Evolution vs Incompetent Design

[sabreur]

Originally Posted by jBirch

As a starter though, anyone have any idea why there are fixed laws of the universe? Why gravity, for instance, is a constant and not variable? Why energy is conserved in every interaction?

From what did the Universe first evolve, I wonder?

The universe did and does not evolve, at least not in the way that living things evolve. The universe began with a singularity, whose conditions cannot be accurately described with current physics. However, cosmologists have pretty good models of what the universe looked like at times very shortly after the singularity. A rudimentary web search will give you as much information as you can stomach on the subject--for starters, try: http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/m_uni.html. Essentially, once the universe emerged from the singularity, it followed a path that can be modeled reasonably well using the physics that we now know.

Why cosmological constants--there are six of them, by the way--take the values they do (which permit our current universe to exist) is an ongoing question. A theory that unifies general relativity with quantum mechanics would have to explain the values of the cosmological constants. If you are interested in knowing more about cosmological constants, read Just Six Numbers by Martin Rees.

By the way, energy is not conserved in every interaction. Einstein's famous equation E=Mc2 says that energy and mass are equivalent and that it is possible to convert one to the other--this is in fact what happens during nuclear and thermonuclear reactions, and in a very small way, in chemical reactions. The total mass and energy of the system are conserved.

Another favorite ploy of IDers is to raise the issue of the second law of thermodynamics, which states that the chaos of a system will always increase. However, the second law relates only to thermodynamics--it does not apply to the information content of a system. In fact, there are some very interesting models involving self-organizing systems and chaos theory which imply that complex systems can arise from simpler systems, governed by a few rules (a soup of photons and elementary particles, governed by the six cosmological constants, for instance). If the second law of thermodynamics encompassed information systems, you would not be alive. Any form of life is an indication that the second law does not in fact extend to information systems.

Doonesbury had an amusing take on ID last Sunday: http://www.doonesbury.com/strip/dail..._date=20051218

[Goofy]

Originally Posted by sabreur

The advocacy of "intelligent design" is a key part in an open conspiracy on the part of the Christian fundamentalist community to establish their beliefs as the core belief structure in the United States.

The New York Times had an eye-opening (although sadly uncritical, from a scientific point of view) series a while ago on the motivations of those advocating intelligent design. A key quote (I paraphrase) was "If we can win on evolution, we can win on everything else."

The core issue, as the judge in the case noted in his opinion, has nothing to do with the validiity of various scientific theories; it has everything to do with maintaining the separation of church and state, and the denial of efforts to establish a theocracy in the United States.

Actually, a true Christian will NOT support Intelligent Design for the simple fact that it does not specifically state that God alone created the heavens and the earth. Someone might read ID and work God into the 'theory', but faith does not work that way- there are no gray areas in true faith, and God does not need to be 'worked in'.

For a Christian, ID falls into the "house built on sand" category of belief. ID should not be considered a true religious viewpoint, because it does not present the ideas as solid ground. It is a watered down, let's-not-offend-anybody-and-try-to-include-everybody version of a pseudo-religion.

ID is also not science, because the ideas are not testable or provable. Like faith, science has a definition and ID does not fit it in any way, shape, or form.

In the end, ID has no place in an educational institution in ANY category.

[RITFencing]

I used to believe in evolution, but then I was touched by his noodley appendage.

[jessicasimpson]

If ID was taght in schools, how much would be devoted to scientoligy's theorys on alien spirits? How would L. Ron & co. profit? Could we (fencing.net) submit our own theory that would get equal time? I bet we could come up with a good one

[Epee_Pox]

There's no reason why they can't just teach the physics of mythology. Wouldn't that make everyone happy?

See, e.g., http://www.fnal.gov/pub/ferminews/santa/

[larkmaj]

Back to the case. I think it's worth pointing out that the judge is a church-going republican. Also, the case will not be persued any longer by the school board (supported ID) because those members who pushed it lost in the last election (I wonder why).

[foily]

www.panspermia.org is an interesting site, a few years ago I ran across Fred Hoyle's book on it, big glossy coffee table book, printed in Italy or somewhere, I don't know enough about serious biology (only coffee-table superficial type biology) to say Yay or Nay on it, but it was sure interesting reading.

[Rogue]

Originally Posted by esskreemr

Snip- bold added by Rogue
It(ID) is a metaphysical concept that CANNOT be proven in a laboratory.

Has Evolution been proven in a laboratory?

[epeeisky]

Originally Posted by Rogue

Has Evolution been proven in a laboratory?

