“The Education Ministry’s chief scientist, Dr. Gavriel Avital, was dismissed on Monday following a scandal-filled trial period of less than a year.
Sources familiar with the affair said Avital was fired over past statements he had made, in which he questioned evolution and the global warming theory.
Avital, who was named chief scientist in December 2009, said Darwinism should be analyzed critically along with biblical creationism.
“If textbooks state explicitly that human beings’ origins are to be found with monkeys, I would want students to pursue and grapple with other opinions. There are many people who don’t believe the evolutionary account is correct,” he said.
“There are those for whom evolution is a religion and are unwilling to hear about anything else. Part of my responsibility, in light of my position with the Education Ministry, is to examine textbooks and curricula,”
Avital added, “If they keep writing in textbooks that the Earth is growing warmer because of carbon dioxide emissions, I’ll insist that isn’t the case.”"
Read more at Y Net News
There is no REASON to hear about pseudoscience, creationism and religion in the classes
Well, to be fair to the man, questioning scientific theory should never be a firing offence in any scientific establishment. That’s how science improves, after all.
Equating evolution with creationism, on the other hand…
I wonder if he’d question that the temperature of the areas around the icecaps are increasing due to increased CO2 emissions? I think we need to abolish the term Global Warming and replace it with Polar Warming – who cares about the average temperature of the earth when the polar icecaps melt and the salinity of the oceans drops, that’s what’s going to cause the problems…
It probably should be noted that this appears to be the Isreali chief scientist as it was not clear to me from the above post or the original link.
so he was fired because of what he believed in?
An important part of science is questioning theory in light of new evidence, and a scientific theory could never truly be accepted and as the name suggests, it only a theory. Children should be taught to question things or else new theories or else revolutionary thinkers, like Darwin himself, will never come about.
Rachel: In the same sense that a vegetarian in a butcher shop may be fired ‘for what he believes in’ if all he wants to sell is soy products, yes…
If a scientist in a prominent position who believed the earth was flat was fired for questioning whether the world was round, would you object? No, because it’s obvious that he is an idiot and firing him is the best way to stop him spreading nonsense. But, because evolution vs. creationism isn’t as easy to visualise as round* earth vs. flat earth, people can be duped into thinking that creationism has some viability. It does not. It is as ridiculous as believing the earth is flat. Don’t get fooled and allow yourself to be duped into thinking that the 2 theories deserve equal time, which is what the creationism lobby is attempting to do.
*Yes, I know the earth isn’t exactly round.
“There is no REASON to hear about pseudoscience, creationism and religion in the classes” what are you talking about? So you’d prefer children to be ignorant of such things? sounds a little bit like the religious fundamentalist you seem to hate.
Keef: the world being geoid in shape is an objective fact. Evolution is still only a theory, it is not yet a proven law of nature, irrespective of how many people may want it to be. The clue is in it’s name: “theory”. Truly science has become like a religion with scientists the high priests promoting their dogmas and punishing dissenters.
Sure, questioning is an important part of science. But it’s funny how these people never seem to question the theories that have no political or religious implications. I bet Dr Avital has no problem with the textbooks on electromagnetism or relativity.
Creationism has no place in the science classroom, not because it isn’t true but because it isn’t science. “God did it” does not constitute a scientific theory.
This reminds me of the ch4 doc ‘the root of all evil?’ Really interesting if not a little one sided.
I think it was a bad idea, questioning current systems in science and mixing with religeon or philosophy seems to evolve what we already know. If we show ignorance in believing we already have it right even if we’re very confident we do, it still closes off possibilities, and in analysing both beliefs of creationism and evolution we might find new information… Personally I believe neither, what you’re saying by believing in evolution is that we are an accident, I think that’s quite a dull perspective to have on life. I go by a quantum perspective, that we created ourselves…
Evolution and global warming should be analysed as critically as any other theory. That is how scientific development occurs. They are theories after all. Taking something as truth without wanting proof is just religion.
Berber anna: a better analogy would be a PERSON in a butcher shop saying “don’t just buy meat, remember your veg for a balanced diet.” Or similar…
Keef: seriously…? Read his words again. He said both should be scrutinised equally. I interpret that as “question theories that people think are truth”. If you give a textbook to children saying this is true and that is true without alternatives or saying something like “this is the most likely theory” then you may as well give them the bible. Creative thought and questioning go hand in hand.
Keef, your statement is not on par with the article. The article says that the man suggested that the theory of evolution should be analysed critically. This isn’t a man saying the theory is wrong, but that it should be studied and thought about, and to if there is a gaping giant flaw in it. If Theories are not analysed and studied they will never develop.
To pull your statement apart. There was a time when the world was considered flat and this was enforced with the penalty of death, if people had not continued to study and question it, we never would have (formally) recognised that it is “round”.
I do agree that creationism isn’t due the same amount of time, and evolution is a given..simply remember that while gallantly trying to eradicate religion, science was built on questioning.
I’ll be honest, I kind of agree with him, although questioning climate change is not the same as questioning evolution because a deliberately contrarian view on global warming is liable to get us all killed.
Oliver: I wouldn’t consider biblical creationism ‘part of a balanced diet’, so to speak. Evolution is a scientific theory (yes, theory, in the same sense that gravity is a theory for why our feet usually remain on the floor), while biblical creationism is a story from a book of ancient mythology. That’s more like a butchershop assistant telling you not to forget your candy as part of a balanced diet.
And if we’re going to include mythology in science classes, why just the judeo-christian variant? Let’s compare evolution to the Asatru tale of creation, and the Greek one, and the Hindu version, and so on and so forth ad nauseam. There won’t be much time for observable fact anymore, but at least we’ll have balance!
A lot of commentors have missed the point.
Of course science is based on questioning. But it gets to a point where if you want to continually ‘question’ something or imply it is false (as creationists have been doing for decades and decades), you might be asked to provide some evidence.
Since no evidence has ever been found which challenges the core mechanism of evolution theory (and thousands of pieces of evidence exist which support it) I think it’s reasonable to take a side.
Dear every member “It’s just a theory not a proven law of nature” crew,
A scientific theory is our current best understanding of what’s out there.
That germs cause disease is not a proven law of nature either. It’s “just a theory”, Germ Theory.
The thing is, some theories are backed up by such a huge amount of data, where everything found backs up the idea, that you can say “Evolution is true”. Scientists will always question things, and, they could even tell what would need to be found to disprove evolution, but, evolution is, for all intents and purposes a fact. Like germs causing disease. Or humans, being apes, and sharing a common ancestor with monkeys.
@Gareth That’s where you are wrong in science a theory is stronger than a law. The word is used differently, in science a theory is strongly supported by evidence. To supplement this we use laws to describe things and theories to explain it.
It does not mean that it is only a “theory” as the common word would suggest and a scientific theory NEVER becomes a law.
“Keef: the world being geoid in shape is an objective fact. Evolution is still only a theory, it is not yet a proven law of nature, irrespective of how many people may want it to be. The clue is in it’s name: “theory”. Truly science has become like a religion with scientists the high priests promoting their dogmas and punishing dissenters.”
The very fact that you can write such drivel shows you have no place in this argument. Look up the definition of a scientific theory. A law is NOT a proven theory. A theory cannot be upgraded, a theory is a framework that encompasses all data, including laws, facts etc.
If you’re going to take part in a debate at least make yourself familiar with the basic terminology. A scientific theory is manifestly not conjecture.
Apparently he was fired for being a douchebag as well. So don’t put too much on the whacko Republican mindset he’s picked up on.
