Jerry A. Coyne (former professor in the Department of Ecology and Evolution at the University of Chicago, where he specialized in evolutionary genetics and the origin of new species) has written a book, sweeping in scope and unassailable in evidence--one that lays out the overarching, undeniable reality of evolutionary biology in explaining the origin and development of life, entitled, "Why Evolution is True."

Richard Dawkins, author of "The God Delusion," in praising Coyne's work, observed:

"I once wrote that anybody who didn't believe in evolution must be stupid, insane or ignorant, and I was then careful to add that ignorance is no crime. I should now update my statement. Anybody who doesn't believe in evolution is stupid, insane or hasn't read Jerry Coyne. I defy any reasonable person to read this marvelous book and still take seriously the inanity that is intelligent design 'theory' or its country cousin, young earth creationism."
_____


Since from time to time this forum is subjected to scientifically-uninformed and mythologically-hobbled "arguments" for the fundamental fairy-tale notion of "intelligent design" (a term which is nothing but a disingenuous cloak for the superstitiously-religious idea of a supernatural Creator), it's appropriate here to allow Coyne to lay out evolution's obvious and demonstrable truths, while disarming, dissecting and disposing of the pseudo-science of "ID."

He writes:

"A few years ago, a group of businessmen in a ritzy suburb of Chicago asked me to speak on the topic of evolution vs. intelligent design.

"To their credit, they were intellectually curious enough to want to learn more about the supposed 'controversy.' I laid out the evidence for evolution and then explained why intelligent design was a religious rather than a scientific explanation of life. After the talk, a member of the audience approached me and said, 'I found your evidence for evolution very convincing--but I still don't believe it.'

"This statement encapsulates a deep and widespread ambiguity that many feel about evolutionary biology. The evidence is convincing, but they're not convinced.

"How can that be? Other areas of science aren't plagued by such problems. We don't doubt the existence of electrons or black holes, despite the fact that these phenonmena are much further removed from everyday experience than is evolution. After all, you can see fossils in any natural history museum and we read constantly about how bacteria and viruses are evolving resistance to drugs.

"So what's the problem with evolution?

"What's NOT a problems is the lack of evidence. . . . [E] volution is far more than a scientific theory: it is a scientific fact. . . .

"[The] evidence comes from many areas--the fossil record, biogeography, embryology, vestigial structures, suboptimal design, and so on--all of the evidence showing, without a scintilla of doubt, that organisms have evolved. And it's not just small 'microevolutionary' changes, either: we've seen new species form, both in real time and in the fossil record, and we've found transitional forms between major groups, such as whales and land animals. We've observed natural selection in action, and have every reason to think that it can produce complex organisms and features.

"We've also seen that evolutionary biology makes testable predictions, though not of course in the sense of predicting how a particular species will evolve, for that depends on a myriad of uncertain factors such as which mutations crop up and how environments may change.

"But we CAN predict where fossils will be found (take Darwin's prediction that human ancestors would be found in Africa), we can predict WHEN common ancestors would appear (for example, the discovery of the 'fishapod' 'Tiktaalik' in 370-million-year-old rocks . . . , and we can predict what those ancestors should look like before we find them (one is the remarkable 'missing link' between ants and wasps . . . . Scientists predicted that they would find fossils of marsupials in Antarctica--and they did. And we can predict that if we find an animal species in which males are brightly colored and females are not, that species will have a polygynous mating system.

"[Moreover,] [i]mperfection is the mark of evolution, not of conscious design. We should then be able to find imperfect adaptations, in which evolution has not been able to achieve the same degree of optimality as would a creator. . . . [In fact,] species aren't all that well designed: many of them show imperfections that are signs not of celestial engineering but of evolution."

"Every day, hundreds of observations and experiments pour into the hopper of the scientific literature . . . . [M]any of them [have much to do with evolution]. And every fact that has something to do with evolution confirms its truth. Every fossil that we find, every DNA molecule that we sequence, every organ system that we dissect supports the idea that species evolved from common ancestors.

