[AllenG]

Civility gentlemen, please.

Dave, perhaps a walk around the block would be good. 

[JimBob]

One problem has not been brought up yet.

The philosophy of LITERALISM and its latest ID permutation.

It always amazes me that those who propound any form of literalism never take time to examine the evolution of their own ideas. Yes - these have evolved. The have evolved only recently, historically speaking. As known these days, literalism is only about 100 years old. Now ID is trying to move back the clock and resolve issues that here to fore were non-existent.

Literalism has been described this way - "Literalism is a modern heresy - perhaps the only heresy invented in modern times." Dr Urban T. Holms, Theologian, 1980

It all started with Martin Luther and his doctrine of Sola Scriptura.  Luther wanted to move authority from the tradition and the priesthood of the WESTERTN Catholic Church to that of the Scripture. Luther was not a literalist - far from it - but the placement of scripture for the first time as the pre-eminent source of authority provided the grounds for literalism to develop.

Literalism has never been accepted by the first Church, the church of Antioch which is now known as the Traditional Syric Orthodox Church (only about 5000 members left) or the Eastern Church at large. It is a tragedy that the original thought of Chhristianity are is being lost.

Literalism is a negative reaction to the scientific revolution and had its beginning formulations in early Calvinistic Protestant thinking as a reaction to the new findings in science that were occurring at the same time.

Literalism is usually based on the ideas that there is an absolute truth in Christianity and that there is only one valid interpretation of scripture, that being a literal reading of the Bible - and usually only one version of the Bible at that, the King James Version.

(The KJV is a poorly done translation. Access to all of the extant texts, all differing, of the Bible were not in English hands because they had split form the Western Christianity so Henry VIII could get a divorce. Most people have no idea that there are so many different, always conflicting, versions of the Bible in use today. No two of the literaly thousands of versions of the Bible, either historic or in present use, are the same.)

ID is a new theory, less than 40 years old. "Moody and Darby in the 1800's contribute to this [the growth of literalism] but it is not until the early 1900s that a true doctrine of scriptural infallibility emerges." (Same source as below) It is spreading because people do not want to think about things and want to be told how to think. It is the biggest lie that has been invented in the history of Christianity, neglecting the more subtle meanings found in what some consider divine revelation. It limits The Logos!

Literalism is the same reaction to science that occurred when Galileo tried to put his ideas of the universe into the public realm - it is absolutely not founded in Church history. Orogin (185–254) and Saint Jerome railed against the literal interpretation of scripture, as did the Church both Eastern and Western, as a whole for all of its time until Luther. Before Luther the Logos was a mystery that could not be known. But as described above, Luther never held this idea.

"There are obvious contradictions in scripture. There are contradictions in timing, placement and genealogies in the Old Testament. A cursory comparison of the four Gospels shows a difference of opinion on when certain events took place in Jesus' ministry (or whether they occurred at all) and who was present.  At one point, Tatian tried to smooth over the differences in the Gospels by combining them into one account called the Diatessaron.  It was used for several decades in some churches, but eventually discarded as not being as good a witness as the "Four-square Gospels" and their differing points of view.

"Pre-enlightenment critics noticed these inconsistencies.  When St. Jerome translated the Old and New Testaments into Latin in the 200s, he remarked that there appeared to be parts of the Gospels that might be original, and other parts that might be later add-ons.  It was apparent to him from the difference in Greek.  The church father Origen, commenting on these differences, pointed out that the purpose of scripture was spiritual instruction, not conveyance of facts, "The spiritual truth was often preserved, as one might say, in material falsehood."  Medieval interpreters believed that Scripture existed on four levels, the Plain, Allegorical, Tropological and Anagogical senses. (Too much detail to go into here.)  Considering this long tradition of more-than-literal interpretation, how did we get to statements of factual infallibility, such as the American 1978 Chicago Statement, which reads, "We affirm that Scripture in its entirety is inerrant, being free from all falsehood, fraud, or deceit?" " - from   http://www.askthepriest.org/askthepriest/2005/11/the_heresy_of_l.html

Any form of literalism, including ID, is non-traditional Christianity. The dichotomy that is driving this discussion crazy is not between science and religion, it is the dichotomy between traditional Christianity and the unfounded, heretical NEW Christianity.

The new approach to try to resolve the disagreement between science as it exits and the NEWER theory of ID is an attempt to reconcile the irreconcilable - science and religion. It simply cannot be done.