I am interested in the use of the word theory in relation to evolution. I am currently reading Richard Dawkins book,’the greatest show on earth’ Early in the book, he discusses the word theory. I won’t try to explain here, as he does it far better than I can, but in essence, there are 2 different definitions of the word ‘theory,’ in the OED, one of which gives a lot of leeway to the creationists, but the other is more definitive, and suits the more critically minded amongst us. Worth looking up!
“Avital, who was named chief scientist in December 2009, said Darwinism should be analyzed critically along with biblical creationism.”
To be fired for this is a disgrace, and those who made this decision should be ashamed of themselves.
Evolution theory as has already been pointed out, is a theory, and the singular most important pillar it stands on is that the genome can increase in information; that they can evolve!
Nowhere is there a single example – in all of the animal kingdom – of the genome increasing in information, and even Richard Dawkins admits to this.
Does this ‘prove’ creation theory?
Of course not, nothing can, but it does demonstrate that belief in evolution (as opposed to adaption or ‘survival of the fittest’) is in itself a faith.
James: I don’t appreciate your argumentum ad hominem comments which you directed towards me. I have as much right to take part in this debate as you do. You may disagree with what I wrote but please have some common decency when you address my points. I do not intend to engage further with someone so mal-elevé as you.
“so he was fired because of what he believed in?”
No he was justifiably fired from incompetence. The minister that hired him, if he knew his beliefs deserves to be fired for his selection
It seems a half of you need to bone up on what a “Theory” man in science. It is very different from a hypothesis. The other half have it right.
Evolution is still only a theory, it is not yet a proven law of nature, irrespective of how many people may want it to be. The clue is in it’s name: “theory”.
May I suggest you read this carefully?
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-fact.html
You might find it helpful.
No no no no no!!
Evolution is NOT just a theory!
It’s a simple truth, which Darwin worked out WITHOUT EXPERIMENTATION, just by THINKING.
It’s not something you can deny, it’s axiomatic: http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/eng/susan_blackmore_on_memes_and_temes.html
As long as you have mutation, and selection, and inheritance, you. have. evolution. full stop.
thank you.
@Oracle
Adaptation and Natural Selection are both processes which the Theory of Evolution centres around, they are in essence “Laws” in regards to Evolution, in the same way that an object falling towards the centre of the earth is a fact described by Newton’s law of universal gravitation.
They are all processes which we have evidence for, and it comes back again to the fact that a Law is used to describe a process which happens. The theory then attempts to explain why that fact happens and how it affects the world around us.
The Theory of Evolution is purely an explanation of how the combined effect of Adaptation, Genetic drift, Gene flow, Mutation, Natural selection and Speciation affect life on Earth, you can not disprove it as it purely explains fact’s we have observed.
I fully agree that Evolution should be queried as should all scientific theories. If a new hypothesis is presented that better fits the evidence, then that should be investigated with experiments and predictions and the old theory replaced with the new.
BUT, that does not mean that we should allow any old twaddle to be debated on par with established theories, simply to provide an ‘alternate view’. The creationists are using our sense of fair play against us.
Gareth, my apologies if I appear abrupt, but I take issue with anyone expressing an opinion when not in possession of even the vaguest notion of terms involved. It’s a classic case of Dunning-Kruger.
You presumed to lecture us on the validity of a “theory”, implying it to be less than a fact. I presume that you have now corrected this gap in your knowledge and won’t make this mistake again.
@Oracle. Since I am perfectly capable of giving you examples of information increasing in the genome (polyploidy, google it), I suggest you need to read Dawkins more accurately. I also propose you learn the difference between Shannon and Kolmogorov information, since the distinction is vital to understanding information loss or gain in the genome.
Gareth,
I don’t think James’s comments were strictly ad hom. It was more dismissive contempt. There is a difference.
“Nowhere is there a single example – in all of the animal kingdom – of the genome increasing in information”
you are quite wrong about this. Gene duplication is one way. You should really stop reading Answers in Genesis
http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/creation/new_info.html
I’m agree with Chris’ most recent statement.
Mutation + selection + inheritance => evolution
We’ve shown beyond all reasonable doubt that these three things exist, and even understand the mechanisms behind them. Given what we know about genetics, evolution can be thought of as an almost trivial corollary. (note: using “trivial” in the mathematical sense.)
Sorry Chris, but simply having a strong belief in something and insisting it is true does not make it so.
It is a recognised response for anyone whose beliefs are challenged, to dismiss any dissenting view as uninformed, but I’m afraid there is not one single example of evolution anywhere on the planet when logic suggests that virtually every living organism should be.
If your argument is that there are only two ‘options’ – those being the God sat on a fluffy cloud, and evolution – and that there is obviously no God so evolution ‘must’ be the explanation, then that is a flawed argument indeed.
Forget the alternatives to evolution – judge it on it’s own merits.
Natural selection exists, but natural selection de-selects any mutations and mutations do not increase information, full stop.
I admit I haven’t read all the comments, so apologies if this has already been stated. But from my understanding, this guy was saying he wanted to keep questioning the theory of evolution. That is definitely not the same as saying he agrees with creationist theory. There could be another possible answer. And before I get shot down in flames from someone on here – please bear in mind this is how all science works. You have a theory, based on a set of assumptions from the best information you have at the time. When new information comes to light – or something that cannot be explained by existing theories – the basic set of assumptions changes – it has to. This is called progression. He wants kids to be taught to question what they are told, so they can think for themselves.
Can I just be the one to point out please, Creationist theories ARE taught in schools, in Religious Studies where they belong. I studied Religious Studies and Higher Science in high school last year (alongside other subjects too of course) and they both reference each other frequently. So where is the need to force creationism into science textbooks? I highly doubt that this was the only reason he was dismissed.
Teach religion and all that goes with it as a history lesson in schools.
If a child then chooses to worship Ra, Zeus, Herne, Ganesh or Thor etc etc etc fine but if a child’s parents refuse to acknowledge the existence of these other religious beliefs; refuting all others in favour of forcing their own chosen and rigidly enforced delusion on a child, not fine, not fine at all!
Oracle, how about industrial melanism in the peppered moth? The melanic morph is a mutation, and when the industrial revolution darkened trees, natural selection meant that one took over (until trees lightened again). I’d call that evolution (i.e. gradual change) through natural selection.
Or how about antibiotic resistance in bacteria? Or the new versions of influenza? Those are mutations, and they definitely aren’t being selected against, as they succesfully infect more and more humans.
I’m fine with questioning evolution as the way in which species come to exist, but it seems by far the most likely explanation of the facts. What’s your alternate explanation, if not the mythological one?
James: thank you for reply. I admit that I have misunderstood the use of the word ‘theory’ in a scientific sense. I am a bit shocked by my own ignorance to be honest. I am now reading up on the subject.
Oracle said: “Natural selection exists, but natural selection de-selects any mutations and mutations do not increase information, full stop.”
Surely the point on mutations is incorrect. Any mutation increases the available variation in a population which can then be selected.
For example if we had a population of: aog eog iog
and our environment is “I am taking my *** for a walk”
then any mutation to the first letter of these three words that changes the letter to “d” has surely increased the information of the sentance, no?
It’s National Poetry Day, so time for this that I wrote ages ago:
And yet it does move
Galileo did not say
But it makes my point
Three observations
And the two deductions
Darwin’s Magnum Opus
For he observed that
Species over reproduce
Observation one
Despite this he saw
Population stays stable
Observation two
Therefore there is a
Survival competition
His first deduction
Last observation
Individuals unique
Each is different
Those differences
They influence survival
The best are passed on
Evidence profound
ATP universal
DNA in all
Fossils abundant
Tiktaalik “transitional”
Tetrapod almost
And so you can see
Noodly appendage absent
Heresy, I know
@Gareth: Gravity is still only a theory, it is not yet a proven law of nature, irrespective of how many people may want it to be. The clue is in it’s name: “theory of gravity”. Therefore, go jump off a roof.
