The Evolution Myth

[Pista Gyerek]

Hello CD,

The question about the validity or invalidity of Darwin's theory will not be settled in your or my lifetime.

Uh, actually, it's been settled rather emphatically. The overwhelming consensus in academia and the scientific community is due to the viability of Darwin's theory, not some insidious brainwashing conspiracy. A miniscule number of opportunists hawking an incoherent theory like creationism to the uneducated does not constitute responsible dissent.

I didn't read about what your background is - if you wish not to share it, I can live with that.

Like you, I'm not a biologist. I'm a businessman with an interest in natural history and philosophy. Some ten years ago I first heard of the creationism phenomenon. I was interested to hear what both sides had to say on the issue, so I started by reading Abusing Science by Philip Kitcher and Darwin on Trial by Phillip E. Johnson. The difference between the approach of the two books speaks loudly about the context of the debate.

Kitcher is a philosopher of science, so he begins with a broad historical overview of the development of empirical evidential inquiry. He demands his audience familiarize itself with concepts such as inductive reasoning, methodological naturalism, and statistical inference. He outlines what evolution is, and how it fits the definition of science. He then explores the claims of creationism and demonstrates their weakness in the context of scientific inquiry as well as philosophy. Kitcher is appealing to his audience's respect for knowledge, and its ability to make important distinctions between what is science and what is not.

Johnson, in contrast, is a lawyer, so his work is nothing more than a hatchet job. The way he defines concepts like materialism and evolution makes it clear he's writing for an audience with little education in the history of science or philosophy. His argument consists entirely of presenting quotes from evolutionists taken out of context, as well as pointing to 'anomalies' in evolutionary theory in a scattershot manner. The lack of a description of a theory to replace Darwin's is conspicuous in its absence. Johnson panders to his audience's ignorance, mistrust, and prejudice.

So tell me, CD, who do you consider the authorities in biological science? Which materials most influenced you in your interest in the matter?

Regards,

Pistike

[methodistgirl]

I'm not a biologist either. In fact I just made it through high school. But
I know where you guys are going with this. Evolutionist and creationist
can both get it wrong and some people misunderstand the bible. There is
a place in the bible that says a day in heaven is like a thousand years on
earth. That goes to show that maybe the days of creation might have
taken over a million years. As for the big bang theory might be right.
The Lord did say,"Let there be light!,"and the universe exploded with
light until things cooled down and started to make the stars and planets.
You have today thousands of star making nebulas from Orion to the
Trifid Nebula. The crab nebula is begining to make stars too now.
When a star dies and supernovas new stars are being created. Man was
created from the earth which the earth herself is made of the same thing
that makes stars which is cosmic dust,gases like oxygen, hydrogen,
helium, and etc. just like the stars. The sun is made from the same
material as the earth with the exception of nuclear fusion to make
it shine and so on. I just hope I didn't get anything wrong but I
probably did.
judy tooley

[Contratrombone64]

Judy I'd be very interested to see exactly where in the bible you state that:

place in the bible that says a day in heaven is like a thousand years on
earth

I'm waiting in anticipation. Thanks!

[Andrew Roussak]

Hi Corno Dolce,

Just because x-number of scientists claim the validity of Darwin's theory, it does not follow that Darwin's theory has the answer. The world is not going to implode just because Darwin's theory might be invalid - However, it might mean that some scientists will soon be out of a job and politicians and educators will have massive quantities of egg to scrape off their face.

Looks like it really happens...

http://www.physorg.com/news153661585.html

[Andrew Roussak]

Hello Pistike,

"Although the relationship of the rhipidistians to the amphibians will be discussed in greater detail in the next chapter, it should be said here that none of the known fishes is thought to be directly ancestral to the earliest land vertebrates. Most of them lived after the first amphibians appeared, and those that came before show no evidence of developing the stout limbs and ribs that characterized the primitive tetrapods."
(Stahl, Barbara J. [Professor of Biology, Saint Anselm College, USA], "Vertebrate history: Problems in Evolution," Dover: New York NY, 1985, p.148)

What may it actually mean? Well, it may mean that, in the mind of Professor Stahl, the true intermediates between primitive fish and the earliest tetrapods hadn't yet been discovered. If this was indeed written in 1985, then it was nearly twenty years before the discovery of the Tiktaalik fossil.

