I have been I guess researching a lot about evolution recently, and I came across a couple of things that really interested me.
Everyone takes Darwin for granted I guess. But even Darwin questioned himself. He himself is skeptical about the theory of evolution.
quote: On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection: A crowd of difficulties occur. Some of them are so serious that to this day, I can hardly reflect on them without being in some degree staggered. One of the chief objections which might be justly waged against the views maintained herein, one namely the distinctiveness of specific forms and their not being blended together by innumerable transitional links is obviously different.
He continues later on saying
quote: On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection: I can answer these questions and objections only on the supposition that the geological record is far more imperfect than most geologists believe. That the geological record is imperfect all will agree. But that it is imperfect to the degree required by this theory, few will be inclined to admit.
From what I understand it as, Darwin still has to find transitional links between one species and another. From what I’ve read the fossil record has not supported the theory of evolution enough.
The curator of the American Museum of Natural History, Mr. Niles Elbridge even said
quote: The fossil record that we have been looking for in the past [150] years does not exist.
If Darwin himself is skeptical about his own theory then why is everyone nowadays taking it as a fact? I have been looking about other people who also are skeptical and I actually found a ton of quotes. Here are a couple of them.
Hugo DeVries- Professor of Botany at the University of Amsterdam, the originator of the Mutation Theory said
quote: Natural Selection may explain the survival of the fittest but it can never explain the arrival of the fittest.
A. R. Wallace -A contemporary of Darwin who wrote the Wallace Paper of 1855 said
quote: It appears that the mathematical, the artistic and the musical faculty could not possible have developed [in mankind] by means of natural selection.
W. E. Swinton -author of Biology and the Comparative Physiology of Birds said
quote: The origin of birds is largely a matter of deduction. There is no fossil evidence of the stages through which the changes from the reptile to the bird was achieved.
U. Lunham-Professor of Oceanography, University of Marseilles said
quote:: The fossil record does not tell how fish came into existence.
E. J. H. Corner-author of Evolution in Contemporary Botanical Thought said
quote: I still think that to the unprejudiced, the fossil record of plants is in favor of special creation.
D. H. Scott-quoted in The History of Warfare of Science with Theology by A. D. White said
quote: Nobody can explain how evolution operated but we will uphold it even if only as an act of faith.
Professor David Bateson -Manchester College, England said
quote: Though our faith in evolution stands unbroken, we have no acceptable account of the origin of species.
Dr. I. Prigogine-recipient of two Nobel Prizes in Chemistry said
quote: The statistical probability that organic structures and the precisely harmonized reactions that typify living organisms would be generated by accident is zero.
Sir J. W. Dawson-quoted in The History of the Warfare of Science with Theology by A. D. White said
quote: The evolutionary theory is itself one of the strangest phenomena of humanity. That in our time, a system destitute of any shadow of proof, supported only by vague analysis or figures of speech should be accepted, is surprisingly strange.
What I want to know, is why do so many people take evolution for granted and say that it is a fact when there is not nearly enough evidence out there to prove it?
"Origin of Species" is a carefully written work. Darwin devoted chapters to problems with and objections to his theory. Of course Darwin was skeptical about his own theory; he was a scientist. However, Creationists routinely mine these particular chapters for quotes which, taken out of context, seem to show that Darwin didn't think much of his own theory.
Your source seems to have gone further than usual in mangling the quotes themselves -
Two seperate paragraphs from Chapter 6 - Difficulties Of The Theory:
Long before the reader has arrived at this part of my work, a crowd of difficulties will have occurred to him. Some of them are so serious that to this day I can hardly reflect on them without being in some degree staggered; but, to the best of my judgment, the greater number are only apparent, and those that are real are not, I think, fatal to the theory...
...It will be more convenient to discuss this question in the chapter on the imperfection of the geological record; and I will here only state that I believe the answer mainly lies in the record being incomparably less perfect than is generally supposed. The crust of the earth is a vast museum; but the natural collections have been imperfectly made, and only at long intervals of time...