"Despite the innumerable POSSIBLE observations that could prove evolution untrue, we don't have a single one. We don't find mammals in Precambrian rocks, humans in the same layers as dinosaurs, or any other fossils out of evolutionary order. DNA sequencing supports the evolutionary relationships of species originally deduced from the fossil record. And, as natural selection predicts, we find no species with adaptations that benefit only a different species. We do find dead genes and vestigial organs, incomprehensible under the idea of special creation.

"Despite a million chances to be wrong, evolution always comes up right. That is as close as we can get to a scientific truth.

"Now, when we say that 'evolution is true,' what we mean is that the major tenets of Darwinism have been verified. Organisms evolved, they did so gradually, lineages split into different species from common ancestors, and natural selection is the major engine of adaptation. No serious biologist doubts these propositions.

"But this doesn't mean that Darwinism is scientifically exhausted, with nothing left to understand. Far from it. Evolutionary biology is teeming with questions and controversies. How exactly does sexual selection work? Do females select males with good genes? How much of a role does genetic drift (as opposed to natural or sexual selection) play in the evolution of DNA sequences or the features of organisms? Which fossil hominins are on the direct line to 'Homo sapiens'? What caused the Cambrian 'explosion' of life, in which many new types of animals appeared within only a few million years?

"Critics of evolution seize upon these controversies, arguing that they show that something is wrong with the theory of evolution itself. But this is specious. There is no dissent among serious biologists about the major claims of evolutionary theory--only about the details of how evolution occurred, and about the relative roles of various evolutionary mechanisms.

"Far from discrediting evolution, the 'controversies' are in fact the sign of a vibrant, thriving field. What moves science forward is ignorance, debate, and the testing of alternative theories with observations and experiments. A science without controversy is a science without progress. . . .

"[M]any people require more than just evidence before they'll accept evolution. To these folks, evolution raises such profound questions of purpose, morality, and meaning that they just can't accept it not matter how much evidence they see. It's not that we evolved from apes that bothers them so much; it's the emotional CONSEQUENCES of facing that fact. . . .

"Nancy Pearcey, a conservative American philosopher and advocate of intelligent design, expressed this common fear:

"'Why does the public care so passionately about a theory of biology? Because people sense intuitively that there's much more at stake than a scientific theory. They know that when naturalistic evolution is taught in the science classroom, then a naturalistic view of ethics will be taught down the hallway in the history classroom, the sociology classroom, the family life classroom, and in all areas of the curriculum.'

"Pearcey argues (and many American creationists agree) that all the perceived evils of evolution come from two worldviews that are part of science: naturalism and materialism. Naturalism is the view that the only way to understand our universe is through the scientific method. Materialism is the idea that the only reality is the physical matter of the universe, and that everything else, including thoughts, will, and emotions, comes from physical laws acting on that matter.

"The message of evolution, and all of science, is one of naturalistic materialism. Darwinism tells us that, like all species, human beings arose from the working of blind, purposeless forces over eons of time. As far as we can determine, the same forces that gave rise to ferns, mushrooms, lizards, and squirrels also produced us.

"Now, science cannot completely exclude the possibility of supernatural explanation. It is possible--though very unlikely--that our whole world is controlled by elves. But supernatural explanations like these are simply never needed; we manage to understand the natural world just fine using reason and materialism.

"Furthermore, supernatural explanations always mean the end of inquiry; that's the way God wants it, end of story. Science, on the other hand, is never satisfied; our studies of the universe will continue until humans go extinct."

"[Now,] [i]f anything is true about nature, it is that plants and animals seem intricately and almost perfectly designed for living their lives. Squids and flatfish change color and pattern to blend in with their surroundings, becoming invisible to predator and prey. Bats have radar to home in on insects at night. Hummingbirds, which can hover in place and change position in an instant, are for more agile than any human helicopter, and have long tongues to sip nectar lying deep within flowers. And the flowers they visit also appear designed--to sue hummingbirds as sex aids. For while the hummingbird is busy sipping nectar, the flower attaches pollen to its bill, enabling it to fertilize the next flower that the bird visits. Nature resembles a well-oiled machine, with every species an intricate cog or gear.

