by seattleniceguy 72 Replies latest social current
If someone could just explain to me how the hole in baby's heart, which needs to close up within seconds after birth, so the child can breath on it's own, evolved - I would find evolution easier to accept.
Seriously - could someone take a stab at this?
AlanF-Only in creationist circles. There's no debate in scientific circles
That is not true. My best friend from high school is a staunch evolutionist and teaches at the university in Boulder- and it is an endlessly debated topic. This is what makes it truly a "theory" in the truest sense of the word. Gravity isn't debated like this.
You're a master of understatement.
Is that a slam or a compliment? Either way I'm not really sure what to make of it. I certainly don't want to hinder these discussions. If I'm being asinine please give constructive criticizm and I'll listen. The implication is that I've massively "understated" many times on this forum. 
As far as I'm concerned neither side has truly convinced me of their point of view and all of this "emperical" evidence I hear referenced by both sides is woefully unconvincing. That's why there are two camps of thought and a LOT of people in between who don't see either view as being all that solid, or frankly all that relevant. Like the saying goes, "What's that got to do with the price of oats in China?" There are WAY bigger problems to be focusing our energy on. But it does make for some deep thinking...
u/d
Euph:
Otherwise, Cobb County would probably just remove the pages on evolution from the textbook, which is what they've done in the past.
OMG. That is so incredibly...1984...thank God I was raised in a more open-minded environment...oh, wait a minute...
confused:
Okay, I'll take a stab. Evolution doesn't design with an end goal in mind. It's like a tinkerer that can think only one move in advance. The "intelligence" comes from the outside environment. The tinkerer tries a million different combinations of "chicken" and some are better equipped to survive than others. That doesn't necessarily mean that they're better chickens, according to some model of the perfect chicken. It just means that the current environment favors some better than others. If it is a very cold climate, the chickens without much body fat and feathers will likely not make it. But if dinosaur poop releases enough CO2 that the atmosphere heats up 20%, now the lightweight, nimble chicken might be more likely to survive.
Evolution takes all sorts of twists and turns. As you might expect, this produces very strange designs in nature - designs that an engineer would never come up with on purpose. Here's a page on evidence for jury-rigged design in nature:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/jury-rigged.html
I don't know the specifics of heart evolution in humans, but the "miracle" of the heart-hole closing up doesn't seem so miraculous when it doesn't happen. Those children simply die. So what we have here is a jury-rigged design that works most of the time. That fact is guaranteed because people born with a gene configuration that does not cause the heart-hole to close die without passing such genes on.
Another example is the dual-use pipe for air and food in humans. We have a "remarkable" flap that covers the entrance to our trachea when we are swallowing. But it's not really that remarkable when you consider that it's only there because it absolutely has to be there or we would die. A better design would have been to have independant tubes. Lots of humans die every year because of choking on food. It's a poor design which required some jury-rigged solution. I think the heart-hole is probably the same thing.
Sorry I don't have any specific information on hearts. I'm interested in this topic, though, so I'll let you know if I find anything.
SNG
SNG:
So that you know I don't think I believe in a Christain God, since I see no evidence of his positive intervention with the human race. I do believe in science of course, but this topic is one that I can't help but think I see design in works. I certainly leaves me confused!
Even you talk about evolution as "tweaking" and doing - almost as if it were a living design engineer.
As to the baby's heart:
I don't know the specifics of heart evolution in humans, but the "miracle" of the heart-hole closing up doesn't seem so miraculous when it doesn't happen. Those children simply die.
So if evolution were tweaking a system where one mammal carries another internally and then when it comes out the hole in the heart has to heal in order for the baby to breathe - how many millions of years would this take? How many would die before one got it right (yes I know I'm over-simplifying this but...)
Unlike the development of the eye - this feature of nature just seems to have had to show up totally intact. The womb, the ovaries, the birth process, the healing of the heart, lungs and finally the breast milk.
This is what I never see evolution addressing, in my limited reading.
Hey, confused.
I don't have a lot of time at the moment, but I just wanted to respond to the "engineer" argument.
