When a theory is advanced that lasts for 200 years, and more & more evidence is found for its correctness, and its underlying mechanisms are understood, then it’s likely to be right.
OK, it’s tweakable by mechanisms such as epigenetics just as the theory of gravity is tweakable by relativity – but it’s much more than any other conflicting explanation of the diversity & complexity of life can show.

Moses – I disagree. At best it’s based on chance.

tyger, i’m interested to know… how do you think we got here as humans?

What’s wrong with basing things on chance? I’m not sure I quite understand you to be honest. We’ve seen living things evolve before our eyes in labs, so you can’t say it DOESN’T happen, because it does. It may or may not have been responsible for the diversity of species we see today but when you look at it the evidence is overwhelming like I say.

Anyway – what other explanation for the diversity of species would you propose?

Molgrips

It’s not really a moot point. When Lovelock introduced it in the 70s, it was just a theory, as he was unable to propose any mechanisms. The scientific world went crazy and totally and utterly rejected it.

He then teamed up with Lynne Margulis, who was also developing her own (at the time) very controversial theories about symbiotic evolution of cellular life.

However, as another poster pointed out, this is now generally accepted as an evolutionary mechanism.

So science is still evolving itself in terms of how life evolved. Yes of course natural selection is a mechanism, but there are other mechanisms too that contribute to the evolution of life. The arguments are of degree, and of understanding the couplings and processes that have resulted in a planet that is able to sustain life over millions of years, and creating a very stable overall planetary temperature.

When you read someone like Dawkins or Gould, they do not seem have any kind of systems thinking in their writings, no consideration of the complexities of life, they just seem to focus on one mechanism at the expense of the others. That is why it is interesting to me, and it is also why we are at a very dangerous point for all of life, if we go through too many tipping points and really mess the planet up good and proper. Biodiversity really does sustain “life” it seems and this is a lesson we are not learning in our rush for example for soya and ethanol.

tyger – sorry, I don’t understand you.
What is based on chance?

Passing on characteristics through sexual reproduction has an element of chance in it, yes.
The presence of a particular organism in an environment is chance, yes.

But the overall ability of the theory of evolution to account for why life is as diverse & as complex as it is, cannot be matched.

So due to technolgical advances, we as humans are going into regression….physically

so does this explain why aliens are tiny little people with little physical apperance but big intelligent heads?

Well the planet has lots of biofeedback mechanisms – this we know. Gaia is just a name for them all lumped together, is it not?

so does this explain why aliens are tiny little people with little physical apperance but big intelligent heads?

Yes – the idea has been around for many years – daleks, greys, Wall-E etc.

There is the possibility that with more and more of the population becoming urban we are selecting for the trait of non-aggression as generally aggressive people dont fit well into civil societies.

There was a study done in Russia in the fifties with Silver Foxes
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domesticated_silver_fox

The basic findings were you could domesticate a species much quicker than expected by just selecting the least aggressive animals. But as well as the domesticated animals being less aggressive than than the wild animals they also underwent a series of changes in their morphology.

Ie the domesticated animals were smaller and show more child like features (ie big eyes) for longer much like other domesticated animals.

Therefore it seems the somehow that the two systems mental aggressiveness and the physical traits to be aggressive are linked.

(again there was something in the new scientist about this recently something to do with wasps or something that had the outward signs of dominance (ie think wasps with big beards or strong chins/foreheads) but actually were quite weak (therefore saving there energy for something else maybe the immune system) these animals seems to be “hated” for want of a better word by the other wasps who either looked strong and were strong or looked weak and were weak, ie everyone hates a faker)

Anyway there is always the possibility we are selecting for non aggressive traits ie rapist murders get sent to prison that we might be domesticating ourselves.

Which would also explain why although there is much more room for conflict in the world today ie more people less room/ resources, there actually seems to be less violence than in the past.

I’m just hacked off with it being portrayed all the time as fact – when it isn’t!

I feel the same way about religious fundamentalists and their creationist views.

Just out of interest Tyger, would you defend those biblical literalists who believe the world is only several thousand years old and the human race even younger?

Very interesting scu98rkr. I’d assumed it was because we were learning to be better people. However, I believe it was Dawkins that suggested society was actually a similar system to genetics and that it evolves just like our genome does, and influences us just as much (if not more).