"What does all this seem to imply? A master mechanic, of course. This conclusion was most famously expressed by the eighteenth-century English philosopher William Paley. If we came across a watch lying on the ground, he said, we would certainly recognize it as the work of a watchmaker. Likewise, the existence of well-adapted organisms and their intricate features surely implied a conscious, celestial designer--God. . . .

"The argument that Paley put forward so eloquently was both commonsensical and ancient. When he and he fellow 'natural theologians' described plants and animals, they believed that they were cataloguing the grandeur and ingenuity of God manifested in his well-designed creatures.

"Darwin himself raised the question of design--before disposing of it--in 1859:

"'How have all those exquisite adaptations of one part of the organization to another part, and to the conditions of life, and of one distinct organic being, been perfected? We see these beautiful co-adaptations most plainly in the woodpecker and mistletoe; and only a little less plainly in the humblest parasite which clings to the hairs of a quadruped or feathers of a bird; in the structure of the beetle which dives th[r]ough the water; in the plumed seed which is wafted by the gentlest breeze; in short, we see beautiful adaptations everywhere and in every part of the organic world.'

"Darwin had his own answer to the conundrum of design. A keen naturalist who originally studied to be a minister at Cambridge University (where, ironically, he occupied Paley's former rooms), Darwin well knew the seductive power of arguments like Paley's. The more one learns about plants and animals, the more one marvels at how well their designs fit their ways of life. What could be more natural than inferring that this fit reflects CONSCIOUS design?

"Yet Darwin looked beyond the obvious, suggesting--and supporting with copious evidence--two ideas that forever dispelled the idea of deliberate design. . . . Darwin was the first to use data from nature to convince people that evolution was true, and his idea of natural selection was truly novel. It testifies to his genius that the concept of natural theology, accepted by most educated Westerners before 1859, was vanquished within only a few years by a single five-hundred -page book. 'On the Origin of Species' turned the mysterious of life's diversity from mythology into genuine science.

"'Darwinism' . . . [is a] simple and profoundly beautiful theory, the theory of evolution by natural selection [that] has been so often misunderstood, and even on occasion maliciously misstated . . . .

"In essence, the modern theory of evolution is easy to grasp. It can be summarized in a single (albeit slightly long) sentence:

"Life on earth evolved gradually beginning with one primitive species--perhaps a self-replicating molecule--that lived more than 3.5 billion years ago; it then branched out over time, throwing off many new and diverse species; and the mechanism for most (but not all) of evolutionary change is natural selection.

"[This modern theory of evolution] . . . really consists of six components: evolution, gradualism, speciation, common ancestry, natural selection and non-selective mechanisms of evolutionary change. . . .

"Evolutionary theory . . . makes predictions that are bold and clear. Darwin spent more than twenty years amassing evidence for his theory before publishing 'The Origin.' That was more than a hundred and fifty years ago. So much knowledge has accumulated since then! So many more fossils found, so many more species collected and their distributions mapped around the world; so much more work in uncovering the evolutionary relationships of different species. And whole new branches of science, undreamt of by Darwin, have arisen, including molecular biology and systematics, the study of how organisms are related."

"The modern theory of evolution is still called 'Darwinism,' despite having gone well beyond what Darwin first proposed (he knew nothing, for example, about DNA or mutations). . . . Yet Darwin was so correct, and accomplished so much in 'The Origin,' that for many people evolutionary biology has become synonymous with his name."

"[A]ll the evidence--both old and new--leads ineluctably to the conclusion that evolution is true."

"[Intelligent design proponent] Pearcey's notion that these lessons will inevitably spill over into the study of ethics, history, and 'family life' is unnecessarily alarmist. How can you derive meaning, purpose, or ethics from evolution? You can't. Evolution is simply about the process and patterns of life's diversification, not a grand philosophical scheme about the meaning of life. It can't tell us what to do, or how we should behave. And this is the big problem for many believers, who want to find in the story of our origins a reason for our existence, and a sense of how to behave.

"Most of us DO need meaning, purpose, and moral guidance in our lives. How do we find them if we accept that evolution is the real story of our origin? That question is outside the domain of science. But evolution can still shed some light on whether our morality is constrained by our genetics. If our bodies are products of evolution, what about our behavior? Do we carry the psychological baggage of our millions of years on the African savanna? If so, how can we over come it? . . .

