Is believing in evolution similar to believing in a religion?

[Prime Junta]

See this is what i disagree with. An event occurs and it forces evolution due to malnutrition or the like. When that happens it causes genetic drift, which has never caused an example where the dna has increased but rather decreased as in loss of information.

OK, now I see what you're getting at. Unfortunately, it's all completely garbled up. You really need to do some studying up -- I could write a full explanation of how you're garbled up, but that would take several pages, so you'll have to make do with this:

(1) Events do not force evolution. It happens all the time. Extinction events just open up ecological niches, which allows mutations that would previously have been selected out to thrive. This results in a burst of speciation -- the "punctuation" in punk eek. (The extinction event itself does involve a loss of information, as the genetic information locked away in the cells of all the species that die out is lost. But new information gets generated as speciation fills up the niches created by the event and its aftermath.)

(2) What you call "genetic drift" is actually random mutations. Mutations certainly do cause increase of "information" -- that is, functional genes that "do something." Mostly they don't, of course, but that's where natural selection comes in: the mutations that cause a "decrease of information" -- harmful effects -- get weeded out, whereas mutations that cause an "increase of information" -- beneficial effects -- propagate.

Seriously, Damian -- you're failing to *understand* the most basic, fundamental concept of biological evolution: natural selection. Yet you persist in making far-reaching statements about, say, punctuated equilibrium versus phyletic gradualism. That's sort of like claiming that integral and differential calculus is a load of bunk when you're not able to do addition and subtraction.

A few web pages won't cut it, either -- you need to read a couple of books, or otherwise absorb the same amount of information.

 

[Damian Mahadevan]

Events do not force evolution. It happens all the time. Extinction events just open up ecological niches, which allows mutations that would previously have been selected out to thrive.

And that is not an event?

 

[Prime Junta]

Of course it's an event, but it doesn't "force evolution." Mutations happen all the time. Natural selection happens all the time.

If the conditions are constant, ecosystems reach equilibria -- all the species in it have been optimized by the process of mutation and natural selection to the point that almost all further mutations are harmful: put another way, there are no obvious ways left to "improve" the organisms in the ecosystem. This is your stable equilibrium.

Then something happens -- an internal stress is released, an external shock like climate change, a meteor strike, or a highly effective pest, disease, or predator appears from outside the ecosystem -- which disrupts the equilibrium, makes the species "optimized" to thrive in the previous conditions unviable, and causes a mass extinction.

This throws the system out of balance and opens up new ecological niches. These niches are then filled in a burst of speciation: since the species start out poorly adapted to the new conditions, any mutation will be more likely to be an "improvement," and will propagate. Eventually the niches fill up again, as the species living in them will get optimized to best make use of them, and, again, it will become progressively more difficult to "improve" on them: a new stable equilibrium will have been reached.

What's so hard to understand about this?

Edit: I put the words "improve" and "optimize" in quotes, because they carry a strong connotation of intention. There is no intention in evolution: it's a blind process. However, I can't think of any other words that would carry the meaning better. Mutations, genetic exchange through sexual reproduction, and natural selection have an overall effect of gradually causing species to become better optimized to whatever ecological niche they're occupying: in that sense, they "improve."

 

[Guest]

And that is not an event?

FFS if you're capable of reading a book and absorbing information just get a book on the subject, one without a jesus agenda in the background.

 

[Damian Mahadevan]

Of course it's an event, but it doesn't "force evolution." Mutations happen all the time. Natural selection happens all the time.

That is what i am arguing. Let me put this to you to simplify what i am arguing.

An event(change in circumstances) occurs, if that speeds up or alters the rate of evolution/mutation/speciation, that to me is forced evolution. And i have never heard of a case where through famine(etc.) a beneficial mutation occurs. On the other hand the survival of a previous mutation may be increased through the event because of reduced population.

Punk eek sounds to me like forced evolution the way it is presented to me(form the wiki). Because it seems by the diagram to wait for an event to occur before the evoltuion occurs. I disagree with that.

 

[Prime Junta]

That is what i am arguing. Let me put this to you to simplify what i am arguing.

An event(change in circumstances) occurs, if that speeds up or alters the rate of evolution/mutation/speciation, that to me is forced evolution.

The rate of mutation is constant. The rate of speciation, or evolution if you will, can and certainly does change.

And i have never heard of a case where through famine(etc.) a beneficial mutation occurs.

You're *still* not getting it. You have the causes and effects all mixed up.

Famines (etc.) don't cause beneficial mutations. Mutations occur at a constant rate.

What these events do, is change conditions.

