying that evolution was a FACT. And I said that fact is too strong a statement. My post to Nick above raises some of my questions. Is there some evidence? Yes. Can I believe in the adaptation of species? Yes. Have I ever been given any evidence or seen any evidence that would make me believe that one species became another species through genetic mutation. NO! Might science one day find such evidence? That remains to be seen, but until it does fact is too comprehensive a word to use.
“Have I ever been given any evidence or seen any evidence that would make me believe that one species became another species through genetic mutation”
But that’s easy… some examples here:
http://www.rationalresponders.com/evolutionproof
@whatsupwiththis
Look it’s fairly simple … you ask for evidence, evidence is presented to you and you then ignore it. Basicaly you’re what is commonly know as an idiot.
There is no such thing as species. It is an artificial designation. Taxonomy is an artificial system. Biologists and taxonomists don’t all agree on a definition, though “diverged so far they can no longer interbreed” is a common one. You’re asking actual reality to reflect an imaginary system made up by people. Your questions indicate a misunderstanding of evolution. Please read this “common misconceptions about evolution” article.
Give him a break, jabster, he said he’s gonna look at some references nick gave. Maybe I’m being a bit innocent, but I hope he will really try to learn something
@Francesc
Sorry but he has utterly failed to do this so far, so why do you think he will do this now? It’s the typical creationist argument …
“I have no evidence except that I don’t understand things and therefore they must be wrong and goddidit it.”
He doesn’t deserve a break as he has no interest in learning so, and I’ll repeat again, he’s basically an idiot.
Why? Because I still have faith, without any reason and against every statistical argument :-p
“Read a biology book you say but none of them have the answer to the question that I am asking.”
Yes because you are asking a question that is outside of the subject matter. Its like reading a book about automotive maintenance and expecting it to answer the question about how ore is mined or how wheat is harvested. Then becoming petulant and surly childishly repeating yourself after 3 others explained the same thing to you.
“And if DNA is the answer to evolutionary biology then show me the DNA connection between species?”
Phylogenetic Reconstruction. This will require reading and comprehension something you need to practice. Good Luck.
“If there is all this evidence to show that life has evolved give me one connecting fossil record that proves it. And if you can’t, which you can’t then don’t tell me it is fact.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_transitional_fossils
Of course this will prove unsatisfactory for you, as I expect you, no matter how complete a fossil record you are supplied with, will still demand more and more of a “complete” fossil record. Never paying attention to the simple fact this is all more evidence than you can ever come up with to support your “theory” that a Magic-Man did it all.
@Sunny Day
“Of course this will prove unsatisfactory for you, as I expect you, no matter how complete a fossil record you are supplied with, will still demand more and more of a “complete” fossil record.”
I think you may be on to something there!
Jesus goddamned christ, Wintermute, the only thing you’re proving in this thread is little you’ve actually tried to look for the evidence you claim isn’t there.
“Have I ever been given any evidence or seen any evidence that would make me believe that one species became another species through genetic mutation. NO!”
/rolleyes
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=observed+instances+of+speciation
Evolution is a fact. Period. It happened. The Theory of Evolution is simply our explanation for that process.
Science in general, and this board in particular, is not responsible for your failure to read a goddamned science book and make an ATTEMPT to understand the VAST AMOUNTS OF EVIDENCE for yourself. I have a more cordial reply to you elsewhere in the thread, that deals with what I think may be the basis of your misunderstanding, but coming into the company of people who are well-informed about evolution and claiming that literal mountains of evidence an millions of man-years of solid research don’t exist just pisses me right the fuck off.
Get educated.
http://www.amazon.com/Why-Evolution-True-Jerry-Coyne/dp/0670020532/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1258045641&sr=8-1
http://www.amazon.com/Greatest-Show-Earth-Evidence-Evolution/dp/1416594787/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1258045641&sr=8-3
http://www.amazon.com/Your-Inner-Fish-Journey-3-5-Billion-Year/dp/0307277453/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1258045658&sr=8-1
http://www.amazon.com/Evolution-Triumph-Idea-Carl-Zimmer/dp/0061138401/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1258045668&sr=8-1
http://www.amazon.com/At-Waters-Edge-Fingers-Whales/dp/0684856239/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1258045682&sr=8-1
Aaaaaaaaaaand I’ve made the same mistake again. Comment above is meant to address “whatsupwiththis” not Wintermute. Arg, sorry, sorry.
