EVOLUTION
Posted by anthonynorth on March 14, 2007
The general premise of evolution is that life constantly changes and adapts. This is in opposition to the Creationist view that life appeared miraculously on Earth and has remained unchanged since Creation.
The first known theorist to apply evolution was Lucretius in the 1st century AD. In the mid-18th century Linnaeus classified most known organisms, recognizing the possibility of relationships between them.
About the same time the Comte de Buffon suggested that changes in fossils could have been caused by environmental factors, whilst Lamarck first suggested, in 1809, that changes in form could be due to inheritance.
Also essential to the process at this time was geologist, Lyell, who showed how the environment changed constantly, thus giving a reason for animals to have to change to survive. This was the last factor needed by one Charles Darwin.
ENTER MR DARWIN
In his 1859 Origin of Species Darwin showed that species adapt through natural selection, in that those who adapt best to the environment have the best chance of survival, whilst those who do not die out.
Darwinian evolution still required a mechanism by which adaptations were passed on through inheritance. This came with Mendel and his devising of genetics, and Crick and Watson’s discovery of DNA in a double helix which unfolded at conception, passing a parent’s genes to the offspring.
EVOLVING PROBLEMS
The theory of evolution is neat and rational, but whilst some form of evolution is definitely correct, there are many problems with the theory as it stands. For instance, it requires slow change, whereas evidence suggests something different.
There appear to be periods of fast change interspersed by periods of no change at all. If this could be tied with periods of fast change and no change at all in the environment, all well and good, but science cannot prove this.
Similar problems arise with the evidence to prove evolution. For instance, only 10% of the fossil record has been found, leaving huge gaps in the evidence. Hence, science’s evangelical approach to the ‘truth’ of evolution is misplaced.
Of course, evolution was much more than a theory of life. The idea of the ‘survival of the fittest’ was a perfect philosophy and for the strongest to prosper. As such, Nazism and modern capitalism are based on the premise.
INTELLIGENT DESIGN?
Opposing evolution is Creationism and the idea of ‘intelligent design’ within life. The two stances seem so contradictory that there is no possibility of tying the two ideas together. However, this is not the case.
Computer programs have now been devised on the concepts of evolution. Over many ‘generations’, the programs evolve to be better programs, adapting through natural selection. However, this is not the whole picture.
In order to know in which direction evolution must go, the programs are given a ‘basic design function’, without which they could not work. This is a form of intelligence within evolution. It is not inconceivable that a similar process could lie in evolution proper. It is the challenge of theology and science to study the possibility rather than bicker.
© Anthony North, December 2006
Fuad Ullah-Khan said
Hi,
I find your blog information very interesting. Unlike many who express their opinions online, you look at the various phenomena of the world, both natural and supernatural, with an open mind. For this I am grateful. Much of the world is a mystery to us, even today.
Paul Decelles said
Tony,
In the natural world, the environment provides the basic design function. For instance the physical properties of water provide constraints on the forms that active swimmers can take. Active swimmers are going to converge on some sort of streamlined structure. For the connection between evolution and computer programs you might enjoy “Daniel Dennett’s Darwin’s Dangerous Idea” which makes the case that natural selection basically is an algorithm.
I haven’t posted a whole lot about this book but you mght enjoy this poem and commentary related to it:
http://theforcethat.blogspot.com/2007/02/that-intricate-blindness.html
anthonynorth said
Hi Paul,
That’s a great poem. I must admit I envisage a basic design function as slightly more than the way you describe with the swimmers.
This is more a limitation as to what can be done in a particular environment, rather than a means of advancing what is in the environment itself, I would have thought.
Admittedly, my science is limited, but I have a fascination for such subjects.
Troy Huston said
“In order to know in which direction evolution must go, the programs are given a ‘basic design function’, without which they could not work. This is a form of intelligence within evolution. It is not inconceivable that a similar process could lie in evolution proper. It is the challenge of theology and science to study the possibility rather than bicker.”
While it might be that just because genetic algorithms need input, this does not mean that there is a grand designer. I might plant a seed in a garden, but some seeds plant themselves with no interference by humans.
