Evolution: the Facts.

[The Atheist]

Well I'm not saying it was: the point is that the theory of evolution can and should be logically separated from hypotheses about abiogenesis.

You have to remember this is supposed to be a guide for dummies - which why I do the writing and get all the praise while you do the technical work and don't get any!



Now, I quite accept what you're saying, but I'd rather present the entirety of evolution, from a cloud of gas to humans, as one simple concept. It's obviously enormously complex, but if it's reduced to a series of very tiny steps, I think a lot of the issues go away.

The more I think about it, the less importance I see abiogenesis has.

What about these:

When the earth become the earth? As in, at which specific point in time did it change from being a cloud of gas to being a planet? When it was at a specific density? When it had taken shape?

When did a human become a human? What species was the first human's mother?

Those questions are irrelevant, as far as I can tell, so why should we attach any particular importance to abioegesis?

As you say, it means "life from non-life", but all that means is that at one specific point in time, the ________ (whatever it was) becomes classed as "alive", The previous molecule/thing, which is 99.9999999% the same as the "live" one is itself, not live. If there's no special relevance attached to this singular event, it loses its importance. I'm pretty sure this is where tracer was coming from with this bit:

You must must must make it absolutely clear that the theories on how the first self-replicating life arose are completely separate and distinct from the theories on how evolution has progressed since then.

We do see abiogenesis as more of a leap than a step. Imagine a staircase with a million stairs. Isn't abiogenesis just one of the steps, with no more importance to us or The Truth^TM than the specific instant the earth became a planet? For scientists, obviously, its a fairly important part of it, but to a layman, I don't think it's that necessary.

While this is a thread entitled Evolution: the Facts, it sure as hell isn't going to cover all of the facts. As you say, we know that biopoiesis happens and I think that might be enough. Do we have to pinpoint one specific example at one specific time which becomes classed as "alive"?

I'd go for:

Atoms > molecules > more complex molecules > even more complex compounds, one of which happens to be alive > even more complex compounds, one of which happens to be human.

Do you think it's reasonable to take that approach?

(Albeit with a few more steps, maybe?)

 

[steenkh]

Now, I quite accept what you're saying, but I'd rather present the entirety of evolution, from a cloud of gas to humans, as one simple concept.

But that is not evolution. The formation of the Earth has nothing to do with evolution. You may convey everything as one simple concept, but do not call it something which it is not.

 

[The Atheist]

When you are debating with creationists - as I think is the issue here - it will only confuse matters if you use the word 'evolution' to denote anything else than the ToE.

Nope.

Try this:

In the broadest sense, evolution is merely change, and so is all-pervasive; galaxies, languages, and political systems all evolve. Biological evolution ... is change in the properties of populations of organisms that transcend the lifetime of a single individual.

Let's credit the readers with enough understanding that they won't confuse the two. (I'll make sure I use "biological evolution" where appropriate. )

 

[six7s]

When you are debating with creationists - as I think is the issue here - it will only confuse matters if you use the word 'evolution' to denote anything else than the ToE.

Let's credit the readers with enough understanding that they won't confuse the two. (I'll make sure I use "biological evolution" where appropriate. )

My body of scientific knowledge has more holes than substance and I wasn't confused by the use of the term being used to describe the history of the universe - although I can see how it might well be used as a weapon to discredit by terminally bigoted creationists, who are infamous for tangential derails

Although science did not conceive the word, it is widely seen as having adopted it...

evolve
1641, "to unfold, open out, expand," from L. evolvere "unroll," from ex- "out" + volvere "to roll" (see vulva). Evolution (1622), originally meant "unrolling of a book;" it first was used in the modern scientific sense 1832 by Scot. geologist Charles Lyell. Charles Darwin used the word only once, in the closing paragraph of "The Origin of Species" (1859), and preferred descent with modification, in part because evolution already had been used in the 18c. homunculus theory of embryological development (first proposed under this name by Bonnet, 1762), in part because it carried a sense of "progress" not found in Darwin's idea.

But Victorian belief in progress prevailed (along with brevity), and Herbert Spencer and other biologists popularized evolution.