The LOGOS is an unknown and unknowable. To claim one knows how it works (i.e., ID) is to claim the impossible.

To presume that one is privy to the way the Logos works is the ultimate sin. It denies the mystery of the Logos.

[_Stefan_]

Which definition of ID as a theory are you using there, JimBob? It's not a scientific theory by a long shot [:p]

[JimBob]

It is a minority religious theory. It has little creditability among main stream Christianity. It has less creditability than fundamentalist Islam - often found in dominantly Shi'ism - has among the whole Muslim community.

The vast majority of the worlds Christian reject Literalism. I think this movement is dieing, as can be seen in this whole subject of ID that tries to reconcile science with extreme Fundamental Christianity - fundamentalism negates any form of science when examined issue by issue. 

When I was a child one of my mother's favorite things to use when telling me I couldn't have my way was "God Moves in mysterious ways" She didn't know it then, but she was preparing me for a life of guilt-free science. If God's work was unknown and unknowable to mortals and if i could  study, understand and use sconce, there was science and religion equal but separate endeavors without overlapping areas of conflict.   ID "science" is an attempt to reconcile science with guilt for thinking science has something to contribute to knowledge of God, and they do not yet know what precisely this might be.

Darwin has amazing positive credibility and history behind it. Intelligent Design is struggling with little history or credibility.


I am going to bed - almost 1 AM.

AND Stefan, please try to see this as a person wrestling with their own belief system in a public way. Dave wants to be a good Christian and a good scientist but the belief system of HIS church doesn't allow that. He is trying to resolve this dilemma in a rather public way. I feel sorry for him as it can never happen unless  he accepts that life - and his God - are both a mystery. His religion lacks what traditional Christianity has always had, the unknowable LOGOS.
 

[Tigerkix]

This thread went off topic fast... but to put it back on.
My thought to the second part of Jim's question is that animals like the shark and crocodile have no need for much further evolution. The number of predators they have are very small. They may have decreased in size over the millions of years but keeping their overall shape and design.

*also a side note.. there are "new species" of tropical fish found in the great barrier reef every year because the environment there is so densely populated the fish have to find a way to survive. (They are not truly a new species just subtle changes in a fish to help it adapt to the environment)

[JimBob]

The reasoning of the last post is flawed due to lack of facts. As described below, evolution is an ongoing process in all organisms, including sharks and related fish.

The fact that "new" species are found on the Great Barrier Reef is not due to survival of the fittest but to the lack of study and classification of the numerous species that exist. Until deep submersible vehicles came along the existence of the plethora of life in the deep ocean was unknown. It is discovery, not differentiation due to selection that is driving the discovery of new species around and in the Great Barrier Reef. New investigations usually find new species.

____________________


The larger problem with this discussion it that abominable misuse of the word "theory" to represent what in science is a "hypothesis." A theory has withstood the test of time and independent investigation. A hypothesis is one of many ideas as to how observable phenomena came to be. A theory is much more than this. It is proven.

T. C. Chamberlain in his work "The Method of Multiple Working Hypotheses" explains the differences in meaning and the problems that have been caused due to the flippant misuse of "theory," as in this discussion

His original paper, an address to the American Association for the Advancement of Science in 1890. This is the text of that address: http://arti.vub.ac.be/cursus/2005-2006/mwo/chamberlin1890science.pdf

I would suggest that this reprise of the work (next) be read. It is very good.
http://www.gly.uga.edu/railsback/railsback_chamberlin.html

I am proposing that should there be any discussion of the theory of science that the history of scientific though should first be considered - and understood. In this discussion it has obviously been neglected.

"It is not the slowness with which conclusions are arrived at that should give satisfaction to the moral sense, but the thoroughness, the completeness, the all-sidedness, the impartiality, of the investigation." Chamberlin

See epically the part entitled "Premature Theories" as this is what is expounded in the third post to this subject. It is a pet hypotheses, very loved by the person posting it.