And from Chapter 10 - On The Imperfection Of The Geological Record:
In the sixth chapter I enumerated the chief objections which might be justly urged against the views maintained in this volume. Most of them have now been discussed. One, namely, the distinctness of specific forms and their not being blended together by innumerable transitional links, is a very obvious difficulty. I assigned reasons why such links do not commonly occur at the present day under the circumstances apparently most favourable for their presence, namely, on an extensive and continuous area with graduated physical conditions. I endeavoured to show, that the life of each species depends in a more important manner on the presence of other already defined organic forms, than on climate, and, therefore, that the really governing conditions of life do not graduate away quite insensibly like heat or moisture. I endeavoured, also, to show that intermediate varieties, from existing in lesser numbers than the forms which they connect, will generally be beaten out and exterminated during the course of further modification and improvement. The main cause, however, of innumerable intermediate links not now occurring everywhere throughout nature depends, on the very process of natural selection, through which new varieties continually take the places of and supplant their parent-forms. But just in proportion as this process of extermination has acted on an enormous scale, so must the number of intermediate varieties, which have formerly existed, be truly enormous. Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and serious objection which can be urged against my theory. The explanation lies, as I believe, in the extreme imperfection of the geological record.
In the first place, it should always be borne in mind what sort of intermediate forms must, on the theory, have formerly existed. I have found it difficult, when looking at any two species, to avoid picturing to myself forms DIRECTLY intermediate between them. But this is a wholly false view; we should always look for forms intermediate between each species and a common but unknown progenitor; and the progenitor will generally have differed in some respects from all its modified descendants...
Your quotes seem to be have been cobbled together from parts of these sections, with Darwin's answers to his rhetorical questions left out, of course. Why not take time to read "Origin of Species" for yourself? It's a little out of date, of course, but you'd get a much better idea of what Darwin's ideas were than from Creationist falsehoods.
[This message was edited by newnickname on 12-31-03 at 11:18 PM.] ******************************************************** 12-31-03, 11:17 PM newnickname To answer your question. Scientists do not take evolution for granted. There is overwhelming scientific evidence makes the theory of evolution the best explanation we have for the diversity of forms of life on earth. As the best explanation we have, supported by all the evidence we have, the theory of evolution is as scientificly ‘proven’ as any other generally accepted theory – like that of gravity, or electro-magnetism for example.
The theory of evolution would fail if just one fossil were to be found out of the place in time predicted for it by the theory. If just one little trilobite fossil appeared earlier than its descendants, the whole theory would collapse. Of all the fossils ever found, not one has been out of place. Impressive, eh? The fossil record is, in itself, overwhelming evidence for evolution.
Evolution can explain the ‘arrival’ of the fittest. It can’t explain the origin of life, but it can explain how new species arise. Chance variations, caused by imperfections in copying genetic codes arise all the time. Most of these imperfections have neutral or harmful effects. But, every so often, a variation arises which helps survival and reproduction. This variation will inevitably reproduce in greater and greater numbers, over time. The species will change, over time, as this new variation takes over. The process repeats for billions of years... Evolution.
Wallace’s opinion is just an opinion. Another problem with Creationists is that they tend to argue using religious methods. In science, it doesn’t really matter who says something. It’s the substance of what is said that counts. Wallace may have been an excellent chap, but he wasn’t some high priest of evolution, whose word is law for ever. Wallace says that it appears that evolution can’t account for higher brain functions. In the absence of anything further; so what? In Darwin and Wallace's time, before the discovery of DNA, it appeared that evolution couldn’t explain exactly how chance variation arose and just how successful variations weren’t ‘diluted’ out of existence. Now we know.
I’ll get to the rest of your quotes later. It’s New Year’s Eve, and my wife is standing behind me, tapping her toes meaningfully. I think I’m meant to be elsewhere....