Should add the above was in reply to:
Forget Darwin Day:
Evolution’s disproved by
Spaghetti Monster!
(A friend and I communicate via haiku).
@Berber Anna “How about industrial melanism in the peppered moth? ….Or how about antibiotic resistance in bacteria? Or the new versions of influenza? Those are mutations, and they definitely aren’t being selected against….” These are all fine examples of micro evolution but not of macro-evolution that could cause speciation. The theory of evolution is a patchwork with lots of holes in it.
Firing someone for raising an opinion like this is worse than the Spanish inquisition. If he was fired for doing a bad job, different story. At what point did it become a virtual crime again to question someone else’s theory or opinion? I always believed that scientific progress came by asking the right questions and engaging in dialogue.
Oops, I just said the “b” word. Let me call my lawyer quickly
B word? Okay, now I’m confused.
He wasn’t just criticising evolution. I don’t think they’d have fired him for that if he was comparing it to other scientific theories (although the only other purely scientific theories I know of are pre-Darwin, such as Lamarck, and don’t make a whole lot of sense). He was putting the theory of evolution on par with mythological creationism. Mythology isn’t science, and doesn’t belong in a science curriculum. He was fired for bringing non-scientific beliefs into the science classroom.
“For example if we had a population of: aog eog iog and our environment is “I am taking my *** for a walk”
then any mutation to the first letter of these three words that changes the letter to “d” has surely increased the information of the sentence, no?”
paulend I am no expert, but I think you are wrong here. The amount of information is the same in each case, it is just different information which is more adaptable. It maybe hard to get from a bacteria to human this way.
However if in our population aog eog iog, there is duplication and you get aog aog eog iog, now you have significantly increased information even it is not more adapable. But with mutation it can be down the road.
@Big Dave
Hope you don’t mind, added your poem to my blog
http://furtherthoughtsfortheday.blogspot.com/2010/10/national-poetry-day.html
Sailor – the assumption you jump to that my criticism of evolution theory MUST be because I’m a creationist is incorrect, but it’s a predictable response.
Also, so far as I know bacteria are bacteria, not animals, rendering the example you link to mute.
James – bearing in mind that Dawkins doesn’t know of any living example in the animal kingdom of the genome increasing in information, perhaps Dawkins should read his own book more closely, or perhaps you can give him a call?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GxG4Kji-u28
I selected this version as it’s fairer and includes his explanation of why he can’t answer; doesn’t alter the fact his answer should have been a simple ‘no’ however. :0)
Dismiss views which contradict your own if you have to James, but it doesn’t do you any favours.
@ BobBuilder,
Scientific progress, is that like breaking a piece of spaghetti in two results in more pieces than expected or watching a volcano erupting, is hardly to me any progressing science. Merely to me a waste of time, money and resources. I would love to see any scientist stand up to stop a fully angry erupting volcano in the name of science. Hence we love to pay a lot of attention to it and view it from all angles and do Ooohh and Aahhhh.
Science has become like naval gazing, the more you look into your naval, the more chance you have and will think you will fall deep into the dark hole with the fear of not reaching the bottom very soon.
I also notice that more and more people in that area are keeping themselves busy as being a quango instead of being a real world changer.
@EroThraX “The Theory of Evolution is purely an explanation of how the combined effect of Adaptation, Genetic drift, Gene flow, Mutation, Natural selection and Speciation affect life on Earth, you can not disprove it as it purely explains fact’s we have observed.”
We have observed evolution?
This is a World First! :0)
Adaption is proved and is an obvious fact, as is natural selection, which is probably why evolutionists use these to ‘prove’ evolution, which is ridiculous.
It has been proved possible to take wild dogs, and after yeasr of selective breeding produce Great Danes and also Chihuahuas…..but they are still dogs.
With even ten thousand years of controlled, intensive selective breeding, you would never create something that could breed with a cat, yet this happened naturally?
I can’t help but become annoyed when I read ignorant whinings about evolution on internet forums.
Get a PHD in evolutionary biology (or something related), then go and deliver your flawless arguments to a room of scientists and collect your Nobel Prize for overhauling one of the most accepted scientific theories in the world. Or is the ‘book learning’ part where you become brain-washed into believing the obvious global conspiracy? Yeah, best stick to rebutted 15-year-old YouTube clips and then claim your win on Derren Brown’s blog (don’t get me wrong, I love the site).
Pah.
To clarify, the “b” word is “belief”.
Why is belief in a creator so absurd if one can back it up with real science? If you take some time – before picking up stones – to look into what the “theory of creation” broadly postulates you may be surprised to find (i) a reasonable and rational explanation for the origins of the universe that does not conflict, but agrees with, observable data & laws (ii) a better explanation for the fine tuning of the universal constants than what Stephen Hawkings has developed and I quote: “Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing”. Really?
Unfortunately most of us have been exposed to childish renderings of the creation account, often promoted by the ignorant. I hope you will be able to look beyond that
@ Oracle
Your link to the Richard Dawkins “interview” gives away your daft creationist thinking.
The pause in his answer was because he realised that he’d just been duped into allowing idiots an interview when he had already publicy stated that he would never debate creationists.
You’ll find a full description of what really happened here:
http://www.skeptics.com.au/publications/articles/the-information-challenge/
It seems a few people on here don’t know what a scientific theory means.
@ KJ
Science produced the thing you typed your stupid message on.
Oracle, I said you were wrong. You obviously did not follow up on the link I gave, so here is another one, this is gene duplication in dogs. In this case it is only adaptive because people want pets they can run after and catch. But adaptation and information are two different things as I made clear in my post to Paulend. By any scientific definition of genetic information, duplicating a gene gives more information, because you now have a new gene. This is added information that through mutation that may or may not later prove adaptive Once you have a larger genome you have more information. It is really that simple.
http://scienceblogs.com/notrocketscience/2009/07/the_copied_gene_that_gave_dachshunds_and_corgis_their_short.php
Sailor, once again your link does not demonstrate what you think it does, and in fact I could say that Down Syndrome is a similar example but both examples are retrograde, backward steps which create inferior subjects; a demonstration of evolution?
Kevin – Iinked to one question and the answer which Dawkins gave in full, and I’m aware of the context of the ‘interview’, but the way you put your thoughts into Dawkins head is presumptuous and silly, as is your assumption of my ‘obvious’ creationist leanings. Dawkins explained why there was no evidence quite eloquently, he didn’t say there was but he didn’t wish to debate creationsism so don’t put your thoughts into his head.
Rob – if anyone criticising evolution theory is ‘whining’ it says more about yourself than the critic.
Peace & love!
@Oracle
You can not observe a theory, A THEORY IS AN EXPLANATION, it is NOT a guess as to what happens.
We can observe LAWS, MECHANISMS or PROCESSES in action such as Newton’s Law of Universal Gravitation, Adaption or Natural Selection etc because these are DESCRIPTIONS of something which we know happens.
Law complements theory, theory explains the reason the result of a law occurs
Adaptation and Natural Selection are not theories, Scientists witnessed processes happening and named them as such and then from this built theories to explain why those processes occur. They are both evolutionary processes which the Theory of Evolution explains.
