Track your comments!
[x]


When you register, comments on your articles and replies to your comments appear here. Register Now!

Sign in to your account
[x]

Not a Scientific Blogging member yet?

Register Now for a Free Scientificblogging.com Account

  • Customize your profile with pictures, banner, a blogroll and more.
  • Leave comments on articles, add other members to your friend lists, chat with people on the site.
  • Write blog posts that can be seen by hundreds of thousands of readers.

It's free and it only takes a minute!

Already a Scientific Blogging member?

Sign In Now

Banner
By Hank Campbell | February 21st 2009 01:30 AM | 78 comments | Print | E-mail | Track Comments
.

More Science 2.0 articles

All

About Hank Campbell

A wise man once said Darwin had the greatest idea anyone ever had. Others may prefer Newton or Archimedes.

Probably no one ever said a website was the greatest idea anyone ever had, but a website... Full Bio



Show Me The Science Month Day 19

Merriam-Webster's dictionary says the word 'evolution' originated in 1622 and derives from the Latin evolutio, "unrolling, from", as in a parchment, and this is actually the perfect way to think of both Darwin and Evolution in their context.

Pedantics will note that Darwin used the word 'evolved' and not 'evolution' in Origin of Species, which seems a little picayune - there are good reasons he did not use it and only popular context demanded he include it by the sixth volume of Origin of Species, though he clearly preferred "descent with modification."

In a biological  development (ontogeny) setting, the word evolution was first used in 1762 by Charles Bonnet in Considerations sur les Corps Organises but he was a 'preformationist' and used it in opposition to 'epigenesis' - he felt that the human embryo was formed before conception (homunculus theory) and what followed afterward was the growth of a pre-existing 'germ.'   We grew, rolled out, 'evolved', from that germ.   Even later, when it took on a primarily biological  context, European philosophers held on to that version of evolution as well.    Leibniz called the 'germ of man' monads and both Kant and Hegel would continue with the idea, evolution as an orderly sequence of events - like those car ads today that say they are the 'evolution of automobile engineering.'

The word apparently retained enough of that preformation stigma that Jean-Baptiste Lamarck had no use for it in his 1809 work, Philosophie Zoologique, so it is no surprise that Darwin would not choose to use it either, though now it is virtually synonymous with him.

It fell to Herbert Spencer to strip the word of its metaphysical aura and use it in a scientific setting.   He first mentions it in 1851, in Social Statics, but he apparently thinks it's well known enough that he doesn't bother to define it, though he knows what he's getting at when he writes "civilisation no longer appears to be a regular unfolding after a specific plan; but seems rather a development of man's latent abilities under the action of favourable circumstances" (p. 415).

By 1862, three years after On The Origin Of Species, Spencer wrote in First Principles, "Evolution is a change from an indefinite, incoherent homogeneity, to a definite, coherent heterogeneity; through continuous differentiations and integrations." 

Spencer understood complexity, though not adaptive complexity - it took a Darwin to put all that together and make evolution the central organizing principle that biologists use to understand the world.    

You're probably recognizing that a great deal of the thinking pre-Darwin was teleological - and that is true, which is why natural selection in evolution met so much resistance.   The concept of a plan or a predetermined goal is certainly a lot more comforting - adaptation to a local environment doesn't play well with a cosmic grand scheme (or a divine Creator) - but variation was not simply 'random', it was just possible to go in multiple directions.   Adaptive evolution was open ended.  A branching tree:

Darwin tree
Yes, species were not fixed, they were just populations with varying components - and no limit on the variation.   In the evolution of evolution, Darwin - a great thinker - synthesized a great many things that he learned with what he knew from his studies and from discussions inspired by fellow scientists.  

Of course, he didn't know anything about genetic mutations but the unification of Darwin and Mendel - the modern evolutionary synthesis of the 1920s and '30s -  would be the validation that natural selection needed to be the bedrock of evolution as we know it today.

A number of people were obviously uncomfortable with the notion that least fit variations would be eliminated and some incorrectly came to believe that meant it was a world of "survival of the fittest" -  another term attributed to Herbert Spencer who was, for someone who had such impact on the language of biology, not a biologist at all.

But the evolution of that 'survival of the fittest' phrase and the 'social Darwinism' it brought is an article for another time.

Comments

rholley's picture
The fist usages of the word appear to be in the military context:

1616 J. BINGHAM in translation of Ælian's Tactiks xxviii. 132
The nature of this Euolution is clearely to leaue the File-leaders in front, and Bringers-vp in reare.

1622 F. MARKHAM Five Decades Epist. of Warre IV. viii. 151
But if it be to performe any Evolution or alteration of figure..then he shall see that they obserue at least six foote distance..betweene one Horseman and another.
                       (OED)


Later in the century the idea of unrolling appeared in the mathematical definition of the Evolute:
The envelope of the normals to a given curve.
This can also be thought of as the locus of the centres of curvature.
The idea appears in an early form in Apollonius's Conics Book V. It appears in its present form in Huygens work from around 1673. (MacTutor)

The names evolute and involute allude to the simplest way of
demonstrating the curves: the end of a stretched thread unwound from a fixed
point on the evolute will trace one of its involutes.  (OED)

You can enjoy looking at this in the MacTutor Famous Curves page, which allows you (with Java) to generate evolutes on-screen.  Take particular note of the Cycloid, where the involute and evolute are also cycloids.