12-31-03, 11:26 PM newnickname Ooops... maybe I have a couple more minutes -
Have a look at these lecture notes. They're a bit untidy, but are a good summmary of the theory of evolution, and the evidence for it. Here's the section on evidence:
"1. BIOGEOGRAPHY: Similar organisms tend to be found in the same geographic area. Organisms in geographically restricted areas such as islands or continents are more closely related to each other than to organisms in other restricted areas. The animals of a particular island appear to be more closely related to each other than they are to animals of other islands. The giant tortoises of Baltra are different from those of Fernandina for example. The fishes of North America are more closely related to each other than they are to the fishes of South America, The vegetation of Australia is uniquely Australian and so on. This is what would be expected if organisms arose by gradual change from common ancestors. The organisms in a restricted area would be surrounded by their closest relatives. 2. FOSSIL RECORD. The fossil record shows a profusion of species, 99% of which are extinct. Fossils are arranged in STRATA, with the oldest at lower levels and progressively younger fossils at shallower levels. The record shows changes from simple to complex moving from to older to younger. The record is consistent with evolutionary interpretation of descent of groups of related organisms. For example the record shows fishes first, then amphibians, then reptiles and the birds and mammals. The fossil record shows intermediates between existing groups. For example there are fossils of the forms intermediate between reptiles and mammals. 3. TAXONOMY. Our classification system is based on similarity between organisms and was devised prior to Darwin and by a botanist that did not believe in evolution. Nevertheless, since it is based on similarity, it turns out to be based on evolutionary principle of descent from common ancestry. Organisms with common ancestors are more closely related and are placed closer together in the classification. For example all cats are believed to have descended from a common ancestor and are consequently similar and closely related. They are placed together in the same family. Oak trees all belong to the same genus. 5. COMPARATIVE ANATOMY. Comparative anatomy is the discipline of biology that compares the anatomy of animals to reveal relationships and common ancestry. The science provides one of the most convincing and irrefutable bodies of evidence for common descent of animal groups. The existence of similarities in anatomical structure is taken as evidence of descent from a common ancestor. Organs in different animals that are derived from an organ in a common ancestor are said to be HOMOLOGOUS structures. For example the forelimbs of vertebrates are homologous structures. They were all derived from the front fin of the fish ancestor of the terrestrial vertebrates and consequently all tetrapods forelimbs have a similar anatomical structure in skeleton, musculature, blood vessels, nerves, etc. It is inconceivable that structures so similar in such detail could have arisen independently of each other. They must have arisen by descent from a common ancestor that had limbs of similar structure. 5. COMPARATIVE EMBRYOLOGY. The embryological development of related groups of animals show similarities also that are best explained by descent from a common ancestor. Mammalian embryos for example pass through periods in which they resemble the embryos of fish, then amphibians, then reptiles and only finally come to be mammallike. The embryological history of the individual repeats the evolutionary history if its group. Sometimes states ONTOGENY RECAPITULATES PHYLOGENY. 6. MOLECULAR BIOLOGY The relatively new field of molecular biology has provided abundant new evidence that supports the evidence from traditional fields. The genetic code is the same in all organisms indicating a common ancestry. Evolutionary theory predicts similarity in DNA and amino acid sequences between close relatives. The more distant the relationship, the greater the differences. Exactly this pattern is observed. More closely related organisms have greater similarities in their proteins and the genes that code for the proteins than do more distantly related organisms. For example, the polypeptide associated with cytochrome c is 104 amino acid residues long. In humans and chimps all 104 amino acids are identical. Between humans and rhesus monkeys 103/104 are identical. These three primates belong to the same order but humans and chimps are more closely related. Between humans and dogs there are 13 differences and between humans and rattlesnakes there are 20 differences. Between humans and tuna there are 31 differences. A phylogenetic tree based on this cytochrome c data is consistent with one based on morphological data."
A couple of corrections. I said "If just one little trilobite fossil appeared earlier than its descendants..." I should have said 'later', of course. Woops. Also, thinking about it, I dismissed Wallace's quote a little too lightly.
It's true, evolution does not satisfactorily explain human consciousness. But, then, neither does any other scientific theory. In fatc, we can hardly define 'consciousness' at all. 'Useless' adaptations show up all the time in evolution. Brightly coloured flowers tend to attract more insects, and thus tend to spread more pollen, and thus tend to reproduce more successfully. Bright colours also make them pretty to us - but that's a side effect.
