Some Important Evoutionary Changes in Species - In the Past 40 Years

Just like in Wall-E!

Sure why not. I don't believe all things need to necessarily be boxed in to strict scientific responses. Oftentimes, philosophical or metaphysical responses are more appropriate since science is self-limiting by definition. Just because something does not fit neatly into science nor your particular worldview is it any less true.

It continues to amaze me how the agnostic/atheist will grasp at anything (it's much easier when you cherry pick your fights) to deny God even though they know deep down that everything around us (including information in DNA, molecular motors, life, self-awareness, thoughts, etc) could not possibly arise from nothing and do not have the courage to admit it. Sorry, but that's the way I see it. I have heard all the arguments and I think it is much more irrational to believe this all happened by 'accident' if you look at the grand scheme of things with an open mind.

Romans 1:19-20 (New International Version)

19 since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20 For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.

It continues to amaze me how the agnostic/atheist will grasp at anything (it's much easier when you cherry pick your fights) to deny God even though they know deep down that everything around us (including information in DNA, molecular motors, life, self-awareness, thoughts, etc) could not possibly arise from nothing and do not have the courage to admit it. Sorry, but that's the way I see it. I have heard all the arguments and I think it is much more irrational to believe this all happened by 'accident' if you look at the grand scheme of things with an open mind.

See, unfortunately this is how these threads work RobertE. When you say something that makes too much sense they just try to ignore your post and pretend like it never happened. I agree with what you have said. Bravo for not being scared to give an alternate opinion on NV!

I'm sorry, but it doesn't make sense to claim that every athiest in the world really knows that they are wrong, but continue maintain a lie because they lack courage. Courage to do what btw? Courage to join the billions of other people who don't believe in evolution? In my mind it takes more courage to go against the crowd.

But at the end of the day they are still moths and finches and mustard plants and lizards and fruit flies.

The thing is, "moths and finches and mustard plants and lizards and fruit flies" are just labels that we attach to things for convenience. Your argument is only as meaningful as those labels...which means it isn't very meaningful at all for large changes over large periods of time.

For instance, how would you define the label "fish"? Got your definition ready?

Is this a fish by your definition? Is this? What about this?

However, it is quite amazing how our creator has allowed for and built-in variation within species for acclimating to various environments and conditions.

Again, "species" is only a label we use for convenience and all you're really doing here is setting up for the ability to move goalposts when I show you why your first statement is wrong. Are all of those examples I just gave adaptation? I think they are. But since you imply there is a difference between adaptation and evolution, how would you draw the line?

In all of this, we're still just touching the surface- the physical traits. We could also talk about the genetic evidence that shows how small but cumulative "adaptations" to individual "species" have led to new "species".

But at the end of the day they are still moths and finches and mustard plants and lizards and fruit flies.

[Comment #9 was meant to reply to this. Have a look at it for more examples of speciation, including (for the benefit of those for whom it matters) a look at Biblical teaching on the topic.]

So let's see....on the one side there are the scientific researchers with physical evidence to support their conclusions......

....And on the other side there are the creationists/ID proponents with speculations and opinions based solely upon belief in unproveable/untestable legends........

Hummm............and the latter wants to call the former, 'irrational'...........funny.

But at the end of the day they are still moths and finches and mustard plants and lizards and fruit flies. Ho hum.

Macroscale speciation doesn't happen in the course of a day. Read more.

Sure why not. I don't believe all things need to necessarily be boxed in to strict scientific responses. Oftentimes, philosophical or metaphysical responses are more appropriate since science is self-limiting by definition. Just because something does not fit neatly into science nor your particular worldview is it any less true.

The "sure why not" excuse can be used to justify any cockamamie idea. For example: What causes gravity?
Tiny invisible flying unicorns that constantly push down on us.
Ummm... you really think that's true?
Sure why not?

It continues to amaze me how the agnostic/atheist will grasp at anything (it's much easier when you cherry pick your fights) to deny God even though they know deep down that everything around us (including information in DNA, molecular motors, life, self-awareness, thoughts, etc) could not possibly arise from nothing and do not have the courage to admit it.

Evolution has nothing to do with arising from nothing.

It takes no courage to join the billions out there who believe in a mythical superman who's the perfect justification for almost any statement one can conjure up, a supporter of every morality known to man.

I have heard all the arguments and I think it is much more irrational to believe this all happened by 'accident' if you look at the grand scheme of things with an open mind.

You may have heard "all the arguments," but you sure as heck haven't even begun to comprehend them.

Well Said !!!