Even you talk about evolution as "tweaking" and doing - almost as if it were a living design engineer.
Evolution is much different than an intelligent engineer. An intelligent engineer can sit down and plan something out - think of all the repercussions of the design, consider how the design might work in various circumstances, and so on. Evolution is based on the simple fact that children are never exactly like their parents. It's only in this respect that they are "tweaked."
The selection part comes from the outside environment. A new batch of puppies is born, each with a slightly different set of genes - features, abilities, tendencies. The outside world crushes those that are unfit to survive. And if the environment is harsh enough (say, there is only enough food for two or three to survive), then the most fit will out-vie the less fit, even if those less fit would have been able to survive in other conditions. In this way, successful features get reinforced. But not by an intelligent force. They get reinforced by a very cold, uncaring fact of nature.
It's amazing, really: once you get a population of reproducing organisms in a hostile environment, they cannot not evolve. The facts that the enivironment is harsh, and that the organisms must compete to survive, ensure that successful traits will be reinforced and passed on, while unsuccessful ones are weeded out. The competition of the natural world may seem cold, but it actually pushes life upward.
I'll think about the other part of your question today....
SNG
upside/down said:
::: Yes the "facts" show change- it's just how far that change goes that is open to debate.
:: Only in creationist circles. There's no debate in scientific circles
: That is not true. My best friend from high school is a staunch evolutionist and teaches at the university in Boulder- and it is an endlessly debated topic.
Among real evolutionary biologists, neither the fact of change through time nor the idea that descent with modification has produced all living things (i.e., that change is unlimited) is debated.
Please give details of what you think is being debated. In my experience, many former JWs don't have nearly enough background to properly understand what's being debated.
: This is what makes it truly a "theory" in the truest sense of the word.
You still haven't really understood the scientific sense in which the word is used. Please do read my essay on this: http://www.geocities.com/osarsif/ce09.htm
: Gravity isn't debated like this.
Gravity is indeed debated by the "creationist" equivalent of ignorant critics, such as Flat-Earthers.
::: Because these terms mean different things to different people and "schools of thought". There is by no means a concensus among believers on these subjects.
:: You're a master of understatement.
: Is that a slam or a compliment?
Neither. It's just a statement. Various believers have extremely widely varying views on "these subjects", ranging from young-earth creationists to any number of varieties of old-earth creationists. Get hold of Ronald Numbers' book The Creationists for a look-see.
: Either way I'm not really sure what to make of it.
I was like you, in this, for awhile, until I educated myself well beyond my JW preconceptions.
: I certainly don't want to hinder these discussions. If I'm being asinine please give constructive criticizm and I'll listen. The implication is that I've massively "understated" many times on this forum.
My suggestion is that you do a lot of reading on your own. There are tons of resources. You can always start by reading my essay on the JW Creation book; check the website at the link I gave you above. Read the talkorigins.org website to get a good idea of what's being debated among creationists and scientists. Subscribe to the Usenet group talk.origins to watch or participate in live debates. See who presents the better arguments.
: As far as I'm concerned neither side has truly convinced me of their point of view and all of this "emperical" evidence I hear referenced by both sides is woefully unconvincing.
I suspect that, for you, it's mostly a matter of not knowing the details. Until you do a lot of research, you just will not understand how much evidence there is in favor of evolution.
: That's why there are two camps of thought and a LOT of people in between who don't see either view as being all that solid, or frankly all that relevant.
I disagree. From many years of looking at the debates, it's evident to me that the ONLY reason people question evolution is because of religious prejudices. Religious people might claim that their objections have nothing to do with religion, but I've seen that they're either lying or fooling themselves.
AlanF
The selection part comes from the outside environment. A new batch of puppies is born, each with a slightly different set of genes - features, abilities, tendencies. The outside world crushes those that are unfit to survive. And if the environment is harsh enough (say, there is only enough food for two or three to survive), then the most fit will out-vie the less fit, even if those less fit would have been able to survive in other conditions. In this way, successful features get reinforced
SNG: I agree completely - but would consider this adaptation - not evolution. And in this case you are talking of a completed product - a puppy. MY TROUBLE is that I can't get through the part of evolution which gets me to a completed puppy. Thus hard to accept. Especially the hole in the heart healing before you die.