But what do YOU think it means, Andrew? Could Professor Stahl, an eminent evolutionary biologist who studied vertebrate evolution until her death in 2004, actually have meant that intermediates between primitive fish and the earliest tetrapods never existed? Did you quote her because you think she meant that evolution is a gigantic hoax?

I hate what you call "quote mining " too, but in this case, I believe, the quote reproduces the true meaning of Prof. Stahl's words. You know - it is a commonplace - that the abscence of the fossil evidence was a serious problem for Darwin himself ( yes, there is a quote! but this fact is recognised by both sides, so I believe, I can now go further ). The abscence of such evidence did not stop Darwin, though, as he hoped the "missing links" will be found soon. The honest words of prof. Stahl simply confirm, that the present ( as to 1985 ) state of affairs is not better. I think it's a true context.

For Tiktaliik - sure, the fossil was found 20 years later. But I have placed the detailed analysis of it, with scheme, reconstruction, and the photo of what was actually found. I have also put a shortened translation of the article from German, so what could I do more?

Let me try to make this point clear once again. If you click on RECONSTRUCTION, you will see that we are talking of the fragments of the bones. It is no problem, but WHAT one could actually analyse were only the fin, and the scull. The rest is reconstruction. The analysis, made by dr. Junker, shows that Tiktaliik DOES NOT FIT in the gap it was claimed to fit in. Therefore, it is not an intermediary in this row. It could - well - represent one another branch of evolution. But, seen as that, it could be just another Devonian fish species as well - which is the quite logical supposition due to lack of other evidence. There are about 25.000 fish species now, looking quite different from each other. In Devonian, the situation was quite the same, I believe.

There are some general concerns on missing links, too. I have once stumbled on a website representing the "true" missing links, with Tiktaliik and Archaeopterix among them. 7 links, all together. Sunwaiter had once posted in this forum, there are about 20 intermediaries found to the day.
What matters is, even 200 were not too much. Please take a look at this scheme one more time. You see a dotted line here - that is a space, which should be actually filled with the transitional forms within all those millions of years. It should have been more than one intermediary anyway, I don't want to speculate, how many exactly. You say, the modern species are only the latest buds on a tree - that is, each living species must be connected with such a dotted line to its ancestor. There are, as estimated, about 2 000 000 known species on Earth now, who knows how many still undiscovered, how many became extinct. It means anyway - we must speak of millions intermediates in the fossil record. Not of 7, not even 20. But...

[Andrew Roussak]

Pistike, I have decided to answer this your question separately ( from Tiktaalik )

But maybe it should be your turn to answer questions, Andrew. Where did you get your education in biology? Who do you consider the authorities on natural history? What should we believe about the history of life on Earth? Is evolution just a fraud and a hoax? If so, why do so many people, particularly scientists, affirm the validity of Darwin's theory?

I answer willingly - as mentioned before, I am no more than an amateur in this field. My actual educations were: Dipl. Engineer , with major on microprocessor control systems in aviation/airspace ( State Aviation and Technical University, Ufa, Russia ), and classical piano ( Diplom of State College Of Arts, Ufa, Russia ). I have honestly tried it, to combine professionally such two different activities for a certain period, but later evolved to a full-time muso. For what it's worth, I think, that the general education gives one the ability to quickly learn, analyse and systematize new facts, in whatever field. It does in no way equates a degree on biology, of course.

Who do you consider the authorities on natural history?

Maybe these two videos can be interesting for you:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LE7cvUzSn4U

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d1xkp...eature=related

Two of a many . Prof . Dr. Siegfried Scherer ( Molecular Biology ), Prof . Werner Gitt ( Theorie of Information ).

I am sorry, once again, that the first video is in German - you asked me about MY preferences. So, these two gentlemen stay strictly within their own professional domains, no further speculations. Dr. Scherer on the first video explains, that the human emrios do NOT represent evolutional stages, as it was claimed for a long time. Furthermore, he claims that abiogenesis is proven, to be impossible ( you see the experiment of Pasteur, and then that of Miller ).

You see, there are really many prominent figures, Profs, Drs... on both sides of the argument. Why should opinion of Dawkins be more preferable for me, than opinion of Scherer?

What should we believe about the history of life on Earth? Is evolution just a fraud and a hoax?