There is fossil evidence that goes back millions of years that shows a progression of living things. Plus there is evidence in nature around of us of the adaptions that "the evolutionary force" makes to organic beings. A great example is the same species of finches that have different beaks on the Galapagos Islands. Their beaks changed because of their food source.

[Gav]

Originally Posted by Rogue

Has Evolution been proven in a laboratory?

Which theory of evolution are you talking about?

[pigeonmeister]

Originally Posted by Rogue

Has Evolution been proven in a laboratory?

Fossil records contain lots of visible mutations. As far as currently happening mutations, we need to refer to scientific journals for an answer. A major change in species takes thousands if not millions of years. Pretty difficult to observe that 'live' in a laboratory environment.

Don't 45% of Americans believe that the earth is less than 10,000 years old, or was that another flawed poll?

[sabreur]

Originally Posted by Rogue

Has Evolution been proven in a laboratory?

Yes, multiple times. Bacterial resistance to drugs has been observed in laboratory experiments--it's easier to see evolution at work in bacteria because they go through many generations in a short time. Plus, there have been cases of accelerated evolution observed in marcro species in nature--one recent example involved a species of birds on a remote Pacific island that undergo repetitive changes in bill shape in response to cyclical changes in the food available to them--I don't remember the precise details, but there were periods when the primary food available was hard-shelled seeds--during this period the species (not just individuals, but the entire population) developed a short, robust bill suitable to cracking the seeds; there was another extended period when the primary food available required a longer, narrower bill to reach into crevices--as a result of natural selection, the species then developed a bill of this shape.

[Rogue]

I agree there are lots of bits of information regarding natural selection. And there is certainly data that proves adaptation of a species. But one species changing to another? Where are the fossils of the half reptile half bird?
Certainly there should be some record of the animal during its period of change from one species to the next. All the fossils found (IIRC) are of one species or another.
Could there be just a bit of faith involved in the Theory(ies) of evolution?

[latenight]

Why don't we just all go back to believing in spontaneous generation. Now that was a fun idea!


Here's a couple of recipes:

Recipe for bees:
Kill a young bull, and bury it in an upright position so that its horns protrude from the ground. After a month, a swarm of bees will fly out of the corpse.

Jan Baptista van Helmont’s recipe for mice:
Place a dirty shirt or some rags in an open pot or barrel containing a few grains of wheat or some wheat bran, and in 21 days, mice will appear. There will be adult males and females present, and they will be capable of mating and reproducing more mice.

from :http://biology.clc.uc.edu/courses/bio114/spontgen.htm

[Gav]

Originally Posted by Rogue

I agree there are lots of bits of information regarding natural selection. And there is certainly data that proves adaptation of a species. But one species changing to another? Where are the fossils of the half reptile half bird?
Certainly there should be some record of the animal during its period of change from one species to the next. All the fossils found (IIRC) are of one species or another.
Could there be just a bit of faith involved in the Theory(ies) of evolution?

With these 3 paragraphs you are showing an immense amount of ignorance about how scientific investigation worksa and, specifically, evolution itself. I somehow think we've been here before.

I see no point in repeating what others have already typed (including me). I suggest you read wiki's Evolution and some basic biology textbooks. You could also look at Paleontology for an overview of that field then read Feathered Dinosaurs. That may help you answer the questions about reptiles and birds. and give you some general grounding. I am loath to recommend the Wiki but it is free.

Don't take my word for it. If you want to disprove these ideas then you may as well do the research. Which will take you years and if you are succesful will make you famous and probably wealthy; if you fail you will have done science and contributed to the body of human knowledge. Win-win all round and requires no faith.

[academe]

Originally Posted by Rogue

I agree there are lots of bits of information regarding natural selection. And there is certainly data that proves adaptation of a species. But one species changing to another? Where are the fossils of the half reptile half bird?
Certainly there should be some record of the animal during its period of change from one species to the next. All the fossils found (IIRC) are of one species or another.
Could there be just a bit of faith involved in the Theory(ies) of evolution?

Here is a good place to start your education on transitional fossils.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html

Some additional thoughts:

The misconceptions and misrepresentations of scientific creationists regarding concepts like the second law of thermodynamics, macro and micro-evolution, and their inability to examine data like that evidenced in the fossil record, are clear signals that large masses of people in our society do not understand, nor even attempt to understand that which they want to bring down. Couple this with their blaming many of the troubles in our schools and society on Darwinism and the teaching of evolution and we have a clear candidate for a poster child representing the need to increase the quantity and to improve the quality of science education in our schools.