It is the challenge of science to uncover how the universe works. Theology ,on the other hand, is a total waste of time and energy.
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CF/CF011.html
anthonynorth said
Hi Troy,
Very true. And I’m not saying there is a grand designer. I’m simply asking the question. And if the question cannot be disproved, then it must be asked repeatedly.
Peter White said
Darwinists think evolution is sacrosanct. Even though only 10% of fossils have been found. When 100% of fossils have been found then they can lecture us on the absolute truth of evolution.
DNA shows that all life did not come from a common ancestor, otherwise it would all be the same. It isn’t. There are fossils of animals that are supposed to be millions of years old but they look exactly the same as those of today.This proves evolution wrong. Therefore there must be an intelligent disigner.
Darwinism is a false religion that promotes slavery and murder of the weak. Darwin himself had great doubts and recanted his “theory” on his deathbed.
One day the Darwinists will reelise that they have made a huge mistake and intelligent disign will be taught instead of evolution.
anthonynorth said
Hi Peter,
I don’t know where you get your ‘facts’ from, but most of this is wrong. As to intelligent design being taught instead of evolution, I hope that day never comes. BOTH should be taught equally. Only that way will knowledge be a balanced thing.
Lee Joseph Dieckstahl said
‘BOTH should be taught equally. Only that way will knowledge be a balanced thing.’
The “scientific” consensus blocks the teaching of Flat Earth Theory alongside astronomy. Purblind “science” cannot disprove Flat Earth Theory. When will the day come when FET will be taught in astronomy classes? We will rejoice when that day finally arrives. Homeopathy and astrology have been banned from “science” classes yet they are relevant theories and need to be taught in schools.
anthonynorth said
Hi Lee,
One day there may be balance in rounded education. I look forward to that day.
Graham Priestley said
“‘BOTH should be taught equally. Only that way will knowledge be a balanced thing.’
The “scientific” consensus blocks the teaching of Flat Earth Theory alongside astronomy. Purblind “science” cannot disprove Flat Earth Theory. When will the day come when FET will be taught in astronomy classes? We will rejoice when that day finally arrives. Homeopathy and astrology have been banned from “science” classes yet they are relevant theories and need to be taught in schools.”
This post is ridiculous. Is someone having fun at Anthony North’s expense?
You can’t teach Intelligent Design in a science class as it isn’t even remotely scientific. It isn’t even much of a hypothesis. “God did it” so we can all call it a day and not research genetics or go fossil hunting ever again.Its creationisms in scientists drag.
Why anyone would want to clutter up a perfectly good education with having to learn a huge amount of unsupported woo is beyond me. The amount of time for educating students would be magnified, and all for the sake of every kook with a silly idea that they have no evidence for.
If homeopathy worked we’d have instant cures in our tap water and homeopaths would be out of business. I wish some of the woo was demonstrated to work because it would make the world a much better place. But such things never are demonstrated. No antigravity car for me and no grey aliens to talk to.
anthonynorth said
Hi Graham,
Woo there!!! Who’s talking about ‘God did it’? Not me. And if you look at my last sentence again, I don’t say it should be the preserve of science to teach it. All I’m after is a removal of the scepticism, and look at hypotheses. To say they cannot be made would surely be anti-scientific?
Graham Priestley said
“Woo there!!! Who’s talking about ‘God did it’? Not me. And if you look at my last sentence again, I don’t say it should be the preserve of science to teach it. All I’m after is a removal of the scepticism, and look at hypotheses. To say they cannot be made would surely be anti-scientific?”
I’m not writing that you say “Goddidit!” but the evolution detractors are, even if it is through the medium of spurious science.
The removal of scepticism is something that should be avoided at all costs. Sceptics want to see evidence from experimentation, of the replicatable kind if possible. I’d brand you a sceptic Anthony, as you ask questions of theories. Most of the woo providers ignore evidence (breatharians want to ignore the effects of starvation on the human body)and don’t even produce a hypothesis (in the scientific sense of the word)let alone do double blind experiments to test their superparanormal woo magick.