Evolution doesn’t discuss matter. This is the same as claiming that because the history of France between 1800 and 1850 doesn’t accurately describe the formation of stars that France never existed.
What you are arguing against is physics, not biology. Many of the questions about the formation of the universe are unanswered. For instance, if energy forms both matter and antimatter when it coalesces then why does our universe appear to be composed of more matter than anti-matter? What caused the big bang to bang in the first place? If time is simply another dimension then was there a beginning to the universe, did the big bang actually “happen” or are these simply artifacts of our inability to understand a reality without time? There are many other questions that have yet to be answered. The problem is that you are inserting the “god of the gaps” argument. In our society we are taught that there is a right answer to every question. Science claims that it doesn’t know the answers yet, whereas religion claims that it does know the answers. Our minds are more comfortable knowing the truth and so will believe those who claim to know even if they offer no actual proof.
Furthermore, your argument is resting on an ancient argument that is believed to be theistic, but is in fact neutral on the matter of god. The argument is called the unmoved mover and was first proposed by Aristotle.
1. Everything that exists has a cause.
2. The universe exists.
3. The chain of causes cannot go on forever.
4. Therefore their must have been a cause which itself was uncaused, the unmoved mover.
Most people assume that the unmoved mover must be god, and then claim it is their own personal vision of god. However, all the argument states is that something happened first. It is completely logical, and fulfills the argument perfectly, to say that the unmoved mover was the big bang. Another possible explanation is found in chapter 8 of Stephen Hawkings book “A Brief History of Time” (a very worthwhile read). In it he states that it is possible that the universe is a four dimensional sphere. It is similar to being on earth and trying to find the beginning of the earth (geographically speaking). No matter how far you walk you cannot come to an edge. The problem is that we are viewing time as a plane (much as the ancients viewed the earth) rather than realizing that it is curved in upon itself. Now this is not a proven theory, and as far as I know there is no experimental data on it. However it is a possibility for how our universe can exist without a “beginning”.
The youtube origins series is pretty good at explaining how things came to be the way they are now.
Perhaps what Dawkins means by “reputable” is a scientist who uses the scientific method and accepts its findings, not one who replaces actual science with pseudoscience. While this is not a sound semantic argument, I find it plausible that those who are supposed to be scientists but reject the results of methodological naturalistic approaches in favor of heretofore unsupportable and unsupported creationist hokum would be dismissed by Dawkins as disreputable, irrespective of their field or discipline.
I think he means the scientist that will change what he thinks if new evidence shows that his original thinking was wrong.
@Olaf, I think you’re exactly right here. Dawkins has said this before, I think he told a story of his mentor who worked his entire career to proove his own theory, which was then disproved by another scientist who won an award for his work. At the awards ceremony the first guy went and shook the winner’s hand and thanked him. Along those lines anyway.
The idea being that ideal science isn’t about stubbonly holding onto disproven beliefs for your own ego, but about increaing knowledge and understanding.
@Whatsupwiththis?
Please do not tell me that the six and a half years I have spent studying evolution are tantamount to making things up. Give us an issue you think evolution doesn’t answer.
As for rational thought evolving from an irrational process – creationism is proof that doesn’t happen.
However evolution is not irrational – it is arational. There is no logic or reason inherent in evolution, just as there is no logic or reason inherent in the physics that runs the computer you are using to type. The logic and reason we see are added after the fact by our brains.
Did you just say there is no LOGIC to the function of a computer? I am sure that programmers would be surprised to hear that.
Reading Comprehension Fail.
“There is no logic or reason inherent in evolution, just as there is no logic or reason inherent in the physics that runs the computer”
But then again I actually know what I’m talking about and programme myself and know a few people that do it for a living – Absolutely no programmer would be surprised to run across a program with no logic in it. Becuase they’re written by people, some of whom have no logic.