You are obviously ignorant to the world of science as you have no understanding of the words explanation and description, let alone theory and law
Oracle, nature has never produced a new species that can interbreed with a species hailing from an entirely different family (dogs being canids and cats felines). The closest you’ll get to that is interbreeding of various felines or various branches of other families, so I’m not sure where your dogs-can’t-breed-with-cats example came from… Give dogs a few more millennia, though, and they may fully speciate away from wolves, and become unable to produce fertile offspring with them in most pairings.
BobBuilder, if we suppose a creator, then what created the creator? And what created the thing that created the creator? Questions like that make the whole idea of creation seem implausible to me. Although maybe these questions do just demonstrate my ignorance in this field.
ha that’s pretty laughable. Those that sacked said Scientist should be stood in front of an audience and laughed at. hehe.
“Sailor, once again your link does not demonstrate what you think it does, and in fact I could say that Down Syndrome is a similar example but both examples are retrograde, backward steps which create inferior subjects; a demonstration of evolution?”
Oracle I think you have adaptive information and information confused. Any increase in the length of a gene sequence is an increase in information, adaptive or not. It becomes adaptive if at some point there is mutation that is beneficial.
Here is a post about your confusion by a biologist who really understands the issues:
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/10/luskin_on_gene_duplication.php
If you can convince him you are right and he is wrong I will forever yield to your greater wisdom!
@EroThraX
“You can not observe a theory”
Er…I never said you could.
So Adaption and Natural Selection have been claimed to be exclusively evolutionary processes?
Funny as even most creationists I’ve argued against recognise these perfectly acceptable, inarguable processes.
I suggest you read a decent text book on psychology as your “you are obviously ignorant…” counter-argument to someone who disagrees with you is text book, but you’re not alone here. :0)
For the record, I argue against rabid creationists who make ridiculous claims about proof that evolution is false.
There is evidence to support evolution but far too many holes to convince me, with more holes appearing over time rather than holes being plugged, yet anyone trying to be objective is labelled a creationist; oh dear.
@Oracle
Since I explicitly stated for you that there are two types of information from information theory (Kolmogorov and Shannon), one of which concerns information storage (such as in a genome), another of which concerns information transmission (DNA replication), could you please explain which of these two you refer to.
Shannon information must always decrease, since it is a measure of the accuracy of transmission (ie, how much of the original data is maintained). Say I transmit AAAAA and AAAAB arrives, shannon information decreased. However, Kolmogorov information increased, since AAAAA can be expressed more easily than can AAAAB.
In light of this, your suggestion that information in the genome always decreases is shown to be entirely false.
@Berber. The dogs/cats wasn’t to be taken literally, and regarding “what created the creator? And what created the thing that created the creator?.
Similar argument to “what created the big bang, and what created the thing which created the big bang”.
All science can demonstrate is that there probably was a bang 13.7 billion years ago.
At some stage there must have been ‘nothingness’, and then there wasn’t, so what changed, and what changed it?
At the end of the day, evolution cannot be proved, neither can creation despite both sides claiming otherwise.
Evidence supporting evolution is not proof, same for creation, yet both sides are pretty rabid and insist that they ‘know’ their belief is correct.
Both are as bad as each other, in that they cannot accept they don’t really know.
Cont.
I even gave you a specific example, polyploidy, which is an example of duplication in the genome. You could argue, and I might even agree, that a straight duplication is not, per se, an increase in information (stored), but a single mutation anywhere in the new section (or indeed the old section that is not replicated) is without doubt new information.
Now, polyploidy is hardly a rare phenomenon. Drosophila (a species which Sarah Palin revealed her ignorance about in her electoral campaign), is one of the most widely studied species, and we can observe instances of polyploidy simply by observing this one genus. (Drosophila == fruit flies for anyone interested)
@Oracle
Care to respond to my actual point? Pretend I didn’t use the highly offensive word ‘whining’.
Most of the arguments that have been levelled here against evolution as a theory that fits all the available facts and which provides a convincing explanation of the origin of species can be refuted with a few minutes’ research.
1) Growth of information in the genome
This has frequently been cited in these comments as a problem for the theory of evolution; one that even Richard Dawkins cannot answer.
The only problem is that there are numerous methods by which information can be and has increased in the genome. For example:
a) Gene replication. A gene is erroneously copied and left as a whole extra copy in the genome. Mutations such as this are often not selected against as they have no deleterious effect on the organism, allowing them to propagate in a species.
Should such a gene mutate this is also unlikely to be deleterious to the organism due tot he existence of a ‘spare’ copy of the gene. However, should a beneficial mutation occur to this gene it will tend to increase in a population of the organism over time, leading to evolutionary change. This is exactly how the haemoglobin genes appear to have developed.
b) Horizontal transfer
Now thought to have a much more significant role, particularly in early evolution, than originally thought, horizontal transfer of genes is a process by which microorganisms directly share portions of their genetic code in the form of plasmid DNA, which becomes incorporated entire into the recipient organism.
c) Retroviral DNA
Retroviruses utilise the cell’s own genetic machinery to create copies of their genetic material. They do this by literally splicing their own genetic information into the cell’s DNA. This increases the genome of the cell by the genome of the organism. In some cases this can become a permanent change in the organism’s DNA that can be transmitted forward to subsequent generations.
As proof of this (and of our genetic ties to them), chimpanzees are found to have DNA relating to a known retrovirus at a point in their genome that exactly matches the same retroviral DNA in our own genome. This is evidence that the retrovirus infected the common ancestor of chimpanzees and humans.
2) Micro versus Macro Evolution
This is a false dichotomy. People who expect to see clear examples of speciation in our lifetimes don’t really grasp the amount of time over which ‘macro-evolution’ has occurred.
‘Species’ are human labels applied to organisms that meet a specific series of criteria. In general, two organisms are considered to be of the same species if they are capable of interbreeding to create fertile offspring.
In modern times molecular biology is also used to divide organisms into species, using the genetic similarity of one animal to another as an indicator of relatedness.
In history there was no point at which a ‘not-chicken’ laid an egg and gave birth to a ‘chicken’. Every chicken-ancestor could have mated with its parent or its offspring and it would have resulted in fertile progeny. It is only if you took a modern chicken and its ancestor from hundreds of thousands of years ago that you would find yourself unable to mate them and get fertile offspring.
We see examples of this around us today. Donkeys and horses are kind of similar but with notable differences. If you breed them together you get a Mule or a Hinny. All male mules and most female mules are infertile, thus horses and donkeys are considered to be different species.
However, it isn’t that long ago that donkeys and mules diverged from their common ancestor.
Given a few thousand more years of natural selection, horses and donkeys might become different enough that they can’t even interbreed, though human breeding programs that limit genetic diversity and apply ‘artificial’ selection pressures change the picture considerably.
Other examples:
* All dogs are the same species, but without human intervention a Great Dane and a Chihuahua are effectively different species. They can’t interbreed without help, and if the Great Dane was the father I’m unsure that the Chihuahua could carry the puppies to term.
* There is a valley in America where a single species of beetle lives at different ends, but has a different song in the south to the north. They won’t interbreed with singers of the wrong song. They are effectively speciated.
Oracle, if it wasn’t to be taken literally, what was it signifying metaphorically?
The question isn’t ‘what created the Big Bang’, but ‘if there was a Big Bang, what came before that?’. There’s several theories for that. One of them is that there’s always been a universe, it just retracts into an infinitisimally small and incredibly dense state, then expands again. Another is that the universe as we know it isn’t all there is, but that it is part of a larger whole and is a result of processes in that ‘other’ whole.
