|
Post by william on Mar 28, 2005 4:37:30 GMT -5
Being an atheist, I beleive in evolition. But all the peices have not been put together. Evolition is much more complex than the definition describes. Theists make a default to god because all things are not understood. You don't toss everything out the window because somethings are left to be discovered and beleive in something you understand even less. Evoliton is a theory and should be taught as one. I am not a God of the gaps theist, but Im glad to see you have a rational aproach to evolution.
|
|
|
Post by solidsquid on Mar 28, 2005 19:37:00 GMT -5
Being an atheist, I beleive in evolition. But all the peices have not been put together. Evolition is much more complex than the definition describes. Theists make a default to god because all things are not understood. You don't toss everything out the window because somethings are left to be discovered and beleive in something you understand even less. Evoliton is a theory and should be taught as one. I must have missed this part of Kronus's post, but I spotted it after Willam posted his reply. So I felt compelled to reply a bit to this as well. The word "theory" confuses many people when it is brought up, especially in the debate over evolution. Evolution IS a theory, hence "The theory of evolution". However, this doesn't mean that it is a theory in the colloquial usage of the word: dictionary.reference.com/search?q=theoryA scientific theory, which is what evolution is, is not conjecture. It is supported by experimentation, observation, statistical analyses, et cetera...and would be defined thusly: As I showed (tersely) earlier in this thread, to say evolution is merely conjecture is to admit ignorance on the subject.
|
|
|
Post by solidsquid on Apr 14, 2005 23:21:41 GMT -5
I have updated some of my evolution posts and will continue to do so to add more information as well as up to date information as it becomes pertinent. Here's my latest upadates For those who don’t know much in regards to evolutionary theory, I have collected here some information that will aid in abolishing the plethora of misconceptions and the loads of misinformation. Evolution is a huge biological theory and this will only address the basics in order to give the individual a better grasp of the theory. First off, I’ll start with some websites that can give excellent information regarding evolution. Evolution by Natural Selection by Derrick FarnellThe incredibly thorough Talk Origins siteHow Evolution WorksFull text of Darwin’s “Origin of Species”Science and Creationism: A View From the National Academy of Sciences 2nd Ed.These sites should provide plenty of information to keep one busy for a long while. So, what is Evolution? From - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia: EvolutionThere are many confusions right off the bat when people refer to evolutionary theory. There is a vast difference in the meaning of the word theory in the colloquial sense and the usage of the term in the scientific sense. The layman or popular culture definition of the word theory: From Dictionary.com Such a definition is often thought to apply when one speaks of a scientific theory; that it is merely conjecture or a "guess" on the part of scientists. This is not at all accurate. That colloquial definition is not applicable in regards to a scientific theory. Which is described as: From Dictionary.com From Mark Isaak’s Essay Five Major Misconceptions about EvolutionAlso read Laurence Moran’s Evolution is a Fact and a TheoryThe making of a scientific theory rests on the scientific method and the testing of and validation of hypotheses: From the Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia: Scientific Method
|
|
|
Post by solidsquid on Apr 14, 2005 23:22:06 GMT -5
The second half: Theories, hypotheses, and experiments are all open to repeatability and peer review. This allows the scientific community or anyone else to evaluate the information and validate it themselves if they are so inclined. Scientific journals assist in the peer review process as well as repeatability by following a prescribed format of stating the experiment, the methods, discussion of findings and the conclusion reached by the researchers along with a synopsis called an abstract. Although the scientific method is usually outlined as presented above, it is not necessarily an exact step by step method in practice. A hypothesis may be formed first or a hypothesis may be formulated from observations. Experimentation will test the proposed hypothesis but also will open the door to other questions that can be tested. The important part is to test the hypothesis and see if the results of the observation or experiment support or do not support it. In hypothesis testing there are usually two hypotheses, the null hypothesis and the alternative hypothesis. The independent variable is the variable that the researcher manipulates. For example, a researcher studying the effects of an room temperature on test taking ability, the independent variable would be the room temperature which the research manipulates in the controlled environment of the experiment. The dependent variable is the variable that is being measured. In the example above the test taking ability of the participants would be the dependent variable as measured by a test of specific design. Statistical analyses are also often utilized in the hypothesis testing as well. Some information on statistics can be read - HERE. Research is completed by the researcher(s) and their findings then need to be presented. Most often, this is done by being sent to a field-specific, peer reviewed journal. The researcher sends the editor of the journal a paper and copies of this paper are sent to several experts in the field for review. The papers are eliminated of any identification of the researcher(s) as to prevent any bias in the review process. The reviewers will then send the papers back with their comments. Based on their comments, the editor will choose their action, such as publish the paper, reject the paper, or send back to the researcher for revisions or further testing. Once the paper is published, this allows the rest of the scientific community or anyone else interested to read the paper and review it for themselves. Sometimes other researchers may be inclined to repeat the experiment to see if their findings match those found in the paper. The ability for others to try the experiment out for themselves is known as repeatability. Papers will also contain supporting literature for various aspects of their work. In the process of research, the researchers will do a literature review to see what others have found in the past or they may formulate a hypothesis to test based on what others have found. It is these items and processes that make scientific research self-checking. Breaching these processes may put the research performed into question and the validity of the conclusions reached. References:1) Darwin, C. (1979). Origin of Species. New York: Random House. 2) Audesirk, T., Audesirk, G., & Byers, B. (2002). Biology: Life on earth[i/] (6th ed.). Upper Saddle River: Prentice Hall.