Hank's picture
I am not surprised this was a military term first (and kudos for finding a usage even earlier than 1622!) - orders of battle were written on parchment so it makes language sense that people would understand military operations that way.    Even today, we 'roll out' new technologies and conduct operations in phases.  The military has always tried to use modern examples to make sense of things.   When I was in basic training, for example, we were taught on the ground to lead a plane by 'a football field' when shooting.   Young men could not accurately visualize 100 yards but everyone could relatively use a football field.

Evolutio, ergo sum!

adaptivecomplexity's picture
You're probably recognizing that a great deal of the thinking pre-Darwin was teleological
- and that is true, which is why natural selection in evolution met so
much resistance.   The concept of a plan or a predetermined goal is
certainly a lot more comforting - adaptation to a local environment
doesn't play well with a cosmic grand scheme (or a divine Creator) -
but variation was not simply 'random', it was just possible to go in
multiple directions.

It's funny that Darwin's idea of natural selection was resisted for a long time, while common descent was accepted almost immediately in scientific circles, and the idea had been floating around for awhile. But if you poll the general public today, I'd bet that if someone knows anything about evolution, it's the idea of common descent, and that's probably what gives most people fits today, and not a particular mechanism of evolution.

Even the ID people, in spite of their protestations in public that they don't take issue with it, knock the idea of common descent when speaking to religious audiences.

Hank's picture
You'll know this better than me but I don't see, in the larger public (let's ignore engineers for a moment) an issue even with common descent but they often think evolution means linear descent - man came from apes - rather than having a common ancestor.     I had that comment a few days ago from someone otherwise quite literate; they were disputing that man evolved from apes.  I'm happy to agree.

We've had this discussion before and no one agrees with me but we just shouldn't teach it in high school.   We don't teach lattice theory in high school, we don't teach surgery and evolution has a few simple rules but a whole lot of complicated exceptions that a lot of biology teachers in high schools don't get, much less students.

On religious people, it should be easy to make common descent a positive.  The first project they made in wood shop wasn't great but invariably they made something that was better than the rest using the same basic materials.   Man can be the elaborate wood cabinets nature made while apes can be some cornershelf nature made when she was 12, if that helps them.

I guess I need a better example, but you know what I mean.

adaptivecomplexity's picture
Common descent and the basic evidence for it is not that hard to teach in high school. These ideas are so tied up with what's being done in cutting edge genome biology, some of which can also be taught in high school, that we do students a disservice if we don't give them the fundamentals necessary to understand the science issues they read about in the news.

These basic elements of evolutionary biology aren't exclusively advanced topics like lattice theory. Leaving out the basics of evolution is like trying to teach high school chemistry without referring to valence electrons. Understanding all of the quantum mechanical details about valence electrons is hard; understanding the basic idea in order to make sense of the periodic table and properties of noble gases and alkali metals in a high school class is not hard. The same holds true for common descent, natural selection, and genetic drift.

Look at what people like Ken Miller and Jerry Coyne write in their popular books, or better yet, what Ken Miller has put into his high school biology textbook - the basics of evolution are easy to convey if taught properly. There are a ton of educational resources for teachers out there about what to teach, what hang-ups students have, and how to overcome those hang-ups.

Plus, to agree with the first part of your comment, I think that except for the most extreme cases, resistance to evolution among the public would decrease significantly if people learned what evolution is really about. Education level already strongly correlates with acceptance of evolution; if we taught it well in high school, the issue would be much less of a problem.


I was reading the Quran,the holy book of Islam and I was suprise to find out some of the reveleation in Quran that talk about The Creator and what He create.Let look at some of the verses.

1.verse al-Tur 35-36.Were they created by nothing or were they themselves the creator?.Or did they created the heaven and the earth?

2-Verse Al Nahl:8 And(He has created)horses,mules and donkeys for you to ride and use for show and He created other things of which you have no knowledge.

3-Verse al Muminun 12-14. Indeed We created man from a quintessence(of clay)Then We placed him as a drop in a place of rest,formly fixed;then We make a drop into a clot;then of that clot We made a lump(foetus);then We made out of that lumps bones and clothed the bones with fleash;then We developed out of it another creature.So Bless be Allah,The creators?

4-verse -al Muminum 18'And We send down water from the sky accoding to (due) measure.and We cause it to soak in the soil:We certainly are able to drain it off(with ease)

I was suprises to know that The Quran mention in detail on the creation of Universe and Earth and all the creatures in it.I cant put it all here but if you can read you will find all the answer to questions about creatures that we dont understand.

Hank's picture
Every religion has a creation myth/origin story and they all have a remarkable similarity.   Islam being the last of the major religions to arise makes it more likely it would have numerous things in common with the older ones.    What is interesting is why religion exists and why the stories are so similar.    Is there a neuropsychological link between brains and religion?   Has religion remained because of evolutionary group selection scenario (religion as an adaptation for group living)?    Or because of a teleological cosmic guiding hand?    

Science seeks to explain the universe using natural laws - how it began is up to speculation.  But why religion exists and has remained is interesting.

LauraHult's picture




What is interesting is why religion exists and why the stories are so similar.    Is there a neuropsychological link between brains and religion?   Has religion remained because of evolutionary group selection scenario (religion as an adaptation for group living)?    Or because of a teleological cosmic guiding hand?  