 

[UnrepentantSinner]

Let's credit the readers with enough understanding that they won't confuse the two.

That would be a mistake when dealing with Creationists. Have you ever seen Hovind's "5 parts of evolution" whatever he calls it where he tries to conflate everything from Cosmology to chemistry into evolutionary theory?

 

[The Atheist]

That would be a mistake when dealing with Creationists. Have you ever seen Hovind's "5 parts of evolution" whatever he calls it where he tries to conflate everything from Cosmology to chemistry into evolutionary theory?

Seen it all, which is why I'm not bothered by what creationists think.

This should be a place for those with the desire to gain knowledge of the processes involved in getting us to 2007. Creationists are plain nuts and I see no reason why a knowledge base should be designed with them in mind. You can't cover all the nutcase ideas they come down with and I couldn't be bothered trying.

Truth be told, I'm beginning to think an "ID rebuttal" section's probably a bad idea. Stuff their strawmen, let 'em think what they like.

The idea is facts presented in a stoopid-friendly manner.

 

[The Atheist]

My body of scientific knowledge has more holes than substance and I wasn't confused by the use of the term being used to describe the history of the universe - although I can see how it might well be used as a weapon to discredit by terminally bigoted creationists, who are infamous for tangential derails

Although science did not conceive the word, it is widely seen as having adopted it...

Cheers!

(I like that bolded bit!)

 

[Dr Adequate]

You have to remember this is supposed to be a guide for dummies - which why I do the writing and get all the praise while you do the technical work and don't get any!

Perhaps I have not followed your drift. What are you writing?

Now, I quite accept what you're saying, but I'd rather present the entirety of evolution, from a cloud of gas to humans, as one simple concept.

And oh, my dear chap, would that it were.

 

[six7s]

For those, like me, who are rather confused...

PLEASE: Read the OP again

PLEASE: Read the OP first.

<snip/>
I wondered if maybe a few of the excellent scientists involved in JREF could make up a thread containing factual analysis of evolution from several different angles
<snip/>
...a lasting monument to science's triumph over BS/ID
<snip/>
I won't be posting any data since I'm not a scientist
<snip/>
In business, we call that management
<snip/>

In business terms, this is a Low Risk exercise, with a high probability of failure being offset by a very low consequence of failure

High Probability of Failure:

• The aim is vague
• The scope statement lacks sufficient detail
• The communication medium is inappropriate given the inherent geographical and language barriers

Low Consequence of Failure:

• It is a philanthropic exercise with a $0.00 budget for labour, communication, publication
• As the key stakeholders are identifiable only by avatars (pseudonyms), the prospect of damage to professional reputations is highly unlikely

This project would be described as being fundamentally mismanaged from the outset

• If the opening post counts as a 'Project Charter', then it seems that the 'description of personnel and responsibilities' is ambiguous to the point of being meaningless

• It seems that the project mananger failed to honour the initial 'stakeholder analysis'

• The project has yet to return a single 'key deliverable'. A possible cause stems from the 'scope statement' being revised - seemingly on an ad hoc basis in an attempt to counter expert advice that conflicts with the project manager's agenda

The level of 'scope creep' has reached a point where it would not be surprising if key (expert) stakeholders were considering withdrawal from the project - although the sunk costs are not insignificant, the likelihood of receiving a profitable return on their investment is rapidly diminishing

 

[The Atheist]

Perhaps I have not followed your drift. What are you writing?

Well, if the niggling ever stops and I get around to collating what we have so far, I'd like to think that we will end up with a simple-to-follow resource on biological evolution, complete with the added timeline of the formation of the earth. Tricky seems to be the resident geological expert, so I think that part shouldn't be too troublesome, plus a geological approach helps cover the age of the planet.

And oh, my dear chap, would that it were.

I think the concept is quite simple. It's all the little technical bits in the middle which get complicated!

 

[jimbob]

No, strictly speaking, an omniscient and omnipotent god could have set it all in motion so that he or she would not have to intervene any further, and still get the desired result. On the other hand, it could also be the case that this god set it all in motion and did not know the result. Humans just happened to be one of the results.