3) Alters, S. (2000). Biology: Understanding life. (3rd ed.). Sudbury: Jones and Bartlett Publishers.
4) Trefil, J. & Hazen, R. (2004). The sciences: An integrated approach. Hoboken: John Wiley & Sons.
5) Gravetter, F. & Wallnau, L. (2004). Statistics for the behavioral sciences. (6th ed.). Belmont: Wadsworth/Thomson Learning.
6) Leary, M. (2004). Introduction to behavioral research methods. (4th ed.). Boston: Pearson Education.
Updated 3-30-05
|
|
|
Post by solidsquid on Apr 14, 2005 23:28:51 GMT -5
Evolution Pt. II: PBS has an excellent documentary on evolution. Here is the companion site to the documentary: PBS Evolution ResourcesFossils: Fossil is derived from Latin for "dug up". The fossil record provides a long history of the past ecology of the earth going back billions of years. Fossils are not just "preserved bones" of organisms. Fossils can be: eggs, skin impressions, bones, coprolites (fossilized feces), or impressions like footprints. UCMP – Geology and Geological Time ScaleStromatolites – Oldest FossilsTransitional FossilsFossil formation is often poorly understood, if at all, by many. As I stated before, fossils aren’t necessary just bones of extinct animals. Many attack the fossil record for "gaps" and claim it is not reliable or doesn’t prove anything. Fossilization isn’t a snap process that occurs easily. Because of what is involved in the formation of fossils, it is actually, truly amazing the detail of the fossil record and shows the dedication and hardwork of many scientists and their colleauges of the span of many years. Fossil Information
|
|
|
Post by solidsquid on Apr 14, 2005 23:29:10 GMT -5
The second half: Fossils as evidence of evolution: Many fossil lineages show the change of organisms over the millions of years. One of the best examples to display this is the horse fossil lineage. Evolution from fossils is also seen in others: Also the whale lineage shows wonderfully the transition of their terrestrial ancestors to the large mammals of the sea that we know: Whale Evolutionwww.talkorigins.org/features/whales/As more work is done and research continues, gaps in even well known lineages are still filled in such as the linking of the whale lineage to their cousins the hippos: References:1) Bunch, B., Tesar, J., et al. (2003). Discover Science Almanac: The Definitive Science Resource. New York: Hyperion Books. 2) Levin, H. (1999). The earth through time (6th ed.). Orlando: Harcourt Brace. 3) Pojcta, J. & Springer, D. (2001). Evolution and the fossil record. Alexandria: American Geological Institute. 4) Plummer, C., McGeary, D. & Carlson, D. (2003). Physical Geology. (9th ed.). New York: McGraw Hill. 5) Wright, K. (2003). The first earthlings. Discover, 3, 24-25. 6) Pennock, R. (1999). Tower of Babel: The evidence against the new creationism. Cambridge: MIT Press. 7) Monroe, J. & Wicander, R. (2001). Physical geology: Exploring the earth. (4th ed.). Pacific Grove: Brooks/Cole. 8) Alters, S. (2000). Biology: Understanding life. (3rd ed.). Sudbury: Jones and Bartlett. 9) Trefil, J. & Hazen, R. (2004). The Sciences: An integrated approach. (4th ed.). Hoboken: John Wiley & Sons. 10) MacFadden, B. (2005). Fossil Horses – Evidence for Evolution. Science 307, 1728-1730. 11) Benton, M. & Pearson, P. (2001). Speciation in the fossil record. Trends in ecology & evolution 16, 405-411. 12) Boisserie, J., Lihoreau, F., & Brunet, M. (2005). The position of Hippopotamidae within Cetartiodactyla. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 102, 1537-1541. Updated 4-2-05
|
|
|
Post by solidsquid on Apr 14, 2005 23:36:30 GMT -5
Evolution Pt. IIIDating MethodsFrom - www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dating.htmlRelative Dating: Stratigraphy is used as relative dating. It utilizes the sedimentary layers of rock to determine what came before what. The older the layer or "strata", the further down it will be. StratigraphyPojcta and Springer wrote: From - encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761555455/Geology.htmlThe age of the earth as being older than what biblical text allows was accepted far before modern times and before Darwin’s voyage on the HMS Beagle. Levin wrote: There is also flourine analysis: Jurmain et al. wrote: Relative Dating and Flourine Analysisid-archserve.ucsb.edu/Anth3/Courseware/Chronology/01_Contents.htmlMany