And then there’s the problem of discussing a ‘before’ that takes place outside of time as we know it. We’re so used to ‘before’ and ‘after’, to temporality, that we can’t imagine a non-temporal event, which may actually be the simple answer to those questions.
What a wonderful and fascinating debate for a Friday morning!
I do love this blog.
No trolling and no swear words. Lots of passionate, informed opinion.
Well done guys. The MSN message boards make me feel sick. You guys give me hope.
For the record, I bow to the collective wisdom and accumulated evidence of the evolutionary theorists. There is no contest between a mythological explanation and a scientific theory.
I do not accept at all that the scientific community has closed the book and pronounced itself completely satisfied that it understands all there is to know about evolution. The scientific process is one of continual re-evaluation. There will always be dark corners of misunderstanding in the harsh light of the truth.
That is what debate is for.
The argument that scientists are like High Priests extolling the virtues of their faith viewpoint is patently nonsense, although as an analogy it does highlight the dangers of thinking that one knows everything.
That is the point about science, isn’t it? It is all about evidence. Opinion is secondary and faith is irrelevant. Evidence is everything. A lot of people much cleverer than me have discussed this evidence. They have created a set of laws encapsulated in a theory. The theory stands up – it predicts what we see happening, and describes what has happened.
There is a massive difference between preaching and teaching. I do not send my children to school to be indoctrinated. I expect them to be taught according to our best understanding at the present time.
Science moves on – it grows and adjusts in the light of new evidence.
Religion stagnates – it then adjusts the evidence in increasingly spurious ways to back itself up.
One seeks truth.
One pronounces itself to be the whole truth, complete and unassailable.
As a seeker of truth, I am interested in the vast possibilities of the universe, including the nature of time and the origins of everything. Quite similar to most of the people posting here, I expect.
I rule out nothing, but some explanations are pretty unlikely… I know who I will turn to when I want to understand the universe, and it won’t be a priest.
My Buddhist friends have given me greater peace of mind and helped me to grow as a person, but I leave science to the scientists.
@Rob (the first Rob?)
You didn’t make a point Rob – ironically you had a whine about whiners.
You’re suggesting nobody without a PHD in evolutionary biology can criticise evolution which is silly beyond belief, but are you saying that every biologist or geneticist who is either religious of at least doesn’t accept evolution must be….what?
I’m not sure if you think they are stupid, but I would suggest that many, many individuals – who know more than you or I do – do not accept evolution because of the holes in the theory, despite knowing of all the evidence supporting evolution.
Simply sneering at anyone who doesn’t agree with you and your decision that there’s enough evidence to ‘prove’ evolution is silly, as is the assumption that critics must be creationists.
@Berber.
“The question isn’t ‘what created the Big Bang’, but ‘if there was a Big Bang, what came before that?’. There’s several theories for that.”
Well of course there will be many theories, none of which can ever be proved but scientists will argue over which is most likely, more evidence will be supplied, a general consensus will be arrived at and this theory will become ‘accepted’ with any critics derided. :0)
Well put Skimble. Your post is well written and highly informative.
@ Oracle: “At the end of the day, evolution cannot be proved”. Cannot be proven? Or cannot be proven to you? You state many of the tactics used to win arguments but purposely ignored answers that were given by James, Sailor et al.
Also, using an interview from creationist propaganda as evidence is on par to comparing your opponent to Nazis
- Agreed – Evolution is a proven theory in that other theories that pass through it in order for them to work. When plate tectonics is used in oil drilling evolution is in place working soundly with those theories. To deny evolution is to deny more than just the one theory. It throws the whole of science out of kilter. – Phillis
Oracle, what is your non-evolution, non-Creation alternate explanation for speciation?
@Kevin
Regarding the YouTube vid which Dawkins does not suggest is manipulated or altered, Dawkin’s later explanation on his blog is at odds with what he said and how he reacted.
He suggests that in his ‘anger’ he refused to answer and asked them to stop filming, yet I’m sure anyone who has read Derren’s book recognises from his body language there is no anger present, and in fact Dawkins calmly asks the camera to stop to give him time to ‘think’, before answering.
Yes, Dawkins refuses to debate with creationists because, he says, he’s a scientist and doing so only gives them the oxygen of publicity and they’re not bothered if they get ‘beat.
Fair enough, but I’d say it’s then hypocritical of Dawkins to be using ‘God’ in the title of his book to give it the oxygen of publicity.
Here’s a video that emphasises the futility of trying to educate creationists.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fUoE-vlHZ2U&feature=related
Poor sound quality but excellent content.
When speaking of ‘no proof’ for evolution, what do you mean?
Molecular and genetic analysis indicates that all known organisms are related. Dating methods have correlated fossil evidence with the projected date of common ancestors to demonstrate consistency.
Interrelatedness cannot be in doubt. As an example not only do chimpanzees share over 90% of our genome with us, but they share viral DNA with us that can only have got there if our common ancestor had been infected.
There are steps along the historical evolutionary path that have not yet been explained, such as the origin of life itself & the “sudden” proliferation in the so-called Precambrian Explosion, but that doesn’t mean that Evolution itself as a process is in any doubt whatsoever.
What are the “holes” that so concern you?
@Symbiont: “You state many of the tactics used to win arguments but purposely ignored answers that were given by James, Sailor et al.”
No, not to ‘win’ arguments, but to try to; they never work.
I’d love to debate at length the more intelligent responses but the 800 word limit and the hours it takes for posts to be passed by the moderators is frustrating enough as it is even for one conversation, never mind ‘et al’, and I’m beginning to hog this forum with my responses already.
Your labelling of the YouTube clip as ‘propaganda’ is correct – of course they had an agenda – but the clip and Dawkins response was unaltered so where’s your problem?
I don’t compare my ‘opponents’ to Nazis so your accusation is distasteful propaganda, or is propaganda only information which you don’t agree with?
@Kevin.
“Poor sound quality but excellent content.”
Yes, all creationist are babbling fools and a YouTube video demonstrates this?
A video of Richard Dawkins being hesitant is meaningless propaganda, but a recording of some guy we can’t even see being hesitant is ‘excellent content’?
At this very moment, I’m engaged in a debate with creationists on another forum, and they’re getting quite irate at my ‘obviously evolutionist beliefs’, simply because I’m questioning specific issues from a scientific standpoint.
Almost without fail, both creationists and evolutionists feel that failure to comply completely with their belief labels you an opponent, so for me it is impossible to learn anything from conversations which regress into immature confrontations.
Ciao all. :0)
Science moves on. religion stagnates.
A nicely balanced pair. And as an insane eco-pantheist who am I to argue? Me. There is this tendency to the schismatic – breeder of factions, fractions and cults; this thing called the Reformation, the fact that in 19th Century Morocco over 100 New Islamic Sects appeared. I sympathise with the point you are making but religion can hardly be called stagnant. You can call it other things.
@Oracle
Thank you for demonstrating your ignorance and/or stupidity bu failing to spot my point. Actually I’d say there were a couple of points in my post, but I’ll clarify the main one for you now.
A scientific theory is the attempt by scientists to explain all of the evidence they have observed.
There are thousands of pieces of evidence which are successfully explained using the theory of evolution. Unless you can provide a theory which explains the evidence better, your opinion is not valid.
I would like the names of biologists and geneticists who don’t accept evolution, and would like to know their reasons. They make up les than 1% of biologists and geneticists as I understand it.
@Oracle. Since at least two people have given you specific examples of information increasing in the genome (myself in brief, followed by Skimble in much more depth), and since neither of us (sorry if I’m being presumptuious Skimble) would claim to be anything close to Dawkins in knowledge on evolution, which do you consider to be most likely.