Or as Jung would likely propose, are we tapping into the grand Collective Unconscious?

Dear Hank.

You ask"Why religion exists and has remained is interesting."

When you talk about religion than you have to talk about God,the creator,the supreme.In Islam or christian and judish God we called Allah.In Buddism ,Hindu,Bahai,etc etc they called the God with different name except the atheis,they dont belief in God.Hank I dont know which religion you belong.Are you a free thinker?

When we talk about religion then we have to talk about God,the Creators.In Islam and in Quran it is stated in surah Az Zariyyat 56-57,"I have only created Jinn and mankind,in order to worship Me.No sustenance do I require from them,nor do I require that they should feed Me". God mention about worship and from worship come religion.In Islam or Christian or Judism we acknowledge the God exist and hence religion.

In Quran verse Ibrahim -18;The parable of those who disbelieved in their Lord is that their works are as ashes,on which the wind blows furioisly on a stormy day,they shall not be able to obtain any of that which they have earned.That is the straying,far away from right path"

Verse an Nur:39 As for those who disbelieve,their works are like a mirage in a desert>The thirsty one thinks it to be water,until he comes up to it,he find it to be nothing,but he find Allah with him,Who willpay him his due(the hellfire)

One who does not know his Creator lives like a blind person in this life,for he does not know the reason for his creation and existence in the universe and will die without knowing why his life began in the first place,departing from this life without even realising why he had come into it.

You might want to ask the next question,does the God exist?

In verse az-Zummar :21."Do you not see that Allah(God) sends down rain from sky,and leads it through springs in the earth?.Then He causes it to grow,therewith,produce of various colours.then it withers,You will see it turn yellow.then He makes it dry up and crumble away.Trualy,is this ,is a Message of remembrance for men of understanding.

In verse Ar Rum:48."It is Allah who send the winds.and they raise the clouds,then He spreads them in the sky as He wills,and break them into fragments,until you see raindrops issue from the midst thereof,then when He has made them reach those of His servants whom He will,behold ,they do rejioce"

Hank,did you realise with the morden settelites in the orbit,new IT equiptments on earth,man still cannot predict accurately the weather.The rain.the storm,the earth quiek.the flood and the drought happen beyong man knowledge?

Hank's picture
When you talk about religion than you have to talk about God,the creator,the supreme.

No, I don't.   Religion exists whether there is a God or whether he is supreme or the creator.    Any number of religions have not considered one of those things to be true throughout history.    You are apparently a Muslim and that's fine, you choose to believe a book written in 700AD contains more truth than ones written hundreds or thousands of years earlier.  Unfortunately the only way to know if you are right or someone else is involves dying.

You're saying our inability to predict the weather isproof of God - which is fine for a religious person but if science used that thinking you would still be living in a grass hut and not writing me on the internet.

There are a lot of mysteries out there.   Religion should be fine with both science and evolution because a creator had to have made the mysteries and our inquisitive nature possible, which means a creator wants the mysteries of the natural world to be solved.   In that sense, scientists are doing God's work, right?

There are a lot of mysteries out there. Religion should be fine with both science and evolution because a creator had to have made the mysteries and our inquisitive nature possible, which means a creator wants the mysteries of the natural world to be solved. In that sense, scientists are doing God's work, right?

I also am a "religious" person, (not a Muslim). I love the sciences. "The glory of God is to coceal a thing. The honor of kings is to search out a matter." Book of Proverbs.

What annoys me to no end, is scientists who are able to be objective and analytical when in the pursuit of truth, who are completely unable to see their own prejudice when it comes to evolution.

Certainly my faith in Jesus Christ is a matter of faith. I can stack up facts and testimonials that can intellectually explain how true it is, but in the end it is a spiritual experience that an individual has to partake of themselves in order to comprehend. Unfortunately evolution has taken on this stetus in the intellectual society.

Why can't scientists approach evolution with the skepticism it deserves?

QUESTIONS:
There has never been found a fossilized organism simple enough to be the first life form. This is imperative to begin the evolution process.

The Second Law of Thermodynamics, "The law of entropy', completely contradicts evolution as it is now framed.

There ARE examples of mutation and adaptations among species, but there is NONE of a species mutating into ANOTHER species.

Even when soft tissue was discovered in T-Rex fossils the approach (probably to keep funding), was immediately to prove that this could be possible within the already scientifically accepted time frame. (Instead of acknowledging that according to the science now available this was an impossibility.)

You do the whole realm of science a disservice when you are not willing to be critical of the scientific communities biases and prejudices.

Hank's picture
Why can't scientists approach evolution with the skepticism it deserves?

You must not read a lot of science.   At least once a week someone or some thing is getting debunked.    There are plenty of criticisms of the science in esteemed personages such as Richard Dawkins and Stephen Jay Gould.    The mistake agenda-based critics of biology make is assuming that debates about mechanisms are weakness rather than strength.   Religious people are not allowed to argue the existence of God, which is why religion is not science.

If your mother had breasts and you ever had any hair, that is proof evolution has happened.   What is less understood and debated are the mechanisms.    We also don't know why aspirin works - this does not mean it did not cure headaches.  But science will know the answer to both in our lifetimes.

"If your mother had breasts and you ever had any hair, that is proof evolution has happened."

Hank, please! That is no less a religious statement than me saying it is proof God created us in his image.
It is not PROOF of either.