Suppose you have a jungle: lots of water, lots of vegetation, lots of microbial life.

In these conditions, a mutation that makes it possible to survive with less consumption of water is not beneficial. In fact, if it comes with some cost -- for example, a lowered resistance to fungal infections -- it's harmful. That means it that it will be bred out of the population.

Now, suppose the climate changes, so there's less rainfall, and the jungle changes into a savanna. Now, the same mutation is beneficial: there will be less exposure to fungal infections because it's less humid, but being able to survive with less consumption of water will confer an advantage. That means that creatures with this mutation will do better in the changed circumstances, and the mutation will survive in the population. With enough such mutations, new species will eventually evolve.

So, once more: the extinction events don't cause mutations. Instead, they change circumstances so that mutations that would have been weeded out by natural selection in the previous circumstances now persist. This eventually results in speciation.

On the other hand the survival of a previous mutation may be increased through the event because of reduced population.

Not because of the reduced population: because of the changed circumstances. Think carefully about what natural selection is, and you might eventually get it.

Punk eek sounds to me like forced evolution the way it is presented to me(form the wiki). Because it seems by the diagram to wait for an event to occur before the evoltuion occurs. I disagree with that.

Try to get the basic concepts straight in your head before forming opinions on the theory. Otherwise you're just spouting random nonsense.

 

[GhanBuriGhan]

An important element in speciation that may have been missing in the debate (I have not read every post) is the importance of barriers to interbreeding. If gene flow is unlimited, there may still be genetic drift (i.e. the species 1000 years ago may be significantly different to the contemporary one) but it may not lead to speciation (i.e. several daughter-species). Sympatric sprciation (speciation within overlapping habitats) is probably a rare case. Of course some of the events discussed above may, in addition to representing a cause for selection, also cause popualations to become isolated (i.e. there are isolated pockets of survival, that do not quickly become reconnected). In the same sense, specfic, genetically distinct populations may become extinct if genetic exchange becomes reestablished and hybridization is still possible. This is something that can be monitored currently as human activity (e.g. fish stocking) or changes to the environment (global warming) - change gene flow patterns at an unprecedented rate.

 

[Kendrik]

Hmm this is an interesting topic. It appears that there is some confusion about how natural selection works (Prime Junta has given some good explanations but I don't suppose he'd mind if I tried a more simple approach - again thsi is not aimed at the people who get what the theory of evolution is)

Instead of talking about microbes lets talk about rabbits. (this is only an example)

Rabbits do what Rabbits do best - breed and breed and breed. Now natural balance keeps the numbers in check (preditors, food supply and water supply) i.e. when the number of rabbits get too high they run out of food and therefore die without breeding so much hence growth rate is reduced and eventually you may see a reduction in population due to starvation. This is Natural popoulation control not evolution. Now if we consider that each new born rabbit has the potential to be a mutant (i.e. have a different charactersistic to the rest of the population) then we can see that with all the breeding going on then lots of mutants will be born. Many of these mutations will offer no benefit to the rabbit (e.g. different eye colour) which will mean the new characteristic may survive but unless conditions change will not greatly increase in numbers. Some mutation will be harmful (such as low sperm count in males) which will more than probibly die out adn some may be beneficial such as a slighlty more efficient digestive system. However like the eye colour if food is plentyful then this doesn't really offer an advantage as everyone has enough to eat. However what if a famine occurs or what if the population grows to large. Then all of a sudden food and it's use become important. So we have 3 types of rabbits "normal", "blue eyes" and "efficient digestive". All three will fight over food and will get meager portions, this may not be enough for "normal" and "blue eyes" so they will get sick and be unable to breed as much. "efficient digestive" however can surive on less food and therefore remains healthy and can keep breeding. Therefore until something else changes more "efficient digestive" bunnies will be born in preportion to "normal" and "blue eyes" and therefore "efficient digestive" becomes the dominant phenotype. Hence the species has evolved. This is natural selection or "survival of the fittest". Nothing drove the change in the phenotype "efficient digestive", "normal" and "blue eyes" all lived together with no direct advantage until the situation change making one more likely to survive. The mutation happened before the change.

This is a very basic analogy and hopefully some of the more knowledgable people won't start picking it apart. There are many factors to evolution but the above is an overview.

To answer some of the other points raised:

Evolution is a theory. Like all scientific theories it was created as a best fit for the evidence. No scientist worth their salt would blindly believe in any theory. They would read up about it and study the data and if of interest would then go about trying to disprove it. Theories are only considered worthwhile until they are disproved. That is the very basis of scientific method. That is why it's not similar to religion. Science teaches you to question everything even scientific calulations shoudl begin with the word Assuming (i.e. assuming e=mc2 then the calculation based on that assumption). Religion does not normally teach you to question it's key tenents and hence the difference.

