Creation or Evolution: The Statistics!!!

[lunamoth]

Correct, according to the surveys 41% of Biologists did not believe in God or an afterlife. That leaves 59%. Is that what you saw? I was pointing out the plus or minus 6%, which gives the 59-70% ratio. Forgive me if I was out of line.

As an engineer who specializes in metalurgy, I have some idea of physics, at a micro level. And as an engineer who specializes in thermodynamics, I have some idea of energy/matter...matter/energy transference.

I don't call myself a "scientist", but I don't call myself stupid either (not trouncing you dear Luna).

My point is I understand that there is something beyond us all. I've seen it, (I've watched the burning of the sun, less than 6 inches from my eyes). I've controlled the heat of the sun (at it's surface), right here on earth. That's right, controlled the heat of the sun, right here, right now, on earth. In the heart of a ship. It's called a welding machine.

I've watched aluminum and steel meld together (yep, can be done and is done on a regular basis).

As soon as we say it is impossible...it becomes possible.

Now scientists are saying, maybe God is possible. Instead of looking for ways to disprove God...now they are starting to look for God's signature...

just a thought

v/r

Q

Still not sure it's the same poll, but I can't remember where I saw it. I do seem to recall that the mainstream Christian denominations (including Roman Catholic), which generally do not see a conflict between faith and the ToE, are declining while the more conservative/evangelical/charismatic churches (and the non-denoms) are increasing. So, Christianity may be growing but the face of Christianity is changing.

In my view it is not the scientist's objective to prove or disprove God, although there are certainly some who make an agenda of saying there's no need for a Diety to explain the universe and others who try to fit their observations into literal biblical interpretations. But I'm with you totally on seeing God's signature in all His creation, whether written with stars, electrons or DNA. For me the benefit of being a scientist is getting to admire certain bits of His handiwork up close.

(Not feeling trounced upon at all )

lunamoth

 

[wil]

You erred again I'm afraid, pertaining to organized religion showing decline in the US.

What people answer in polls vs. what they actually do are notoriously to different things.

We've had poll after poll about what people consume regarding junk food v. fruits and vegetables...however the research at the street (garbage cans) and in landfills bears out they have a tendency to sway from the truth.

I think there is a difference also between being spiritual and being religious. Your polls indicate people have an increased religious/spirtual bent. But those attending church, temple, mosque...services of any kind on a regular basis is in decline, as is the membership roles in organized religion.

Anecdotaly I do see, or appear to see an increase in the mega churches, somehow analagous in my mind similar to the loss of the family farm and growth of the corporate farms....

namaste,

 

[bob x]

I do seem to recall that the mainstream Christian denominations (including Roman Catholic), which generally do not see a conflict between faith and the ToE, are declining while the more conservative/evangelical/charismatic churches (and the non-denoms) are increasing. So, Christianity may be growing but the face of Christianity is changing.

The kind of Christianity which is growing in the United States is the kind which refuses to acknowledge any scientific results at all, if it conflicts with the world-view of the original authors of the scriptures thousands of years ago. I regard the spread of this anti-scientific form of religion as a grave disaster.

 

[Vajradhara]

Project Steve:


http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/articles/3541_project_steve_2_16_2003.asp



metta,

~v

 

[lunamoth]

The kind of Christianity which is growing in the United States is the kind which refuses to acknowledge any scientific results at all, if it conflicts with the world-view of the original authors of the scriptures thousands of years ago. I regard the spread of this anti-scientific form of religion as a grave disaster.

I fear you could be right about that Bobx, but I still do not appreciate you painting American Christians as stupid.

peace,
lunamoth

 

[truthseeker]

I fear you could be right about that Bobx, but I still do not appreciate you painting American Christians as stupid.

I agree. Alot of people just don't give this thing much thought, so when posed the question, if one must take sides most Christians will side with the bible. Creation and Evolution doesn't have a simple answer, only 2+2 does. Even I, who believe that Creation and Evolution go hand in hand, would give an indepth explanation of Creation to a bible study class instead of giving an indepth explanation of Evolution and how it relates to Creation.