"Love was long since represented as blind, and what is true in the personal realm is measurably true in the intellectual realm. Important as the intellectual affections are as stimuli and as rewards , they are nevertheless dangerous factors, which menace the integrity of the intellectual processes. The moment one has offered an original explanation for a phenomenon which seems satisfactory, that moment affection for his intellectual brain child springs into existence; and as the explanation grows into a definite theory, this parental affections cluster about his intellectual  offspring, and it grows more and more dear to him, so that, while he holds it seemingly tentative, it is still lovingly tentative, and not impartially tentative. So soon as this parental affection takes possession of the mind there is a rapid passage to the adoption of the theory. There is an unconscious selection and magnifying of the phenomena that fall into harmony with the theory and support it and an unconscious neglect of those that fail of coincidence. The mind lingers with pleasure upon the facts that fall happily into the embrace of the theory, and feels a natural coldness toward those that seem refractory."

Darwinian evolution is much more than a lingering fancy. It has passed the test of critical examination thousands and thousands of time. The evidence for anything contrary does not seem to exist, otherwise it would not be so well respected in legitimate scientific circles.

To the two original questions:

1. How is that natural selection takes millions of years to change a species or create a sub-species, yet domestication of plants and animals only takes thousands or tens of thousands of years?  Is mankind that good?

YES - One of the workhorses of evolutionary research is the fruit fly, Drosophila melanogaster because this fly reproduces so quickly and numerous generations can be raised very quickly in laboratory setting. This fly has been artificially speciated. New species, incapable of interbreeding, have been developed in just a few years.

The misuse of antibiotics has also developed separate strains, although since they do not reproduce sexually, they cannot be considered species in the sense this word is commonly used.

2.  Some species such as sharks and crocodiles are said to be millions of years old, which implies a) they are older than many other species and b) have changed little by way of comparison.  Does natural selection address why the rate of change varies from one species to the next?

Yes and no. These examples are so well adapted to their specific ecological niche that they can remain distinct species for extremely long periods of time. HOWEVER - this does NOT mean that the Chondrichthyes and Crocodilians we have today are the same sharks and crocks that existed 60 million years ago. In fact, they are NOT. It is the familial phenotype that has survived the test of eons. Today's species have evolved over time out different conditions, the largest ones being temperature and oxygen saturation of the atmosphere and the waters. They are not at all that old. They didn't exist 20 million years ago. At present hammer-head sharks are differentiating themselves in Brazil, if my memory serves me right. The bays they inhabit and in which they place their encapsulated young to mature are very turbid, loaded with yellow silt. As an adaptive mechanism to avoid predation of the young that are born in these bays, particular sharks have developed a yellow color to their skin that makes them less attractive to other hammer-heads so they are much less likely to interbreed with gray hammer-heads. A new species is developing.

The statement that "So, even after a zillion years, [conditions] will remain for the [same] but not as much." is just plain uniformed about the science of historical biology and ecosystems. It is a deceptively possible argument, but totally without any scientific foundation and without merit and mostly, without the backing of empirical data. It is intellectualism resulting in the scientific vacillation Chamberlain warns against. The hypothesis has become too well loved by the author. Evolution just does not happen that way.

In summary, the positions held by some in this discussion are pseudo-science, not capable of being born out by rigorous scientific examination.

[_Stefan_]

2. I reported Stefan to the Moderator as attacking my character because he described me as supposedly “intellectually dishonest”.  Just because I believe in the Big Bounce Theory (if I had to choose) instead of the Big Bang Theory doesn’t make me dishonest.  And read my posts.  I never attacked Stefan’s character, only his statements.

I called you intellectually dishonest because you were misrepresenting my views and then saying they are "inexperienced and sophomoric" and that I "promote scientific anarchy". These are straw-man tactics. It is inexcusable if it was not deliberate, because you had only to read my posts and links properly.

And read my posts.  I never attacked Stefan’s character, only his statements.

Oh, of course, not me, just my statements. Don't pretend you wouldn't have prefered to call me "inexperienced and sophomoric" directly aswell. Those adjectives make much more sense as ad hominems than as attacks on ideas. And what should we make of this golden nugget:

Try dealing with this current reality in your own life before you try dealing with what may or may not have happened billions of years ago.

[SkepticSam]

"3. I reported SkepticSam for worse unkind remarks about me, and the Moderator removed his post.  "

I removed my own post. I stand by what I said, but thought it too early in my membership of this forum to rock the boat. Your reporting and making that public seemed very childish. Like I said, I removed the post not a moderator and I have not, as yet, been contacted by a moderator about that post

[Nizzle]

SOOOOOooooh,

on topic: Natural selection is much slower than human selection because natural selection occurs at random, and human selection has some reasoning and purpose behind it.