"[Certain] misconceptions . . . frighten people away from evolution and from the amazing derivation of life's staggering diversity from a single naked replicating molecule. The biggest of the misconceptions is that accepting evolution will somehow sunder our society, wreck our morality, impel us to behave like beasts, and spawn a new generation of Hitler and Stalins.

"That just won't happen, as we know from the many European countries whose residents wholly embrace evolution yet manage to remain civilized. Evolution is neither moral nor immoral. It just is, and we make of it what we will. . . .

"[T]wo things we CAN make of it are that it's simple and it's marvelous. And far from constricting our actions, the study of evolution can liberate our minds. Human beings may be only one small twig on the vast branching tree of evolution, but we're a very special animal. As natural selection forged our brains, it opened up for us whole new worlds. We have learned how to improve our lives immeasurably over those of our ancestors, who were plagued with disease, discomfort, and a constant search for food. We can fly above the tallest mountains, dive deep below the sea, and even travel to other planets. We make symphonies, poems, and books to full our aesthetic Passions and emotional needs. No other species has accomplished anything remotely similar.

"But there is something even more wondrous. We are the one creature to whom natural selection has bequeathed a brain complex enough to comprehend the laws that govern the universe. And we should be proud that we are the only species that has figured out how we came to be."

(Jerry Coyne, "Why Evolution Is True;" Chapter 1, "What is Evolution?," Chapter 3, "Remnants: Vestiges, Embryos and Bad Design," and Chapter 9, "Evolution Redux" [New York: Penguin Group, a division of Viking, 2009] pp. 1-3, 18-19, 56, 221-25, 233, 235, original emphasis)



Edited 13 time(s). Last edit at 12/23/2010 06:51PM by steve benson.

Any chance you can post the cliff notes version?

I've provided basic excerpts, with page citations, should you actually want to read the book (I won't lend you mine; it's too valuable to be wasted).

Of course, reading is fundamental; otherwise, you risk being led like a lemming over, well, the cliff. :)



Edited 5 time(s). Last edit at 12/23/2010 03:57PM by steve benson.

That one's a myth, too... Disney got us when we were young and impressionable on that one...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lemming

>Misconceptions about lemmings go back many centuries. In the 1530s, the geographer Zeigler of Strasbourg proposed the theory that the creatures fell out of the sky during stormy weather (also featured in the folklore of the Inupiat/Yupik at Norton Sound), and then died suddenly when the grass grew in spring. This myth was refuted by the natural historian Ole Worm, who accepted that the lemmings could fall out of the sky but that they had been brought over by the wind rather than created by spontaneous generation. It was Worm who first published dissections of a lemming, which showed that they are anatomically similar to most other rodents, and the work of Carl Linnaeus proved that the animals had a natural origin.

>Lemmings became the subject of a popular myth that they commit mass suicide when they migrate. Driven by strong biological urges, some species of lemmings may migrate in large groups when population density becomes too great. Lemmings can swim and may choose to cross a body of water in search of a new habitat. In such cases, many may drown if the body of water is so wide as to stretch their physical capability to the limit. This fact combined with the unexplained fluctuations in the population of Norwegian lemmings gave rise to the myth.

Well at least there's more basis in fact for this one than a historic Jesus...

>The myth of lemming "mass suicide" is long-standing and has been popularized by a number of factors. In 1955, Disney Studio illustrator Carl Barks drew an Uncle Scrooge adventure comic.... Even more influential was the 1958 Disney film "White Wilderness," which won an Academy Award for Documentary Feature, in which staged footage was shown with lemmings jumping into certain death after faked scenes of mass migration. A Canadian Broadcasting Corporation documentary, Cruel Camera, found that the lemmings used for White Wilderness were flown from Hudson Bay to Calgary, Alberta, Canada, where they did not jump off the cliff, but were in fact launched off the cliff using a turntable.

Outside forces at work, creating an ilusion? Hmmmm...

. . . Whether lemmings literally throw themselves off cliffs or merely hang-glide off Point of the Mountain between Salt Lake and Provo is not the point.