You have in essence proven my argument. You and the men you referred to are willing to question the mechanisms but not the validity of the overall theory of evolution. A scientific person does not have to reject the existence of a Creator. In fact, to do so out of hand is itself unscientific. This rejection should and would negate evolutions argument completely, were it not for the religious fervor that evolution has garnished.

" The mistake agenda-based critics of biology make is assuming that debates about mechanisms are weakness rather than strength."

Questioning mechanisms is fine. What else can a religious fanatic do when time after time the true science backs them into a corner? The noble personages you mentioned have taken on the self righteous robes of priests who can do do nothing but defend their beliefs no matter what the facts are.

All I ask is that you would be willing to question the validity of the overall theory. Is this so preposterous?

Look at the statistical probability of the amount of beneficial mutations being passed on to reach the point of complexity that we have on earth. Is this unreasonable?

True conversion takes faith. Statistical analysis in order to quantify a theory of an outside force does not.

My question then becomes to you Hank. Are you willing to accept the truth if the answer lies outside how you perceive things now, or will you defend the dogma of evolution no matter what the facts are?

Hank's picture
You and the men you referred to are willing to question the mechanisms but not the validity of the overall theory of evolution

Substitute theory of gravity or germs for evolution and this makes as little sense - you are using the word 'theory' colloquially, which was clever marketing by people who need to deny science in order to maintain their faith.   If you jump off a building, you will fall down.   If humans have hair and milk, like other mammals, that is common descent.   It is not 'questioning validity' to insist that the scientific method is valid in every area except biology because a very small segment of religious people want to deny it.     If science has to give equal time in science classes  to a creationist idea of current man, it also has to give equal time to Islam and every other religion - none of which are science either.  So if you tell me you went to a Christian church and heard legitimate discourse on the 'theory' that Xenu created the planet from his outpost in space, or that you teach children they can jump out of a tree and fly because gravity is only a theory, your denial of the most basic science is not understandable.
Look at the statistical probability of the amount of beneficial mutations being passed on to reach the point of complexity that we have on earth. Is this unreasonable?

You have no idea what you are talking about.  Bookmarked talking points you found on the internet are not much help; beneficial mutations are actually the only thing that makes any sort of sense.  Insisting that all the data throughout history has been planted as a test of faith is somehow reasonable to you, yet the randomness of how life looks today is outside your scope of believability?

Nothing in my article had anything at all that discredits a religious belief in the spark of life - my article was specifically on the history of 'evolution', primarily as a part of the lexicon.    Walking into a science site and saying biologists are the close-minded zealots and creationists are in favor of open discussion and learning is ironic.

Hello Hank,

I am a little disappointed that you would put the theory of evolution in the same classification as gravity, and the existence of germs. Gravity is a "Law" that can be proven. We can hypothesize what it consists of but it's existence can be proven. Germs can be observed under a microscope. It can be proven that mothers have breasts and that people have hair, but that is a far cry from proving common descent.

BTW- Thanks for the complement, but I haven't just bookmarked quotes and pasted them. Not a bad idea, but I don't have the time for it. The only advantage I may have is number of years on this earth and street savvy, that gives me some insight into the psychology of a con.

You wrote, " Insisting that all the data throughout history has been planted as a test of faith is somehow reasonable to you, yet the randomness of how life looks today is outside your scope of believability?"
That may be what some creationists believe. It is not my belief. All I am asking for is intellectual honesty, then let the chips fall where they may.

You stated, "Nothing in my article had anything at all that discredits a religious belief in the spark of life - my article was specifically on the history of 'evolution', primarily as a part of the lexicon."
My apologies. Just for clarification, what are your thoughts on how the ball got rolling?

You wrote, " Walking into a science site and saying biologists are the close-minded zealots and creationists are in favor of open discussion and learning is ironic."
No offense intended. I have just found in general that sometimes having an intelligent conversation about "Creation vs. Evolution" is very difficult. There are very strong scientific arguments that refute evolution. Otherwise extremely intelligent people often shut down and withdraw in the phalanx of accepted beliefs rather than consider another option. Being someone quite familiar with religious societies I can tell you the response is very similar to a zealot who feels his faith is threatened.

IMHO - The questions I raised are legitimate.

Another BTW- How do get the cool blue text when you pull text out the text you are answering?

Gerhard Adam's picture
"Gravity is a "Law" that can be proven. We can hypothesize what it consists of but it's existence can be proven. Germs can be observed under a microscope. It can be proven that mothers have breasts and that people have hair, but that is a far cry from proving common descent."
 
The "law" of gravity you're referring to is a mathematical expression.  How does one prove gravity?

Germs may exist, but their relationship to the cause of disease is the theory.  How do you prove the correlation?

Are mothers the only animals with breasts?  Do all people have hair?

You're making assertions that you may be unable to prove in any meaningful way and yet citing them as if they were absolute truths.


Hank's picture
I am a little disappointed that you would put the theory of evolution in the same classification as gravity, and the existence of germs. Gravity is a "Law" that can be proven.