 

[wil]

Rise above it....how many times must you forgive?

Well if christians, 7x70 eh?

Forgivness is such a cool concept, without it you continue to bring up the past, allow your blood to boil, allow someone else to control your thoughts...

Wayne Dyer says when you squeeze an orange you get orange juice.

Well what is inside of someone that spurs them to spit out something has no more to do with you than what is in an orange...let it go.

I'm only reminding because I need to be reminded...

dang mirror....gotta get the log out!

namaste,

 

[Quahom1]

The kind of Christianity which is growing in the United States is the kind which refuses to acknowledge any scientific results at all, if it conflicts with the world-view of the original authors of the scriptures thousands of years ago. I regard the spread of this anti-scientific form of religion as a grave disaster.

I would like to see the statistical facts you base the presumption on.

v/r

Q

 

[Quahom1]

What people answer in polls vs. what they actually do are notoriously to different things.

We've had poll after poll about what people consume regarding junk food v. fruits and vegetables...however the research at the street (garbage cans) and in landfills bears out they have a tendency to sway from the truth.

I think there is a difference also between being spiritual and being religious. Your polls indicate people have an increased religious/spirtual bent. But those attending church, temple, mosque...services of any kind on a regular basis is in decline, as is the membership roles in organized religion.

Anecdotaly I do see, or appear to see an increase in the mega churches, somehow analagous in my mind similar to the loss of the family farm and growth of the corporate farms....

namaste,

Going to church does not make one religious or spiritual. What one thinks and how their life is conducted day to day is a better barometer for such matters.

v/r

Q

 

[Quahom1]

I agree. Alot of people just don't give this thing much thought, so when posed the question, if one must take sides most Christians will side with the bible. Creation and Evolution doesn't have a simple answer, only 2+2 does. Even I, who believe that Creation and Evolution go hand in hand, would give an indepth explanation of Creation to a bible study class instead of giving an indepth explanation of Evolution and how it relates to Creation.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with teaching both. The reason is that they are both theories based on circumstantial evidence (nothing concrete), not absolute fact. The only way to accept either/or theory is mostly based on faith. None of us were there to observe actual events as they took place, so our "knowledge" comes from third party heresay. In US courts for example, heresay is not admissible as evidence to convict.

The most open minded of people will not dismiss one and embrace the other. They will look at both, and ask lots of questions, make comparrisons, reflect on what is known.

v/r

Q

 

[lunamoth]

I got this from another forum (Cross and Flame) but the link to the NYT article is now archived and not free. Anyway, it seems pertinent to the discussion at hand, although this is a large cut and paste.

lunamoth

Teaching of Creationism Is Endorsed in New Survey
By LAURIE GOODSTEIN
NY Times

In a finding that is likely to intensify the debate over what to teach students about the origins of life, a poll released yesterday found that nearly two-thirds of Americans say that creationism should be taught alongside evolution in public schools.

The poll found that 42 percent of respondents held strict creationist views, agreeing that "living things have existed in their present form since the beginning of time."

In contrast, 48 percent said they believed that humans had evolved over time. But of those, 18 percent said that evolution was "guided by a supreme being," and 26 percent said that evolution occurred through natural selection. In all, 64 percent said they were open to the idea of teaching creationism in addition to evolution, while 38 percent favored replacing evolution with creationism.

The poll was conducted July 7-17 by the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life and the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press. The questions about evolution were asked of 2,000 people. The margin of error was 2.5 percentage points.

John C. Green, a senior fellow at the Pew Forum, said he was surprised to see that teaching both evolution and creationism was favored not only by conservative Christians, but also by majorities of secular respondents, liberal Democrats and those who accept the theory of natural selection. Mr. Green called it a reflection of "American pragmatism."