Our large brains have enabled us to take over the planet, but the evolutionary quirk that had our brains gradually grow and grow (as evidenced in the hominid fossil record) may also have led to these side effects - music and art and math. Evolution can't explain consciousness fully, but that's no disproof of evolution.
What other animals show some signs of abstract thought, of what we might recognise as consciousness (such the ability to make up and see through deceptions, or to generalise from scale models of rooms with hidden treats to actual rooms with real treats)? Chimpanzees and gorillas. Could we be closely related, do you think?
The theory of evolution does not explain art, music, souls, the purpose or ultimate origins of life. It doesn't pretend to, any more than the theory gravity fully explains someone's death by falling, for example. It's another common Creationist ploy to set the theory up as trying to explain everything, then pointing out that it can't. It's a scientific theory, based on observable evidence. It doesn't address spiritual imponderables.
01-01-04, 03:43 AM newnickname “The fossil record that we have been looking for in the past [150] years does not exist.”
Niles Eldridge accepts the theory of evolution. However, he also is a proponent of the idea of ‘punctuated equilibrium’, popularised by Stephen Jay Gould. This means that he feels that the fossil record of any particular line of evolutionary descent should show long periods of no change, with short bursts of rapid change (in geological terms that is; we’re still talking about millions of years). Opponents of ‘punk eek’ say that this isn’t such a revolutionary idea; everyone knows that there is stasis. Some species just do not change much over time; because they find their niche and their niche itself doesn’t change, or because that chance improvement simply doesn’t happen.
So Eldridge’s quote simply means that he expects to see a different kind of fossil record; one which still supports the theory of evolution.
This is another sneaky Creationist trick; to use the scientific debate about the details of evolutionary theory ( typically the well-known ‘Gould vs. Dawkins’ wrangle), again taking quotes out of context to twist things to make it look as if scientists are denying the broad theory itself.
(I’m sure, by the way, that you are not guilty of this, but have picked up these quotes from elsewhere.)
01-01-04, 04:18 AM newnickname The origin of birds is largely a matter of deduction. There is no fossil evidence of the stages through which the changes from the reptile to the bird was achieved.
This is wrong. I’m wondering when Mr. Swinton wrote it. The book you cite was published in 1960. However Archaeopteryx had been discovered long before then. Here is a good overview of the fossil evidence for bird-like dinosaurs (or dinosaur-like birds, depending on how you look at them). It’s too long to paste here. Have a read, please.
And here is news of a more recent discovery, from 2000, linking birds and dinosaurs:
"Scientists have long debated the notion that birds are descended from dinosaurs. Researchers at the University of Washington have recently discovered new evidence to support the theory; they found that a particular group of dinosaur had a unique bone structure also found in modern birds."
You should follow the 'DinoBuzz: Are Birds Really Dinosaurs' link at the bottom of that page. There’s a neat list of similarities between bird and coelurosaurian dinosaur skeletons:
1. Pubis (one of the three bones making up the vertebrate pelvis) shifted from an anterior to a more posterior orientation (see Saurischia), and bearing a small distal "boot". 2. Elongated arms and forelimbs and clawed manus (hands). 3. Large orbits (eye openings in the skull). 4. Flexible wrist with a semi-lunate carpal (wrist bone). 5. Hollow, thin-walled bones. 6. 3-fingered opposable grasping manus (hand), 4-toed pes (foot); but supported by 3 main toes. 7. Reduced, posteriorly stiffened tail. 8. Elongated metatarsals (bones of the feet between the ankle and toes). 9. S-shaped curved neck. 10. Erect, digitgrade (ankle held well off the ground) stance with feet postitioned directly below the body. 11. Similar eggshell microstructure. 12. Teeth with a constriction between the root and the crown. 13. Functional basis for wing power stroke present in arms and pectoral girdle (during motion, the arms were swung down and forward, then up and backwards, describing a "figure-eight" when viewed laterally). 14. Expanded pneumatic sinuses in the skull. 15. Five or more vertebrae incorporated into the sacrum (hip). 16. Straplike scapula (shoulder blade). 17. Clavicles (collarbone) fused to form a furcula (wishbone). 18. Hingelike ankle joint, with movement mostly restricted to the fore-aft plane. 19. Secondary bony palate (nostrils open posteriorly in throat). 20. Possibly feathers... this awaits more study. Small, possibly feathered dinosaurs were recently found in China. It appears that many coelurosaurs were cloaked in an external fibrous covering that could be called "protofeathers."