Also saying that we have no evidence of the concept of evolution is not true. Experiments can be carried out in labs on Fruit flies where conditions can be varied to select for a survival of a certain phenotype. Also force mutation can be made to simulate natural mustions found in the wild. Even if they are forced changes they still demonstraite the validity of evolution.

Wow that turned out to be longer than I thought - just my 2 pence (cents) worth. (apologies for the spelling)

 

[Damian Mahadevan]

The rate of mutation is constant. The rate of speciation, or evolution if you will, can and certainly does change.



You're *still* not getting it. You have the causes and effects all mixed up.

Famines (etc.) don't cause beneficial mutations. Mutations occur at a constant rate.

What these events do, is change conditions.

Suppose you have a jungle: lots of water, lots of vegetation, lots of microbial life.

In these conditions, a mutation that makes it possible to survive with less consumption of water is not beneficial. In fact, if it comes with some cost -- for example, a lowered resistance to fungal infections -- it's harmful. That means it that it will be bred out of the population.

Now, suppose the climate changes, so there's less rainfall, and the jungle changes into a savanna. Now, the same mutation is beneficial: there will be less exposure to fungal infections because it's less humid, but being able to survive with less consumption of water will confer an advantage. That means that creatures with this mutation will do better in the changed circumstances, and the mutation will survive in the population. With enough such mutations, new species will eventually evolve.

So, once more: the extinction events don't cause mutations. Instead, they change circumstances so that mutations that would have been weeded out by natural selection in the previous circumstances now persist. This eventually results in speciation.



Not because of the reduced population: because of the changed circumstances. Think carefully about what natural selection is, and you might eventually get it.



Try to get the basic concepts straight in your head before forming opinions on the theory. Otherwise you're just spouting random nonsense.

Ok i get it now. Thanks for the crash course. So basically you are arguing increased chances of survival of a mutation due to events that happen after?

 

[Corwin]

Corwin, darling, those are creationists. Nobody takes those "scientists" seriously. They're the jokes of the scientific world. Have you heard of scientology by any chance?

You're digging your own hole, because the people you linked are exactly the kind of people who substitute science with religion.

I'd advise you NEVER to call me darling again. Creationists are still scientists, with valid degrees and many work in universities. I pointed to them since ISS claimed NO scientists believe in creation!! It seems to me that according to you, if a scientist disagrees with your position, it makes him a joke. That is not a valid position to take in a debate. Try READING what some of them have to say with an OPEN mind sometime. Finally, Scientology has NOTHING to do with Creationism, or Science!!

 

[Prime Junta]

Ok i get it now. Thanks for the crash course. So basically you are arguing increased chances of survival of a mutation due to events that happen after?

Mutations that make it possible for an organism to beget more surviving offspring -- for whatever reason, whenever -- will proliferate. If circumstances change, the characteristics required to cope with them change too.

The connection between extinction events and speciation is that extinction events leave the surviving organisms less well adapted to their environment than the species preceding whatever sparked the extinction event; this means that comparatively more mutations will be improvements, and the rate of speciation/genetic change speeds up.

 

[Prime Junta]

I'd advise you NEVER to call me darling again. Creationists are still scientists, with valid degrees and many work in universities.

Yup, but they either (a) work in fields completely unrelated to biology (e.g., theology), or (b) they work in universities set up especially for creationists.

Creationists are not scientists, because creationism is incompatible with the scientific method.

I pointed to them since ISS claimed NO scientists believe in creation!! It seems to me that according to you, if a scientist disagrees with your position, it makes him a joke.

Where did you draw that conclusion, Corwin?

Creationism is a joke, or would be, if it wasn't doing such a huge amount of damage to young minds. But it's not a joke because I disagree with it; it's a joke because it's irrational, unscientific, unfalsifiable, ungrounded in evidence or argument, and generally just plain ol' flaky.

That is not a valid position to take in a debate. Try READING what some of them have to say with an OPEN mind sometime.

That's rather ironic, Corwin. I would wager that I know the creationist arguments better than you do. You, OTOH, are not able to see the flaws in them, (1) because you're not scientifically literate (you demonstrated this earlier in this thread), and (2) they agree with your choice of mythology.

Finally, Scientology has NOTHING to do with Creationism, or Science!!

True, dat.