Besides, I was using the metaphor to play off anon's "CLIFF notes" comment. (emphasis added)

But, hey, you knew that. :)



Edited 5 time(s). Last edit at 12/23/2010 07:35PM by steve benson.

Same goes for the carnivore who gnaws on a beef, pork, or chicken bone.

Too bad even the "knowing" of evolution is wasted on the devolved minds of religulous wing-nuts, because one thing is for sure: the nutrients in a kernel of corn are absorbed at a much faster rate than book-larnin' is among those types.

40% of Americans believe in creationism. Very few believe that evolution czame through natural processes with no gods controlling it.

I'm very depressed having to live in such a society.

"Despite incontrovertible evidence for evolution's truth, year after year polls show that Americans are depressingly suspicious about this single branch of biology.

"In 2006, for example, adults in 32 countries were asked to respond to the assertion: 'Human beings, as we know them, developed from earlier species of animals,' by answering whether they condiered it true or false.

"Now, this statement is flatly true . . . [G]enetic and fossil evidence shows that humans descend from a primate lineage that split off from our common ancestor with the chimpanzees roughly 7 million years ago. And yet only 40% of Americans--4 in 10 people--judge the statement true (down 5% from 1985). This figure is nearly matched by the proportion of people who say it's false: 39%. And the rest, 21%, are simply unsure.

"This becomes even more remarkable when we compare these statistics to those from other Western countries. Of the 31 other nations surveyed, only Turkey, rife with religious fundamentalism, ranked lover in accepting evolution (25% accept, 75% reject).

"Europeans, on the other hand, score much better, with over 80% of French, Scandinavians, and Icelanders seeing evolution as true. In Japan, 78% of people agree that humans evolved. Imagine if America ranked next to last among countries accepting the existence of atoms! People would immediately go to work improving education in the physical sciences."

(Coyne, "Why Evolution is True," from "Introduction," p. xviii)



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 12/23/2010 04:50PM by steve benson.

I remember leaning from a very early age that 'WE DID NOT evolve from apes' and that evolution was wrong. I feel like I was lied to and feel that my critical thinking faculties were stunted as a result of this and other lies. I actually still feel resentment towards the church for being so disingenuous on the matter of organic evolution.

Wasn't there a poll recently that placed mormons at the highest rate of disbelief of evolution?



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 12/23/2010 08:20PM by chainsofmind.

" . . . humans descend from a primate lineage that split off from our common ancestor with the chimpanzees roughly 7 million years ago."

Some cannot give up the pretend security blanket that is the idea of gawd, some profit too much from religion to let it go, some want to be told what to do by authorities, and there are plenty of "news" networks spreading propaganda, and sensationalism instead of facts, and knowledge.

Much has remained the same as thousands of years ago: people see or experience something they do not understand, and instead of seeking to understand it, they attribute it to the supernatural. I agree with many that the scientific truth is much more fascinating than the delusion.

I was shocked that evolution was right, when I learned it in a Geology 101 class. The evidence was there, but I had been so conditioned that it was crazy talk.

Thanks for the post, and it was worth reading in its entirety.

Well done, Steve. Thanks for bringing Coyne's presentation to our attention.

Reality is far more inspiring than delusions.

On the other hand, we have elected officials in Oklahoma promising to make Creationism a mandatory subject in public schools.

PZ Myers commented on this:
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2010/12/when_did_oklahoma_start_electi.php