"It's like they're saying, 'Some people see it this way, some see it that way, so just teach it all and let the kids figure it out.' It seems like a nice compromise, but it infuriates both the creationists and the scientists," said Mr. Green, who is also a professor at the University of Akron in Ohio.

Eugenie C. Scott, the director of the National Center for Science Education and a prominent defender of evolution, said the findings were not surprising because "Americans react very positively to the fairness or equal time kind of argument."

"In fact, it's the strongest thing that creationists have got going for them because their science is dismal," Ms. Scott said. "But they do have American culture on their side."

This year, the National Center for Science Education has tracked 70 new controversies over evolution in 26 states, some in school districts, others in the state legislatures.

President Bush joined the debate on Aug. 2, telling reporters that both evolution and the theory of intelligent design should be taught in schools "so people can understand what the debate is about."

Senator Bill Frist of Tennessee, the Republican leader, took the same position a few weeks later.

Intelligent design, a descendant of creationism, is the belief that life is so intricate that only a supreme being could have designed it.

The poll showed 41 percent of respondents wanted parents to have the primary say over how evolution is taught, compared with 28 percent who said teachers and scientists should decide and 21 percent who said school boards should. Asked whether they believed creationism should be taught instead of evolution, 38 percent were in favor, and 49 percent were opposed.

More of those who believe in creationism said they were "very certain" of their views (63 percent), compared with those who believe in evolution (32 percent).

The poll also asked about religion and politics, government financing of religious charities, and gay men and lesbians in the military. Most of these questions were asked of a smaller pool of 1,000 respondents, and the margin of error was 2.5 percentage points, Pew researchers said.

The public's impression of the Democratic Party has changed in the last year, the survey found. Only 29 percent of respondents said they viewed Democrats as being "friendly toward religion," down from 40 percent in August of 2004. Meanwhile, 55 percent said the Republican Party was friendly toward religion.

Luis E. Lugo, the director of the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life, said: "I think this is a continuation of the Republican Party's very successful use of the values issue in the 2004 election, and the Democrats not being able up until now to answer that successfully. Some of the more visible leaders, such as Howard Dean and others, have reinforced that image of a secular party. Of course, if you look at the Democratic Party, there's a large religious constituency there."

Survey respondents agreed in nearly equal numbers that nonreligious liberals had "too much control" over the Democratic Party (44 percent), and that religious conservatives had too much control over the Republican Party (45 percent).

On religion-based charities, two-thirds of respondents favored allowing churches and houses of worship to apply for government financing to provide social services. But support for such financing declined from 75 percent in early 2001, when Mr. Bush rolled out his religion-based initiative.

On gay men and lesbians in the military, 58 percent of those polled said they should be allowed to serve openly, a modest increase from 1994, when 52 percent agreed. Strong opposition has fallen in that time, to 15 percent from 26 percent in 1994.

 

[wil]

Going to church does not make one religious or spiritual. What one thinks and how their life is conducted day to day is a better barometer for such matters.

I absolutely agree...I am simply expressing that what one answers on these kinds of polls has been shown to be inaccurate and was trying to find a measure that was. So we should use conduct as the measure...the crime reports, number of people in jail, the accounting and stock scandals as our barometer? ie outcome based decision making? Maybe we should calculate by what books are being purchased...

In any case, the spiritual could use some better marketing agencies. Just like the death penalty in the US, fire and brimstone threats and cloudy promises don't seem to be working.

namaste,

 

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards, wil, and welcome to CR!

We've had poll after poll about what people consume regarding junk food v. fruits and vegetables...however the research at the street (garbage cans) and in landfills bears out they have a tendency to sway from the truth.

Could it possibly be that "healthy" food scraps decompose (what gardeners call compost) whereas wrappers from processed foods tend to hang around for many years? Can't speak for anybody else, but my compost goes in my yard where it feeds my other plants and wild critters. Only my "relatively" non-degradable wrappers get sent to the landfill.

 

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards, BobX, it's been a long time!