Yes interesting but the problem with this line of thinking is it can become quite racist ie societies with a longer history of urbanisation less agressive + smaller w*llies societies with a shorter history of urbanisation more agressive + large w*llies

I’m not saying it’s all rubbish (although it might be!) I’m just hacked off with it being portrayed all the time as fact – when it isn’t!

Evolution is a fact, it’s even been done under laboratory conditions using bacteria. Organisims change/adapt to suit their environment.

Evolution is also a theory, the theory being the best explanation of the facts that are observed. This explanation can and will change and alter so that it best fits the facts it seeks to explaing but that does not alter the first point that eveolution is also a fact.

A theory is not some idea that someone had.

evolution is a fact – we’ve got evidence.

lots.

and lots.

and lots.

of evidence.

and not a single scrap against it.

none.

if you can find some, you’ll win a nobel prize for biology.

what on earth has dick size to do with urbanisation?

We have opposable thumbs
We need them to twiddle forks as without them we would never be able to eat spaghetti
Indisputable evidence that we were created by the Great Spaghetti Monster as perfect beings who will evolve no further.
Apart from me, because I don’t particularly like spaghetti

evolution is a fact – we’ve got evidence.

lots.

and lots.

and lots.

of evidence.

and not a single scrap against it.

I didn’t think the existing evidence was conclusive, it justs suggests enough that the theory is worth pursuing.

Personally, I don’t believe the universe and everything in it is just the result of a massive cosmic accident. If it was, then there’s no purpose in our existence. Everything we are and do is pointless. And how depressing is that?.

I prefer to believe in intelligent design (for me, God) – everything was deliberately formed, exists for a reason, and we are all here for a purpose.

That’s my belief anyway. Each to their own…

Speaking of Alice Roberts, it looks like she may be one of us …

Believing in God is just a cop-out.
It’s a way of saying that my tiny brain can’t take uncertainty,

and it leads to the next question, Where did God come from, and why did he make the universe?

What’s the point of adding this extra layer of unknowing?

Everything we are and do is pointless. And how depressing is that?.

Not at all. I find it enormously liberating.

Glass half full and all that 🙂

Oh and there wasn’t much evidence for God last time I checked. But that’s not the point of God of course. This debate isn’t about God vs Science, it’s about Creationism vs Science. There is no problem with God in Science really, since there’s no way of telling if the universe ‘just is’ or was created by God.

Believing in God is just a cop-out.
It’s a way of saying that my tiny brain can’t take uncertainty,

Isn’t Science (incl. evolution) striving to remove uncertainty from everything by attempting to understand it all?

Or perhaps mankind is so keen on trying to understand and explain everything for himself because the alternative is to acknowledge God exists?

Just a thought.

I didn’t think the existing evidence was conclusive, it justs suggests enough that the theory is worth pursuing.

To my mind this displays the sort of confusion that hinders peoples understanding, i.e. the difference between a “fact” and a “theory”. Many people assume when the term “theory” is used in science that it means the same as it does in everyday life, i.e. “an idea that someone has had” which is wrong. In this context the word theory means somthing along the line of “the best explanation of the facts that have at the moment”. To use an analogy take gravity; fact or theory? Well it is demonstrably a fact because things always fall towards the earth when release so it is a fact. There however also the theory of gravity which is the explanation of how gravity works. This has been refined over and over again since the time of Newton (possibly before) and will likely go on being refined into the future but it does not alter the “fact” of gravity itself.

😯

(Edit, not aimed at the most recent poster btw)

Personally, I don’t believe the universe and everything in it is just the result of a massive cosmic accident. If it was, then there’s no purpose in our existence. Everything we are and do is pointless. And how depressing is that?.

…and that’s why religion was invented, and that’s why it’s such a powerful and persistent theme in human history. Religion is a social construct, made up by people to help answer the unanswerable. As we become more able to answer these kind of things, religion begins to be more and more exposed. Add in the obligatory holy books and unshakeable foundations which limit the way each new scientific discovery or explanation can be explained away and it all looks to be less imposing as each year passes.

But people who choose to believe seem to be able to ignore these contradictions somehow. Intelligent design is not even a theory; it’s an attempt to fit evolution (the fact) into a religious framework and it’s patently not very good at doing so.

