The Next Pope

[kinboshi]

Atheists, militant or otherwise, occasionally a bit hasty to draw conclusions and report as scientific fact some things that would be inconvenient to many religious people, but that there isn't really enough evidence yet to make such a statement.

eg, Life can be generated spontaneously in the lab coz we made some amino acids in the lab. Or then there's the whole thing about extra-terrestrial life. It's out there coz it must be as space is so big.

Religious people may very well say, I'll show you God if you either make me a beastie or show me a beastie from elsewhere in the cosmos.


On nirvana's point about no scientist challenging evolution. I'm sure many put their minds to it as there is considerable profit incentive for them to do so. If they found a way of crafting a narrative within rigid and recognized scientific paramaters that called the evidence for the Theory of Evolution into serious question then, if they published at breakfast, they'd sell 100,000 copies before lunch.

Take yr ticket for the most part but I dont think they challenge in the way I understand the word. They challenge themselves to come up with another sub theory that explains another gap in our collective understanding of what evolution theory actually means. The fossil record has been quoted in these pages and yet the fossil record tends to disprove more than it proves. Some good points here though that you gotta have faith even if you don't have religion.

With my faith button switched on, I am looking forward to the punctuated equilibria events that lead to humans speciating or something - I would like to have wings, humans would really be awesome with wings.

Show one fossil record that disproves any element of the model of evolution.

[Rod]

@ Del, you are quite right. Islam does consider Jesus to be the Messiah, I made a mistake when I said it was a disagreement between Christians and Muslims.

@ Manuelsmum, first of all good post. I understand there to be enough transitional fossils to prove evolution happened and show a direct linage to out ape-like ancestors, I will admit I am not so sure of the evolution up to that point though, I am pretty sure I have read the transitional forms exist but would not swear to how reliable that info was. I don't know of any missing links but hey, I am a long way from being an expert on it. I'm pretty sure you are right about DNA being strong evidence though. So would you consider evolution a fact?

I think if the Universe began by natural causes we have at least AK's chance again QQ of working it out (well not us here but those scientist people *lol*).

I agree that it does not look like there is a benign, all powerful creator, but he doesn't have to be either. If we were created there is no reason to assume that the creator did so for anything other than his own ends (whatever they may be) and one he has done that he may have just left us to our own devices. This certainly fit's better than any religious theory imho.

Not sure a detective comes to Atheism as easily as most people seem to think, I don't believe it can be "proved" anything like beyond reasonable doubt. The evidence is not strong enough (it is just stronger and more likely than the alternative)

The most logical answer remain's - I don't know.

[Rod]

Atheists, militant or otherwise, occasionally a bit hasty to draw conclusions and report as scientific fact some things that would be inconvenient to many religious people, but that there isn't really enough evidence yet to make such a statement.

eg, Life can be generated spontaneously in the lab coz we made some amino acids in the lab. Or then there's the whole thing about extra-terrestrial life. It's out there coz it must be as space is so big.

Religious people may very well say, I'll show you God if you either make me a beastie or show me a beastie from elsewhere in the cosmos.


On nirvana's point about no scientist challenging evolution. I'm sure many put their minds to it as there is considerable profit incentive for them to do so. If they found a way of crafting a narrative within rigid and recognized scientific paramaters that called the evidence for the Theory of Evolution into serious question then, if they published at breakfast, they'd sell 100,000 copies before lunch.

Take yr ticket for the most part but I dont think they challenge in the way I understand the word. They challenge themselves to come up with another sub theory that explains another gap in our collective understanding of what evolution theory actually means. The fossil record has been quoted in these pages and yet the fossil record tends to disprove more than it proves. Some good points here though that you gotta have faith even if you don't have religion.

With my faith button switched on, I am looking forward to the punctuated equilibria events that lead to humans speciating or something - I would like to have wings, humans would really be awesome with wings.

Show one fossil record that disproves any element of the model of evolution.

I would be interested in this as well. I tend to look at these things with an open mind I like to think so if there is something of which I am not aware that really does call the theory into serious question I'd genuinely love to see it. I am no where near an expert but the theory of evolution seems pretty hard to argue with.

[thetank]

One day Nasruddin went to Lake Akşehir with a bowlful of cultured yoghurt and a long spoon. He squatted at the water’s edge and began ladling yoghurt into the lake.

Hussein saw him and asked what he was doing. Nasruddin replied, “I’m adding starter to the lake to make it into yoghurt.”

Hussein asked, “Are you serious‽ Do you really believe you can turn the lake into yoghurt?”

“I know I can’t. I know it won’t,” stated Nasruddin. “But just imagine — what if I could, and what if it did?”

