posted
I'm looking for a good balanced web site that explains the arguments against evolution (such as the eye disproving evolution, planes in ice, etc). Its an older website, very good, lots of real science but written for the lay person.
Posts: 4112 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
There isn't anything scientific that argues against evolution having occurred. Only pseudo-science stuff. Science is as sure evolution has occurred as it is of anything. There are lots of interesting ongoing debates about exactly how speciation occurs, how gradual or rapid evolutionary changes are, and so on, but no scientific debate at all about the earth being only a few thousand years old or any such nonsense as that. That's strictly wackos and flat-earthers and so on, along with the willfully ignorant.
Posts: 5509 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ok, first off, there are plenty of people who believe the Earth to be less than 6000 years old who are neither "wackos" nor "flat earthers."
I personally consider it a possibility, but unlikely.
As far as evidence against evolution, if you mean microevolution, you're right. If you mean macro-, you're not.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
yay! evolution debate on hatrack! First one in a long time!
Could you please come up with another plausible explanation for the fossil record, rivka?
Also, its important to remember that micro and macro evolution are just relative terms for the same effect; they are not different in mechanism. We have watched speciation in action (and I've heard the kinds argument day in and day out), and macro evolution is nothing but continued speciation.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I believe in something along the lines of intelligent design, which accounts for the fossil record far better than standard evolutionary theories, IMO.
I don't know what you mean by "the kinds argument."
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
If Evolution is "Things work this way because of X and Y", intelligent design is "Things work this way because of X and Y . . . which happen because God says so" (essentially).
Might I ask what evidence you have for intelligent design? Also, if the design is intelligent, why are there so many species that die off with no successors?
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Oh, the kinds argument is a common argument that things can evolve in "kinds", but not outside of them. Like, snakes can become new kinds of snakes, but neverr not be snakes.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
From what little I know of science, there are two kinds of "evolution" that can be discussed. There is the adaptation evolution which has been recorded and documented, then there is the where-we-come-from evolution that gets atheists and theists all het up.
Posts: 346 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
The trouble I have with evolutionary science is not so much the content as the posture they take. Because they believe they contradict religious fundamentalism, they themselves become fundamentalists about evolution and science. Why does it matter whether the mutations are from an intelligent source or not? But it is offensive to some (admittedly not all) evolutionary scientists to suggest it could be.
I find the arguments for speciation fairly weak. How does a species add on a chromasome?
If variation is a constant, why have sharks and crocodiles not changed in 200 million years?
Maybe each species is a super-organism (meaning a group over the individual, not heroically strong). The development of species proceeds the same as cell differentiation in the individual. Unfortunately, we don't understand differentiation either.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Uh, pooka . . . humans routinely have duplcate chromsomes. As do many other animals. Its evern more common (and stranger) in plants.
So the answer is, quite easily.
Also, we have seen speciation. Dozens of times. Its hardly weak.
Sharks and crocodiles are actually excellent examples of evolution: they are highly adapted to their niche, and as such changes tend to not be selected for.
I think you've been talking to the wrong evolutionary theorists.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Rivka -- I'll do a little research, but if this is the same guy who wrote the book alleging archaeopteryx was a hoax (which book has been soundly debunked) I rather suspect his book isn't particularly sound. *checks* yep, same guy.
Also, if his argument boils down to "its incredibly improbable, so it didn't happen" (as it seems to based on the reviews), allow me to introduce you to a spinner.
The spinner is labeled with various numbers around its edge, from 0 to 1. These are merely markers for some numbers, the spinner represents a continuum of numbers.
The probability of the spinner landing on a given number is exactly zero. However, every time I spin the spinner, it lands on something, despite the probability of it landing on that particular something being exactly zero.
Also, his book doesn't seem to address how the fossil record seems to rather strongly indicate a non-directed design (assuming an essentially all-wise designer), as numerous branches occur that are dead ends which die off. It would make far more sense if the designers were rather limited aliens, for instance.