To remove scepticism would be anti scientific, as scepticism is the basis of science. Scientists aren’t content to accept the universe as we think it is, and seek to uncover its mysteries as part of an ongoing search for truths.
anthonynorth said
Hi Graham,
I’d pretty much agree with that, but the problem is, too many go beyond scepticism to a form of denial. This can be as bad as absolute belief, disallowing science from even contemplating such subjects.
Graham Priestley said
“but the problem is, too many go beyond scepticism to a form of denial. This can be as bad as absolute belief, disallowing science from even contemplating such subjects.”
This is an argument many frustrated fantasists put forward.”You deny my pet theory so you must be blinkered pseudosceptics that deny reality. Science must be more open minded!”. The ironic thing being that these fantasists often ignore experiments falsifying their claims or data from “conventional” science that outrightly goes against what they’re saying is real. Scientists should be open minded to an extent, but not so much that they credit every kook’s fantasy as being worthy of research. A good sceptic must judge wether it is a waste of time and effort to research something or not. Otherwise every breatharian Atlantian reincarnated colon cleansing magick amulet waving prophet would soon sink scientific research under a tsunami of nonsense.
I’m sure that many atheist scientists didn’t like the evidence put forward for the Big Bang believing that it bolsters the church’s view that God created the universe. But if science has any respectability it must go in the direction of exploring what the data brings up. Any ideas that are deemed unworthy of science at this moment in time will eventually come under scientific scrutiny if they have some germ of authenticity about them, I believe. Most scientists are into discovering new things, not denying new things. It is generally the most close minded with their pet fantasies that can’t accept that their ideas are nonsense.
anthonynorth said
Hi Graham,
There you go again, comparing me to fantasists. I’m not saying that such things as Atlantis or reincarnation should be taken as believed, but i do argue there is a rational explanation for such things that gives the impression of the phenomenon.
Similar rational explanations have been posited for many years, but the subjects are still laughed at by the bulk of science. And your language certainly seems to agree with this. I suppose the difference between you and me is you know you’re right and I think you could be wrong.
Notice the difference? It’s a matter of the humility of knowledge.
Graham Priestley said
“I’m not saying that such things as Atlantis or reincarnation should be taken as believed, but i do argue there is a rational explanation for such things that gives the impression of the phenomenon.”
That there may be some other reason for such things as Atlantis (most likely the story was inspired by the volcanic event that destroyed the island of Thera ) or reincarnation I have no doubt. However most believers desperately want reincarnation to be exactly what they say it is, or Atlantis not to have been something as mundane as the Minoans. so we agree on that.
“Similar rational explanations have been posited for many years, but the subjects are still laughed at by the bulk of science. And your language certainly seems to agree with this.”
Science is busy laughing at cranks that couldn’t posit a testable hypthesis if it landed on them from a great height.
“I suppose the difference between you and me is you know you’re right and I think you could be wrong.”
The difference between us is that I require more rigorousness and judgement in my research before I commit myself to thinking something has validity. You are the one who thinks you can improve science in your one man quest to expand the minds of blinkered denialist scientists.
“Notice the difference? It’s a matter of the humility of knowledge.”
Calls for humility are one of the most overused arguments of cranks to avoid answering questions about their pet fantasy. Ironically these cranks usually boast arrogantly of their ideas being the one true way.
Science, in contrast to crank ideas, is a practice that requires a degree of humility. Anyone can have their findings challenged, so long as the challenger raises logically legitimate complaints. No authority is sacrosanct. The only things we stick to are the things that we’ve been unable to tear down with critical thought and evidence. Any test can have flaws pointed out, discussed, and hopefully removed in another experiment.
You seem to think that you’re the only person perceptive enough to delineate what is possible. You aren’t.
anthonynorth said
Hi Graham,
Ah, and so it descends to insult. I’m the crank; the only one perceptive enough
I’ve been here many times on this blog, and as the reaction descends it’s like a repeatable experiment. And you uphold the consensus any way you can.
Oh, and how many essays here have you read to come to such a conclusion about me? Indeed, have you torn down any of my hypotheses? What changed your mind from first classing me as a sceptic, to deciding, instead, I’m a crank? What proof, what validation?
You’re not being very scientific, are you?