[nirvana]

Atheists, militant or otherwise, occasionally a bit hasty to draw conclusions and report as scientific fact some things that would be inconvenient to many religious people, but that there isn't really enough evidence yet to make such a statement.

eg, Life can be generated spontaneously in the lab coz we made some amino acids in the lab. Or then there's the whole thing about extra-terrestrial life. It's out there coz it must be as space is so big.

Religious people may very well say, I'll show you God if you either make me a beastie or show me a beastie from elsewhere in the cosmos.


On nirvana's point about no scientist challenging evolution. I'm sure many put their minds to it as there is considerable profit incentive for them to do so. If they found a way of crafting a narrative within rigid and recognized scientific paramaters that called the evidence for the Theory of Evolution into serious question then, if they published at breakfast, they'd sell 100,000 copies before lunch.

Take yr ticket for the most part but I dont think they challenge in the way I understand the word. They challenge themselves to come up with another sub theory that explains another gap in our collective understanding of what evolution theory actually means. The fossil record has been quoted in these pages and yet the fossil record tends to disprove more than it proves. Some good points here though that you gotta have faith even if you don't have religion.

With my faith button switched on, I am looking forward to the punctuated equilibria events that lead to humans speciating or something - I would like to have wings, humans would really be awesome with wings.

Show one fossil record that disproves any element of the model of evolution.

Why, I'm not trying to disprove the theory. I benefit from having an open mind on these matters - happy to say I don't know rather than become consumed with any belief system. And in any case the point really is about the paucity of the fossil record as opposed to finding fossils that disprove stuff, assume yr just being obtuse.

However, I'd like your expert view on the convenience of a theory such as punctuated equilibria. Seems pretty nonsensical to my critical faculties

Rod just made the point again about religion and wars. It's some kind of a point in that it really puts people who believe in God on the spot. But they are only human - Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, Mao didn't need anything more than a humanist perspective to be who they were but people dont tend to categorise all non religious people on the deeds of the worse of their kind. Why do anti religionists do this so much, damaged childhoods, health issues, its beyond me and pretty non scientific, certainly not good maths anyway.

[Rod]

Rod just made the point again about religion and wars. It's some kind of a point in that it really puts people who believe in God on the spot. But they are only human - Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, Mao didn't need anything more than a humanist perspective to be who they were but people dont tend to categorise all non religious people on the deeds of the worse of their kind. Why do anti religionists do this so much, damaged childhoods, health issues, its beyond me and pretty non scientific, certainly not good maths anyway.

It caused wars, the argument that if not for religion we would have found something else to fight about is a valid one (not saying I 100% agree but accept the point) but I still can't see any benefit religion has on the world.

[kinboshi]

However, I'd like your expert view on the convenience of a theory such as punctuated equilibria. Seems pretty nonsensical to my critical faculties

I'm certainly not an expert, but I'll have a stab at explaining how the punctuated equilibrium model fits into evolutionary theory.  If we have any evolutionary zoologists on blonde I hope they correct any of my misunderstandings.

What I know about it come mostly from reading Dawkins and also Dennet (mostly Dawkins' "Climbing Mount Improbable" and "The Blind Watchmaker"), so maybe if I expand my reading I'd have a better understanding of it.

Punctuated equilibrium is a model that's used to explain sudden evolutionary changes in fossil records that suggest a period of equilibrium or stasis, followed by a 'jump' in the fossil records to show rapid evolutionary change in a species.  It doesn't replace other evolutionary theory, and also doesn't suggest that it's the primary evolutionary mechanism.

I'll explain it with an example:

There is a population of mammals, let's say they're rabbits.  They live in a relatively stable environment, without any hugely significant environmental changes (predators, climate, vegetation, etc., are all relatively constant).  The population of these rabbits isn't driven by any pressing drivers of natural selection, other than the strongest and most virile of the population managing to survive and have offspring.  This population remains like this for many hundreds of thousands of years.  The fossil records in this area show this stasis as they exhibit very little change over the periods of time.

Dawkins puts forward the idea that punctuated equilibrium is predominantly a result of migratory movement.  During this period of stasis, some of the population move to a neighbouring area and some environmental factors separate them from the main population.  Maybe they are on a piece of land that is cut off from the main population by climate change (flooding, change in vegetation, volcanic activity, etc.), or some pioneering rabbits make it over a mountainous region (over a period of time) and effectively get cut-off from the main population of these rabbits.

In this isolated population there might be stronger factors for natural selection, and there's a relatively rapid change in the population due to their smaller size (compared to the main population) and the differing environment.  Maybe the predators here are faster, stronger, more cunning; or maybe food is more scarce.  Whatever the factor(s) it means these pressures mean that genetic drift has a greater affect on their evolution.  For example, natural selection would favour the rabbits that have longer legs and can run faster if the predators in this isolated region are also faster than the predators in the main population.  The population in relative 'stasis' isn't coming under these pressures to drive rapid evolutionary changes through natural selection.  However, the isolated population is changing rapidly (in evolutionary terms), and over hundreds and thousands of years and millions of generations of rabbits, they evolve into a markedly different type of rabbit to those in the main population (who are relatively unchanged).  If the changes are significant enough and there's a sufficient amount of time, the effect can be speciation - a new species of rabbit very different to those in the population in stasis for the same time period.