I think its perfectly sensible to believe in inactive intelligent design. Its active intelligent design that's the problem.
*goes off to do research*
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
Specifically, Spetner isn't particularly good with statistics. He make numerous false assumptions, and doesn't fact check.
Note that abiogenesis isn't even particularly relevant to evolution; evolution talks about what happens when life is already present.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's true that his book is far from the best on the topic, but I can't find Larry Keleman's stuff online -- probably because it's not.
quote: The spinner is labeled with various numbers around its edge, from 0 to 1. These are merely markers for some numbers, the spinner represents a continuum of numbers.
The probability of the spinner landing on a given number is exactly zero. However, every time I spin the spinner, it lands on something, despite the probability of it landing on that particular something being exactly zero.
No, the probability approaches 0 -- it can't BE zero -- the sum must be one!
In any case, I don't see the relevance.
It boils down to bias, and I freely admit it. I come from a bias that leads me to intelligent design. You see the same evidence, and come to another conclusion. My beliefs work for me, and I assume yours work for you.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
No, the probability happens to be exactly zero. It would only approach zero if the total number of possible results were finite and approaching infinity. In this case the total number of results are infinite (and not the lowest order of infinity, as a side note), and the probability of a given number is exactly zero.
Do you want a proof? I know of one classic one, and just thought of another; how much math do you have?
Its relevant because his argument essentially boils down to "its improbable so it didn't happen that way", when in fact probability has much less to do with something happening than most people think; at least, the probability of a particular event.
I can pretty closely match the wheel analogy up to evolution. We have seen speciation happen, due to completely understandable environmental pressures; therefore the probability that speciation happens to life is 1 (just as the probability that the spinner lands between 0 and 1 is 1). The number of possible ways in which speciation could proceed approaches infinity, and as such the probability of any one situation is extremely low (approaching zero, though not zero as with the spinner). Showing that one particular example of speciation is low does nothing to disprove evolution/speciation. This is almsot exactly what Spetner tries to do -- he tries to show that the probability of the horse line evolving is very, very low.
He says this means evolution didn't happen as evolutionary theory says it does.
Trouble is, he misunderstands evolutionary theory. Evolutionary theory does not say that "the horse line will evolve in this manner" it says "the horse line will evolve in some manner; any given manner is quite improbable".
To continue the spinner analogy, its as if we spun the spinner several times, and one time it came up 2.13 (exactly . interestingly enough, the probability it will land on a rational number is also exactly zero ). Spetner would be saying "well, revolutionary theory says that it was going to land on 2.13, but I can easily show the probability of that is low!" But he's misunderstanding revolutionary theory; it only says the spinner will land somewhere between 0 and 1 (which is in true).
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Darwin's Origin of Species is really a great book, still. It points out dozens of ways we can tell that descent with natural selection (his term for evolution) has occurred. All of them are meticulously well documented. He was a terrific scientist.
All the findings since then have only strengthened the case. Read Stephen Jay Gould, for instance, for fascinating discussions of modern questions and issues of evolutionary science, written for non-scientists, but not dumbed down in any way. He was also an incredible scientist. I hate it that he died. I love all his books.
I personally never saw any contradiction between my religion and science. How can God's message to his children possibly contradict His universe (or, in other words, God's other way of communicating to His children, by the things there are to be discovered from studying His creation)? Brigham Young said everything that's true is a part of our religion, and I know he was right.
posted
I gave up on the actuary exam. That means I don't have to do any more calculus and you CAN'T MAKE ME! But yeah, I remember about infinite probabilities now.
quote: The number of possible ways in which speciation could proceed approaches infinity
Why? Not viable ones.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
What do you mean by viable? Anyways, that some examples of speciation don't work out is one of the results evolutionary theory relies upon; that they exist is not a weakness of the system, but a strength. Heck, I alluded to this above when I was pointing out unsuccessful species which have died off.
Varyingly viable paths of speciation result in natural selection.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
![[Taunt]](graemlins/taunt.gif)
But yeah, I remember about infinite probabilities now.
