Evolution's hoaxes

[Mistwalker]

Calling these "hoaxes" is not the correct word. These were discredited scientific theories. And this is exactly how science is meant to work. It is self correcting. Those hypostesis and theories which are incorrect eventually get discarded.

The peppered moth thing was evidence of natural selection, which is only one half of evolution. The example of the sniper shooting people with a certain eye color would also be natural selection. Whatever survives, survives. The other bit is mutation. Mutation provides variation, natual selection gets rid of those that can't survive or reproduce. So those that can survive, and reproduce, or do so better than their anscestors, are more prolific.

There is better evidence of such things occuring. In fact, a genetic mutation in some humans prevents the AIDS virus from reproducing, making them immune. They think this comes from an immunity to smallpox: www.health24.co.za/news/HIV_AIDS/1-920,25806.asp

This is dense reading, but it's a study of how 400 species of African cichlid fish came to exist in a single lake, which would be speciation: www.unc.edu/courses/2003fall/geog/144/001/www/readings/cichlid.pdf

There's another study, which is very interesting, about yearly changes in length of beaks of birds, to fit the size of food available, on an island in the galapagos, but I'm having trouble finding it.

There are also various other sudies on speciation due to geographical isolation. Members of one species get seperated by a geographical feature, such as a river or mountain range, and evolve independantly.

Anyway, there's a vast amount of evidence in support of evolution occuing. The examples of "hoaxes" are just outdated theories, that have already been abandoned by serious scientists. If they're still in textbooks printed today, that needs to be stopped, and is the real issue here.

[tamara]

Well, I agree that the name of the thread is something of a misnomer by now. I began it with Haeckel's hoax, and now I am following up with stuff that is problematic but not really hoax. And I agree that texts ought to be more careful what they include. I just got a book on evolution for young readers, and -- gasp -- it actually not just mentioned gill slits, but claimed human embryos have GILLS for several days. This was published 1990. Shows ya... bullshit is never dies.

The example of the sniper shooting people with a certain eye color would also be natural selection.

Actually, that would be an example of artificial selection! ;D

As for speciation, I looked into the Galapagos finches, and I am having a very uncomfortable feeling that these are not different species at all, but rather the same finch with some regional differences which seem themselves to fluctuate depending on environmental conditions. I mean, if Icelanders and African Pygmies are one species of human, how the hell do we justify calling a finch a different species just because its beak is a little different???!!!

[Acriku]

The next time you're at the Galapagos Islands, try mating two different beaked finches.

One note that may have already have been said, but is very important to understand, is that every single evolution hoax as far I know has been exposed by scientists themselves, not the anti-Evolutionists who cry hoax.

[tamara]

Next time try mating a Great Dane, and a miniature Dachshund. Not easy, but doable. Same with the finches.

The whole thing about non-mating populations creating a species is false. I mean, maybe that is how the definition should be but it's not. The taxonomists have abadnoned it. If it held, then maybe we'd have to declare wolves and dogs and jackals one species with separate subspecies?

Yes, the Haeckel hoax was exposed in 1910. So how come it's been pushed by the texts for 90 years? Hm? My take on it is, it's been useful as propaganda. I'd like to hear your hypothesis.

[zoul]

Just one thing i thought i should point out, and i'll keep it short and sweet. Time. Most people fail to comprohend the amount of time evolution has taken. most people seem unable to grasp how long 140 million years actually is. It's a long time compared to a human life time. Unless you happen to go along with the bible idea of the whole of life started 6000 years ago after a 6 day event.

[Acriku]

tamara said:

Next time try mating a Great Dane, and a miniature Dachshund. Not easy, but doable. Same with the finches.

The whole thing about non-mating populations creating a species is false. I mean, maybe that is how the definition should be but it's not. The taxonomists have abadnoned it. If it held, then maybe we'd have to declare wolves and dogs and jackals one species with separate subspecies?

Yes, the Haeckel hoax was exposed in 1910. So how come it's been pushed by the texts for 90 years? Hm? My take on it is, it's been useful as propaganda. I'd like to hear your hypothesis.

Lack of funds to provide updating? I'm sure it costs a bit of money to have the texts updated, send back all of the textbooks, and then buy the same number of new textbooks back with the small update. Or, perhaps they find it too insignificant for just one error to update an entire textbook. Or perhaps they don't even know of it. Who knows, I'm not them and I've never asked them. But, I highly doubt it is used for propaganda that evolutionists use.

Anyways, my point stands: all supposed errors (or hoaxes if you want to call them that) were uncovered by scientists themselves. Not creationists. Not ID-advocates. Not anti-evolutionists. This is very significant when discussing errors scientists have made.

Also, so how would you define the distinction between species? I'm curious, because I don't have a definite one myself.

Zoul, you speak truth. A hundred millions of years, hell even a million years, is incomprehensible to our minds. It is impossible right now for our minds to even try to imagine how long of a time that is. But, I'm not saying magic happens when there is enough time, but mutations can accumulate over millions of years to produce what we see now.

[tamara]

Lack of funds to provide updating? I'm sure it costs a bit of money to have the texts updated, send back all of the textbooks, and then buy the same number of new textbooks back with the small update. Or, perhaps they find it too insignificant for just one error to update an entire textbook. Or perhaps they don't even know of it.

For a hundred years! That is plain silly.

As far as I know the Haeckel forgeries were uncovered by a conjunction of scientists and other interested people. I remember reading somewhere that clergymen of that time were among them.