But let me direct the scientific creationists–who might dismiss me as a Godless atheist (I'm not) for my belief that evolution is the best scientific explanation for the diversity of life on our planet–to someone they might listen to more than me. I'm sure that most anti-evolutionists see William J. Bennett as a point of light in education in our country today.

In his book, The Educated Child - A Parent's Guide From Preschool Through Eighth Grade, Dr. Bennett addresses the teaching of evolution in our schools. I must admit that I picked up this book thinking that I would find yet one more tirade against the teaching of evolution and for the teaching of creationism in our schools. After reading it I came away pleased that a person creationists wouldn't categorize as an "educational elitist" could display the clear thinking and understanding that evolution is not the enemy. He recognizes it as a scientific theory (and he understands what the term theory means in science and does not play off of the public's misunderstanding of the term) that is not under fire by the majority of people in the world. He understands that it is a central concept in science that must be taught in our schools.

More importantly to the evolution/creationism controversy, he points out that religious beliefs, like creationism, are best taught at home, by parents as they are a matter of faith, not science. In his words:

"The vast majority of American teachers understand that science deals with observable, testable phenomena, while faith reaches far beyond such evidence. Therefore science class is not a good forum in which to debate or test one's religious beliefs. Most teachers recognize that their job is to teach the prevailing scientific theory, the responsibility for relating the theory to one's religious beliefs falls to family and clergy."

This entry is not meant to be a rant against religion, far from it. As a science teacher I had no problem talking about other views of creation with my students. Although I would not provide equal time in my science class for religious beliefs, my students realized that I honored their faith. My reason for writing this is out of concern for all education in general, not just science education. Sadly, many on the religious right channel their energies into common misconceptions about what evolution is, and integrating religion into science education and the schools rather than focus on the real problems in education. We've all got a lot of education reform work to do–we can't afford to get sidetracked on matters that are not focused on real issues.

[esskreemr]

Originally Posted by Rogue

Has Evolution been proven in a laboratory?

If you're going to be so general, yes, it has. Over and over.

[esskreemr]

Originally Posted by Rogue

I agree there are lots of bits of information regarding natural selection. And there is certainly data that proves adaptation of a species. But one species changing to another? Where are the fossils of the half reptile half bird?

Archaeopteryx
Protoarchaeopteryx robusta
Caudipteryx zoui

Certainly there should be some record of the animal during its period of change from one species to the next.

There are.