Is Swinton objecting to the theory of evolution’s being based on deduction? That hardly seems likely. Many scientific theories are based on deduction – the phenomena of relativity, geology and other fields can’t all be recreated in lab. experiments. Scientists deduce theories about them from observed evidence.
Maybe Swinton is objecting to the proposition that birds evolved from reptiles, and not dinosaurs. But that would just be a boring argument about terminology.
It’s difficult to know what Swinton was getting at without seeing the context of his quote. But we've seen that Creationists wouldn’t give you that, would they?
01-01-04, 04:27 AM clarebear Originally quoted by Yafa:
What I want to know, is why do so many people take evolution for granted and say that it is a fact when there is not nearly enough evidence out there to prove it?
People look at many things and make up their own minds. I think one major problem that people have with evolution is religion. If we evolved then that would really make us question the bible. Your question can be also related to that with a little word changing. For example: What I want to know, is why do so many people take the bible for granted and say that it is a fact when there is not nearly enough evidence out there to prove it? (please don't answer this, it is just an example and any word can be the replacement like evolution, bible, ghosts, etc...) I'm not trying to turn this into a religion post but you do need to realize that the bible WAS written by people who believed the world was flat. Scientists are always trying to seek what they do not know. People take the information, if it makes sense or applies to their lives then it becomes their truth. They are not wrong and nobody really knows for sure how it all started. Fossils don't lie and dinosaurs were not referenced in the bible. It all is a matter of personal belief and I don't think anyone will ever know the answers. That is why they are called theories. Roll Eyes
01-01-04, 04:41 AM newnickname I still think that to the unprejudiced, the fossil record of plants is in favor of special creation.
This is such a common quote from Creationists that I found a whole page devoted to explaining it...
‘The following statement is commonly quoted by opponents of biological evolution: "Can you imagine how an orchid, a duckweed and a palm tree have come from the same ancestry, and have we any evidence for this assumption?" Eldred Corner, Prof. of Botany, Cambridge University, UK: Evolution in Contemporary Botanical Thought (Chicago: Quadrangle Books, 1961, p.97. Dr. Corner's statement was written before the great explosion of bioscience knowledge in the last four decades of the twentieth century: He was writing before the advent of DNA cloning and genomic sequencing, before the discovery of homeobox genes, and before the theory of punctuated evolution. In short, today we benefit from a wealth of knowledge unavailable when Dr. Corner wrote this statement. A responsible scientist would not write such a statement today. Duckweeds are flowering plants, closely related to the aroid family. Duckweeds are flowering plants (angiosperms). Duckweeds may appear to be very simple plants, but looks can be deceptive. The characteristics of their flowers, including the organization of their ovaries, the presence of double-fertilization, the structure of their seeds and other characteristics show that they are flowering plants. To see much of the evidence, you will need a magnifying glass, or, better, a microscope. Seeds, contain both an embryo and an endosperm. The embryo, the portion from which a new plant will develop, has a single embryo leaf. The single embryo leaf makes duckweeds members of the monocots, along with the lilies, the grasses, and the aroids. Considering the anatomical organization of their flowers and seeds allows botanists to classify duckweeds as close relatives of the arum or aroid family (Araceae). This family also includes many decorative house plants and flowers, such as the Philodendron, the calla lily, and jack-in-the-pulpit. The aroids and the duckweeds (Lemnaceae) together form the Order Arales.
And so on.
Has it occurred to you to ask why Creationists mine texts that are decades old, to find just the odd few sentences to show as an argument against evolution?
