New Scientist on evolution

[j. d. worthington]

Originally Posted by Delvo

The idea of "holdovers" is better illustrated not with whole organs existing or not existing, but with things that are arrangements in odd ways or have features that don't make sense. For example, a bunch of the muscles in our limbs twist and bend around the joints in funny ways that only make sense if you figure they got stretched that way from some other original position when our limbs were attached differently and moved differently... and the junction of our digestive and respiratory systems is just weird unless you consider the history of how it got that way, especially in humans, in whom that junction (the throat) seems to be specially modified to increase the odds of choking.

Not quite the same thing, but one that I've always found odd is the "design" of the urogenital tract, not only in humans but in many forms of life. Reminds me of a line from a comedian (can't remember for the life of me who) several years ago: something to the effect of God being the only builder to put a sewer through the middle of a recreational area....

[HardScienceFan]

I think it was Gould ,in conjunction with Vrba,who pointed out that the term 'adaptation'
is a misnomer anyway.
I think evolution is among the least understood phenomena in the population at large.
Fred Bookstein proved mathematically that most of the time,evolution isn't different from a random walk.
Yet chronoclines and morphoclines exist.
The fossil record is a poor tool to prove evolution.
I just read a thesis on evolution in the conodont genus Palmatolepis.
(Just using the Pa-element of a multielement taxon,but no matter).
if anything,evolution is mosaical,or leaves that impression in the fossil record)
Evolution takes place,but you have to divest it of ALL teleological connotations).

[j. d. worthington]

Teleology (save for, to some degree, human-based action and motivation) is a questionable concept, period....

[Delvo]

Originally Posted by TorrnT

Sorry , I should have said, follows a female template, (my mistake)

But that isn't the case, either. Prior to the penis and scrotum, there's no clitoris, labia, or vagina, nor anything that had ever started to become like them or would ever have become them or was any more like them than like a penis and scrotum. Prior to the testes, there are no ovaries, nor anything that had ever started to become like them or would ever have become them or was any more like them than like testes. There's just nothing at all to identify the fetus with either sex.

Originally Posted by TorrnT

Information taken from Mark Leyner and Billy Goldberg, M.D.
Human nipples appear in the third or fourth week of development, well before the sex characteristics.

Note the last 5 words there. Anything that happens before there are any sex characteristics can't be following one sex's template or the other's; if it were following either sex's template already, then it wouldn't be well before the sex characteristics because there'd already be sex characteristics there.

Originally Posted by TorrnT

maybe I am being pedantic, In my mind an accident is something that can be avoided...
Hmmmm..I seem to have worked my way into a paradox.. Looks like I have to accept "accidental"...

(wow, I do not like that terminology, it seems scary or something) LOL.
One of the few times my sense of order and reason takes a pounding.

I don't understand what this dilemma is.

Originally Posted by HardScienceFan

I think it was Gould ,in conjunction with Vrba,who pointed out that the term 'adaptation'
is a misnomer anyway.

How so? (The word's always bugged me because things "adapt"; they don't "adaptate"... but that's a separate issue from misnomers, which are about what words mean...)

Originally Posted by HardScienceFan

The fossil record is a poor tool to prove evolution.

How so?

Originally Posted by HardScienceFan

I just read a thesis on evolution in the conodont genus Palmatolepis.
(Just using the Pa-element of a multielement taxon,but no matter).

Why did you bring up Palmatolepis and then not seem to say anything about it, and what is this about "elements"?

Originally Posted by HardScienceFan

if anything,evolution is mosaical,or leaves that impression in the fossil record)

Do you mean how it seems to create lots and lots of separate lineages instead of just a few? (Gould called this the "bush" diagram instead of the "line or ladder" diagram.)