 

[Corwin]

Aren't people with major science degrees scientists? If they are also creationists and use their science to support their position, which appears to me to be what they're doing on that site, then why are they incompatible positions? I'll admit freely to having little scientific background, but these people do have that background, so they can't be simply dismissed as a joke. That's the point I was trying to make.

 

[Prime Junta]

Aren't people with major science degrees scientists?

They may be. But then again they may not. It depends on what they're doing. If they're doing research that's regularly getting published in peer-reviewed journals not set up exclusively for creationists, then, yeah, they're scientists. But if they only publish in creationist journals, or don't do scientific research at all, then they're not scientists. And if they do research in, say, chemistry or physics, they're scientists, but they're not scientists in a field that gives them any more qualifications to make scientific pronouncements about evolutionary biology than you or I have.

If they are also creationists and use their science to support their position, which appears to me to be what they're doing on that site, then why are they incompatible positions?

Key word "appears." Apologetics is not science. Using scientific terminology to construct a dishonest argument -- by either omitting, distorting, or outright lying about evidence or argument -- is not science either.

I'll admit freely to having little scientific background, but these people do have that background, so they can't be simply dismissed as a joke. That's the point I was trying to make.

Believe me, I've read a lot of them. Their arguments don't stand up to actual scientific scrutiny. If I get the inspiration and have an extra hour or two on my hands, I just might do such a deconstruction for you.

(I very much doubt it would get you to change your mind, though. You're very deeply committed at an emotional level to your beliefs, which include creationism, and I doubt you'd be able to let go of them, no matter what evidence or argument was presented to you. Which is a pity, really, because creationism has nothing to do with Christianity; it has even precious little to do with Biblical literalism, especially the way you understand it.)

 

[Essaliad]

I'd advise you NEVER to call me darling again. Creationists are still scientists, with valid degrees and many work in universities. I pointed to them since ISS claimed NO scientists believe in creation!! It seems to me that according to you, if a scientist disagrees with your position, it makes him a joke. That is not a valid position to take in a debate.

Yes, they are a joke. No, they are not real scientists, and that has nothing to do whether they disagree with me. As for your position in the debate... is there a position? All I see is you occasionally barging in to spout a line or two of nonsense. There is neither an argument nor a position, let alone a valid one. You have not provided evidence of any sort. You just linked to a creationist website, which of course will insist that their scientists are terribly respected people who aren't made fun off in the scientific world. No. How about finding an unbiased source next time, hmm?

Try READING what some of them have to say with an OPEN mind sometime.

I recommend practicing what you preach. But wait, if your god says it, then that settles it, right? Surely you must recognize the irony in your screaming for someone to open their mind.

If they are also creationists and use their science to support their position, which appears to me to be what they're doing on that site, then why are they incompatible positions?

Perhaps you would like to write a geology essay based on your research about post-modern literature? Do you recognize the fact that there are different disciplines and some do not share very much, if at all, in common?

I'll admit freely to having little scientific background,

No need to, sweetcheeks. It shows, it really does.

 

[Damian Mahadevan]

They may be. But then again they may not. It depends on what they're doing. If they're doing research that's regularly getting published in peer-reviewed journals not set up exclusively for creationists, then, yeah, they're scientists. But if they only publish in creationist journals, or don't do scientific research at all, then they're not scientists. And if they do research in, say, chemistry or physics, they're scientists, but they're not scientists in a field that gives them any more qualifications to make scientific pronouncements about evolutionary biology than you or I have.

I just want to point that that even if they do research they wont get published by mainstream science publication precisely because the heads of the magazine believe that creationism is a joke. Even if the evidence backs them up they wont get published because of this. Hence why there is the "Journal of Creation".

Science is about hypothesis, evidence, conclusion. Whether the hypothesis is creationist is irrelevant, all that matters is whether the UNTAINTED evidence supports their theories. Sadly science isnt science anymore, it is simply research that is about supporting current theories. That to me is sad. Science should be about having any crazy theory you want, testing it, and IF the evidence supports the theory it deserves to be published.

I personally dont like how currently science journals and creationist journals are separate. Maybe one day, if i get enough money, i will make a magazine called "Hypothesis, Evidence, Conclusion" where it is neither creationist or non creationist.