Actually, it can't.   If it were a law it would work the same way at the small and large levels that it does in the middle.  Gravity most assuredly does not work that way, or in any way we can call it a science law, yet you do not jump off buildings despite our incomplete knowledge of it.    We could not visualize an atom 30 years ago yet the scientific method said they existed  and Joe Lister was criticized by mainstream Christianity for his germ theory despite his deep religious beliefs (or perhaps partly due to them, being a Quaker).  Finding a transitional fossil in an area where science said one would exist if it could have been fossilized at all is just one example of proof that evolution works as both theory, like gravity, and law - like gravity.   You instead are trying to contend that unless  fossils (of soft tissue , no less) are found for every transition then none of them happened.    That's sophistry, not science.

Also, you are confusing scientific arguments with falsification.   There are no scientific arguments that refute evolution.

I am sure there are numerous scientists(and atheists in culture who want their beliefs legitimized scientifically) who act the same way about evolution as the militant fringes of religion act about their specific faith - but they aren't writing here.  If you can prove mankind arrived where we are in a better way than evolution can, show your data.

Gerhard Adam's picture
A scientific person does not have to reject the existence of a Creator. In fact, to do so out of hand is itself unscientific.

Not true.  Science does not require that every notion that an individual may have (that doesn't actually enhance the theory) be considered for investigation or be subject to further investigation.  If I were to make up various forces, or fields, or particles, there is no scientist that would feel compelled to investigate my ideas unless there was some potential merit in them that explained an existing issue.

If I simply postulated a bunch of extraneous "extra" pieces and the current theory works just fine without them, then it would be foolish for science to take me seriously. 

Science is not a platform to investigate other people's conjectures when they have little or no merit.

Dear Hank.
Why only scientists are doing God's work.What about the farmers,the teachers the politician.I think everybody who belief in God will do God's work.

Scientists can invent things.The cars ,the phone and the computers.We have super computers which con do things beyond human thinking capacity.But who is more superio.Still the scientist who invented it.If the computer breakdown,it need scientist who invented to do the repair works.The super computer cant repair itself.

Some scientist are doing God's work.Some of them are try ing to understand God's work and some of them are try ing to challange God's work.Until today the scientists can,t invented any equiptment to predict accurately the weather.The scientists can't invented a super conputer that can predict the time of your death,or to know what you will earned tomorrow, or to determine the sex of your baby when your wife conceive..

Hank,you have a beautiful boy.When your wife told you she pragnant,you dont know wheather you will get a boy or a daughter.Only after 3 month you are able to see determine the child sex through scaning mechine.This was not possible 100 year ago.But they still dont have the mechine to determine your child sex the very first day your wife conceive.Just like the scientist cant forcast the correct weather.

If man evolved from monkey, what stopped the process?
Evolution, by definition, is a continous process, so why are we not finding examples of 10/90 20/80 30/70 40/60 and 50/50 % monkey/man today?
Monkeys still produce monkeys and mankind still produces mankind!

ricochet17's picture
Man shares a common ancestor with the other primates. This is not the same thing as saying that man evolved FROM monkeys. After chimpanzees and humans diverged, both continued to evolve along their separate evolutionary pathways.

Questions such as this are actually a nice example of how poorly people understand evolutionary processes!

Could a Creator or God not create organisms with the ability to adapt and sustain new ways of life or evolve?

Does one have to be an Atheist in order to be a Scientist?

Are the millions of intricacies of life, even on the unicellular scale, not indicative of order and design rather than random accidental arrangement?

Investigate further. Question. Seek and Find.

man evolved from monkey?.What evidence do you have?That why the scientists were wrong.

Mankind is distinguished from the animal in many aspect,the most important of which is having ability an acquire knowledge.The man brain is the instrumant that allows us to distinguish between the truth and falsehood,what is beneficial and what is harmful and this is the prime difference man brain and monkey brain.
Mankind brain is distinguished from monkey,with which he has explored the world.He has used it to make the most of the land's resources,dive into deep water and to acquire knowledge.

I know the teory of evolusion say the man originate from monkey or apes or gurella but if you open your mind and look at all the evidence,the scientisis are wrong.That why monkey still produce monkey and mankind still produce mankind.Actually Pig is the other animal that have 80 %of the organ similar to human,and the Quran has the story on it.Thousand of years ago there was a jewish tribe who live by the sea.The jewish people have the Sabbath day on saturday.God said on sabbath day that you cant do anything including fishing.But what this jewish people did was they put the net on Friday and catch the fish on Sunday.The God was very angry and He cursed them and make them become the Pig for the elderly people and the children become the monkey.

Hank's picture
man evolved from monkey?.What evidence do you have?That why the scientists were wrong.

Mankind is distinguished from the animal in many aspect,the most important of which is having ability an acquire knowledge.The man brain is the instrumant that allows us to distinguish between the truth and falsehood,what is beneficial and what is harmful and this is the prime difference man brain and monkey brain.


This is exactly what I put in my comment earlier; people claiming evolution is false because man did not descend from monkeys - something evolution does not say happened and it's a reason I wrote this article.

Using the word evolution, with its colloquial and metaphysical definition, does more harm than good, which is why Darwin did not - he used 'descent with modification' which is much more clear -  until he basically had no choice and felt like it had lost its old meaning.

There is a subset of people who would like to get rid of the term 'Darwinism'; using their logic, it would actually be clearer to get rid of the term 'evolution.'

John, on your prior comment about farmers, etc., you actually made my point nicely - a farmer who does not believe in religion can still grow vegetables.  Likewise, religion is unnecessary for science (and science is unnecessary for religion) - it is just unfortunate that each side of the discourse has militants who think they have to convert each other.