[Dave]

There certainly is much ignorance about the Theory of Evolution, and about scientific Theory in general. Concerning Evolution specifically, I think it has always been that way because it directly challenges the Creation as written in Genesis, and also because Darwin himself believed in Intelligent Design. However, many people make and have made claims about The Origin of Species that are just not in it. I read it at school, but many people who think they know what is in it have never read it. For instance, it concerns the 'origin of species', not the 'origin of [our] species'; a very common misconception. Those that HAVE read it, and use its shortcomings to denounce Evolution, are failing completely to take on board the body of 150 years of scientific evidence that has come since, including a mechanism in DNA. As with all scientific theories, it is there to be reviewed and altered, tweaked where required, discarded if necessary; but while modern research has lead to major changes in the theory, the concept itself has only been strengthened. Out of my own interest, I have read some of these fundamentalist religious website to read what they say on Evolution, and they generally pick on a few parts of Darwin that were wrong and use those as evidence that Evolution as a whole is wrong. I cannot think of any other examples where someone would do that, and I'm quite gob-smacked every time I read them that such utter bilge can be believed in the heartland of the largest industrial country in the world. I would have thought that in 80 years they might have moved on a little from the Scopes "monkey-trial" era.

But the real problem is the lack of scientific education as a whole, and the continued falling standards. We live in a scientific world, we need science education more than ever. You ate breakfast this morning and your food had a label with daily allowances, energy, fat and carbohydrate content. You maybe watched TV adverts that told you 8 out 10 people preferred this product, but gave no sample size; and several advertised their products as 30% cheaper than another. The weather forecaster said there was 50% chance of rain, but the satellite picture had no clouds on it. You recycled some plastic bottles in your carbon-neutral car, then you threw away several electrical goods. You took a white medicine your Doctor prescribed, but didn't tell you why. Then you sprayed something on your Roses that came in a red bottle. Your house was flooded last year for the first time, but then it's only been there 20 years, and 100 years ago the river flooded right up to the railway, and just maybe that new building development has something to do with it. And your laptop isn't working and you think you broke it.

People seem happy to sleepwalk without asking why, or they understand so little that they can't ask why, so they just believe what they are told to believe by someone else who doesn't know or ask why either. We need to teach scientific theory, risk assessment, statistical analyisis, and basic Chemistry and Physics. In the UK, most schools now don't teach separate sciences but General Science. Some of the teachers only have limited science knowledge themselves. We have a whole raft of 16-18 year olds learning Media Studies and Travel & Tourism, while Universities close Science Departments.

[The Procrastinator]

And so the great circle draws near to completion...your post, Dave, put me strongly in mind of our ancestors according to Douglas Adams (Hitchhiker's Guide) - hairdressers, telephone sanitisers, public relations officers and consultants of every description...ooo I'm getting a headspin now thinking about FATE.

[Dave]

Well, Napoleon is supposed to have said, "L'Angleterre est une nation de boutiquiers."

Now, we are a nation of Call Centres, and even those are moving to India. No one manufactures anything; everyone (including me) works in the Service sector. Gordon Brown and Tony Blair may bang on about the UK needing "Education, Education, Education", and that people must be prepared to change careers several times during their working lives, but the first just isn't happening, and the second is an incredibly hard thing to do unless you are forced into it by redundancy.

[clovis-man]

Originally Posted by The Procrastinator

As an aside it always strikes me as bizarre, to put it mildly, that people who will piously put their hand up for the moral cheerleading squads of Christianity also like to leave things to "market forces" - one of the most amoral forces in existence. Faith in market forces is a strange kind of religion but it seems to be a pretty strong one with many followers.

Ah, Yes. The finely tuned laws of the marketplace. Unfortunately, it's been a long time since Adam Smith and "The Wealth of Nations".

Does evolution always work well in terms of an "end result" or even as a "process"? Not by a longshot. Just look at the poor orangutan. Specialized to the point of being to his own detriment (notwithstanding environmental issues).

I once had the chance to listen to and speak with Louis Leakey. Even he used the phrase, "the theory of evolution" (and he pronounced it ee-vo-loo-shun with the accent on the ee). But he wasn't kidding anyone. We all knew what he really thought and we all thought the same.