No, the physics. Magnets don’t attract opposite poles of other magnets because it’s beautiful, or proper, or because they want to… they just do. That’s what magnetic force is. Gravity has no hopes or motives. It is not a force in the same way, but natural selection has no plan, no goal, it’s just what happens given the conditions on Earth.
Sadly, I know a few brilliant scientists–biologists for that matter, who don’t accept evolution—or accepts it halfway(humans are “special”)….I wonder how these people got their PHDs.
They bought them at a creationist university?
Could you name any of those biologists, with a reference to something written by them supporting your claim that “they don’t accept evolution”?
@Whatsupwiththis?
Since you do not believe in evolution please immediately:
Start protesting all animal testing, for all purposes. These sciences are based on the fact of evolution in that how a rat responds to a drug is similar to how a human does, but a chimp is even closer.
Please stop taking all drugs that were tested on animals. Which is pretty much all of them. Again, the only reason those tests make sense is because we are related to those animals. Especially please stop taking animal derived insulin – but I spose you can keep it if it’s GM bacterial based.
Please return all prosthetic or transplated limbs, organs, values. These were all tested on animals too.
All cancer treatments especially have to go. The amount of genetic modelling in the cure for cancer? INSANE. And pretty much all of it on mouse models. See above.
What else can we think of that needs to stop immediately if evolution doesn’t exist?
Also, please hand in your pet cat and dog and take a lynx and a wolf in replacement.
Also please stop eating all domesticated grains, and brassicas (ie everything from celery to brocolli). You can probably keep the potatoes though?
Certainly an unbiased reader exists. His name is Siddharta Gautama, and he is the Buddha. Being enlightened, he first clears his mind of all other thoughts, and then reads the book with an open, understanding-seeking mind. He seeks not to appraise the work, but to understand its point of view, and why someone would think that way.
Let us all become more like Buddha!
Sorry Daniel but “no reputable scientist disputes it” is pretty acurate. Of course, ‘reputable scientist’ here is a short for ‘scientist who does actual research, in the fields related to biological evolution, and publish in peer-revewed scientific media’.
Maybe there is some ‘reputable scientist’ from some other field, say astronomy (like Fred Hoyle), physics, enginering, who is “skeptic” of Evolution. The point is: their opinion doesn’t frankin matter more than anybody else’s. There is a reason for us to relay on specialists. If you, or you daughter, have a heart condition, you don’t look for a car mechanic, a lawyer, an engineer, or a jet pilot for advice. You look for the best MD heart specialist you can find. If you have a brain condition you don’t look for a cardiologist, you look for a frankin bain surgeon.
An with respect to biological Evolution, YES, like it or not “no reputable scientist disputes it”. And that includes religious reputable scientists, the ones who don’t put their religious faith ahead of their science.
It is far outside my field of expertise (as a med student I took the bare minimum physics to get by, I don’t like the subject) But I recall reading that though the expanded E=MC2 equation you find that gravity and energy are opposing forces, and in big bang conditions neutralized to 0. Out universe on the whole is still balanced to 0, however the energy and gravity are taking up plus and minus values. Given that we can track big bang conditions to a billionth of a billionth of a second before the “beginning of time” its a good start as to “where it all came from”. If someone can link info on this I would greatly appreciate it. Furthermore with where it all cam from on a quantum level truly random events happen, which lead to the “creation” and “destruction” of matter. Pair this with the emerging multiverse theory and you get closer to it. This is all much better than: “I don’t know so God/Allah/Xenu did it.”
@Taylor
I think your memories of your physics education are a bit confused. I don’t blame you at all- especially if you didn’t enjoy physics! I’m dredging back into the depths of my brain for what I learned in my degree, I don’t know how clear this will be, but maybe (hopefully!) it will clarify some of the things you remember?
E=mc^2 describes the equivalence of energy and matter- i.e. the energy that is required to make a certain mass of matter and anti-matter, or the energy that is produced when matter and anti-matter annihilate. If matter was created in this way in the big bang, an equal amount of antimatter should also have been created. may explain this, but it points to the fact that we don’t understand the physics of the conditions of the big bang, as we are unable to observe such conditions.
Re: the balancing of gravity and energy (by which I think you mean the balance of expansion vs gravity?)