Dear Hank.

I completely disagree with you.A man without religion or a family without religion or the society without religion.I cant imagine what will happen to this world.I think that 's where we are heading NOW?.The religions be it Islam,Christian,Hindu or Confusion teach the followers what is good and what is sinful.Hank. what do you think if your son make love to your daughter,or you make love to your mother.This is horrible and wrong.Your religion said you cant do it.If you dont have religion you dont know this is wrong.

Hank.Do we need religion?Before I answer this tell what is the purpose of your life?

Why is it impossible to have a moral code and no religion and why should peaple want to have sex with there sisters and mothers if they arent religious???
I am a atheist and still thinks that some of the 10 commandments are quite reasonable and i am more sexualy atracted to other women than my mother and sister.

Stellare's picture
Biology tells us to abstain from sex with parents, children and siblings, not religion. It is simply not a smart thing to do if we want our genes to successfully continue after we are gone. Instincts, baby, instincts; not religion. :-)

Thank God for Reason.

Dear Bente,

You work by instincts?.You must be joking.That mean you are equal to animals like monkey or dog.Animals work by instinct.Biology tell you to abstain from sex with parent.That is not instinct.That is your brain tell you.The difference between human brain and animal brain is we can distinguish what is right and what is wrong.we have the capacity to acquire knowledge .How your brain decice what is right and what is wrong.?

If you have religion ,what is wright and wrong are stated in the Holy book like Bible,Quran or old Testement etc.Your God who created you,tell you how to conducted yourself in this world.God said homosexual is a sin.But your instinct say ok.You do it and God send his punisment.AID ,HIV disease.

How do you treat your old parents.Your instincts said send them to old folk home.Is;t proper for you to do that to your parent after they had brought you from cradel to what you are today.From religious point of view this is wrong?

Abortion.Your instinct said ok to do that.You kill the baby in the worm.What 's the different between kiliing the baby in the worm and killing the your baby after she or he was born.The sin is the same.Man with religious backround wont do it.

May I ask you Bente what the meaning of live in this world to you?can I have honest answer.

Stellare's picture
I'm an animal. That is my honest answer to you, John.

When I die I'll be stardust and that makes me so happy, man. That is the meaning of my life.

Hank.
You said"farmer who does not believe in religion can still grow vegetable" Yes you are right.But the different with farmer with religion are as follow.

The farmers with religion will always be greatful to his Lord and when he harvest the crops he will set aside small portion of it to be given to the poor and needy.In Islam we call it zakat.

second if he sell the products either corn or dated or wheat,he will make sure he is not cheating on the quality or weight.He is answerable to his al mighty God.

thirdly,if his crop or farm was destroy either by Flood or draught or by wild bird and animals,he will not feed sad.He know this is from his al mighty God.

If the farmers dont have religious,he dont understand why he have to face all this problems.He will acted based on his instinct and most probably he will commit sucide.Look at the news that so many peoples have commit sucide during this financial crisis.From a billionair to the poor retire British soldier.Believe me more are coming.

Dear Bente.

You are not.You are an expert in earth science.You are a beautiful lady and you look batter than ape or monkey.May be you read too much science book and you miss all the beautiful things in live.May be should read more book in litreture or enjoy the theatre show with friends and family members".Live is many splendid thing"say Tom Jones.Even if you dont believe there is live after death,never mind.You still enjoy live in this beautiful world.

Hank's picture
Live is many splendid thing"say Tom Jones

Other important Tom Jones contributions to romance:

"Sex Bomb"
"You can leave your hat on"
"Too Sexy"

and approximately 388 more titles that I know just off the top of my head.

What does that have to do with evolution or religion?  Not a thing, but we never need a reason to invoke Tom Jones.

Stellare's picture
Tom Jones is all about evolution. That is what my instincts tell me. :-)

rholley's picture
John Seah,

I read this that you posted:
Thousand of years ago there was a jewish tribe who live by the sea.The jewish people have the Sabbath day on saturday.God said on sabbath day that you cant do anything including fishing.But what this jewish people did was they put the net on Friday and catch the fish on Sunday.The God was very angry and He cursed them and make them become the Pig for the elderly people and the children become the monkey.

Firstly, could you please tell me in which Sura this is found?

Now the part I have bolded makes me think of something I read in Zoo Quest to Guiana by David Attenborough.  I've found the book, and here it is:

“The Adventists teach, for example, that you should not eat rabbit. Of course, there are no rabbits here but a large rodent called a labba is roughly equivalent. Unfortunately, labba meat has always been one of the favourite foods of the Indians and forbidding it was quite a blow to them. There is a story that a missionary once came across one of his Indian converts cooking a labba over a fire. He told the Indian how sinful it was.


“But this is not labba,’ the Indian said, ‘this is fish.’ ‘No fish has two big front teeth like that,’ replied the missionary crossly, ‘you speak nonsense.’ ‘No, sir!’ said the Indian. ‘You know how, when you first came to this village, you say my Indian name is bad name, and you sprinkled water over me and say my name is now John.  Well, sir, I walk in the forest today, I see labba and I shoot ‘im, and, before he die, I throw water over him and I say “Labba be bad name, you be fish.” And so now I eat fish, sir.”






Dear Robert Olley.