Or perhaps mankind is so keen on trying to understand and explain everything for himself because the alternative is to acknowledge God exists?

Er, no?

Wanting to understand things is the human condition. God is one possible answer, deemed by some to be not a good enough answer.

it’s an attempt to fit evolution (the fact) into a religious framework

Not quite, it’s an attempt to fit the fact of the existence of life and its diversity into a religious framework.

there wasn’t much evidence for God last time I checked. But that’s not the point of God of course. This debate isn’t about God vs Science, it’s about Creationism vs Science. There is no problem with God in Science really, since there’s no way of telling if the universe ‘just is’ or was created by God.

Very well put molgrips.

Although you have to factor in God if you’re talking about Creationism…

Perhaps although Intellgient Design is used as the opposing idea – doesn’t actually specify God, just someone or thing intelligent. Aliens perhaps 🙂

EDIT: Is God an alien? Discuss.

shmuk – Member

I didn’t think the existing evidence was conclusive, it justs suggests enough that the theory is worth pursuing.

it’s very conclusive.

you may prefer to believe in intelligent design, but that’s not because the theory of evolution isn’t good enough to convince, it’s because you don’t like it.

the universe doesn’t care whether you like it or not.

sorry.

I guess the question would be ‘What would conclusive evidence look like?’. If the answer is ‘There will never be any’ then that shows a closed mind that isn’t open to new ideas. If there is an answer to the question then perhaps someone may have already found it and can provide it.

humans have 46 chromosomes.

chimps have 48 chromosomes.

our 2nd chromosome looks exactly how you would expect if 2 chromosomes became fused. we have even seen the join:

it seems our common ancestor had 48 chromosomes, after the speciation, humans and chimps continued to evolve, down our separate ‘branches’.

the necked regions at the end of the 2 chimp chromosomes are telomeres, our 2nd chromosome has the ‘remains’ of a telomere still in it.

lovely, lovely, science!

Trouble with intelligent design is it falls foul of recursion. If we decide that something complex must be designed then it must have been designed by something more complex. So thus this complex thing must have been designed by something even more complex, rinse and repeat until you realise its not a reasonable explanation of how things ended up the way they are in the world.

you may prefer to believe in intelligent design, but that’s not because the theory of evolution isn’t good enough to convince, it’s because you don’t like it.

No, it’s because the theory of evolution isn’t good enough to convince me.

I’m more convinced by ‘intelligent design’ because stuff in the Universe and on Earth and what-not all seems to fit too well together to be the result of a fluke/accident.

Are we still evolving?

Not all of us

shmuk – Member

the theory of evolution isn’t good enough to convince me.

I’m more convinced by ‘intelligent design’ because stuff in the Universe and on Earth and what-not all seems to fit too well together to be the result of a fluke/accident.

whales have leg bones – why?

why do you keep using words like fluke and accident?

and you talk about ‘stuff in the universe’ – evolution has nothing to say about the formation of the universe.

No, it’s because the theory of evolution isn’t good enough to convince me.

What bits of evolution do you find unconvincing ?

I’m more convinced by ‘intelligent design’ because stuff in the Universe and on Earth and what-not all seems to fit too well together to be the result of a fluke/accident

Can you explain this in an evidence based scientific way ?

I’m more convinced by ‘intelligent design’ because stuff in the Universe and on Earth and what-not all seems to fit too well together to be the result of a fluke/accident

What else would you expect as the net result of millions of years of evolution whereby organisms adapt and change to suit their environment?

@ahwiles

this is what I don’t get about ‘evolution’ – just because two things look similar then the conclusion is they must be directly related?

I thought the human chromosone was also 98% identical to a cauliflower or something. Unless that’s one of them there urban myths.

There are parts of the human chromosone that are found in all sorts of other species – this doesn’t mean they’re linked, it just means certain elements relate to specific characteristics (?)

Maybe.

you are right, correlation does not imply mean* causation.

it does however, raise it’s eyebrows enthusiastically, and whisper ‘look over here’

cauliflower, humans, 98%? no. but it’s not far off.

which means that humans and cauliflowers have a common ancestor.

(*edited in response to the clever chap below)

correlation does not imply causation

yes it does.

It doesn’t mean causation.

yes, you are right of course!