Christ himself was transformed, evolved into a new type of being, the Son of God. Why should not all of creation be subject to radical transformation?

Amen to our transformation, PH! (Though the Biblical language, IMHO, would be closer to "exalted," i.e., selected by God as the "first fruits of those who have died.")

I believe those Biblical passages are true; but no, they are not a literal cause-and-effect description of humanity's condition and destiny, as science would try to give us. Perhaps that is not enough for some people. In our modern, science-honoring world, many are tempted to try to appropriate scientific prestige for Scriptural insights.

I do agree that a large part of this is about political power, but I don't think the ID/Young Earth Creationist (YEC) movement encourages fatalist avoidance of hope for personal or cultural change--quite the opposite. But because of fear and mistrust (some justified, some not), the changes they look for are only those that are subject to a very narrow set of authorities. "Just believe my way of seeing this, or you are either not a real believer, or just an arrogant atheist elitist." And even better if you can pretend that this is really a philosophical objection in the service of intellectual integrity, and not a personal prejudice.

It is becoming publicly clear just how many Christian scientists, Biblical scholars, and lay Christians, in addition to non-Christian scientists, are excluded by this strategy. They are not willing to give up scientific or theological integrity for the sake of the power to dictate others' worldviews. It may be irrelevant to atheist scientists what YEC's think (aside from coping with their FUD), but for those of us who reverence both "Books" of God's revelation, in nature and in the Bible, it matters.

But perhaps to some, running theistic evolutionists / evolutionary creationists out of town and grabbing power over school boards seems preferable over potentially having to preach the Gospel in chains.

Point is truth is so relative. What we know today changes tomorrow at least in science. As for spiritual knowledge that only confuses the issue as it is not empirical. The two in my mind are mutually exclusive. What I think about God has no bearing on science. And as we see with ID what folks believe spiritually about the physical universe well, I rest my case.

The discussion is not about God.

Actually, it is, because any knowledge that people have has to relate to the rest of their lives.

People need to sort out how to integrate particular scientific findings with their daily life practices and with their overall cosmology. This has to happen if science is to be meaningful part of people's worldviews, and not just a collection of bloodless facts.

Just because some people do that integration badly should not mean that there is only one good way to do it, or that it does not need to be done at all. We may be, as john s notes below, "kind of on our own on this one," but only kind of. Though no one else can judge for us, we all form our worldviews in conversation with other individuals and communities. I may think RobertE is confused (I think Richard Dawkins is confused as well), but I can't choose for them, only "speak" out in public (gently, generally; or at least civilly), and let others judge for themselves.

We form our worldviews for ourselves, but not by ourselves. This may annoy those who don't currently feel the need to work through personal worldview issues, but I think it is a vital part of developing our society's ability to learn and profit from scientific investigation -- and spiritual seeking.

Hi John, Evolution is a science. When someone discusses chemistry, biology, the study of plants and animals etc. religion does not need to enter into it. Science is an observation of our universe. It should not be confused with philosophy, theology etc.

Whether anyone thinks God exists or not is not what the discussion is about. Science is an empirical study of our planet and its species. Talk of God only confounds the issue.

I see a discussion shaping up here. Absolute truth exists independently of our awareness of it. When all is said and done and a truth is proved, it only becomes evident. It still existed before anyone discovered how to prove it.

what is this 'ultimate truth'? Can you delineate for me?

ahh, so it's one of those metaphysical things, like the sound of one hand clapping. All that religious nonsense sounds like someone describing a long, boring dream they had and then wanting to tell you what it "means."

Pi is a ratio between a circle's radius and circumference, it can be written precisely as a fraction:

circumference/radius.

Care to put that into exact digits?

You can't.

I most certainly can if you tell me the radius and circumference of the circle you have in mind. It's a formula, that means you can plug in the numbers for a circle of any size. You decide. You seem to think that it's just one number, but any size circle can be used. Measure your circle and it's radius and plug it in. You will have a fraction that is pi and can be used like any other fraction.

I expect you to be able to tell me what you mean by ultimate truth if you want to insist that it exists, that's all.

If you can't tell me about it, why should I assume it's real. Pi is real, it's a ratio, show me the formula for your ultimate truth.

I think you two's views are more in line than you think.

Wheel is referring to expressing pi as a fraction with the numerator and denominator not being integers, but representative variables: pi = (circumference) / (diameter).

PH is referring to pi not being expressible as a ratio of integers.

So, in a sense, you're both right.

Pi can be expressed as a fraction (ratio) between representative variables, but pi cannot be expressed as a ratio between integers, because it's an irrational number.