But then, it is still a matter of belief? Pistike, I can't of course say what anybody SHOULD believe. The views of Prof. Scherer are represented on his Wikipedia page. He undoubtedly believes, that God created life. He works with American creationist Universities, but does not support the literary conception of creation in 6 days. He accepts the evolution too, but more like a speciation - all dogs, apes...came from their common ancestor. Maybe even all mammals, it is not clearly posted there. In this case, it was, once again , a web, not a tree, and the process went downhill, like all natural processes do. I think such version of a natural history has more evidence than the classical ET. But, this is just my opinion.

If so, why do so many people, particularly scientists, affirm the validity of Darwin's theory?

This one is absolutely a brilliant question ,Pistike, if one would understand it kinda, Why are there so many materialists in our time? I think it is even worth a separate thread. But, first off my answer here:

I think , on two reasons. First , and rather simple, people do always understand many really different things as evolution, and there are cases where evolution clearly happens ( like the adaptation of modern humans to raw milk ). But, this is microevolution, and then the usual extrapolation is being made. There are also many works on mutations, especially in microbiology, whereas one is inclined, to see each and every change as the proof of evolution. It was, btw, also mentioned in the article ( about the web-tree ) we have discussed a week ago here. Then, the results ( in the special field of research, absolutely verifiable, of course ) are being published in a magazine like NATURE. The reader reacts on the word "evolution" and gets a steady image of a tree, and the Darwin's portrait , linked together with the real context of the article.

The second reason is , it is a matter of the world view, as always. You have mentioned that phylosophy is one of your interests, then the words "modern times' mentality" - or Neuzeit Mentalitaet, in German - should say you something.
You know that the mentality of the medieval Europe could be of course described as religious , or Christian. Via Reformation, renaissance, baroque it has slowly shifted to more and more secular one, and the ideas of humanism were already completely atheistic. So was the modern times' mentality born, and this was the society, and the model of thinking, which has accepted Darwin's Theory. The idea itself was in no way new. Scientists are the part of the society, like all other people. You know that Sir Isaak Newton has written more works on theology, than on physics, trying to understand or to explain the harmony of the world around him. And you know that Prof. Richard Dawkins has written "Delusion Of God", for whatever reason. So I think - all-common world view, mark of time... is the actual answer. No sign of any conspiracy plot, anyway ( only if it is not the plot, in which the most of adult population of Europe, USA... take part ).

Best regards to you,
Andrew

[Pista Gyerek]

Andrew,

I don't know whether you're deliberately making scattershot and incoherent claims, in order to make dialogue more difficult, or whether you simply don't recognize the context of the matters you're discussing.

Your incomplete understanding of debates in biology have you quoting Professor Stahl's work as if it somehow casts doubt upon evolutionary theory in general. I said before that I think quote mining is dishonest, but I don't think you understood why: Professor Stahl had no doubt that the rhipidistians represented the ancestry of the original land tetrapods, only she didn't feel that (in 1985) the true intermediates had yet been found.

This brings up the matter of your refusal to acknowledge any conceivable intermediates between primitive fishes and tetrapods. You seem to feel that any question you could raise represents a definitive refutation of the evolution of the original tetrapods. Then you demand that we produce fossils of millions of intermediates, demonstrating a rather comical unfamiliarity with the realities of paleontology in general.

Then there's your enlisting Drs. Scherer and Gitt as your authorities, on no better basis than that they tell you what you want to hear. Do their views represent the mainstream of thought in their respective fields? If not, what do other experts think of their work? If, in fact, Scherer "proved" abiogenesis was impossible, did he offer his assessment of the probability of any rival theory of the origin of life on Earth? And as I said before, species evolution is a separate issue from that of the origin of life anyway, so what does that have to do with the shared ancestry of life on Earth?

Last and most disturbing, you talk about the "materialistic" philosophy that is the basis of science as if it's a bad thing. I can't understand this. Science is supposed to be about formulating testable hypotheses for understanding natural phenomena, not pandering to our religious prejudices. Are you suggesting no Christian affirms the theory of evolution by natural selection? Are you suggesting that we're all bad Christians, or bad people, if we're persuaded by the evidence for species evolution? Can the evidence for creationism be assessed on the same objective basis as evolution, or does it depend on our unrealistic wish to have our religious beliefs validated by science?

Regards,

Pistike

[Corno Dolce]

Aloha Andrew,

Since I know enough German to read and understand complex scientific tomes, I have read Prof. Dr. Scherer's findings and consider him one of the best there is in Molecular Biology. I find it interesting that one of Europe's finest Universities(Leiden) is cutting back on funding for Evolutionary Biology.