Some of the weaknesses of darwinism have of late been pointed out by interested laypersons like Milton and Macbeth. We all play a role in changing things, to some extent... So I am not sure where you are going with your point. Science tends to be self correcting, but who says we laypersons do not have our obligation to pitch in?

If useful mutations accumulate over gazillions of generations, then how come the fruit fly people haven't created a new type of fly out of Drosophila by now?

As for species, there is a good article on speciation in talkorigin.org archive. There are problems with all proposed definitions. But I think when it comes to higher animals, we should probably stick to Dobzhansky's original definition as a population that physiologically cannot interbreed with others. Which would sweep the Galapagos finches off the table. Heck, some of those birds are virtually identical. I don't think the finches are a hoax, but certainly science marred by wishful thinking. They show very well the power of natural selection. They do not show speciation, IMO. The finches' beaks fluctuate depending on whether it's a drought or a wet season. There is virtually no net change. And lately, some of the "hybrids" between the groups have been reported to be among the most vigorous breeders. (Not that the textbooks necessarily come clean on all this.)

[Griffey]

I was pretty sure a species was a group of organisms that could either a.) not breed with other species, or b.) potentially breed with other species but not produce fertile offspring...I hope I'm not saying something that already got brought up, if it did I missed it, sorry

[Acriku]

That's what I thought Griff, but apparently it's not adequate.

tamara, I was just offering possible scenarios because I'm not them, nor have I asked them. As I've said before, I highly doubt that keeping the incorrect theories in the textbooks is a plot of propaganda (as they say, conspiracy theories often involve sub-adequate critical thinking).

Some of the weaknesses of darwinism have of late been pointed out by interested laypersons like Milton and Macbeth. We all play a role in changing things, to some extent... So I am not sure where you are going with your point. Science tends to be self correcting, but who says we laypersons do not have our obligation to pitch in?

Milton's books have been, to say the least, highly questioned to be of any credibility. But, as you said, science is corrected along the way, and if the criticisms pass the scrutiny of the scientific community (as any criticism would go through), then they can take that into thought. And the problem with laypersons pitching in is that they sometimes have no idea what they are talking about (otherwise, they wouldn't be very good laypersons).

Here is a URL for the Foley/Milton debate and some reviews of his books:
www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/milton.html

As far as I know the Haeckel forgeries were uncovered by a conjunction of scientists and other interested people. I remember reading somewhere that clergymen of that time were among them.

Any documentation to support this?

If useful mutations accumulate over gazillions of generations, then how come the fruit fly people haven't created a new type of fly out of Drosophila by now?

Perhaps the simplicity of the Drosophila can give us some clues. But, what is the point of this question? There's a big difference between millions of years and a hundred in the lab.

[Griffey]

Acriku, what do you mean by not adequate? You mean not adequate as a definition of speciation? I'm just a little confused.

Regarding birds, they can be different species without many apparent differences, or at least, according to my beloved Sibley guide to birds. tamara, where exactly would you draw the line at speciation? Do you include species that can hybridize (though not necessarily have fertile young) as the same species?

I have another question just for people in general, forgive me for sounding ignorant, but what exactly is the difference between natural (or I guess, artificial selection, in some cases) and "real" evolution?

I'm just full of questions today.

[Acriku]

Griffey said:

Acriku, what do you mean by not adequate? You mean not adequate as a definition of speciation? I'm just a little confused.

I was referring to tamara's qualms with this definition. As in, not adequate for tamara, or not a working definition.

I have another question just for people in general, forgive me for sounding ignorant, but what exactly is the difference between natural (or I guess, artificial selection, in some cases) and "real" evolution?

I'm just full of questions today.

The way I see it, there is no difference. We are part of nature, and thus we are part of the selection process if we so interact with the environment. Sort of like earthquakes, and floods, the kinds of things that do not happen regularly.

[tamara]

Well, here is my best understanding. This after I just battled on an evolution/creation board re finches.

The definition of a species is very plastic and fuzzy and pretty much up for grabs. Dobzhansky wanted it to mean physiological inability to interbreed, but was talked out of it. Now there are problem with this definition: it is not useful for organisms that are not sexualy dimorphic, or for plants, or for fossils. But on the other hand, it works rather well for higher animals, and has the huge advantage of being falsifiable. (Even if we stick with Dobzhansky, there are always marginal cases, like hinnies (horse and donkey) that are occasionally fertile. Still, I think biology would profit by tightening the definition even if it cannot be made completely non-fuzzy.) (Griffey, I would leave mostly unfertile hybridization in separate species. I would combine the successful ones, like horse and Przewalski's, or tigers and lions, or dogs and wolves.)

Regarding the whole mess with Haeckel, I suggest you read the link to Gould's article I posted earlier. It would tell you more about the situation.

I am aware that Milton is slugged by the darwinist community. (As is Wells.) I don't really care. What matters to me is the message, not the messenger. That is why I am working thru the arguments. So far, Wells has been right about a bunch of stuff, and while I was debating the finches, I got attacked by one of the people regarding the gill slits. Unbelievable. Some people think that if they admit one thing, they'll lose everything, apparently.... Pretty pathetic. On the other hand, Kenneth Miller removed the Haeckel thing from his highschool (I think) textbook very publicly a few years ago.

There's a big difference between millions of years and a hundred in the lab.

Well, the whole point with Drosophila is that we can have a gazillion generations quickly, so that we can test the assumptions about long term evolution, no?

Natural and artificial selection are called microevolution by some, but maybe this is just semantics. It shows that organisms do change, but within their genome. Whether this "proves" the sort of evolution that goes from a shrew to a gorilla is what the fight is about...