Then there is an environmental change that means the isolated population can now move back into the region where the original population are.  Maybe a melting of ice allows movement, or a drop in sea-level makes an island once again part of the main continent land mass.  Whatever the change, this means the new population (new species) can now reunite with their ancestral population.

It could also mean that the faster predator that was present in the region where the new species evolved can also move to where the ancestral population of rabbits live.  Remember that over time, the rabbits that were in contact with these fast predators evolved to be faster themselves (the rabbits that were slower would be more easily caught and less likely to survive and reproduce).  The same happens here in the mixed population, and over time the original population of rabbits loses out to their faster cousins who can avoid the predator more successfully and maintain their numbers.  The rabbit population that remained in stasis could become extinct.  (Not a million miles from what we've seen recently in the UK when grey squirrels were introduced and managed to out-perform the already native red squirrels).

So, the original population of rabbits rapidly (in evolutionary timescales) becomes extinct, and we're left with the new (and improved) rabbits with longer legs who can run quickly.  The next set of fossil records show what looks like a 'jump', a punctuated equilibrium, in this population of rabbits.  They've gone from exhibiting very little change over a series of fossil records spanning many hundreds of thousands of years to showing this rapid 'jump' to a rabbit that has markedly longer legs.  Having followed the history of these rabbits, we can see that the change didn't just happen suddenly in this main population, but was caused by the migratory population being exposed to greater selective pressures and then returning to their original stomping ground.

The net effect is that evolution appears to have occurred with a sharp jump into a new species of rabbit after a long period of stasis, or equilibrium.

This hypothesis puts forward an explanation of this rapid jump in the fossil records, but on the whole the main evolutionary changes in fossil records are gradual and don't exhibit the jumps shown in the punctuated equilibrium model.  But it does explain why we sometimes see these jumps in the fossil records for some populations and some species.

Hope that makes sense!

[kinboshi]

@ Manuelsmum, first of all good post. I understand there to be enough transitional fossils to prove evolution happened and show a direct linage to out ape-like ancestors, I will admit I am not so sure of the evolution up to that point though, I am pretty sure I have read the transitional forms exist but would not swear to how reliable that info was. I don't know of any missing links but hey, I am a long way from being an expert on it. I'm pretty sure you are right about DNA being strong evidence though. So would you consider evolution a fact?

Rod, watch this:  http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/p00jjjw4/Origins_of_Us_Bones/

Of course, it doesn't go into finite detail as it's an hour-long documentary, but does go some way to explaining some of what you're asking about.  Like you mention, the DNA comparisons are the 'smoking gun' that show how closely we're linked to our ancestors and how other species, such as chimpanzees share a common ancestor.

Is evolution a 'fact'?  Fact is a strong word, much like 'proof'.  What we can say is that there is a shed load of evidence that supports evolution as the best model we have to explain how species have come about through a combination of genetic mutation and the pressure of natural selection.  This model is supported by a mass of fossil records, geological record, backed up further by physics and astronomical models and ultimately by what DNA tells us.  One way that evolution has shown to be a robust and accurate model is that it has 'predicted' findings before they have been discovered. Evolutionary biologists have examined and analysed the data available and produced hypotheses that put forward a particular history in a species' development or evolution.  Then a hypothesis has been shown to be correct when fossil records are found that support the theory, and/or DNA is found that backs up their assertions as correct.

Evolution is certainly the best model for explaining how species have come about, and the only one that has successfully predicted what future fossil records/DNA will show.

[Jon MW]

Rod just made the point again about religion and wars. It's some kind of a point in that it really puts people who believe in God on the spot. But they are only human - Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, Mao didn't need anything more than a humanist perspective to be who they were but people dont tend to categorise all non religious people on the deeds of the worse of their kind. Why do anti religionists do this so much, damaged childhoods, health issues, its beyond me and pretty non scientific, certainly not good maths anyway.

It caused wars, the argument that if not for religion we would have found something else to fight about is a valid one (not saying I 100% agree but accept the point) but I still can't see any benefit religion has on the world.

There are some wars which are 100% purely caused by religion - and some wars that used religion as part of a number of reasons which would still have been enough by themselves.

But it is probably true that even if the wars that were purely caused by religion didn't occur - there would have been alternative wars to take their place.

The Crusades* for example were pretty much just about religion - but if they hadn't occurred the European and Middle Eastern protagonists and antagonists would have spent most of that time just fighting between themselves instead of each other anyway.



*the main ones - the 'other' ones largely had other motives with religion as a handy rallying call