I have been thinking about this a lot lately. This has been a topic recently in MI as it has come out as a topic for discussion by our candidates for Governor.
Let me preface by saying that I am Catholic from birth. I was educated for 12 years in a Catholic School. I like to think that I have (at least) normal skills at critical thinking and reason.
I can appreciate the science that has gone into the Theory of Evolution. But I get the sense from reading various news articles, op/eds, and letters to the editor that most people have absolutely no idea what evolution is.
I think that most people think that it MUST be correct because it is studied by scientists and there is no Religion involved in it. Therefore evolution is rational because the irrational (religion) doesn’t support it. Of course, no less than Pope John Paul II, supported the main ideas of Evolution, but that probably doesn’t make a difference.
I think that many people confuse evolution and adaptation. For instance, I recently read an article that held up for proof of evolution an insect that has (in the last 10 years) changed its mating cycle from a 5 year cycle to a 3 year cycle to adapt to local weather changes. The problem with this “proof” as I see it is that it is still the SAME bug it is only doing things differently.
Here is the dilemma as I see it. An evolutionary process must take a very long time. In order for complex life forms to have evolved from primordial sludge over the millenia, there must have been trillions upon trillions of genetic combinations that had to have been tried and failed. It seems impossible to me that what has happened, and what we are, and what exists happened by accident.
So I offer a question. Can anyone cite the most recent example of evolution?
I can’t cite any recent examples, but I want to ask you a question. The wording of “recent evolution” was interesting to me.
Do you think that evolution could have been a process that existed for a period of time, and then became adaptation?
I don’t really fall in line with either the I.D. crowd or the evolution theory crowd, I suppose. Also, I’m not attacking your reasoning, I’m just interested in hearing your rationale behind “recent evolution.”
Thanks for engaging in the debate. I am going to operate under the assumption that the Theory of Evolution that everyone cites is still in progress. It seems to me that it would be quite ego-centric to think that evolution has stopped with us (Homo Sapiens) being as good as it gets. So when I speak of “recent evolution” I am wondering if there is some example of this in the last 500 years or so. I know this is a relatively small span of time since lots of life forms exist simultaneously, but I think they would evolve at their own pace. So I would assume that there is some evolution going on right now under our noses. But where?
I can’t really say is evolution can become adaptation. I think they are two entirely different things. It seems to me that you hear about Neanderthal and Cro Magnon and Homo Sapiens. Many people believe that one evolved from the other. But there is evidence that they also all existed at the same time. I don’t use this as evidence to debunk evolution (on the contrary, I think this actually supports it) but use it to show that evo. and ada. are different things.
re: your question: I know Ken has on several occasions pointed out examples of new species being generated. I assume that’s what you’re talking about right - new speciation? Evolution and adaptation don’t mean different things. They are both mutation and selection for traits which improve reproductice fitness.
also, what Wolfwood said.
I think that many people confuse evolution and adaptation. For instance, I recently read an article that held up for proof of evolution an insect that has (in the last 10 years) changed its mating cycle from a 5 year cycle to a 3 year cycle to adapt to local weather changes. The problem with this “proof” as I see it is that it is still the SAME bug it is only doing things differently.
It’s still evolution. If this bug cannot mate with the 5 year bug (let’s say after 15 years when they’re all on the same cycle), it’s a new species. If it can, it’s not a new species.
Like rodio touched on, there is no such thing as recent evolution. A new species by definition can only come to exist in the past. When a whole bunch of little adaptations add up enough to be considered a new species, evolution happened. The problem is, those things can only be identified in hindsight thousands of years later. A species just isn’t created in a single generation.
Evolution may seem impossible, but an invisible being that can zap the billions of cells of a human being into existence seems even more impossible. Luckily, there is a least some evidence for one of those things
For what its worth, a search using the parameters of evolution vs. intelligent design, brings up the result of August 2005 as the last time it was mentioned. True enough, it was a cursory search. It also has been topical here in MI because it has come up in our Gubenatorial Election. So it has been more than a year since it was debated outright. If you don’t want to participate that is fine, but please spare me your righteous indignation over my choice of subjects.
Evolution is a science, which can be proven and/or disproven by data, Some parts are well-proven, but of course there are many gaps and unknowns. It’s the best we can do at this time…
Intelligent design is a philosophy and a belief which can neither be proven or disproven. How could that be taught alongside a science?
Everyone I know who has a BS in science (or more) buys into evolution, for the most part. Some are quite devout Christians.