Graham Priestley said
“Hi Graham,
Ah, and so it descends to insult. I’m the crank; the only one perceptive enough
I’ve been here many times on this blog, and as the reaction descends it’s like a repeatable experiment. And you uphold the consensus any way you can.
Oh, and how many essays here have you read to come to such a conclusion about me? Indeed, have you torn down any of my hypotheses? What changed your mind from first classing me as a sceptic, to deciding, instead, I’m a crank? What proof, what validation?
You’re not being very scientific, are you?”
You aren’t being very perceptive Anthony. Where do I write that you are a crank? I write that you repeat arguments that cranks often come out with. I branded you a sceptic in my earlier post, remember?.
As for consensus I’ve already told you that this is a fallacy. Yet you cling to your belief without question. Not very open minded eh? It seems that you want science to be some monolithic wall of denial and censorship. If that were the case we’d still be living medieval existences. We wouldn’t have half the research going on that we do have, or half the hypothesizing about such stuff as time travel, warp drives and the change in the speed of light that we read about.
anthonynorth said
Hi Graham,
‘As for consensus I’ve already told you that this is a fallacy’
Here’s a possibility – remember, I said possibility. Could it be that a consensus becomes so ironclad that it is impossible for those within it to see it exists, and class their deductions as an absolute truth rather than a probability?
‘… told you …’
‘… told you …’
‘… told you …’ !!!??
Graham Priestley said
Your “told you” argument is irrelevant. I’m assuming that you weren’t so narrow mindedly frothing that you ignored the rest of my post after that. You know, where I told you about your apparently close minded denialist monolithic consensus being unmonolithic open minded and not a consensus.
Try to skirt around avoiding my main point, which is:
That you appear to have an unquestionable image of scientists as some kind of conspiracy to deny that there are mysteries in this universe and to investigate them. Further, that you appear blind to evidence that this is not so. I assumed that you could use a search engine to research what I have said. But sadly all you seem to be doing is avoiding these points.
Not very scientifc now are you Anthony?
I must reach a provisional conclusion that despite your outwardly sceptical opinions you don’t have the time, or liking, to go and look for evidence.
anthonynorth said
Hi Graham,
A brief search around this site would tell you that I have no time for conspiracy theories. I think most scientists do a marvellous job and science must never be forsaken. But scientists are also human beings, and I’ve acquired evidence and theorised over many years to suggest that above the science, there is a natural human need to deny what doesn’t seem to fit.
This has always been the case with human interaction, and it is surely an arrogance to think that it doesn’t still go on. This is why I bring humility into it (not a crank’s argument) – it never hurts to ask: what if?
Ichthyic said
Who’s talking about ‘God did it’? Not me.
Irrelevant.
The fact is, until a putative designer actually IS identified, and we have a good idea how it interacts with the natural world, not only will ID never become a theory, it can’t even formulate the first testable hypothesis.
Try this:
compare the concept of intelligent design to that of the actual science of anthropology.
Now ask yourself: What is the difference between them?
ID is a non-starter. It’s entirely vacuous nonsense.
Ichthyic said
I’ve acquired evidence and theorised over many years to suggest that above the science, there is a natural human need to deny what doesn’t seem to fit.
what you’ve done is projected the problems creationists have with making their intuitive notions fit with reality onto actual scientific endeavor.
until you can see that, you ARE nothing more than a conspiracy theorist.
anthonynorth said
Hi Ichthyic,
Thanks for your absolutism there. It’s pointless restating my argument. It’s in this comment thread. You disagree. I can live with that
Graham Priestley said
” brief search around this site would tell you that I have no time for conspiracy theories” What you’ve written elsewhere on this site would be irrelevant if it appeared that you’d changed your opinion and were telling me that some kind of group conspiracy, wether conscious or unconscious on the part of its participants, exists among scientists. besides I could outrightly accuse you of being a conspiracy theorist, like the fishy poster above, and you wouldn’t be able to disprove my accusation totally and I could smugly slink off thinking that I’ve won the argument, but things are always more complex than that.