Lifted entirely from http://www.holysmoke.org/tran-icr.htm

      Transition from primitive jawless fish to sharks, skates, and rays:
          o Cladoselachians (e.g., Cladoselache).
          o Hybodonts (e.g. Hybodus)
          o Heterodonts (e.g. Heterodontus)
          o Hexanchids (e.g. Chlamydoselache) 
      Transition from primitive bony fish to holostean fish:
          o Palaeoniscoids (e.g. Cheirolepis); living chondrosteans such as Polypterus and Calamoichthys, and also the living acipenseroid chondrosteans such as sturgeons and paddlefishes.
          o Primitive holosteans such as Semionotus. 
      Transition from holostean fish to advanced teleost fish:
          o Leptolepidomorphs, esp. Leptolepis, an excellent holostean-teleost intermediate
          o Elopomorphs, both fossil and living (tarpons, eels)
          o Clupeomorphs (e.g. Diplomystus)
          o Osteoglossomorphs (e.g. Portheus)
          o Protacanthopterygians 
      Transition from primitive bony fish to amphibians:
          o Paleoniscoids again (e.g. Cheirolepis)
          o Osteolepis -- one of the earliest crossopterygian lobe-finned fishes, still sharing some characters with the lungfish (the other group of lobe-finned fish). Had paired fins with a leg-like arrangement of bones, and had an early-amphibian-like skull and teeth.
          o Eusthenopteron (and other rhipidistian crossopterygian fish) -- intermediate between early crossopterygian fish and the earliest amphibians. Skull very amphibian-like. Strong amphibian-like backbone. Fins very like early amphibian feet.
          o Icthyostegids (such as Icthyostega and Icthyostegopsis) -- Terrestrial amphibians with many of Eusthenopteron's fish features (e.g., the fin rays of the tail were retained). Some debate about whether Icthyostega should be considered a fish or an amphibian; it is an excellent transitional fossil.
          o Labyrinthodonts (e.g., Pholidogaster, Pteroplax) -- still have some icthyostegid features, but have lost many of the fish features (e.g., the fin rays are gone, vertebrae are stronger and interlocking, the nasal passage for air intake is well defined.) 
      Transition from amphibians to reptiles:
          o Seymouriamorph labyrinthodonts (e.g. Seymouria) -- classic labyrinthodont skull and teeth, with reptilian vertebrae, pelvis, humerus, and digits; amphibian ankle.
          o Cotylosaurs (e.g. Hylonomus, Limnoscelis) -- slightly amphibian skull (e.g. with amphibian-type pineal opening), with rest of skeleton classically reptilian.
          o The cotylosaurs gave rise to many reptile groups of tremendous variety. I won't go into the transitions from cotylosaurs to the advanced anapsid reptiles (turtles and possibly mesosaurs), to the euryapsid reptiles (icthyosaurs, plesiosaurs, and others), or to the lepidosaurs (eosuchians, lizards, snakes, and the tuatara), or to most of the dinosaurs, since I don't have infinite time. Instead I'll concentrate on the synapsid reptiles (which gave rise to mammals) and the archosaur reptiles (which gave rise to birds). 
      Transition from reptiles to mammals:
          o Pelycosaur synapsids -- classic reptilian skeleton, intermediate between the cotylosaurs (the earliest reptiles) and the therapsids (see next)
          o Therapsids (e.g. Dimetrodon) -- the numerous therapsid fossils show gradual transitions from reptilian features to mammalian features. For example: the hard palate forms, the teeth differentiate, the occipital condyle on the base of the skull doubles, the ribs become restricted to the chest instead of extending down the whole body, the legs become "pulled in" instead of sprawled out, the ilium (major bone of the hip) expands forward.
          o Cynodont theriodonts (e.g. Cynognathus) -- very mammal-like reptiles. Or is that reptile-like mammals? Highly differentiated teeth (a classic mammalian feature), with accessory cusps on cheek teeth; strongly differentiated vertebral column (with distinct types of vertebrae for the neck, chest, abdomen, pelvis, and tail -- very mammalian), mammalian scapula, mammalian limbs, mammalian digits (e.g. reduction of number of bones in the first digit). But, still has unmistakably reptilian jaw joint.
          o Tritilodont theriodonts (e.g. Tritylodon, Bienotherium) -- skull even more mammalian (e.g. advanced zygomatic arches). Still has reptilian jaw joint.
          o Ictidosaur theriodonts (e.g. Diarthrognathus) -- has all the mammalian features of the tritilodonts, and has a double jaw joint; both the reptilian jaw joint and the mammalian jaw joint were present, side-by-side, in Diarthrognathus's skull. A really stunning transitional fossil.
          o Morganucodonts (e.g. Morganucodon) -- early mammals. Double jaw joint, but now the mammalian joint is dominant (the reptilian joint bones are beginning to move inward; in modern mammals these are the bones of the middle ear).
          o Eupantotheres (e.g. Amphitherium) -- these mammals begin to show the complex molar cusp patterns characteristic of modern marsupials and eutherians (placental mammals). Mammalian jaw joint.
          o Proteutherians (e.g. Zalambdalestes) -- small, early insectivores with molars intermediate between eupantothere molars and modern eutherian molars.
          o Those wondering how egg-laying reptiles could make the transition to placental mammals may wish to study the reproductive biology of the monotremes (egg-laying mammals) and the marsupials. The monotremes in particular could almost be considered "living transitional fossils". [see Peter Lamb's suggested marsupial references at end] 
      Transition from reptiles to birds:
          o Lisboasaurus estesi and other "troodontid dinosaur-birds" -- a bird-like reptile with very bird-like teeth (that is, teeth very like those of early toothed birds [modern birds have no teeth]). May not have been a direct ancestor; may have been a "cousin" of the birds instead.
          o Protoavis -- this is a highly controversial fossil that may or may not be an extremely early bird. Not enough of the fossil was recovered to determine if it is definitely related to the birds, or not. I mention it in case people have heard about it recently.
          o Archeopteryx -- reptilian vertebrae, pelvis, tail, skull, teeth, digits, claws, sternum. Avian furcula (wishbone, for attachment of flight muscles), forelimbs, and lift-producing flight feathers. Archeopteryx could probably fly from tree to tree, but couldn't take off from the ground, since it lacked a keeled breastbone (for attachment of large flight muscles) and had a weak shoulder (relative to modern birds).
          o "Chinese bird" [I don't know what name was given to this fossil] -- A fossil dating from 10-15 million years after Archeopteryx. Bird-like claws on the toes, flight-specialized shoulders, fair-sized sternal keel (modern birds usually have large sternal keel); also has reptilian stomach ribs, reptilian unfused hand bones, & reptilian pelvis. This bird has a fused tail ("pygostyle"), but I don't know how long it was, or if it was all fused or just part of it was fused.
          o "Las Hoyas bird" [I don't know what name w