Observations have shown the expansion of the universe to be accelerating, i.e. if things continue in the same way the gravitational pull of the mass of matter in the universe will not be sufficient to reverse the expansion and pull the universe back to a singularity. has been postulated in several forms as an explanation of this, but none of these ideas have been fully experimentally verified.
Clearly physics/cosmology aren’t able to explain the origins of the universe as we know it yet. But that’s OK. Science doesn’t pretend to know the answers to things that are as yet unexplained, but is always searching for a deeper understanding and further knowledge about the reality we experience.
Religious creation stories claim to explain “the beginning” despite the lack of evidence. Science only accepts explanations for which there is sufficient supporting evidence, which is why the answer “we don’t know yet, but we’re still trying” is totally acceptable. Personally, I’m not sure if scientists will ever be able to explain the source of the universe, but then maybe they will. That would be awesome (like a million hotdogs.) However, evolution of species is something that has been proven.
Sorry if the links are too layman. I was going for brief interesting explanation rather than in-depth, impossible-to-follow mathematical description.
Gah! Massive link fail- sorry- first time!
I’ll try again, fingers crossed:
CP violation
Dark energy
Sorry for how unreadable that made the above post!
And still I didn’t quite get it! Oh well…
Just realised that my first post now doesn’t even make any sense. I’m gunna repost it and hope I get it right. I’m really sorry if this counts as double posting and is against the rules, I just wanna get it right!
@Taylor
I think your memories of your physics education are a bit confused. I don’t blame you at all- especially if you didn’t enjoy physics! I’m dredging back into the depths of my brain for what I learned in my degree, I don’t know how clear this will be, but maybe (hopefully!) it will clarify some of the things you remember?
E=mc^2 describes the equivalence of energy and matter- i.e. the energy that is required to make a certain mass of matter and anti-matter, or the energy that is produced when matter and anti-matter annihilate. If matter was created in this way in the big bang, an equal amount of antimatter should also have been created. CP violation may explain this, but it points to the fact that we don’t understand the physics of the conditions of the big bang, as we are unable to observe such conditions.
Re: the balancing of gravity and energy (by which I think you mean the balance of expansion vs gravity?)
Observations have shown the expansion of the universe to be accelerating, i.e. if things continue in the same way the gravitational pull of the mass of matter in the universe will not be sufficient to reverse the expansion and pull the universe back to a singularity. Dark energy has been postulated in several forms as an explanation of this, but none of these ideas have been fully experimentally verified.
Clearly physics/cosmology aren’t able to explain the origins of the universe as we know it yet. But that’s OK. Science doesn’t pretend to know the answers to things that are as yet unexplained, but is always searching for a deeper understanding and further knowledge about the reality we experience.
Religious creation stories claim to explain “the beginning” despite the lack of evidence. Science only accepts explanations for which there is sufficient supporting evidence, which is why the answer “we don’t know yet” is totally acceptible. Personally, I doubt if scientists will ever be able to explain the source of the universe, but then maybe they will. That would be awesome (like a million hotdogs.) However, evolution of species is something that has been proven.
Sorry if the links are too layman. I was going for brief interesting explanation rather than in-depth, impossible-to-follow mathematical description.
DF: Dawkins also says, “no unbiased reader will close the book doubting [evolution].” But how can a reader be unbiased? Does such a specimen even exist?
MH: Dawkins (aside from his brilliance as a biologist) is simply an evangelist against religion. It’s as if he were a great salesman for internet & cable TV but can’t see why the Amish won’t buy a plan.
Daniel
I think “unbiased reader” here should mean: ‘open minded reader willing to evaluate the evidence in itself”. Somebody that once had been shown to a blue table, will reconaize it as a blue table, and not a yellow armchair, or a pineapple.
To think that this kind of unbiasness is impossible is to give up all possibility of rational discourse and agreement on anything. IMHO.
Michael
That’s funny. So a book on the (OVERWHELMING) evidence for biological Evolution is in the same category of internet/cable TV plan sales? To show the (OVERWHELMING) evidence for biological Evolution is to be an “evangelist against religion”?
Well boy, you are not unbiased for sure…