 

[GhanBuriGhan]

The thing is, based on the current understanding of genetics, population dynamics, ecology, fossil record, etc., etc., it is indeed pretty hard to imagine evolution NOT taking place - a mechanism that would maintatin species in genetic equilibrium, and at the same time explain the fossil record requires extreme mental acrobatics, and there is no evidence for such a mechanism. From a scientific viewpoint, there is currently no incentive based on the evidence to develop an alternative explanation to evolution - if that need arose, however, it is very unlikely that that alternative would be creation as envisioned by creationists (as there is a mountain of evidence against that theory, if you want to call it one), nor that it would completely discount evolution but rather amend it with new aspects (certain aspects of evolution, are of course very much subject to scientific scrutiny and research and hotly debated among scientists, e.g. actual modes of speciation or speculative concepts such as panspermia).
Creationists start with a premise originating entirely outside of science, that the account of creation in scripture is literally (or close to literally) right, and search for scraps of supportive evidence. Interestingly most energy is spent on searching for seeming inconsistencies in evolution theory, while actually presenting convincing evidence for the alternative theory is not even attempted to any significant degree. Thats not correct scientific method, as PJ stated time and again. And it is sad really. Basically you'd need to assume a deliberately misleading creator, and where would that leave religion?

 

[JemyM]

"Creationists" isn't scientists in biology. Creationism is a political agenda, and yes, it's often shunned as a joke, or at least tasteless, similar to the holocaust deniers.

The movement is based on a complete misunderstanding about how science works and what evolution is. It's not clear wether the people behind the conspiracy are clueless or if their agenda is an intelligent exploit for power, but the conspiracy and the companies behind the movement are today well known thanks to the trials.

The original conspiracy were written down in the Wedge Strategy. If you never heard about it before, if it wasn't for the fact that the Wedge Strategy conspiracy was found in several trials and is now well known, it would sound like a paranoid crackpot would come up with it (kinda like the Truthers movement), but the trials have shown it's real.

a broad social, political, and academic agenda whose ultimate goal is to "defeat [scientific] materialism" represented by evolution, "reverse the stifling materialist world view and replace it with a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions" and to "affirm the reality of God." Its goal is to "renew" American culture by shaping public policy to reflect conservative Christian, namely evangelical Protestant, values.

Spend some time reading up on dominionism, the christian right and the wedge strategy and you will uncover the actual truth behind the movement in which both Damian and Corwin get their "stuff" from. It's an extremist group that pretty much have the agenda to "take over" the United States, the whole anti-evolution "controversy" is simply one step in the great scheme. All of this was exposed during and after the dover trial. I recommend NOVA's excellent documentary Intelligent Design on Trial that go through the whole thing in detail. Those who deal with creationists should see it.

Regarding the "scientist list" that is created and spread by Discovery Institute (which is one of the main institutions behind the agenda) you can check the following video.

If you want to study the origin of life, study biology. Creationism (later Intelligent Design) is far more interesting to study as an antropologist, journalist, historian or any other group who are interested in researching radical extremist movements.

Also recommended is the site Expelled Exposed that go through the mixed bag of distortions made by the documentary Expelled that equals evolution with the holocaust.

 

[Damian Mahadevan]

Creationists start with a premise originating entirely outside of science, that the account of creation in scripture is literally (or close to literally) right, and search for scraps of supportive evidence. Interestingly most energy is spent on searching for seeming inconsistencies in evolution theory, while actually presenting convincing evidence for the alternative theory is not even attempted to any significant degree. Thats not correct scientific method, as PJ stated time and again. And it is sad really. Basically you'd need to assume a deliberately misleading creator, and where would that leave religion?

I give you that for the most part it is true. But some part does actually have pretty convincing evidence, like how mercury's magnetic field is by current evidence 6000 years old. And how diamonds are found to be 50k years old. Mercury's magnetic field is discarded by the scientific community because it isnt inline with their view that the universe is millions of years old. Same with the diamonds. Atleast creationists attempted to explain why this is so, the scientific community ignored how old diamonds are.




Mercury being 6000 years old
http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/5636

here is the page where creationist try to explain the "high" age fo diamonds
http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/4650/

 

[JemyM]

Scientists are generally aware of the inconsistencies and issues within their own field, and usually with a much greater understanding than the general public. As a psychology student I am forced to keep at least five but really almost the double amount of inconsistent perspectives in my head, using them almost as a toolbox. Since the brain is too complex for a single theory to handle, the perspectives within psychology is used as long as they serve a function. Psychoanalysis is pretty much discarded and shunned these days, but you still have to know it to be able to to understand what later theories comes from.

Science do not ignore observations, in science, observations have the highest authority. Like GhanBuriGhan mentioned, Creationists try to make this sound like a "conspiracy" or "inconsistency" or "flaw in science" for the purpose of injecting something which have nothing going for it. To even fall for the idea that creationism has something to present you must lack even the basic understanding of what science is and how science works, which is ofcourse easy if you aim at manipulating people with low education.