1. That Dawkins doesn’t have an answer to such a trivial question (reach the selfish gene and then see if you still think he didn’t have an answer).
2. That he was, infact, pissed off that he had been lied to.
Are you at least man enough (or woman enough, sorry dunno which) to acknowledge that information does increase in the genome, and in numerous different ways?
Evolution isn’t any sort of religion. For one thing it doesn’t tell me that I’m unworthy and need to be saved. Nor does it monitor my activities 24/7 and threaten me with hell.
As I have mentioned several times before I had an ‘OUT OF BODY NEAR DEATH EXPERIENCE’ 35 years ago. After being co-cooned in a beautiful loving light I was taken by a being of light to a beautiful tree. I was given a chair to sit in and told to give all my love to the tree and that the tree would give me everything that I needed. The roots of the tree are like the roots of humanity, deep hidden and very tangled. The trunk is God and all the branches are all the different religions through time. Instead of seeking in the darkness and the past for Truth we should eat the fruits from the many branches and know that the many different fruits of God taste good.
So many points, so little space – @Skimble how on earth did you post such a long article? Not fair
The question of whether information has increased or decreased becomes moot if we can’t answer the simple question of why there is a mechanism as complex as DNA for its transmission in the first place? If I look at my PC, I don’t so much marvel at the stream of 0′s and 1′s flowing through it, as I do at the mechanisms through which they are transported and processed. Both the information and the mechanism are vital for the whole system to function. Both of them would have had to evolve *at the same time*. This is in my humble opinion where evolutionary biology has no answers. It points not only to a designer but a highly competent, efficient one who did some forward planning.
The speciation arguments levelled so far only have to do with variances within one specie. It still leaves us with the problem that when, for example, we are left with a mule or hinny after speciation (1) they are normally infertile and (2) they still look like and are for all intents still very similar to a horse. I don’t see a reasonable evolutionary explanation for why the Mule would eventually become, say, a giraffe (you may laugh, but hyraxes are considered the closest living relative of the elephant, so by that definition you must give my example credence). That is why I say macro-evolution is a patchwork full of holes. Micro evolution, survival of the fittest, we can observe. Not so with macro-evolution, so it must be able to explain phyla speciation satisfactorily, but it doesn’t
Msg from Abeo: I stitched the comments together
Julie Carter:
Or you can accept you had an hallucination and realise that jingoistic, nonsensical dribble like that impresses no one.
BobBuilder, so you think that PCs were thought of as they are today, built like this ever since humans decided they needed calculating machines to store and edit binary information on? I suggest a visit to the the Science Museum’s exhibit on the history of computers. It’s quite fascinating to see how they went from vacuum tubes and wire threads to microprocessors. Today’s computers process MORE info, true, but it is essentially the same kind of data — binary sequences. Just as my body uses similar nerves and neurotransmitters to the ones my cat uses, although it does so in a different way. We wouldn’t be compatible today, just as you couldn’t read out a DVD on one of those vacuum tube machines, but the common ancestry is clearly visible if you look at the basic mechanisms
BobBuilder: I’m sorry, you missed my point.
My point was that horses and donkeys are already very nearly different species, as they can only just interbreed, and the offspring usually aren’t fertile. It is not the mule or hinny that is the new species.
The fact that horses and donkeys are superficially similar to each other is meaningless. We expect evolution to occur gradually over time, with changes growing more extreme in the deep time of evolutionary history.
As to how the machinery of reproduction came to be? As I said there’s no one definite answer for abiogenesis yet, although there are experiments and discoveries that show it’s certainly possible for the building blocks of the machine to have arisen through easily explained phenomena.
We don’t know the exact path by which the first basic replicators might have eventually become something one might call “life”, and it may never be possible to be sure, but there are plausible thought experiments that have been borne out in part by experimentation.
However, all the evidence demonstrates the interrelatedness of life, and that evidence is too strong to be disputed.
You must bear in mind that amazingly complex changes can arise from relatively simple mutations or alterations in the base genetic code. For example, fruit flies can be made to grow legs on their heads by mutating a single gene (http://www.exploratorium.edu/exhibits/mutant_flies/mutant_flies.html)
The only theistic approach that is consistent with the evidence is that God created the initial seed of life, which then proceeded through the process of evolution to result in all of the forms of life we see around us.
I understand that you are unable to conceive of the immense timescales involved in evolution, but I’m unsure you understand the basic principle, either. The only reason for a population of donkeys to eventually evolve into a population of ‘giraffes’ would be if they existed in similar environmental conditions to those which giraffes experienced during the process of their evolution.
There is good evidence to show that unrelated (or rather, distantly related) animals who have evolved in similar environments in different parts of the world tend to become morphologically similar, a process called convergent evolution.
There is a good list of examples of convergent evolution on Wikipedia – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_examples_of_convergent_evolution
One final note. Even though we don’t fully understand the process by which the machinery of replication arose, we have observed experimentally and as thought experiments the arising of patterns of apparent complexity arising out of systems with only simple rules – a phenomenon known as emergent complexity.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergence
It is consistent with the evidence that life is an example of something that arose in this fashion from a complex starting condition with a series of simple biochemical rules. To me, this is far more wonderful and amazing than thinking that an all-powerful deity did it.
If you must maintain a theological view, the only one consistent with the plethora of evidence is that God created the initial ‘spark’ of life and then evolution took over from there.
James: I certainly don’t consider myself Dawkins’ equal. I have a degree in microbiology, but a lot of what I’ve learned about evolution is from Dawkins’ books “The Selfish Gene”, “The Ancestor’s Tale” and “The Greatest Show On Earth”.
BobTheBuilder: You should really read that last book and see if you can still deny the evidence.
@James.
There’s not enough time/space to argue over definitions of ‘information’, so for the sake of this argument the examples given – including my own (Down’s Syndrome) – strictly speaking do show an increase in information.
However ,in the context of our discussion and the question put to Dawkins, we’re looking for information which can demonstrate it contributes to evolution yet all these examples create either significantly inferior subjects, or simply bigger, and the fact they’re overwhelmingly infertile demonstrates that ‘nature’ recognises them as being faults, not advancements.
Perhaps Dawkins realised that any answer he gave would be pounced upon by the interviewees as the examples discussed are obvious and well known, but do not increase ‘information’ as I would define it.
This is what I believe Dawkins was considering before asking for the camera to stop, and I put it to you again to look at the tape objectively.
“The God Delusion” is peppered with statements which are objectively, factually wrong and sloppy, along with subjective statements which only demonstrate an unhealthy hatred which underpins the book; “all religion is evil” is a ridiculous statement for instance and if a creationist declared ‘all evolutionists are evil’ or suchlike would we find that an intelligent argument?
Dawkins does talk a lot of sense and I’d recommend all his books to anyone, but they must be read objectively, his shortcomings must be accepted and the counter arguments considered (the book by Keith Ward probably the most intelligent and well considered).
@oracle – The only frustrating thing in your `arguments` for the more rational of us is that you probably believe you are winning. Very sad.
Still@James
Back to the genome however, if I’m ‘man enough’ to admit that it could be argued ‘information’ does increase, are you man enough to admit that all the processes referred to are retrograde steps and if anything are excellent examples of how increases in information – in Down’s Sydrome an extra 21st chromosome for instance – could undo any advances a species had made if assimilated?
Of course there are obvious arguments that could be made to the contrary, and no matter how unlikely they may be, if you are an evolutionist you MUST accept them.