That's why I like the idea that as we evolved from a common ancestor, our ancestors must have been lucky to reproduce, a lion lookin gthe wrong way could have ended the human lineage before it started, something similar might have arisen in its place.

Now the only way round that is if the omniscient and omnipotent deity also likes meddling in the "free will" of its creations (or didn't we have free will until after we ate the apple, or dont old-earth creationists believe in that?)

I think that evolutionary theory is very likely to explain abiogenesis. Just think an experiment in a flask for a few weeks failed to create life so this proves that life couldn't have evoled over billions of years on untold millions of planets?

 

[Dr Adequate]

For those who are interested ...

[swiki]Archaeopteryx a Hoax?[/swiki]

I'm still working on a thing about Archaeopteryx per se. I find that this really needs doing. Yes, there are already a lot of web pages about Archaeopteryx, but (whisper it) they're not very good.

 

[jimbob]

Here's a question:

One of the human chromosomes is IIRC a doubling up of (a? two?) chimp ones.

Now, would that (on its own) have altered the expression or function of any genes?

I am guessing not, from the way that curent GM organisms are engineered.

Would that have been likely to to affect fertility between the two populations with the different chromosomes?


Regards

Jim

 

[The Atheist]

For those who are interested ...

[swiki]Archaeopteryx a Hoax?[/swiki]

I'm still working on a thing about Archaeopteryx per se. I find that this really needs doing. Yes, there are already a lot of web pages about Archaeopteryx, but (whisper it) they're not very good.

Excellent.

(Shouldn't the SW page have the question mark in the title?)

 

[The Atheist]

Here's a question:

One of the human chromosomes is IIRC a doubling up of (a? two?) chimp ones.

Now, would that (on its own) have altered the expression or function of any genes?

I am guessing not, from the way that curent GM organisms are engineered.

Would that have been likely to to affect fertility between the two populations with the different chromosomes?


Regards

Jim

Mate, if that doesn't get answered, try sending a PM to Taffer. He's the geneticist - right up his alley, I'd think - and he's keen to help but is only looking in when asked.

 

[six7s]

For those who are interested ...

[swiki]Archaeopteryx a Hoax?[/swiki]

The question mark in the URI doesn't get parsed correctly in the above link using [ swiki ][ /swiki ] tags

Here's the full URI (with the hexadecimal question mark) to

Archaeopteryx a Hoax?
http://skepticwiki.org/index.php/Archaeopteryx_a_Hoax?

 

[jimbob]

They will still credit God with creating evolution!

But evolution doesn't need to be created, it follows logically from self-replication with errors and any form of natural selection.

If there was no selection, then any organism would axiomatically be optimised anyway...


As to directing it, I suppose you are positing a "farmer in the sky" using divine selection to enable worshipers to arise?

The above sort of reasoning (and post#200) is why I dislike "nonrandom" as (to me) it implies a predefined direction to the evolution of features, as against a progressive optimisation for a particular environment.

The weak anthropic principle can explain why we seem to find the chance fact of our existance special.

If we weren't here something else would be, maybe sentient, maybe not, but still amazingly optimised for the environment.

 

[Dr Adequate]

Excellent.

(Shouldn't the SW page have the question mark in the title?)

The question mark in the URI doesn't get parsed correctly in the above link using [ swiki ][ /swiki ] tags

Here's the full URI (with the hexadecimal question mark) to

Archaeopteryx a Hoax?
http://skepticwiki.org/index.php/Archaeopteryx_a_Hoax?

Uh ... yes.

Apparently I just broke the Internet, and I'm sorry.

Question marks are bad.

Currently, the SkepticWiki [swiki]Main Page[/swiki] is devoted to explaining how my evil questionmark has destroyed the SkepticWiki.

What can I say? I'm like a monkey in a barrel full of punctuation.

 

[Dr Adequate]

[swiki]Archaeopteryx[/swiki]

I can think of stuff that should be added, but that'll do for now, I think.

 

[The Atheist]

[swiki]Archaeopteryx[/swiki]

I can think of stuff that should be added, but that'll do for now, I think.

Looks brilliant!

(My daughter loves it as well - she's 8 and right into dinosaurs & the bird link)