And just where would you like people to keep their world views tucked away?

You yourself are here talking about what this story should or should not mean, and how the community of readers ought to treat it. You would not be here if we all just said, "Gee whiz that's neat," and moved on. (Though I agree--it is neat.)

I don't care where people keep their world views tucked.

I was enjoying the science and wonder of it all until God and the Bible were introduced. I am trying to point out that that is not necessary to this topic. There is plenty to discuss here without invoking God.

And just where would you like people to keep their world views tucked away?

I would suggest the closet. According to Matthew 6:6, Jesus also suggested that.

Let's use tools we can all agree on in public. Evidence and reason would be the likeliest candidates. I don't understand why "worldviews" need to come into play anyway. "Just the facts, ma'am."

I don't understand why each and every blog discussion needs to be sabotaged by folks thumping the Bible and invoking God. It totally detracts from the topic.

badkungfu: Matthew 6:6 is good- Closet is good

I would suggest the closet. According to Matthew 6:6, Jesus also suggested that.

Yeah, the military suggested that, too. 'Cept neither of them were really talking about worldviews, but about seeking public approval by talking too much about things that some people would like to keep private.

And I agree--fighting over worldviews often derails the wonder and enjoyment of science. But trying to limit the discussion to terms with which a few people are comfortable really misrepresents the nature of science and diminishes our understanding, especially in a public layperson's forum such as Newsvine. Agreeing in public is not the only goal; we are also here to understand how we differ from one another.

Andy,

No offense, but if you want to preach go do it in church. If I want theology or philosophy I know where to find it so does the "layperson" ignorant as we are!

The goal here is to get the story and digest it. How being different enters into it is a mystery to me!

No one on this thread (yet) has sabotaged any discussion. And how do you get to determine what is "on topic?" As I mentioned above, the fact that you would rather not talk about religion with regard to evolutionary science does not mean that the topic is not legitimate. I suggest you learn to tolerate people's talk, even when they haul a Bible out of the closet, or get your science news offline.

Or better yet, follow john s and start a thread right here about what you find interesting in the seeded article.

The goal here is to get the story and digest it. How being different enters into it is a mystery to me!

Guess we are coming to an understanding of our different approaches to civil use of a public forum. ;-) When I am in church, I preach science.

I expect to find philosophy and theology here, and politics, too -- all this is part and parcel of science for me, though I understand they may not be so for you. (And I did mean to include myself as a layperson...)

1. You have sabotaged this discussion by derailing it. 2. Evolutionary science is legitimate and on topic , religion is not.

Gosh, what can I say? "Did not!" "Is, too!"

Like just about everybody else, I responded to RobertE in Comment #6. He brought up both speciation and a "providential" view of adaptation that suggested that speciation does not in fact happen, but that a creator allows phenotypic variation within a species' niche. I provided documented examples of speciation, pointed out that the article in the Times was meant to illustrate adaptation rather than speciation, and speculated on the political motivation for such denialism of evolution, given the cultural resources present within Christianity (which, of course, I cited by linking) to cope positively with evolutionary science. My comments were directly relevant to the discussion at hand, which was framed around religion & politics by the author from comment #1.

3. I suggest you quit invoking the Bible and make the silent majority happy.

But you will note that I did not "invoke the Bible," if by that phrase you mean using it as a cudgel to make assertions that I expect others to believe simply because of the Biblical reference. I did refer to specific Biblical passages in direct response to RobertE and later to the article author's comments, and I immediately connected them to discussion of the political dynamics involved in the ID movement, and whether those dynamics are an example of fatalism or authoritarianism. (And though a little extra Biblical and cultural literacy would seem to be a good thing for both believers and non-believers, I even framed my references to Christian doctrines as being, "for those to whom it matters.") All of this is relevant to how evolutionary science is being currently perceived and (mis)understood by the public at large. If the majority wanted to have a different discussion, they were free to break their alleged silence and do so. Perhaps this is not the discussion you wanted to hear, but it was certainly the one we were having, and reference to the Bible, just like the references Wikipedia or other texts, served to further that discussion.

4. If all the the world view opinions would quit rearing their heads maybe people could concentrate on what's interesting in the article.

Ah, with this one you've got a point. I would have liked to follow up on your interesting characterization of scientific truth as "relative" (I'd have proposed "turbulent" instead), investigate babin's suggestion that humans have selection pressures too (Wall-E!), thank badkungfu for his fish pictures and discussion of the nature of species, and tell him how much seeing those lungfish in the aquarium when I was a kid meant to my confidence in evolutionary science, so much so that I took my kids to see the man who dug up Tiktaalik when he was in town.