Excerpt (comments in brackets are Professor Myers' running commentary on Josh Brecheen's proposal (Brecheen is a legislator): One of the bills I will file this year may be dismissed as inferior by "intellectuals" [It's not a promising beginning when you're discussing a scientific topic and immediately dismiss intellectuals] so I wanted to devote particular time in discussing it's [sic] merits. It doesn't address state waste, economic development, workers comp reform or lawsuit reform (although I have filed bills concerning each) [I dread learning about their quality, given the dreck espoused here] but it is nonetheless worthy of consideration. It is an attempt to bring parity [a familiar refrain, in which a fringe belief is undeservedly promoted to equal time with well-established science] to subject matter taught in our public schools, paid for by the taxpayers and driven by a religious ideology [says the guy who wants to promote a religious ideology] . I'm talking about the religion of evolution [eyes roll everywhere]. Yes, it is a religion [No, it isn't]. The religion of evolution [Seriously. It isn't. It's a scientific theory that explains a large body of confirmable facts, and that provides a useful framework for new research. It has no resemblance to any faith of any kind.] requires as much faith as the belief in a loving God [God: no evidence, no math, no experiments, no observations. Evolution: evidence, math, experiments, observations. Case closed.], when all the facts are considered (mainly the statistical impossibility of key factors [Here comes the bad math]). Gasp! Someone reading this just fell out of their enlightened seat!!! [Only at the sight of three exclamation points…we're all wondering if he typed this while wearing his underpants on his head] "It's not a religion as it's agreed upon by the entire scientific community," some are saying at this very moment [No, we're not, because its status as a science rather than a religion is determined by its properties, not some kind of consensus or vote]. Are you sure? Let's explore the facts. [As if Brecheen has any.]

There are just animals that Chuck Norris allows to live.

Is this social Darwinism you practice Steve?

Please explain in your own words how you feel about the Nazi's and the Darwinians connection to possible genocide.

What is your evidence or stance against these Nazi beliefs involving Darwins theories?

Was not this theory sadly already proven socially with the holocaust?

The question is- are there transcendental values shared in Science and Religion?
What has history taught us?

What also are your thoughts on the Cambrian explosion?

Merry Christmas too!

Hitler the Creationist

http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/2006/08/hitler_the_creationist.php

Lists of Banned Books, 1932-1939

http://www.library.arizona.edu/exhibits/burnedbooks/documents.htm

6. Schriften weltanschaulichen und lebenskundlichen Charakters, deren Inhalt die falsche naturwissenschaftliche Aufklrung eines primitiven Darwinismus und Monismus ist (Hckel).

Writings of a philosophical and social nature whose content deals with the false scientific enlightenment of primitive Darwinism and Monism (Hckel).

So if Adolf was a creationist in the beginning and became something else in his beliefs what were they? He obviously flip flopped and re-wrote the plan after gaining the loyalty of the German nationalists? Mein Keimf was written previously I believe-but may be wrong.

Is not that what JS Jr. did?

Were the Nazi's involved with pseudo sciences as Quinn detailed in his findings with the early TSCC-I beleive they were.

This surely cannot not explain away if you will; the connection between genocide and a full frontal assault as Dawkins asserts on ID or "religion" and what history had taught us about close mindedness and so called scientific authoritarianism.

Why did so many innocent Jews die?

Have we forgotten them?

Thanks for the feedback Athiest and Happy

Happy Holidays to you!

What history forgets is destined to be repeated...as the saying goes.

I should probably invoke Godwin's Law regarding those silly attempts to link Hitler with Darwin; ideas involving eugenics as a means of improving the human race captured the fancy of a number of individuals, including Theodore Roosevelt, and Brigham Young's sermons about race-mixing were an even more perverted attempt to keep the bloodlines "pure." Of course in the turnabout-is-fair-play department, Young's racist ideas on miscegenation are about on par with Adolf's, BTW. You might review the story of Jesse Owens and the 1936 Olympics if you doubt me on that one...

As for that talking point of yours, the "Cambrian Explosion," well, you haven't been paying attention to posts I've put up here on the subject of "gene expression" for several years now...

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/05/080506195605.htm

>As Marshall pondered alternatives, he began to think that it was possible that the creatures in the pre-Cambrian seas during the Ediacaran Period didn’t entirely disappear. Though they were very different from what followed, they may have been genetically complex enough to hold the genetic seeds of the explosion.

>Marshall cited recent findings from genetic studies that indicate even creatures as diverse as flies and fish share many of the same genes. They differ, he said, more in how the genes are used — whether they’re switched on or off — than in the genes’ presence or absence.

>“It’s not new genes that create new morphological innovation, but rather the way they’re wired together,” Marshall said. “[Different-looking creatures] are not apples and oranges.”

>If the precursors to the creatures that arose during the Cambrian Period were swimming in the Ediacaran seas, something had to spark the dramatic change.