It may because they misunderstand science, and feel that whatever is written at any time by any one scientist (the more prestigious the better) is true for all time - and on hearing that, in 1961, Eldred said he couldn't imagine how duckweed evolved, modern biologists would throw up their hands and think, "We've been getting it all wrong!" - but I doubt it.
It's most likely because, having lost all the scientific debates, Creationists have to scratch around for what they can find. I find it deceitful (again, I don't mean you, Yafa, I mean the likes of Kent 'Pants on Fire' Hovind and others - who don't seem to mind repeating things shown over and over to be falsehoods.)
01-01-04, 04:46 AM newnickname Clarebear makes a good point. Actually, nobody should call the theory of evolution a 'fact'. We shouldn't call the latest theory of gravity a 'fact' either, or the theory of relativity. These things are the best explanations we have yet for the phenomena of our observable world. They are all theories; calling them facts is a kind of shorthand.
01-01-04, 05:26 AM newnickname The fossil record does not tell how fish came into existence.
True. The fossil record is incomplete. We do not know exactly how fish first appeared. Fish were, of course the first vertebrates. Here's a page about 'Early Vertebrates' (it's in lecture note form again, sorry):
“ The Phylum Chordata is separated from other animals by three major features:
1. Dorsal nerve tube 2. Notochord 3. Gill slits
All chordates (including humans) possess these features at some stage in their ontogeny (growth and development).
The fossil record does not give us much information about the origin of the chordates. Hypothesis for the origin of vertebrates --
Through comparative embryology, scientists now believe that the chordates arose from a primitive sessile-benthic arm-feeding echinoderm.
Tunicates (Subphylum Urochordata) are small marine invertebrate chordates quite common today; they may hold the key to vertebrate origins.
Tunicates have a sessile adult stage in which they are filter-feeders with gill slits but no notochord or dorsal nerve tube.
Tunicate larvae, though, are free-swimming filter-feeders; they are characterized by a notochord and dorsal nerve tube lost later when they metamorphose into sessile adults.
It is possible that a tunicate-like organism in the Cambrian evolved by way of neoteny into a free-swimming adult chordate.
Neoteny is the evolutionary retention of juvenile features into maturity. In this case, the juvenile features of tunicate-like organisms (notochord, dorsal nerve tube, and swimming ability) may have been evolutionarily retained in the succeeding chordates.
The living lancelet (Amphioxus, in the Subphylum Cephalochordata) is a chordate with a free-swimming adult stage. It is also a filter-feeding bottom-dweller.
We may predict, then, that the first vertebrates (Subphylum Vertebrata) were free-swimming, bottom-dwelling filter-feeders.
Fossil record of the earliest vertebrates -- The earliest confirmed chordate fossil is Cathaymyrus from the Lower Cambrian Chengjiang Fauna in China (a soft-bodied fossil assemblage much like that of the somewhat younger Burgess Shale). The form of Cathaymyrus suggests that it was a cephalochordate, but not a vertebrate. Pikaia of the Burgess Shale is very similar.
The first vertebrate fossils are tiny bits of bone (calcium phosphate) found in the Late Cambrian Deadwood Formation of Wyoming; this is a marine sandstone. They belong to an ostracoderm of the Class Agnatha.
The Class Agnatha is characterized by:
1. No jaws. 2. No paired fins. 3. Simple vertebrae. 4. Primitive brain.
Lamprey eels are modern representatives of the Class Agnatha.
Ostracoderms are the most ancient agnathan fish. They are characterized by:
1. An armored head shield. 2. No joint between the head and the body. 3. A mouth consisting of a series of small plates. 4. A body that is usually flattened dorso-ventrally. 5. Eyes usually on the dorsal part of the head. 6. A cartilaginous internal skeleton.
Ostracoderms appear to have been bottom-dwelling organisms that sucked up organic material from the sediment like vacuum cleaners.
Later ostracoderms became more streamlined and "fishlike".
So we don't know exactly how fish came into existence, and we may never find out. But we do have reasonable ideas about how they might have appeared, and those ideas, and what evidence there is that supports them, agree with the theory of evolution.