I disagree. From many years of looking at the debates, it's evident to me that the ONLY reason people question evolution is because of religious prejudices. Religious people might claim that their objections have nothing to do with religion, but I've seen that they're either lying or fooling themselves.
Alan - for me this isn't true. I was very agnostic at best growing up, but it was the very issue of thinking of evolution vs. creation that inclined me to think that design and creation must be lesser of two impossible thoughts.
So for me I find that a "Spark of life" in some primordial soup flowing into a systematic series of chances leading to intelligent life impossible to believe.
And I find the idea of some Supreme being creating this impossible to believe as well.
Is there a third theory? I'm ripe for one.
Euphemism:
I disagree with your arguments presented in this thread and on your blog with regard to the "evolution sticker" on the Georgia textbooks. Rather than giving a detailed response, here are some reasons why:
Suppose that a school board decided that it was necessary to put stickers in chemistry textbooks that read this way:
"This textbook contains material on chemistry. Chemistry is a theory, not a fact, regarding the interaction of atoms. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully and critically considered."
Obviously such a statement is a total non sequitur, and therefore is completely unnecessary. One would surely question the motives and/or intelligence of the members of a school board who demanded it. It's a non sequitur because the field of chemistry is obviously a set of ideas that constitute a scientific theory about what atoms do and why they do it.
Now consider what the Cobb County schoolboard wanted for a sticker:
"This textbook contains material on evolution. Evolution is a theory, not a fact, regarding the origin of living things. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully and critically considered."
The same comments apply to this as about chemistry. The field of evolution is a set of ideas that constitute a scientific theory about how and why life evolves. Since I don't question the intelligence of the members of the school board, I do question their motives. Their motives are unequivocally religious. While the language of the sticker is deliberately chosen to appear neutral (that's partly why it's a meaningless non sequitur), in a political context it is far from neutral. That's why the judge made the proper decision -- he understands the political context.
Since the sticker's language, in context, on religious grounds denigrates an extremely well-accepted scientific theory to the level of a religious doctrine, it obviously violates the establishment clause of the Constitution. I suspect that if the issue were about chemistry rather than evolution, you'd see this clearly. Public schools should teach the best-established science of the day, period. Modern theories of chemistry and evolution are the best science of today, and therefore should be taught -- without interference from religious fanatics who disagree with science.
AlanF
I see the point of the evolutionists in this regard. However, I subscribe to the thought that both Creation and Evolution are only theories. Think about it, really.
Just like so many Christianity ramifications, or so many Muslim ramifications, etc. It's all different theories and interpretations.
DY
confused:
I agree completely - but would consider this adaptation - not evolution.
Biological adaptation is evolution. We humans love to impose walls on the natural world. As a Witness, I was willing to say something could change a little bit, but not a lot. What is the difference?
With regard to the hole in the heart thing, it sounds like you're going down the path of irreducible complexity. Michael Behe introduced this concept in 1996. It says that:
An irreducibly complex system cannot be produced directly (that is, by continuously improving the initial function, which continues to work by the same mechanism)
by slight, successive modifications of a precursor system because any precursor to an irreducibly complex system that is missing a part is by definition nonfunctional.
You may remember this in an Awake several years ago. There are many problems with this concept, not the least of which is that Behe does not consider that the individudal "parts" in any system are also subject to change. There's a lot of good info on this page:
http://www.talkdesign.org/faqs/icdmyst/ICDmyst.html
One of the most important things to understand about evolution is that the present function of a part is not necessarily the reason it evolved. For example, the page above discusses cow tails. Cows use their tails today for the purpose of swatting flies. Did their tails evolve for that purpose? Or is the cow merely using a pre-evolved feature for a different use? (More on the linked page.)
SNG