>Marshall said that computer modeling of the forms that plants would take under different environmental conditions provided a clue. The models showed that widely divergent plants can result from a simple ancestor whose descendants are subjected to different environmental conditions. The model started with a simple primitive plant form and applied six basic genetic rules. It then added four selective pressures to drive evolutionary change — reproductive success, mechanical stability, light interception, and minimized surface area. The model produced 20 widely different body types. When researchers checked the fossil record, they found all types represented.

>Applying that lesson to animals, Marshall began to search for an environmental force that might have driven such dramatic change in the fleshy animals that populated the oceans before the Cambrian began. Marshall realized that those creatures had no organs of interaction — no eyes, no antennae, no jaws or claws — and began to think that the new force on the scene was the ability of animals to interact with each other.

>“Ediacarans were not interacting with each other as animals do today,” Marshall said. “I think what drove the Cambrian Explosion was ecological interactions.”

>The other factors that have been cited as playing a role in the Cambrian Explosion very well may have had a hand, Marshall said, but they made the conditions ripe for the change driven by interactions among animals. Just what the trigger was that sparked those changing interactions, Marshall didn’t know, but, in a world populated by what he described as fleshy “beefsteaks” lying on the ocean floor, it may have been something as simple as the evolution of jaws with toothlike projections that allowed the world’s first painful bite.

Let me translate that one properly for you: It's kind of like those hominids at the beginning of Arthur C. Clarke and Stanley Kubrick's "2001: A Space Odyssey" where one of them picks of up a bone and the transition from scavenger to predator is accomplished.

That one had major implications for human evolution, BTW, since toolmaking would follow, and a carnivorous diet would permit the subtle modification of jaw muscles--which distinguishes humans from the other apes--to remain within the genome and not be eliminated via natural selection (once again, that one was a simple one-letter change in the gene code where the gene for large jaw muscles that anchored to the skull--and required that the skull stopped growing--was no longer operative. The result was our large head size and room for bigger brains). With tools, we no longer needed fangs and strong jaws to fight off our competitors, and a largely carnivorous diet would mean less time would need to be spent ingesting calories. Of course our digestive systems still have more in common with our plant-eating relatives, but don't go thinking thoughts like that or you'll likely wind up abandoning that "anon" moniker and joining up with the heretic crowd instead of making silly attempts to taunt us...



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/25/2010 01:17PM by SL Cabbie.

Writes Coyne:

"[Certain] misconceptions . . . frighten people away from evolution and from the amazing derivation of life's staggering diversity from a single naked replicating molecule. The biggest of the misconceptions is that accepting evolution will somehow sunder our society, wreck our morality, impel us to behave like beasts, and spawn a new generation of Hitler and Stalins.

"That just won't happen, as we know from the many European countries whose residents wholly embrace evolution yet manage to remain civilized. Evolution is neither moral nor immoral. It just is, and we make of it what we will."
______


Ponder why we're somehow not witnessing a "Hitlerian explosion" in modern scientifically-educated societies--but kindly lay off the spiked punch as you attempt a reply.

C'mon, "anon," think about it. Using your "logic," we shouldn't be educating or advocating in the hard sciences of aerodynamics because some nutwads may use it to fly planes into buildings.

(And next year, please ask Santa for a textbook in Biology 101).



Edited 15 time(s). Last edit at 12/25/2010 01:48PM by steve benson.

The christer implication is that evolution would not exist if Darwin had not existed.

First of all I am not siding with the Christers but you bring up a good point Dave the Athiest-I will look into that!

Cabbie Thank you for not attempting to stifle debate and be informative(somewhat). I really do see a little bit of Mr. Paine in you once in a while:)

While I find the writings on that X-MAS eve and the responses of Mr. Benson a bit like a overinflated and bursting bicycle tube /anti-scientific and childish tantrum.

I always engage in healthy debate.

Now do you or MR. Benson specialize in any scientific areas-what are your studies and degrees?

I don't think I would have my carpenter fix my shoes.

I feel the drinking insults just modus operandi for you two twinkies but really?

I think my questions were not loaded-I was seeking honest feedback and more light and knowledge.

All scientific debate doe's not end at Steves feet.