The origin of the goldfish is thoroughly documented: a Chinese fisher found a bright-red carp among his catch (Chinese carp are black) and saved it in a pail as a gift to the local lord (who rewarded him handsomely). The lord bred the fish in his carp pools, and segregated out all the colored ones which appeared. After a few generations, the colors started shifting unstably, settling on the golden color now seen. This is a classic example of speciation by "punctuated equilibrium."

Thank you for the brief on goldfish, I have wondered from time to time as a child when last I kept them.

So, if I am to understand correctly, color alone is sufficient to denote a new species? So then, how does this apply to humans? I mean, humans are "just" another animal, right? Therefore, any variation in skin color denotes a different species? What about nose size, shoe size, or intellectual capability?

I mean, if not breeding with the parent stock is the qualifier, then because Koi can still breed with Carp, would that not undermine the idea that goldfish are a separate species from carp? I have always been told at every pet shop I asked and every book on the subject I read as a kid, that goldfish grow to the size of their "bowl." Given enough room, the typical goldfish grows to become Koi. Which are merely colorful carp. Yet still carp. Not a new species. A new variety perhaps, a new sub-species, a new "breed" even, but not a new "species." So far, I have to agree with Bandit about "micro vs macro."

The dog, on the other hand, is a classic example of speciation by "gradual drift". Many breeds of dog are still not separated from the wolf enough that there is any barrier to interbreeding (Siberian huskies interbreed with wolf routinely) while others are (good luck interbreeding a Chihuahua with a wolf). The process has been going on for thousands of years, and will take many thousands more before "dog" and "wolf" are completely separate.

Ah yes, had a lengthy discussion about this as well with a rather learned person on the subject, and finally settled on what she called "ring species" and the great similarity between "species" of seagulls that interbreed and domestic dog "breeds." The delineation is arbitrary and tradition. Because all domestic dogs stem from about four distinct lines of wolf, wolves can still interbreed with chihuahuas through "intermediary" breeds. This according to a study found on Vaj's list. And while some other canine species are capable of interbreeding with domestic dogs; coyotes, foxes, dingos and hyenas were eliminated by genetic study as hereditary ancestors to modern domestic dogs. All lines studied led back to the wolf.

I am sorry, but I have a great deal of conflict regarding speciation with regards to my scholarship. I like the way it was presented by another, "lumpers and splitters." The struggle is in consistent classification. And one must admit, if one is anything close to truthful on the subject, that the classification is arbitrary. There are far too many examples of "sub-species" being held out as evidence of speciation, when in fact there is no example I am familiar with that demonstrably shows true speciation, Vaj's list notwithstanding. Indeed, when a "creationist" asks for an example of demonstrable speciation, of "becoming something new" (I already made the mistake of saying "crossing the boundary"), the evolutionist reply is a red faced remark about red-herrings. "Lizards don't become wombats!" No, and I am not trying to say they do. But, in their own way, evolutionists do say that very thing, until they are called on it and take uncalled for offense. We are to believe fish crawled onto land and became amphibians and lizards and birds when evolutionists say it. But when a creationist asks for proof of this (show me a fish that became an amphibian), it is called a red-herring argument. And creationists are then called "illogical?"

Personally, I take a neutral stance. I do not think a "young earth" position is substantiated. Likewise, I think there is a lot of dogma coming from science as fact that is not fully substantiated by the evidence either. Just a lot of arbitrary classification and hopeful (faithful?) reliance on scientific doctrine. Demonstration of adaptation and "sub" -speciation, sure! No evidence I have seen as of yet of true speciation, of one creature actually becoming another. Again, as Bandit said, micro yes, macro no.

Indeed, how does this classification apply to humans? Or must humans, in order to maintain political correctness, be held to yet a different standard than that applied to the rest of nature? Does the color of one's skin in scientific truth imply a different species?

What's good for the goose, is good for the gander...