Suppose everyone agreed with what Prof. Lunham may have been trying to say? Suppose the scientific world said, 'Damn, we can't fill in the details about the first fishes for sure. Let's scrap the whole evolution thing.'
What would replace this explanation? What other explanation could explain the fossil evidence, the evidence of morphology and geographical distribution? What we're learing about DNA?
I guess there are countless religious myths that explain. But they are a matter of faith. They're neither falsifiable nor objective. That doesn't make them wrong, of course, but it does make them a matter of personal faith and choice, and they're unlikely to help scientific research into medicine in the way that evolutionary theory does.
Again, looking at the original question; people accept the theory of evolution because it's the best scientific explanation we have. It is supported by all the observable evidence we have come across so far; it is refuted by none of it.
Many (most?) people find that their faith and evolutonary theory can work in harmony. Others may feel that their own particualr faith both provides a much better explanation, and excludes evolution. Fair enough - but theirs is never going to be a universal viewpoint.
01-01-04, 06:26 AM DorianGreyed Yafa, what Newnickname says here is the best answer: "...people accept the theory of evolution because it's the best scientific explanation we have. It is supported by all the observable evidence we have come across so far; it is refuted by none of it." It comes down to this - the theory of evolution makes sense.
01-01-04, 04:47 PM newnickname Nobody can explain how evolution operated but we will uphold it even if only as an act of faith.
‘The History of Warfare of Science with Theology’ by A. D. White was published in 1895. 1895! They couldn’t explain exactly how evolution operated then. Since the discovery of DNA, we can do much better. Things have moved on in the last 109 years.
This looks like another twisted out-of-context quote, too. Here’s a paragraph from White’s introduction, giving his true motivation for writing the book:
In all modern history, interference with science in the supposed interest of religion, no matter how conscientious such interference may have been, has resulted in the direst evils both to religion and science, and invariably; and, on the other hand, all untrammeled scientific investigation, no matter how dangerous to religion some of its stages may have seemed for the time to be, has invariably resulted in the highest good both of religion and science.
Good sense is good sense after 109 years, while scientific knowledge, and the ability of science to explain, move on.
I can’t find the quote you cite in this online text. You don’t have a page or chapter reference, do you?
01-01-04, 05:20 PM newnickname The statistical probability that organic structures and the precisely harmonized reactions that typify living organisms would be generated by accident is zero.
Prigogine accepted the idea of evolution. He was interested in how the complex structures first needed for life came about at a larger-than-molecular level. His ideas are often discounted as too theoretical and abstract, however. This internet discussion covers some of what Prigogine was trying to do, and how his words have been misquoted by Creationists.
Note that, in your quote, Prigogine says that the complexity of life could not have arisen by accident. Snowflakes do not arise by accident either. They are formed because of how certain molecules behave. The scientific consensus is that this is also probably how life came about – not ‘by accident’ but because of how organic molecules behave. Prigogine was trying to pin down exactly how. Why organic molecules behave as they do takes us into speculation about why the universe is the way it is, and about the ultimate origins of existence and life. As one of the protagonists in the debate linked to says, “Evolution is defined quite well, extrapolating it to evolution of the universe, origin of life, origin of the universe is inappropiate and confusing.”
We have here another out-of-context quote from a scientist who accepted the theory of evolution, and who did some work (the usefulness of which is debated) on how complex structures first arose. We have little evidence of the very first organic molecules – they have left no trace of course. If you feel that the first molecules were put together divinely, fair enough. There are scientific hypotheses about how it happened too, but it’s all guesswork, and not entirely relevant to the theory of evolution, which is about the origin of species, not life itself.
I guess that if you were able to take any of these quotes back to the people who wrote them (or even if the Creationists who supplied the quotes had given just a minimal amount of context – just enough to be straight about it) you would see that they are isolated sentences from huge bodies of work that support, discuss, and quibble about the details of, evolution.
It’s as if you read all the stuff I’ve written here and, if still awake, went and reported to someone, Newnickname says, “Nobody should call the theory of evolution a 'fact'”.