The reaction was not slow in coming - blood-curdling screams, gnashing of teeth, pulling of hair and nails, anger, and resentment. Why, might one ask, is there such furor, hue and cry? I guess the evolutionists see their place and time at the feed trough being curtailed. Oh well, as the world turns...................Some peoples apple carts are being upset.......Or is it the Geese are having their feathers plucked and so they hiss, shriek, and honk?

I have extremely grave misgivings about so much stock being put into the philosophy of science without having had the benefit of doing Graduate level research work in a science field. Yes, it can be fascinating for the layman to grapple with the philosophical underpinnings but it in no way replaces good old-fashioned lab work.

Andrew, I am very impressed with your level of education - I doff my hat in respect to you

Maybe Kant's *Kritik Des Reinen Vernunft* (Critique Of Pure Reason) should be a part of the Philosophy 101 curriculum.

[Pista Gyerek]

I find it interesting that one of Europe's finest Universities(Leiden) is cutting back on funding for Evolutionary Biology.

The reaction was not slow in coming - blood-curdling screams, gnashing of teeth, pulling of hair and nails, anger, and resentment. Why, might one ask, is there such furor, hue and cry? I guess the evolutionists see their place and time at the feed trough being curtailed. Oh well, as the world turns...................Some peoples apple carts are being upset.......Or is it the Geese are having their feathers plucked and so they hiss, shriek, and honk?

And this says what exactly about the theory of evolution by natural selection?

Personally, I'm far from surprised that academics are complaining about funding cuts. Would you expect a different reaction from the staff of a physics or geology program? Do you honestly take this to mean the end of Darwinism or something?

Regards,

Pistike

[Corno Dolce]

Aloha Pistike,

Having collaborated with Astrophysics colleagues from most of the major European, Russian, Chinese, and American top flight Universities, there seems to be a movement afoot where all theoretical and research programs are under the microscope for to see what meaningful results are being produced by every program.

I trust you know that research funding organizations of both private and public nature like NSA, Ford Foundation and scores of others like to see very tangible benefits that have immediate implications for the organization and for the common good.

Of course, much is predicated on how well one writes the research grant proposal and if it is accepted in short order. Yes, there are many variables.
So, I don't necessarily see the end of a standard reference model just because a *Uni or more* cuts fundings, but, as they say, the fat lady hasn't sung yet.

In humble sincerity,

CD

[Pista Gyerek]

CD,

I don't necessarily see the end of a standard reference model just because a *Uni or more* cuts fundings, but, as they say, the fat lady hasn't sung yet.

So even though millions of academic institutions and research facilities study biology from an evolutionary perspective, you consider one university's decision to cut funding for its biology program the beginning of the end of Darwinism.

Meanwhile, virtually no respectable college or research facility studies or teaches biology from a creationist perspective.

See what I mean about the way you ignore context in this matter?

Regards,

Pista Gyerek

[Corno Dolce]

Aloha Pistike,

I realise that Darwinism or ET might be a sensitive issue for you but I ask that you please don't label me a creationist just because I disagree with the tenets of Darwinism.

Also, please do not infer that I view the actions of one University as the beginning of the end of a standard reference model - To do so is, imho, disingenuous.

I look forward to continuing an upbuilding discourse with you. In the spirit of comity let us further our quest. Let us also be mindful that, while science is an excellent tool and has helped humans much and continues to help further our understanding of the complex system we live in, how the actions of GRB's(Gamma Ray Bursts), Galactical collisions, weather, pollution, diet, genetic disposition, and a whole panoply of other variables, we must in truth acknowlege that the human race does not know everything - We are all in a process of discovery.

To dogmatically affix oneself to a standard reference model does not help for further understanding and development - No, such an action precludes. Everyone benefits when questions are kept open for further inquiry instead of locked in a set pattern or like concrete - All mixed up and permanently set!

I strive to keep my mind open - I am fully aware that there is much that I do not know and I fully know that I do not know the whole panoply of the system we live in, whether scientifically or artistically - I am on a journey of discovery and only wish to humbly share my adventure and warmly welcome everyone to embark upon their own journeys of discovery - Maybe we could use the analogy of ships in fellowship, advancing across the worlds oceans or across the Universe, discovering how fearfully and wonderfully we are made or how Astrophysical phenomena has direct implications for how life develops and continues on Earth.

