The Science of Biological Evolution (no politics or religion)

Looking at various sites I couldn't find anything about bone stretching (how do you stretch bones?)

I did find, and read, various creation sites that challenge that Lucy was bipedal based on scientists not having all the details worked out. Like the feet and footprints that were talked about earlier.

What I saw over and over was an author giving his own commentary about these details saying scientists don't agree Lucy was bipedal when what was actually being presented was that scientists didn't agree about some specific feature.

---

And this is what I was talking about earlier. Do I know the earth orbits the sun? Do I really know that? No, of course not. But there are a lot of people willing to dispassionately and rationally talk about it, so to me it's reasonable to believe.

In these creationist sites what I saw were conclusions that didn't follow from the evidence presented. Another example is "this bone was found a mile away from that bone . . . therefore evolution is a lie." Again, this does not logically follow. Also it wasn't dispassionate e.g. one ended "For evolutionists, it’s just a short step from science to science-fiction." Even if I assume this is true, it makes the author appear biased, and that nurtures distrust.

---

This is to say, I'm happy to change my belief... but the side I switch to has to appear more reasonable to me than the one I leave. That's not an indictment of any group, I'm saying from a practical point of view this is what it takes.

Distrust is certainly one viable approach to creationist pseudo-science. Personally I find scorn, disdain and ridicule equally worthy of consideration.

Try not to put to much faith in me, I'm sure to disappoint.  I wouldn't say boo to goose in person, the internet makes you behave uncharacteristically I find.  Arguing with someone is not a pleasant process and I find it draining, but often the process of continuing to say nothing also takes it's toll.  To argue with someone you don't really know is one thing, much to my disgrace letting sleeping dogs lie is often my defacto position with the people I know.  The fear of rejection and the implications that might have on future relations is ever present.  The question of what would you actually say has been a bit of a dilema for me, perhaps this forum addresses some of these concerns.  Unfortunately here you have time to think and process, a luxury not often afforded in a face to face discussion.

Anyone can submit a paper for peer review, and writing a paper requires no face-to-face interaction at all. Of course, your paper must stand up to peer scrutiny first before it gets published but hey, that's a minor problem, right?

Perhaps scientists should consider taking some lessons in homiletics, then they wouldn't so often be considered dull.  I think I have already mentioned, we have some issues with your evidence.  Also, we would like some clarification on the observable part of your blurb "you were there at the time I take it?"

I'll leave writing papers to the experts and continue to write my pifel here with the rest of the patzers.

Science isn't dull to scientists and it isn't dull to me either. Ae you sure you're on the right thread?

Your comment reminds me of something a former editor of "New Scientist" made in an interview once. This was a man who had raised this magazine from the doldrums to new heights that it still enjoys now. In this interview he was asked: "What is the rationale of New Scientist?" and he answered...

"The rationale of New Scientist is that science is interesting and if you don't agree then you can *&$% off."

Personally I think religion is an embarrassment to our species, and to me the best example of how intellectually fallible we all are. If ever I get any grand ideas of what the human mind may be capable of, the thought of religion brings me back down to earth... the irony there is not lost on me heh.

But my impression was that Twpsyn felt he wasn't getting an earnest reply, so that was my attempt. If someone wants to convince me to change my mind, they need to make reasonable points dispassionately.

I'm sorry but this this argument is just plain stupid.

No of course I wasn't "there" but this doesn't mean we can't make deductions based on the available evidence. Was Poirot "there" at the scene and time of the murder?

Yes, but did the murder happen 100 million years ago?  Let me postulate that the further back in time the murder happens, the evidence becomes less reliable and the harder the murder is to solve.  Also Poirot is able to interview human witnesses, some more reliable than others and from that piece together a probable chain of events.  Unfortunately we have no human witnesses from 100 million years ago to interview, so I would suggest that the argument is not as stupid as it first appears. 

Also I did not say science and or scientists were dull.  I said that they were often considered dull.  My point being that the way that science is communicated to the masses could prahaps benefit with one or two stories that try and bring the discovery to life in a way that people can understand.  Knowing the facts and presenting it to your peers is one thing, trying to engage a wider audience is another.

But we do have witnesses from millions - even billions - of years in the past, they're called "fossils".

I do take your point about popularising science though, because it raises another, related point.

There have been many notable scientists over the years who have sought to relay their subject to the lay audience: Carl Sagan; David Attenborough; David Bellamy; Jacques Cousteau. Brian Cox is perhaps the most high-profile scientist doing this today.

I have always felt that scientists have a responsibility, a duty even, to make their subject more accessible to the general public but this isn't an excuse for turning science into "infotainment". And there is another side to this same coin: every citizen also has a responsibility to educate him/herself at least to the level that enables them to follow the public discourse on science.

And there's the problem, how do you force someone, anyone, to be a good citizen? It's no good you sitting there and moaning "Why isn't this being presented to me on a plate?", science requires a little effort on your part too!

If you're not prepared to invest this effort you're getting left behind - it really is as simple as that because at the end of the day, scientists don't really care if you can't be bothered.

Let me quote some stuff from the link posted in 4019:

I always think that the most convincing case for evolution is in the fossil record

But latter rather amusingly it says:

The fossil record is only so much help here, because it is incomplete. "If you look at most fossil records, what you actually see is one form that lasts quite a long time and then the next bunch of fossils that you've got is quite different from what you had before,"

You can quote as much "stuff" as you want, the fossil record is always going to have gaps, surely it would be more surprising if it didn't?

You haven't been paying attention, have you? Phylogeny is quite advanced now.

You might want to look at the video posted by the OP a few pages back - it shows just how advanced and powerful this approach is.

And it's based entirely, entirely, on existing fossil data.

We'll if your happy to concede that the fossil record is 'a little gappy' and does not provide any real definitive evidence then I feel we are making progress.

As with regard with the great DNA debate, it has been discussed at length in this forum.  Let me surmise the current state of affairs:

The evidence from DNA sequencing can be used to support two claims, either that we share a common ancestor or we share a common designer.  The arguments for both camps are more or less the same.

With regard to the possibility for DNA to gain in quality over time, this notion depends on whether you subscribe or not to the concept of junk DNA.  Even if you do subscribe to the notion of junk DNA then the algorithm for improvement has been described as somewhat inefficient and does not really explain the complexity of life that we see today.

Also with regard to human evolution we have discussed that our ancestors were far better specimens than we are today and that copying errors occur and this tends to produce a loss of quality in the gene pool over time.

Also I'd like to point out that DNA sequencing is a fairly new science and only time will tell if it is the silver bullet you've been looking for.

I'm afraid you'll have to fill me in on your evidence with regard to embryology as I am unfamiliar with this argument.

It would be ridiculous for it not to.

To be fair, mythical descriptions of the world have far bigger gaps: virtually all of the species and virtually all of the past are omitted. And the rest is generally inaccurate.

Not to mention if it took 7 days to make earth and sky imagine how long it took to make the other 100s (or thousands) of billions of planets... and that's not even mentioning the stars we can't see because they're too far away.

I mean, as long as we're getting picky...

Although to be fair, I think even early believers regarded it as allegorical and not literal.