Instead, I've spent half this discussion defending my participation against someone who comes into an internet forum and tells the participants to stop talking about a topic of which he disapproves, because his worldview sees it as a closeted, private, irrational matter. So no grudges (really!), but I'll make you a bargain: when the next article in this NYT series comes out, I'll promise to spend most of my comments discussing our understanding of evolutionary science proper, apart from it's current religious/political context. Doesn't mean I won't answer an evolution-denialist with my Bible as well as with science when the issue comes up--but I'll make sure that the science remains in focus for me, especially if you or john s (a.k.a. atsidiwashichu) post a good starter.

So good night until next time, friend.

Given the nature of the subject and human nature it is difficult to get into a discussion on evolution without bringing the deity into it all.

No, it's not. It takes a real effort on the part of the ID'ers to drag their discredited notions into a discussion in which it doesn't belong.

Probably a good strategy; seems nobody wants to oil a snake these days... ;)

Now, how about providing solid proof that backs your opinion. I'm sure you have proof, right? I mean, geez... only a "scientifically uneducated" person would post information as if it's fact, without proof... right?

Learn the difference between evidence and proof. Only a scienfitically uneducated person would be unable to tell the difference.

No generalized scientific theory has proof. However, that doesn't mean that "invisible gnomes pull us down, causing gravity" is just as "valuable" as Newton's Law of Gravity or Einstein's theory of general relativity.

Ignore them? LOL... I ignore people like yourself who think they're "superior" in some way to the person next to them.

I know, seriously, dude. Facts mean nothing when you're talking about science.

Now, how about providing solid proof that backs your opinion. I'm sure you have proof, right? I mean, geez... only a "scientifically uneducated" person would post information as if it's fact, without proof... right?

Ok:
1. The examples given in the seeded article (finches, Croatian lizards, mustard plants)
2. Lab controlled evolution of E. coli to use a food source it couldn't before
3. Transitional fossils
4. Genetic relatedness

ID/creationists evidence:
??

Here's the thing, to have ID be scientific, the very first thing you have to do is prove there is an Intelligence.

That's not actually completely correct. They don't even have to go that far.

The only thing they have to do to make ID scientific is come up with a testable hypothesis, which they are unable to do. Probably because you can't test for, prove, or disprove an Intelligence. Which shows how ridiculous the attacks on science by the religious are; science doesn't care about religion, and can't disprove it. Science ignores it, and rightfully so.

It's only the crazies in the bunch that somehow feel that science "threatens" their religious beliefs that start all this nonsense.

What is it with you creationists? Why do you so feel the need to defend your beliefs to others?

My guess: they are scared. Scared that the story that they heard about creation of life on earth might be wrong. If their religion was wrong about that, what else might it be wrong about?

Because God and Evolution counter each others beliefs. If the Aurthur simply implied, Changes in Species cause for more research, instead of jumping the bandwagon and using the words that that are conflictual to each other. {however in my opinion, that would be dictating}
You are obviously not trying to be transitive with your opinions, I would hope you would not expect others to be as well.

Evolution usually implies their is no God, thus causing the replies we read. If their is no Evolution, then there must be a God, on the other end of the spectrum, If Evolution is true, then God isn't real, if not, they would be taught side by side without any quibbles.

Because God and Evolution counter each others beliefs.

Nope. Only beliefs in an interventionist who poofs animals into existence runs counter to evolution. I have many friends who have no problem reconciling evolution and their belief in God.

Evolution usually implies their is no God, thus causing the replies we read.

Wrong again. Evolution makes no comment on the existence of God, simply the credibility of claims that "God did it," dating back to times when we knew far less about our universe than now, and when we attributed the entirety of the unknown to "God did it."

If Evolution is true, then God isn't real, if not, they would be taught side by side without any quibbles.

Again, no. God is not science, evolution is. Thus, they should never be taught side-by-side in the same classroom.

Also, the Theory of Evolution has nothing to do with how everything got here, it only deals with changes within organisms. It's not the big bang, and it's not life arising from non-life.

Abiogenesis is the study of how life originated. So all of these creationist attacks on Evolution are again showing how little they know about the actual science behind what they are attacking.

Believing in Evolution can only conflict with your religious beliefs if you believe that the Earth was literally created in 6 days, 6000 years ago.

GMO boobs? Hmm, the next step in cosmetic surgery...

Something else for Monsanto to patent? :)