Graham Priestley said
“Similar problems arise with the evidence to prove evolution. For instance, only 10% of the fossil record has been found, leaving huge gaps in the evidence. Hence, science’s evangelical approach to the ‘truth’ of evolution is misplaced.”
Anyone who thinks that the theory of evolution is supported only by fossil evidence is behind the times. There is plenty of genetic and experimental evidence to back it up.
“Of course, evolution was much more than a theory of life. The idea of the ‘survival of the fittest’ was a perfect philosophy and for the strongest to prosper. As such, Nazism and modern capitalism are based on the premise.”
The above quote is the kind of warped propaganda that the intelligent design crowd uses to try to soil Darwins ideas. But Darwin was passionately anti social Darwinism and against slavery. http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA006_1.html (thanks to Troy Huston for his post above and link to this site)
It isn’t Darwin’s fault if right wing authoritarians selectively take “survival of the fittest” as a mantra for their selfish actions.
anthonynorth said
Hi Graham,
Conspiracy implies two or more people purposely conspiring to achieve something. I think the building of a consensus is a natural state of being and has always affected human civilisations, whether religious, political or scientific. The idea of conspiracy theory muddies this idea.
Is this idea correct? Absolutely no way to tell. I suppose anyone reading my work should begin on the About page, and the introduction to all my work – accessed top left of site. It may give you an idea where I’m at.
I don’t think evolution is only supported by fossil evidence. Similarly I think it’s on the right track, but incomplete. I’m merely suggesting the missing factor may be an impulse towards order within the universe.
As for Darwin, yes, it is partially his fault. Would Nazism have grown as it did if Nietzsche and Hegel had moderated their language, thus disallowing politics to kidnap their ideas? Would Marx’s theories have become so terrible in practice if he had moderated his words and realised the transitional period from dictastorship to equality was pure naivety?
Putting forward a theory is one thing, but the language used is similarly important. Intellectuals MUST take responsibility for this language. It doesn’t affect the theory, but how it can be used in the wider world. You see, whether science likes it or not, society is always a reflection of the universe – i.e. how the present intellectuals see the universe as operating. This is true from choirs of angels to specialisation compartmentalising different aspects of life.
Always theory should come packaged with language of toleration, humility and moderation. This is my main message, and not any one idea.
Graham Priestley said
I can’t see how you can blame someone who openly stated that they support the concept of helping needy people and are against slavery. darwin did this. “Survival of the fittest” wasn’t even coined by him, though he used the term. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Survival_of_the_fittest
If authoritarians choose to ignore Darwin’s words and then adopt a “might makes right” philosophy in contradiction to what he believed then that is their problem.
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA002_1.html
anthonynorth said
Hi Graham,
So are you saying that a theorist holds no responsibility at all for how his work could affect things? I’d disagree. There is a requirement to think of negative possibilities and place disclaimers in the language used, regardless of his views in other areas.
Did you read my About page to see where I’m coming from?
Graham Priestley said
I’m saying that Darwin wasn’t responsible for authoritarians misreading his work. Nowhere does Darwin say “Behave like the worst part of the animal kingdom. Agressively annex weaker countries and destroy the weak.” Nowhere does Darwin give this message, in fact he says the opposite should hold true for human society.
“As for Darwin, yes, it is partially his fault. Would Nazism have grown as it did if Nietzsche and Hegel had moderated their language, thus disallowing politics to kidnap their ideas? Would Marx’s theories have become so terrible in practice if he had moderated his words and realised the transitional period from dictatorship to equality was pure naivety?”
Do you blame Darwin for not being able to predict the future? As I’ve argued already Darwin states that “social Darwinism” is not how he would want society to run.Your mentioning Hegel and Nietszche is a cop out argument. We’re talkin’ Darwin and what he believed.
“Did you read my About page to see where I’m coming from?”
“Always theory should come packaged with language of toleration, humility and moderation. This is my main message, and not any one idea.”
Did you read any Darwin, Anthony?
anthonynorth said
Hi Graham,
Yes, I’ve read a lot of Darwin, although the barnacles defeated me. You seem to use ‘cop out’ a lot, usually regarding things you can’t be bothered with.
Did you read my About page?