You can find this in Quran Surah Al Baqarah ayat 65(2:65) "And indeed you knew those amongst you who trangressed in the matter of the sabbath(i.e saturday)We said to them,"Be you monkeys,despised and rejected"

To understand this surat in detail you have to read the "tafsir"or explaination by religious scholar like Ibn Kathir or al Tabari.

Dear Robert,

You also have to look at Surah 7:163-166.This surah tell you the detail of this jewish tribe.

Dear Robert.

Surah 7(AlA-raf) ayat 163: And ask them about the town that was by the sea;when they trangressed in the matter of sabbath(Saturday)when their fish come to them openly on the sabbath day and did not come to them on the day they had no sabbath.Thus We make a trial of them for they used to rebel against Allah's command.

7:166.So when they exceeded the limit of what they were prohibited,We said to them;"Be you monkeys despised and rejected".

rholley's picture
Dear John,

Thanks for the references.

Dear Annoymous.

Instinct tell you to avoide sex with your family.Luckily you have human instinct,unfortunately a lot of atheist dont.Some of them make love with dogs.They pratice as what Matt Monroe sing"Born Free"

Dear Annoymous:

As an atheist how do you explain this:

Who put the colours in the rainbow?
Who put the salt in the sea?
Who put the cold in the snowflake?
Who make you and me?

Who put the scent in the roses?
Who taught the honey bee to dance?
Who put the tree inside the acorn?
It surely can't be chance?

If God exists,His existence is necessary.
If God does not exist,His existence is impossible.
Either God exists or He does not exist.

God's existence is either necessary or impossible.
God existence is possible(not impossible)
Therefore God's existence is necessary.

"As an atheist how do you explain this:"

"Who put the colours in the rainbow?"

No one did. Color isn't really there. There is nothing intrinsic about light that gives it color. Colors are just mental labels.

"Who put the salt in the sea?"
No one did, it happened naturally. Salts are the most common by-product of acid-base reactions.

"Who put the cold in the snowflake?"
No one did. This is an attribution of reversed intent. Snowflakes are a result of cold weather, period.

"Who put the scent in the roses?"
No one did. Scents aren't real. There is nothing intrinsic about chemicals that give them odor. Scent sensations are generated by our brains. They are labels.

"Who taught the honey bee to dance?"

No one did. Honey bees developed body language because genes that acted to make them dance gave colonies who did selective advantages over those who didn't.

"Who put the tree inside the acorn?"

No one did. Trees make Acorns. Acorns contain the genetic material and nourishment necessary to make another tree. Trees are ubiquitous because their reproductive processes are relatively simple, not because they're complex.

"It surely can't be chance?"

No one is saying that.

"If God exists,His existence is necessary.
If God does not exist,His existence is impossible.
Either God exists or He does not exist."

Okay.

"God's existence is either necessary or impossible.

God existence is possible(not impossible)
Therefore God's existence is necessary."
How did we make the jump to saying God's existence is necessary? How is it necessary?

Dear Steve,

I am not suprise to your reply"no one did".That the typical reply of an athese because you simply want do deny GOD existance.Even if you are the believer of evolution teory by Darwin you cant explain WHO create the cells.The cells cannot created by itself.You have so many different cells and size functions.

The rain,the hurricane,the storm are created by Al Mighty God.Man cannot predictly accourately when the stom or hurricane will happen otherwise New Orleane people wont suffer that much.

In Islam,all this creation,were explian scietifically in Quran.Also in Bible and Ole Testement.

Unfortunately for All The Athese,they decide to ignore all this.

Jeff Sherry's picture
John, why does there have to be a creator for cells or rain? It would seem natural processes are enough for a needed explanation.

Does God create every cell that divides?

"Deny God" strikes me as an odd thought process on your part John which I do not comprehend.

John,

You're entitled to believe that rain is made by a god if you like. That's your privilege.

But why does your curiosity end there? Why is "God did it" enough of an explination to satiate the faithful? If God makes rain, haven't you ever wondered -how- he makes it? Isn't it worth investigation?

Hank, and all,

You have still not answered some very basic questions:
QUESTIONS:
There has never been found a fossilized organism simple enough to be the first life form. This is imperative to begin the evolution process. Why are we not over run with them?

The Second Law of Thermodynamics, "The law of entropy', completely contradicts evolution as it is now framed. How is this possible?

There ARE examples of mutation and adaptations among species, but there is NONE of a species mutating into ANOTHER species. How do you make the leap from being one species with specific DNA, Chromosomes, etc; to a completely unique species.

Even when soft tissue was discovered in T-Rex fossils the approach (probably to keep funding), was immediately to prove that this could be possible within the already scientifically accepted time frame. (Instead of acknowledging that according to the science now available this was an impossibility.) How can soft tissue exist in a fossil millions of years old?

Do you think that I am unreasonable for asking these questions?

When there is no satisfactory answer, would it be better to just accept it because a scientist said it has to be that way?

Hank's picture
You're approaching this from a faith perspective and stating that if there have not been fossils from every transition of every animal, even while you're acknowledging how difficult fossilization is, then therefore all of evolution cannot have happened.

Gravity doesn't always work either - yet you don't jump off buildings.

I get that you have a religious belief and no amount of evidence is going to change that - and that's fine - but why go to a science site asking researchers to answer things that were answered in your high school biology class?   No one here goes to church and debunks religion.   