Sad really. I am sure there will be a change one day in the ID/Darwinian Evoloution debate.

It seems to me that discussing these issues is a threat to some?

Did Darwin right the ORIGIN of SPECIES or the EVOLUTION OF SPECIES?

Why attack a creator...even Dawkins finds the idea of us being planted here by another "alien" interesting and more likely than then the abusive Judeo Xtian god of the OT and the others>

Benson wrote-

"Of course, reading is fundamental; otherwise, you risk being led like a lemming over, well, the cliff. :"

I find it hilarious you believed that!

Is the day he's going to acquire a whole lot of empathy for some of the trolls I've drop kicked around this place...

And I expect Steve would say the same thing about my modest attempts at education if I ever got that full of myself... I learned the phrase, "I don't know" quite painfully a lot of years ago... More than once...

But shoot, if you didn't have your strawman to burn, you wouldn't have anything coherent to say...

Nice of you to put yourself up as an authority on what constitutes healthy debate...

Easier for me to throw tomatoes as a result...

Seriously, I wonder how some people think they have a relationship with God when they're so busy impersonating him...

Oops, there I go, tossing out insults again... Difference is I know when I'm being obnoxious, and you don't have a clue about your behavior...

Anymore than you have a clue about evolution beyond what the anti-Darwinists tell you about it.

Its always painful to see Darwinism married to bloody regimes. It's presented as if it disproves evolutionary science. No self-respecting debater should engage in such poor rhetorical nonsense.

The appeal to authority is particularly laughable as well.

"Do you have to read up on leprechology before disbelieving in them?" (Richard Dawkins on the existence of mythical creatures)

I don't really need to get into this given that Steve Benson and Cabbie hold their own admirably.

Anyways, merry Christian-adapted winter celebration to you all!

Sounds like a pretty good strawman.

-ethnic cleansing etc. and or mass genocide.

I am not claiming that this is "fair."


Mr. Archaicoctober wrote="I don't really need to get into this given that Steve Benson and Cabbie hold their own admirably.'-I suggest you let them speak then and enjoy your day are they conjoined or something?

Your assertions that these two are not interrelated is a strawmans argument and COMPLETELY IGNORANT of the holocaust and scientific exploration of any kind. I am not saying it negates Darwinian theories-I am posing inquiries.

Furthermore I believe we do evolve.

I am discussing the social implications you nit- wit.

Asserting I am to ignorant to be spoken to shows your stripes and your elititst comments were rude as well.

Take a page from FAIR or MA&D and reference yourself...

I know, it looks awkward to put "Because I said so!" as an endnote, but most people don't read them, and it's better than nothing...

What are the implications of scientific bigotry socially if any at all?

Do you feel the Nazi's used Darwinian theories as a base model for the "master race" and then banned his stuff because they banned just about everything-sometimes after running with ideals for political gain then changing completely?

Why did the Nazis ban Darwins specific book?

Thanks...I feel my questions are legit.

in furthering the TSCC.

I am discussing the current climate of debate on the obvious.

In the 1850s, Watson conducted an extensive correspondence with Charles Darwin concerning the geographical distribution of British plant species and Darwin made a generous acknowledgement of Watson's scientific contributions in The Origin of Species.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edinburgh_Phrenological_Society

I have no doubt about the mo church being a total fraud, have studied the issues for years, well most of them. But I am not of any kind of scientific background, so here is my most serious question, and I would really appreciate it people would not be unkind about my ignorance in this area. I do believe in evolution, from everything I have ever read or heard about it, but one question lingers always. I keep wondering if it could be possible that some kind of intelligence or "GOD" could have set things in motion, billions of years ago, one that does NOT in any way interfere with events in this life. Is that impossible, and if so, then how did evolution begin? I have been told that the position I just stated is "Deist" which is one step away from atheism. Why is it so close to atheism, and what is it that will help me move on past deist thinking? Please don't be mean, I am still learning and very serious in my quest for truth.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/25/2010 04:42PM by think4u.

Guess again !

Deism is one step away from unitarianism which is one step away from agnosticism which is one step away from Atheism.

Methinks you missed a few steps.