 

[Tao_Equus]

I once read an intersting book by Dr Carl Sagan called Broca's Brain. Broca, if memory serves me right, was a pioneering french neuroscientist who dissected many thousands of human brains in the late 18th century. I believe Broca's own brain was subsequently pickled and is held by the pasteur institute.
Anyway my point is this...In studying the development of the feotal brain it seems that we can watch evolution at work. As the young brain develops it seems to build itself layer upon layer in an almost onion-like way. The developing structure seems to mirror our evolutionary brain development.

I personaly have a great affection for Gaia Theory (the idea that life itself is the organism and that all species are constituent parts) as this offers a simple and logical mechanism to explain many of Darwins unanswered questions.

Creationism on the other hand seems to me a ridiculous notion. It is a throwback to a time when we simply had no other explanations.

 

[bob x]

Thank you for the brief on goldfish, I have wondered from time to time as a child when last I kept them.

So, if I am to understand correctly, color alone is sufficient to denote a new species?

No, it is the degree of barrier to interbreedability. As you point out, this is a fuzzy, not sharp, line; wolves can't directly interbreed with chihuahuas, but can interbreed with breeds of dogs than can interbreed with chihuahuas. In the case of the corn plant likewise, many strains still interbreed freely with the original teosinte grass.
In many of the observed speciation events, however, there is no interbreedability possible.

 

[lunamoth]

No, it is the degree of barrier to interbreedability. As you point out, this is a fuzzy, not sharp, line; wolves can't directly interbreed with chihuahuas, but can interbreed with breeds of dogs than can interbreed with chihuahuas. In the case of the corn plant likewise, many strains still interbreed freely with the original teosinte grass.
In many of the observed speciation events, however, there is no interbreedability possible.

I agree. I think what many fail to appreciate is the vast amounts of time involved in speciation. It was only in considering the extreme geological age of the earth that Darwin could propose natural selection as a mechanism for speciation. Not only must there be isolation of a poplulation, but also long enough periods of time plus environmental pressures to select for altered genes affecting breeding capacity and behaviors.

lunamoth

 

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards!

So then, are we in agreement that such examples as English moths (pepper moths?) becoming dark instead of pale, or finches in the Galapagos islands growing stouter beaks are *not* direct evidence of speciation, that is, these are not new "species" in and of themselves? It would, afterall, be the equivalent of distinguishing humans by the color of their skin or the size of their nose.

I can allow the possibility of time. However, when new "species" are trumpeted on a very frequent basis, the fine print usually denotes what I have just pointed out, typically a cosmetic difference that does not specifically denote a species, but rather a sub-species.

If you have a clear cut example of observable speciation, I would love to see it.

 

[juantoo3]

I watched a rather interesting program last night detailing the Coelacanth. Seems these fish have changed very little in 250 to 300 million years. The program showed a live fish in action and how the lobe fins operate. I did notice a number of things though, like:

This fish lives in deep water. While it has been suggested that it or its direct relatives may be (are! from the more "devout") the predecessor to tetrapods, the coelacanth cannot live in shallow water for more than a few hours. So much for crawling out onto land...

The coelacanth has a hollow spine, unlike other fish and certainly other tetrapodal creatures with spines. A hollow spine would not be practical in a land based environment.

While it was originally proposed that the lobed fins may be used by the fish much like limbs on the seabed, the film of the real fish showed no such use.

There were other peculiarities about the anatomy of the coelacanth, which escape me for the moment. What I do find intriguing is the living fossil element to the whole story, much like sharks, crocodiles and turtles.

Much of what is known about coelacanths comes from a handful of specimens taken from the Commorros Islands off of the East coast of Africa. The program noted that a new and separate colony of coelacanths has been found in Indonesia in the late 1990's.

 

[Vajradhara]

If you have a clear cut example of observable speciation, I would love to see it.

my dear Juan,

have you so soon forgotten my list of observed speciation?

i'll post it for your review tomorrow

metta,

~v