[Anthony G Williams]

Originally Posted by clovis-man

I once had the chance to listen to and speak with Louis Leakey. Even he used the phrase, "the theory of evolution" (and he pronounced it ee-vo-loo-shun with the accent on the ee). But he wasn't kidding anyone. We all knew what he really thought and we all thought the same.

He was being technically correct. Science doesn't deal in "facts", in the sense of unchallengeable, fixed positions (unlike religion). Every conclusion reached by the scientific method, however undisputed, is a theory which only holds good until contradicted by observational evidence, or replaced by another theory which better explains the observations.

In contrast, "intelligent design" is not a theory, it is an hypothesis - and barely even that, as it is not backed up by any objective evidence.

[TorrnT]

Originally Posted by Delvo

But that isn't the case, either. Prior to the penis and scrotum, there's no clitoris, labia, or vagina, nor anything that had ever started to become like them or would ever have become them or was any more like them than like a penis and scrotum. Prior to the testes, there are no ovaries, nor anything that had ever started to become like them or would ever have become them or was any more like them than like testes. There's just nothing at all to identify the fetus with either sex.

Follows a template. If I was following you to London it does not mean I will end up there.
I cannot argue on behalf of the Drs, but I can say why it makes sense to me, Nipples (more than 2) and milk line... If that is not feminine, then I have been sorely misguided in life.
If you still believe this to be incorrect...lets just agree to disagree

[Delvo]

Originally Posted by TorrnT

Nipples (more than 2) and milk line... If that is not feminine, then I have been sorely misguided in life.

Well, men's bodies have them, so no, they're not feminine traits. They're universal ones

[clovis-man]

Originally Posted by Anthony G Williams

He was being technically correct. Science doesn't deal in "facts", in the sense of unchallengeable, fixed positions (unlike religion). Every conclusion reached by the scientific method, however undisputed, is a theory which only holds good until contradicted by observational evidence, or replaced by another theory which better explains the observations.

In contrast, "intelligent design" is not a theory, it is an hypothesis - and barely even that, as it is not backed up by any objective evidence.

I think that was my point, but you have stated it in much clearer terms. As an example, re my long ago discussion with Leakey, I asked him about his disagreement with J. T. Robinson over the Homo Habilus findings. He was a little testy in his reply, but essentially said that there could be no meeting of the minds until he and Robinson had viewed the same evidence (Robinson had not seen the original material). So the proper course for him was in rigorous examination and not in speculation. In retrospect, the only correct answer.

[TorrnT]

Originally Posted by Delvo

Well, men's bodies have them, so no, they're not feminine traits. They're universal ones

So.. Let me get this straight.
At 4 weeks the foetus has the potential to develop more than 2 nipples,(the main function of which are to provide milk, which only females can) the extra nipples are suppressed by enzymes/hormones, (this is Universal, meaning it can not be considered a trait of either sex) 2 weeks later the sex is then decided.

I can understand what you mean Delvo.
(honestly..I'm not obsessed about nipples)

[LJonesy]

Oh man, it was painful to read all those articles.

I get the feeling that the author of the link and the other links may have had a hard life at church when he was a little boy. Because all throughout the articles there are countless emotional stabs at creationism. More often than not accusations are made without even using common sense to diffuse an otherwise stupid accusation.

That said, the same arrogant angle was taken on presenting the facts. What became so frustrating was that the article was so one-sided the author forgot to look at the amount of holes his or her argument had poking through it...

If Evolutionists and Creationists want to get along both sides need to humble themselves and listen to each other. I've met so many Evolutionists who are emotionally scarred and arrogant, and i've also met so many Creationists who are ignorant believers.

Both sides need to clean up their act and open their ears. No wonder people go to the Religions with the attitudes the Evolutionists take.

[Dave]

I think I read different links to you. I didn't see any "emotional stabs". The New Scientist is a UK published Science Magazine, so it is highly unlikely that it is going to make a case for Creationism, though I find it hard to translate that to being "arrogant". I have also yet to meet anyone who described themselves as an "Evolutionist". And that is the difference between Science and Religion, Religion requires Faith, Science requires Evidence.