But maybe they are all brainwashed by elitist college professors deadset on promoting the ill-conceived idea of evolutionary biology
It’s still evolution. If this bug cannot mate with the 5 year bug (let’s say after 15 years when they’re all on the same cycle), it’s a new species. If it can, it’s not a new species.
I follow that and I agree.
** I know Ken has on several occasions pointed out examples of new species being generated.**
In my mind all the ID vs Evol. arguments boil down to two possibilities:
At some point matter came out of nothing and eventually evolved into what we have today
Some diety created what we have today
Speaking candidly, both seem equally implausible. I happen to believe in the Christian view of the latter.
Evolution can be proven - look at the increase in average height of humans over the last 500 years as an example. Origin of the species cannot be proven by anything except faith.
Everyone I know who has a BS in science (or more) buys into evolution, for the most part. Some are quite devout Christians.
Trust me, I “buy into evolution, for the most part.” I just think that there are people out there who buy into it without knowing or understanding it. I don’t think we, as humans/scientists, completely understand evolution yet and certainly haven’t proven it.
**But maybe they are all brainwashed by elitist college professors deadset on promoting the ill-conceived idea of evolutionary biology **
In my mind all the ID vs Evol. arguments boil down to two possibilities:
At some point matter came out of nothing and eventually evolved into what we have today
Some diety created what we have today
The science of evolution is about how things change over time. The basic principles are pretty much accepted as factual. Evoution says nothing about the existence of God, how life began, or whether our current world was an accident or not. Evolution is consistent with ID if you take the most general definition of ID, that is: there is a God who created the universe which operates accorsing to a set of principles that can be deduced by scientific investigation.
However, ID in America today refers to the variant popularized by Michael Behe. His these is that some phenomena are so complex that evolution cannot explain them, so they must have been created magically by God in their current form. It is absolutely laughable as a scientific theory, and many of Behe’s examples have been proven wrong - they did evolve into their current form.
It’s still evolution. If this bug cannot mate with the 5 year bug (let’s say after 15 years when they’re all on the same cycle), it’s a new species. If it can, it’s not a new species.
I follow that and I agree.
I know Ken has on several occasions pointed out examples of new species being generated.
I must have missed that, sorry.
“Three species of wildflowers called goatsbeards were introduced to the United States from Europe shortly after the turn of the century. Within a few decades their populations expanded and began to encounter one another in the American West. Whenever mixed populations occurred, the specied interbred (hybridizing) producing sterile hybrid offspring. Suddenly, in the late forties two new species of goatsbeard appeared near Pullman, Washington. Although the new species were similar in appearance to the hybrids, they produced fertile offspring. The evolutionary process had created a separate species that could reproduce but not mate with the goatsbeard plants from which it had evolved.”
The new species has a different number of chromosomes than the parents (which have been identified through DNA testing, I think).
Please keep in mind that the timespans and numbers involved are way beyond anything that the human mind evolved ( to handle. Millions of years can mean billions of generations To me, the fact that we see events like the above and other speciation-type events (like the cichlids mentioned at the link above) at all right now lends credence to the ubiquity of evolution over the history of life on this planet.
Trust me, I “buy into evolution, for the most part.” I just think that there are people out there who buy into it without knowing or understanding it.
Do you understand the biochemical mechanism of action of antibiotics? Would you still take them if your doctor gave them to you for strep throat?
Conversely, there are people out there who dismiss evolution without knowing or understanding it. Even people in here, in this very thread.
This is very interesting. If I read this correctly, we hybridized this flower and “forced(?)” it to evolve. I say this in a simple way so that I can understand its meaning better. I understand it a little from talking to my neighbor who grows hybrid apple trees in his orchard. He can never get a new tree from any of his fruit.
Would it have evolved that way on its own without humans interfering?
I like the idea of evolution happening all around me without me even knowing it. And I appreciate the time spans that this conversation involves. Thanks for humoring me in my thought process here. I will look rather seriously at that weblink.
Do you understand the biochemical mechanism of action of antibiotics?
Enough to be dangerous!
Would you still take them if your doctor gave them to you for strep throat?
Absolutely.
I think scientists understand evolution pretty well. What sort of proof do you require?
Now this is the crux of it. I don’t know what proof I require. When I have read certain articles I haven’t found it yet. I’m looking, and I’m open to learning. I like what was said in an earlier post that the idea that a deity has guided the process. THe number of possibilites just seems too big for me to deal with.
You may want to check out this, book. I am reading myself, Francis Collins does an extremely good job of explaining things from a scientist’s point of view. Although keep in mind he was an agnostic and athiest, who converted to christianity through his work on the human genome project. He is the one of the world’s foremost genetic scientists, and ferets out some fact from ficition on evolution.