[Geezer]

SOOOOOooooh,

on topic: Natural selection is much slower than human selection because natural selection occurs at random, and human selection has some reasoning and purpose behind it.

Good point. Wasn't there was a famous experiment conducted by a Russian scientist on Arctic foxes where the foxes' behaviors aligned with the colours of their fur? And it only took a couple of generations to make the adaptation.

[Variola]

SOOOOOooooh,

on topic: Natural selection is much slower than human selection because natural selection occurs at random, and human selection has some reasoning and purpose behind it.

That is what i said 2 pages ago!!

Ontopic- humans select to produce what is beneficial for us, not for the plant/animal,whereas evolution does the opposite.

http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=25519.0

Pffffttttttt [] [] []

[BenV]

Ontopic- humans select to produce what is beneficial for us, not for the plant/animal,whereas evolution does the opposite.

http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=25519.0

Also, most evolutionary changes are a trade off of sorts - we can control for the disadvantageous factors (maybe bigger, sweeter fruit will be less fertile - in the wild this can kill your species, in a greenhouse it's simply a case of marginally more care and more seed planting.

Artificial selection certainly isn't perfect - many breeds of dog/cat have horrendous arthritic/kidney failure problems that their hybridised, mongrel or wild cousins don't experience.  Because we can cope with these problems (or don't care, and just want the fluffiest poodle) we strengthen certain selection pressures whilst relieving others.

[rami999]

I think mutation plays a huge roll

[Ophiolite]

I think mutation plays a huge roll

It is almost ten years since there were any posts to this thread, but your statement is true now and would have been true back then. The role of mutation is to supplement existing genetic variation within a population, which natural selection can then act upon.

[Le Repteux]

Hi Ophiolite,

I think that the only way to produce changes in a sustainable system is to introduce some randomness in it, and that the only way to produce a sustainable system out of sheer randomness is natural selection, not only for biological systems, but for all that exist. Take intelligence for instance: the only way to change an established idea would be to introduce some artificial randomness in it, and the only way to establish the change would be to test it for real it in the environment so that it gets selected, which is a bit what I'm doing now while publishing that idea :0). This way, the reason why evolution of species is slower than evolution of ideas would be because it generally takes less time to test a new idea than to test a new living individual.

[Ophiolite]

You have some interesting thoughts, however. . .

I think that the only way to produce changes in a sustainable system is to introduce some randomness in it, and that the only way to produce a sustainable system out of sheer randomness is natural selection, not only for biological systems, but for all that exist.

This is incorrect. Sustainable systems of, for example, car manufacturing are not improved by introducing random changes, but by properly considered and analysed modifications to the existing system, or its wholesale replacement.
In the case of bioligical systems the breeding of domestic animals refutes your claim. The recent advances in genetic engineering are the antithesis of random change.

Take intelligence for instance: the only way to change an established idea would be to introduce some artificial randomness in it, and the only way to establish the change would be to test it for real it in the environment so that it gets selected, which is a bit what I'm doing now while publishing that idea :0).

This notion is contradicted by the oratorical skills of politicians, business leaders, military commanders and the like. Can you demonstrate examples of where they have had their ideas accepted because they introduced random elements into their statements and speeches?

This way, the reason why evolution of species is slower than evolution of ideas would be because it generally takes less time to test a new idea than to test a new living individual.

This is a trivial, self-evident statement.

 

[Le Repteux]

This is incorrect. Sustainable systems of, for example, car manufacturing are not improved by introducing random changes, but by properly considered and analysed modifications to the existing system, or its wholesale replacement.
In the case of bioligical systems the breeding of domestic animals refutes your claim. The recent advances in genetic engineering are the antithesis of random change.

What you say means that you accept that randomness is the key to evolution of life, but not to evolution of ideas. Have you tried to figure out how our ideas could be anything else than biological stuff?

This notion is contradicted by the oratorical skills of politicians, business leaders, military commanders and the like. Can you demonstrate examples of where they have had their ideas accepted because they introduced random elements into their statements and speeches?

Politicians are not elected to develop new ideas, only to govern, and new ideas don't work as often as old ones, so if they want to be reelected, they better present old ones. On the contrary, scientists have to look for new ideas if they want to keep their jobs, but new ideas take time to develop, and they don't always work. In fact, most of them don't, and the only ones we see are those that worked, which is also the case for mutations. I see a very strong link between the two kinds of evolution, but you don't seem to, so maybe you are one of those who think that when we search we automatically find. Is that so?