I’m not, so don’t. :0)
You will also be aware of the holes in evoltuion, but again, if you’re an evolutionist you don’t accept these are holes, and if they are they will be filled as our knowledge increases – end of argument?
@BobBuilder
Finally!
An intelligent, critical look at evolution and one of it’s ‘holes’.
Now, I’m sure you are aware of the explanations given to plug this hole, and of course they are indeed possible, but are they likely? I don’t think so.
If you threw 1000 lego bricks into the air enough times you could end up with two bricks that stuck together – that’s quite likely and could be demonstrated.
That being accepted, I could then suggest that over millions of years, it would be possible to keep throwing these bricks into the air and end up with a perfectly formed house, and nobody could argue this is impossible; unlikely yes, but if we already have lego houses and nobody existed to build them, we must accept the former yes? :0)
Time for me to move on but thanks all for contributing.
I wish I was intelligent enough to join in this debate but, alas, I am sorely lacking. Cheer up everyone, it’s a beautiful day!
@Ain Om “The only frustrating thing in your `arguments` for the more rational of us is that you probably believe you are winning. Very sad.”
Sorry, can’t let that one go.
Ain Om, you are the perfect example of the corrosive attitude I spoke of earlier which is the biggest obstacle to intelligent debate.
I don’t regard debates/conversations as something to be won or lost, and I certainly don’t regard myself as ‘winning’ here.
In fact, I’ve already conceded that that information increases in the genome when if I was concerned with winning I could have argued over semantics, but that wouldn’t have moved the debate on.
The format of this forum isn’t the best for debating due to the time lag and limited text so this really is my last post, so now I suspect you can claim I’ve ‘lost’! :0)
@Oracle
You can squirm and wriggle all you like, but you sound just like the “babbling fool” in the video I linked to.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fUoE-vlHZ2U&feature=related
@Kevin.
Yes, I’m squirming and wriggling; I’m not sure how old you are but you need to grow up.
This really will have to be my last post however, so to everyone else who has made intelligent, mature responses I thankyou for your time.
For anyone who’s interested, here’s a link to the thoughts of Dr. Mike Behe whose views are quite similar to my own, but not quite.
http://www.origins.org/mc/resources/ri9602/behe.html
One of the reasons that although I do respect Richard Dawkins as a geneticist, I have little respect for him as a man and distrust him is that here again, he refused to have any debate (because he said he wasn’t qualified!) yet he then suddenly feels qualified to criticise a guy and his findings/opinions in his absence.
Hypocritical and cowardly.
@Oracle. Oh dear.
1. Nice goal post shift. You went from saying that information can’t increase in the genome to suggesting that any information increae is deleterious, and you cite Downs.
Lets deal with downs. Downs is an example of trisomy, 3 copies of chromosome 21 (IIRC). Trisomy is a MASSIVE mutation, it is expected to be deleterious in pretty much every case, and indeed is fatal in humans in all but the case of chrosomome 21, where it produces Downs.
Saying that such massive events are always deleterious, however, is false, and I mentioned polyploidy to you on two previous occasions, both of which you ignored. Did you even go look it up on google?
2. I’ll cite lactose tolerance, nylonaise, immunity to HIV, and sickle cell as four positive mutations adding information.
I’ll then labour the point about sickle cell, since it is an excellent example. Here we have a case of a mutation that is either detrimental or positive depending on which environment you happen to put it. It evolved and was selected for in malaria ridden areas since a single copy of it provides higher levels of resistance.
This of course leads to my next point. You appear to accept natural selection, since you argue that all additions of information (ie mutations) are harmful. Since I have now provided you with 4 examples just off the top of my head of muations that are actually beneficial, of information being added to the genome, I think it’s fair to say that far from manning up I shall instead just smirk smugly at you vacuous position.
@Bobbuilder, you’re missing an essential aspect of speciation, made obvious by your request for phyla speciation.
New phyla start out in exactly the same way as new species. Viewed a billion years from now, the horse and donkey would be considered distinct phyla, as would a lion and tiger. There is no massive leap, evolutionary theory would actually be contradicted by such a leap (the reason why the famed crocoduck is such a stupid argument). I think that’s a point lost to most people actually.
You’re argument against the genome’s formation is an echo of an argument about irriducible complexity, but irriducible complexity is actually a prediction of evolutionary theory. Co-evolution is a trivial concept to grasp and neatly explains pretty much every issue you have.
For me the frustrating part is that people like Oracle seem to be unable to let go of their assertion even in light of reasonable evidence to the contrary.
Not only does his assumption seem to be that all increases in genetic information listed are deleterious but also that evolution is a ladder, which is simply not the case.
No mutation is a step backward for the purposes of evolution if it directly enhances the chance of survival. Even if it doesn’t as long as it isn’t harmful it may form one step towards a more useful change.
If Oracle were less hung up on his Downs syndrome example perhaps he would see that.
By the way, the example of lego bricks being flung into the air and making a house is a terrible analogy.
Unlike lego bricks, proteins and genetic material are constrained by their composition and the laws of thermodynamics to form particular shapes. Without the intervention of higher order proteins (e.g. enzymes) and stored energy, they will fold the same way every time in order to take the most stable configuration.
This is an example of the emergent complexity which I referenced earlier. A small change in the sequence of a protein can make a significant alteration in the protein’s shape and therefore its activity.
Perhaps Oracle should instead have argued that taking molecules of water and freezing them may eventually result in a geometric, apparently organised structure. How silly!
@Eric Clyne – as the only person to pull me up about my reductionist over-simplification, I thank you. (Science moves on, religion stagnates).
I was going to say religion fossilizes, but I thought better of it.
Obviously, like speciation, religions do grow and change, spawning sects and new doctrines. However, they also hold tightly to certain core beliefs that are may be unchallengeable.
An idea that cannot be challenged or discussed is a form of tyranny.
Evolution is up for discussion, because we have a free society. However, the quality of supporting evidence is extremely good. It also (as Phillis noted) works in practice.
Some religious precepts are not up for discussion, except on pain of death or apostasy. The evidence for these precepts is astoundingly poor.
@Rob
One could say that religion has be subject to selection pressures. Any religion making testable claims was selected out, so that all we are left with are those specious concepts that require faith. Oh, and death to unbelievers probably helps too.
@Skimble. I never thought of the water freezing analogy, I’ll be stealing that one thanks
of course the evolution theory should be critically analysed. as many of u have pointed out, what is today taken by the scientific community as an impossibility could the next day become scientific fact. e.g. quantum mechanics. now please dnt think from the above that i’m on the creationists side because i’m not, but i’m not a scientist either, i just like looking at evidence for something that someone’s telling me.
as far as global warming goes, it’s not all our fault. granted co2 emissions are speeding it up, but as many of u science buffs should know our planet has gone through several warming up and cooling down periods. but we need more research done towards renewable energy.
finally, this could create a backlash for me but i think some of u r just showing off in ur arguments
@ Berber Anna
Thanks for pointing out the evolution of the PC. The only problem with your example is that intelligent man was the driver – required to constantly give input and make improvements to the process of the development of the computer. It didn’t happen by itself and thus as a process is very unlike evolution, which has “unintelligent” chance as its only driver. I have worked as a software developer for Microsoft for a number of years and one thing I learnt is that nothing significant happens unless a lot of smart people get together and apply their minds to solving a problem. I hope we can do the same here and not ignore the obvious.