We cannot control what the Sun does or what the Moon does or what the other planets do in relation to us, nor can we control how Supernovas or Hypernovas(GRB's) act - How such aforementioned phenomena can instantly incinerate and atomise our Earth. For me, here is where Faith is an *Operator* - When I, in the limits of my knowing and understanding, imperfect and incomplete as it is, I can then, through Faith, encompass that which I cannot fully understand and comprehend - Through Faith I see the *Operator Of Love* - To all that which is beyond my ken, the Divine Creator says: *Be not afraid - I have total control over it.*

In profoundly sincere humility,

CD

[Pista Gyerek]

Hello again CD,

Let us also be mindful that, while science is an excellent tool and has helped humans much and continues to help further our understanding of the complex system we live in, how the actions of GRB's(Gamma Ray Bursts), Galactical collisions, weather, pollution, diet, genetic disposition, and a whole panoply of other variables, we must in truth acknowlege that the human race does not know everything - We are all in a process of discovery.

I never said otherwise. I only look at empirical evidential inquiry as our best tool in expanding, improving, and refining our understanding of the universe.

To dogmatically affix oneself to a standard reference model does not help for further understanding and development - No, such an action precludes. Everyone benefits when questions are kept open for further inquiry instead of locked in a set pattern or like concrete - All mixed up and permanently set!

Okay. But there are limits to how open-minded we can be about theories which are already well-supported by voluminous research. How open-minded should we be about changing our standard reference model for the structure of our solar system, simply because someone claims we can't "prove" with one observation that the Earth orbits the Sun? How patiently should we engage the Flat Earth Society, whose members still deny that the Earth is spherical in shape? It betrays a real lack of respect for the legacy of scientific inquiry to argue that such positions are just as valid as the ones mainstream science affirms. The same goes, in my mind, for creationism.

When I, in the limits of my knowing and understanding, imperfect and incomplete as it is, I can then, through Faith, encompass that which I cannot fully understand and comprehend

In terms of empirical evidential inquiry, the best we can do is recognize that the more we discover, the more we realize is left to discover. Like the blind men trying to describe the elephant, we need to be humble enough to acknowledge that no one set of observations tells the whole story about Nature. We need to formulate and test coherent theories that explain as many different sets of observations as possible, and serve as a framework for research yet to come.

We should also realize that science is not supposed to pander to our prejudices, or validate our religious beliefs. If we're sincerely humble, that's the beginning of the quest.

Regards,

Pistike

[Corno Dolce]

Aloha Pistike,

Well, the Flat Earth Society has yet to undergo a Copernican Revolution - Maybe they also need to know a *Non-Euclidian Worldview.*

I have never advocated science to pander to personal prejudices or validate faith systems. Imho, Science and Faith are mutually inclusive. Newton and Georg Riemann(a founder of Differential Geometry)had a Faith system and their knowlege specialty. Dmitrii Mendeleev, the founder of the Periodic Table Of The Elements, was a Russian Orthodox Christian(Eastern Orthodox Church)during his life. Carl Linnaeus, the Swedish Botanist who developed the species classification system was a Lutheran in his life. So you see, its not so easy just to wave off scientists such as these as crackpots with a religious bent.

In humble sincerity,

CD

[Pista Gyerek]

Hello CD,

Newton and Georg Riemann(a founder of Differential Geometry)had a Faith system and their knowlege specialty. Dmitrii Mendeleev, the founder of the Periodic Table Of The Elements, was a Russian Orthodox Christian(Eastern Orthodox Church)during his life. Carl Linnaeus, the Swedish Botanist who developed the species classification system was a Lutheran in his life. So you see, its not so easy just to wave off scientists such as these as crackpots with a religious bent.

When did anyone ever dismiss them as crackpots? And why should it surprise anyone that scientific geniuses could also be believers? I'm not sure I get your point.

Furthermore, legendary geneticist Theodosius Dobzhansky, one of the founders of the modern synthesis of Darwin and Mendel's work, was a Russian Orthodox Christian. And Ken Miller, cell biologist, author of Finding Darwin's God, and outspoken critic of creationism and Intelligent Design, is a Catholic. Regardless of what you may think, there's no rule that says that believers can't affirm the validity of evolution by natural selection.

Regards,

Pista Gyerek