[Ophiolite]

What you say means that you accept that randomness is the key to evolution of life, but not to evolution of ideas. Have you tried to figure out how our ideas could be anything else than biological stuff?

I apologise if my earlier posts lacked clarity. I just felt the following statement was unambiguous.
"The role of mutation is to supplement existing genetic variation within a population, which natural selection can then act upon."

Is this version clearer: mutation provides the raw material on which natural selection works.

i.e. major components in evolution are mutation and natural selection. Further, these are not the only components and, further still, mutations are not wholly random, at least in terms of the genes most likely to be impacted.
 

What you say means that you accept that randomness is the key to evolution of life, but not to evolution of ideas. Have you tried to figure out how our ideas could be anything else than biological stuff?

Clearly ideas are, in one sense, biological in that they are the product of living entities. However, they are not biological in that they are not themselves living entities. If you consider ideas biological, then you must also consider sculptures, plays, poetry and the like biological. Such a definition completely devalues the word.

Politicians are not elected to develop new ideas, only to govern, and new ideas don't work as often as old ones, so if they want to be reelected, they better present old ones.

Your knowledge of politics appears to be severely limited. You might wish to visit the fall of the Weimar Republic, the emergence of the SNP, or the transition from white-only rule in South Africa, as examples that demonstrate the fallacy of your thinking.

On the contrary, scientists have to look for new ideas if they want to keep their jobs, but new ideas take time to develop, and they don't always work. In fact, most of them don't, and the only ones we see are those that worked, which is also the case for mutations.

In the case of scientific ideas, we see many of those that did not work. The scientific literature is littered with them. (We might almost be better to call it litterature.) And try telling any person suffering from a "genetic defect" that we don't see the mutations that don't work.

I see a very strong link between the two kinds of evolution, but you don't seem to, so maybe you are one of those who think that when we search we automatically find. Is that so?

I see very clear parallels that make the two processes analagous. None of that renders correct those assertions of yours I have already contested.

In essence you seem to be arguing for a biological "reality" for memes as do their strongest proponents. I don't think even Dawkins is entirely comfortable with that approach.

Your comment on expecting to find when we search looks like a nonsensical non-sequitur.

[evan_au]

Why is natural selection so much slower than human-led selection?

Natural selection is a somewhat random process, which means that a beneficial mutation spreads very slowly through a wild population (or may get snuffed out in the first generation).

There is discussion at present about a "gene drive" which will cause a human-made mutation spread exponentially through a wild population. It ensures that more than 50% of the progeny have the gene drive (ie it doesn't obey Mendel's "laws" of inheritance).

Since this could have major impacts on the world's ecology, the inventors have requested a vigorous debate before anyone releases this in the field.

So to prevent the spread of malaria, it is possible to have a gene drive that wipes out all mosquitoes, but this would have unknowable impacts on bird, fish, amphibian and bat populations, plant fertilisation, etc etc.
- Alternatively, it is possible to have a gene drive which leaves behind healthy, blood-sucking mosquitoes, but which carry a gene variant that stops the malaria parasite from infecting them (a gene taken from a mosquito species that does not spread malaria).

Whether members of the public would accept being bitten by a genetically-engineered mosquito is another question; they may be afraid of being exiled as a mutant super-hero....

See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gene_drive

[Colin2B]

As has been pointed out, not all evolutionary changes are random, also not all are due to mutation of genes. Environmental factors such as food, drugs, stress or exposure to toxins can cause epigenetic changes that don’t mutate the DNA but alter the way molecules bind to DNA or change the structure of proteins that DNA wraps around. These changes, in what is known as gene expression, can result in slight changes in gene activity or they also can produce more dramatic changes by switching genes on when they should be off or vice versa.

The changes are heritable, meaning they can be passed on from parent cell to daughter cell within the body, and from parent to child. A study of survivors of the Dutch famine during World War II, The Dutch Hunger Winter Cohort, has shown that people who were in uterus at the time were heavier in later life than other surviving children born just before or after the famine. In middle age, they had higher levels of triglycerides and LDL cholesterol and higher rates of such conditions as obesity, diabetes and schizophrenia. The suggestion is that the famine switched off certain genes and they never switched back on. The effect of these epigenetic changes caused by hunger are also passed on to  their  children.