methods were devised to extrapolate the age of the Earth. However, with the discovery of radioactivity, our ability to say with certainty what the age was had found its backing. Radioisotope Dating: Tattersall wrote: This dating, also called absolute dating, utilizes the decay of radioactive isotopes as clocks for dating materials. The most widely known method is the C-14 method which has a half life of 5,730 years. How Carbon-14 Dating WorksC-14 dating isn’t the only method available though. Other methods include: Uranium-Lead method, potassium-argon method, rubidium-strontium method for example. Each has a different half-life and a range of time it can date accurately. So what makes these isotopes "absolute dating"? Levin wrote: Plummer et al. discusses the radioactive decay of isotopes:
|
|
|
Post by solidsquid on Apr 14, 2005 23:36:58 GMT -5
The second half: Plummer et al. wrote: Abell wrote: And brush touches on one of the most important traits of radiometric dating (specifically referring to uranium isotopes): Brush wrote: In relation to the radiometric dating is a technique known as fission track dating: Monroe & Wicander wrote: Fission track dating is interesting because it has such a large range. However, as Monroe & Wicander note: Monroe & Wicander wrote: From - www.mnsu.edu/emuseum/archaeology/dating/dat_fission.htmlDespite the attacks thrown by creationists, radioisotope dating gives us an extremely accurate timeframe for the age of fossils, artifacts, minerals, etc. Cross-checking is also used in conjunction with radiometric dates to obtain the most accurate and reliable date. Some other dating methods: DendrochronologyObsidian HydrationLuminescence DatingElectron Spin ResonanceAnd some resource links: Radiometric Dating Resource ListIsochron Dating by Chris StassenRadiometric Time ScaleRadiometric Dating Does Work! By G. Brent DalrympleRadiometric Dating and the Geological Time Scale: Reasoning or Reliable Tools? by Andrew MacRaeReferences: Abell, G. (1983). The Ages of the Earth and Universe. Scientists Confront Creationism. New York: W. W. Norton. Brush, S. (1983). Ghosts from the Nineteenth Century: Creationist Arguments for a Young Earth. Scientists Confront Creationism. New York: W. W. Norton. Jurmain, R., Nelson H., Kilgore, L., & Trevathan, W. (2000). Introduction to physical anthropology. (8th ed.). Belmont: Wadsworth/Thomson. Levin, H. (1999). The Earth through time (6th ed.). Orlando: Harcourt Brace. Monroe, J. & Wicander, R. (2001). Physical Geology: Exploring the Earth (4th ed.). Pacific Grove: Brooks/Cole. Plummer, C., McGeary, D., & Carlson, D. (2003). Physical geology (9th ed.). New York: McGraw Hill. Pojcta, J. & Springer, D. (2001) Evolution and the fossil record. Alexandria: American Geological Institute. Tattersall, I. (1995). The Fossil Trail. New York: Oxford U.P. Updated 4-12-05
|
|
|
Post by UnsavedSwed on Apr 15, 2005 0:04:03 GMT -5
I knew some of the facts on evolution but not that much on the subject. So thanks for the information Solidsquid.
|
|
|
Post by solidsquid on Apr 16, 2005 0:05:25 GMT -5
I knew some of the facts on evolution but not that much on the subject. So thanks for the information Solidsquid. No problem, I have some more posts I need to update but I don't have a lot of time lately to put into them, nearing the end of the semester and that's always a busy time.
|
|
|
Post by solidsquid on May 9, 2005 11:30:07 GMT -5
*Update* The end of the semester is here and I'll be working a bit more on some posts. I was thinking of specifically and throughly addressing some direct creationist critiques of evolutionary theory. I figure that might help.
|
|
thehack
Maverick's Chew Toy
Posts: 16
|
Post by thehack on May 10, 2005 18:20:14 GMT -5
*Update* The end of the semester is here and I'll be working a bit more on some posts. I was thinking of specifically and throughly addressing some direct creationist critiques of evolutionary theory. I figure that might help. Can I get the Cliff Notes version of this entire thread? ;D j/k. I'll go through and read up on this. Steven J. Gould is one of my favorite authors and his formative topic is evolutionary biology.
|
|
|
Post by solidsquid on May 17, 2005 15:58:36 GMT -5
Gould is also one of the most often quote mined people by creationists along with Elredge and Darwin.
|
|