@ Skimble
Thanks for your response, I will take a look at the resources you pointed out. I still have much learning to do in your area of expertise
@ James
). Same applies to the horses/mules example AFAIK. You’ll end up with a wonderful variety of dog types (kinds/species) but not a new species , even given time
Thanks for clarifying that. I do understand your point about the Phyla divergence (sorry, speciation might not be the right word, I am no expert on this subject). I think my concern with your examples remains: while they might arguably add new information none of them could conceivably lead to a new species down the line, even given enough time.
In biblical lingo, God created animals after their “kind” – all dogs would be one “kind” for example. Dogs are subject to mutation and inbreeding and natural selection, but their descendants will remain some or other form of dog (ok maybe the chihuahua dents my argument a little
I will be the first to admit that a simple reading of Genesis probably raises more questions than it answers. But bear in mind that it was written to answer the “why” question more than the “how” question. God knows we are smart enough to figure out the “how” question with time (after all He created us in His image and He’s pretty smart
. We, however, would not be able to answer the “why” question without divine intervention, because our frame of reference is just too restrictive.
Why does the universe exist? Why do we even care to ask the question whether life has a meaning? Why do we bother trying to prove or disprove God’s existence? Why is there life on earth? These are the questions the Bible answers. Science can help us answer the rest. I don’t see any conflict.
BobBuilder, I wasn’t saying the evolution of the PC was entirely analogous to the evolution of living things (it takes a hell of a lot longer when there’s nothing but trial and error to select ‘fit’ individuals, as opposed to a designer — that’s why it took millions of years for nature to get to where it is today, and only a few centuries for PCs to get to this point). I was just pointing out that your statement that to process 0′s and 1′s you need a modern computer is factually incorrect. I don’t like incorrect statements, whether they are on topic or not.
Again, if we presuppose that a creator is needed to form complex organisms, and we presume that this creator is itself complex (as it would need to be to envision a planned-for creation), then what created the creator?
BobBuilder: Thanks for not dismissing what I said out of hand.
The fact is that the evidence shows all modern species DID arise from an original ancestor. Evolution is just the name we’ve given to the series of events that best explains this, and other, observations. Expecting to see phylum branch points in a population of slow-breeding animal within the course of human history is unrealistic; on that basis it’s no wonder we have not directly observed such an event.
As to the bible providing the whys? Well, it’s certainly AN answer, among myriad religions and philosophies, with no evidence to back it up. Why should I treat the answers in the bible any more seriously than the ‘answers’ given in Norse mythology?
I’d rather stick with objectively determinable facts, thanks.
@ Berber Anna
I think you misunderstood me, apologies for not being clearer. I didn’t say that you needed a modern PC to process 0′s and 1′s. I said, by analogy, that I find the processor/carrier of the information even more ingenious than the information itself. In the same way I marvel at the genius of the DNA mechanism just as much as the information the mechanism carries. It doesn’t matter how far back we go – it had to either be the same mechanism present in the “common ancestor” for it to branch to all descendants or it was created that way in all creatures. It doesn’t (in fact can’t) explain away it’s brilliance. To ascribe this brilliance to random chance just seems to me more of a stretch than ascribing it to a creator.
@Berber Anna
To answer the question: Who created God? Well God is eternal so by definition He is uncreated because the concept “beginning” has no meaning on an infinite time scale (this I say for the point of illustration – there was no time scale to begin with. God created space-time in the beginning before continuing with physical matter. It is interesting to note that God is described variously in scripture as “light” (1 John 1:5) and “power” (Ps 65:6) and therefore based on e=mc2, the creation of physical mass from “nothing” becomes trivial for God.
There is a lot written on the subject and I won’t pretend to be an expert or have all the answers. Take a look at this: http://www.whyevolution.com/Accuracy%20in%20Genesis.pdf (don’t agree with everything, but it’s a good effort)
@Skimble
Yes, I do realise we are unlikely to observe phylum branch points even if we accept evolution as the vehicle. To me it was more the mental exercise of trying to see how it might be possible based on what we do know and can observe. I will read the links you’ve posted, so please excuse me for a while from this discussion.
As to why I believe the biblical account: It offers a reasonable and rational explanation that is not contradicted by observable science. Historical deductive science is obviously open to subjective interpretation of the facts. If the bible told me that the earth rested on the back of an elephant, then I would also dismiss it as twaddle, but curiously for those who’ve read it, it doesn’t. Likewise Norse mythology etc doesn’t offer a remotely satisfying answer…
Oh, so intelligence only needs a creator if it is temporal, not if it is eternal. I disagree on the creator concept, but I get where you’re coming from.
On the DNA issue, there is a slightly simpler mechanism of course, RNA, although the viruses that use RNA as a primary information carrier are not technically alive. In any case, experiments have shown that running an electrical current through a mix of chemicals that resembles the seas on the early Earth does produce amino acids. the building blocks from which RNA and DNA are formed.
I don’t find it that inconceivable that given enough time (and this is on a scale of billions of years), eventually a random reaction between amino acids resulted in a self-replicating molecule, which was then refined by natural selection.
(cont. below)
The whole idea somewhat resembles the experiment Derren shows in The System, when he produces ten consecutive ‘heads’ in a series of coin tosses — by tossing the coin hundreds of times. Ten heads in a row is unlikely on your first try, but given enough time, it becomes almost inevitable.
Self-replicating molecules are a rare and unlikely occurrence, but given an unimaginable stretch of time, all possible combinations of amino acids will eventually occur, the self-replicating molecule among them.
Personally, I find the concept of an intelligent, humanlike creator far more outlandish than that of spontaneous recombination of chemicals.
BobBuilder: The bible’s account of the creation is only ‘rational and accurate’ if you take it as a metaphor (given what we know about the age of the earth, it was not created in six actual ‘days’) and even then it gets some of the events in the wrong order!
It’s exactly as credible as any other creation myth.
Sorry, this really will be my last post…
@Berber Anna
The experiment you refer to with the electrical current and primordial soup producing amino acids has been widely debunked and is not considered a strong argument in evolutionist circles
@Skimble
Genesis is plausible & confirmed by current understanding of astronomy etc, the other creation myths are not – at least all those that I have read (pls let me know if you’ve found a reasonable one)
What leads you to say that the events were in the wrong order? All of your concerns are clearly addressed here: http://www.whyevolution.com/Accuracy%20in%20Genesis.pdf (see page 5 – 11). I am busy going through the links you sent me because I know my knowledge is limited. I hope you will give me the benefit of the doubt and do the same
@BobBuilder
I don’t think you have yet grasped the point that there is no distinction between speciation and the emergence of new phyla. New phyla are simply examples of speciation that occurred so long ago that the modern descendents of the daughter species (two daughter species per speciation event) have now diversified so much as to be unrecognisable through simple observation, requiring more in depth techniques such as comparative anatomy or phylogenetics to establish relatedness.
Simple example, the closest living relative to baleen whales (possibly toothed whales too, but I’d need to check) is the hippo. There are snakes with legs, and there are legless lizards. Fairly substantial mophological changes take a good deal of time of course, but are certainly possible in the order of a few million years.
The notion of Kinds is somewhat specious unless you define it, so please do.
BobBuilder, if debunked means that upon a 2008 repeat of the original experiment, MORE amino acids were produced, then I suppose it has been debunked. http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn14966-volcanic-lightning-may-have-sparked-life-on-earth.html?feedId=online-news_rss20
Also, way to respond to part of my comment and ignore the rest of it. Whatever the origin of the chemicals described, I still find it logically sound that given a few millennia, they’ll recombine in every possible way — including one producing a self-replicating molecule.
What’s your evidence for a humanlike intelligence creating everything, apart from ancient Middle Eastern mythology (written, I might add, by humans)?