Misleading, eh?
01-01-04, 05:23 PM newnickname I can't find any reference to the Bateson quote on the Internet. Do you know when he said it? 1860? 1960? Do you know which college exactly? 'Manchester College' is a little vague.
01-01-04, 05:43 PM newnickname The evolutionary theory is itself one of the strangest phenomena of humanity. That in our time, a system destitute of any shadow of proof, supported only by vague analysis or figures of speech should be accepted, is surprisingly strange.
For your final quote, we’re back to “HISTORY OF WARFARE OF SCIENCE WITH THEOLOGY IN CHRISTENDOM”, of 1895. White recounts a brief history of attacks on Darwinism in Chapter Two. (Again, I can’t find your particular quote. Do you have a page reference? Some idea where it shows up in the book?) White sums up:
“All opposition had availed nothing; Darwin's work and fame were secure. As men looked back over his beautiful life--simple, honest, tolerant, kindly--and thought upon his great labours in the search for truth, all the attacks faded into nothingness.”
01-01-04, 11:26 PM newnickname Aha! I found the Bateson quote, but attributed to William Bateson of Cambridge, Yale, and the John Innes Horticultural Institution. His dates are 1861 – 1926. Notice how this Creationist website doesn't mention that the quote dates from the nineteenth century.
In the 1890’s, Bateson opposed Darwinism. After coming across Mendel’s theories in 1900, he changed his mind. Mendel provided a missing part of Darwin’s theory. This web page suggests that Bateson coined the term ‘genetics’.
01-02-04, 01:23 AM stampeding turtles Newnickname has some very good points. To not accept the theory of evolution in spite of all the observable scientific facts, would be an act of absurdity. A denial of what is actually known.... if one is presented with all the information and has the time to study it, for instance in obtaining a biology degree. Most people that I have met that don't believe in evolution have not been formally educated in science or the scientific method, or are simply uninformed of the data. They often get their information from not terribly reliable sources (like their parents, peers, or spiritual leaders, or other sources that don't have the qualifications to comment on it)... so you have to consider the source and raise an eyebrow.
In medical science, evolution is simply a well known fact. Bacterial evolution that adapts to antibiotics over time- rendering them ineffective- is well known. The link between the sickle cell anemia mutation in malaria stricken regions of Africa is also well known. We also have fossils of early humans that can't be explained other ways. The fact that unusual species exist on islands that were seperated from the mainland where species evolved in a different milieu explains many attributes of behavior- for instance, why some birds lost the power of flight when certain predators don't exist (like some birds in New Zealand)... the examples are myriad.
No, this question has already been dealt with now for decades and we don't really need to reinvent the wheel. The question now is not if evolution exists, but exactly how it works in all of its complexity. The fact is that Darwin and others gobsmacked religon for all time (especially in some of the more outlandish creationist claims in that the world is just a few thousand years old), and its been reeling ever since, trying to recover from the blow to its integrity and reliabilty when talking about the physical world. Religion should probably have learned its lesson by now (since the Renaissance, and its confrontation with Galileo and others), by just sticking to the spiritual realm.
01-02-04, 08:46 PM newnickname Some more dates; Hugo De Vries 1848-1935 – most of his important work was published before 1910. Long before the discovery of DNA, and the part it plays in 'the arrival of the fittest'.
01-04-04, 09:33 PM methos The others have all offered very good analyses and details, but I've got a shorter (though incomplete) answer.
1) Most of he quotes are outdated. - No one knew what DNA was in Darwin's time. - The fossil record is much more complete than it was then, and it is now realized just what an extraordinary set of circumstances has to happen for a large animal's bones to be preserved, much less small animal, a soft animal, or a plant. - The current theory of evolution, though it bears some relation to Darwin's, is actually significantly different.
2) As newnickname pointed out, many of those quotes are taken out of context.
3) Nothing has contradicted the theory and plenty has supported it, other theories of how we got here cannot say the same.
This message has been edited. Last edited by: DorianGreyed,