You have a negative approach to knowledge as opposed to a positive one.  People here just want to get smarter and you want to play games.

LauraHult's picture
There has never been found a fossilized organism simple enough to be
the first life form. This is imperative to begin the evolution process.
Why are we not over run with them?

TomA, for your edification there are indeed fossils of single celled organisms.  Mostly what we've found thus far are cyanobacteria (see http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/bacteria/bacteriafr.html for more information).  The reason why we have not found many of these fossils is because geologically speaking, the Earth is dynamic - that is, the crust is being re-worked and re-worked constantly.  Fragile fossil remains, especially those of unicellular organisms, disappear very quickly.
The Second Law of Thermodynamics, "The law of entropy', completely
contradicts evolution as it is now framed. How is this possible?

Entropy is present in every closed system.  Every organism will eventually die.  Species die.  That living things tend towards greater complexity is not a contradiction of the Second Law, but rather an attempt to slow the effects of entropy through adaptation. 
How do you make the
leap from being one species with specific DNA, Chromosomes, etc; to a
completely unique species.

By having a very, very long time and many, many generations to do so.  We see the faintest glimmer of the process by observing the adaptations of microorganisms.  For instance, that Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) exists should give us a clue as to exactly how very adaptable organisms are to change.  Had antibiotics not been developed, and had these antibiotics not been used so casually, MRSA would likely never have evolved.  Why should it?  Why expend the energy to adapt to a hostile environment if that possibility did not exist?
How can soft tissue exist in a fossil millions of years old?

DNA is really tough stuff.  I know because I've frozen and thawed it, re-frozen it and re-thawed it many times in the lab.  My little E. coli never knew the difference.

Given the right circumstances such as immediate burial in an anoxic environment not subject to intense metamorphosis, soft tissue can survive.  Consider Egyptian mummies, or the individuals found in peat bogs.
Do you think that I am unreasonable for asking these questions?

No, but what I do find unreasonable is blind faith trumping evidence.  If time is meaningless to God, why should He have to hurry the act of creation?  Couldn't God take as long as He wanted?  It is the YECers that bend over backwards to fit God into a nice, tidy 10,000 year old box.

Laura,
I am so sorry. I would never purposely ignore a lady, especially not one as smart and pretty as yourself.

1.- I understand that one celled fossils have been found. My point was that none can be called "simple" enough to be considered the 1st rung on the evolutionary ladder. I understand your argument. I disagree, but at least it is a reasonable argument.

"Entropy is present in every closed system. Every organism will eventually die. Species die. That living things tend towards greater complexity is not a contradiction of the Second Law, but rather an attempt to slow the effects of entropy through adaptation."
2.-My question would be how could there be an, "attempt"? It is one of those words that I read frequently when talking about evolution. True entropy would not attempt anything, but tend toward less complexity.

I hope that you understand, I mean no disrespect. You are obviously very intelligent and informed on the issue. When you see the incredible complexity of every stage of life, from the double helix, to the wing, the eye, and the countless other events in nature that are truly amazing, it is quite a stretch to say they are just "attempts" to prolong entropy.

3.-When answering how a species could make the leap from one species to another your answer was, "
By having a very, very long time and many, many generations to do so." My contention would be that time would increase the odds toward simplicity, not complexity. There is vast mutation and adaptation within species, but not into another completely different species.

We don't know every mutation that could happen, but the evidence we have thus far is; mutations that go so far as to change the chromazone count makes one unable to reproduce.

You used the example of, "Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA)". You said, "Had antibiotics not been developed, and had these antibiotics not been used so casually, MRSA would likely never have evolved. Why should it? Why expend the energy to adapt to a hostile environment if that possibility did not exist?" Again you appear to be giving elovution an intelligence, when saying, "Why should it?"

4.- "No, but what I do find unreasonable is blind faith trumping evidence." There are many things that I accept by faith because of my personal relationship with my Savior. In the arena of creation vs. evolution I do not have to.

Tom

LauraHult's picture
Tom, having been raised in a very fundamentalist family, I understand and respect your need to hold onto a literal translation of the Bible.  What I do not understand is why you would venture into blogs written by scientists where you know there will be great resistance to your opinions.

Are you "witnessing"?  If so, is this really the way to go about it?

It has been said that you will catch more flies with honey than with vinegar.  The likelihood that a professional scientist, trained to observe, test, record, analyze, and hypothesize what he or she can with as little bias as possible, would suddenly throw methodology out the window in favor of "God did it" is about as probable as an "elephant pass[ing] through the eye of a needle".

Compartmentalization is key.  It is indeed possible for someone to work effectively as a scientist and still retain a personal belief in God.  However, theology has no place in the lab.  Ruminate all you wish outside that environment and appreciate the grandeur that is Creation, even say a prayer that your work will reveal God's methods if you wish, but be a professional in a professional environment.

------------

Isn't it possible that the act of Creation involved infinitely more hard science than we will ever be able to comprehend with our finite fleshly brains?

Isn't it possible that God would use the laws that govern the Universe that He created to actually run the whole thing?  Why would He violate those laws just to create people?  Was His initial creation somehow flawed and incapable of producing humans?  If God is perfect, how could He create something that was flawed?

I could go on, but you get my drift.  There is far, far more to God than is written in the Bible.  I want to know how He did it.  In my papers I will describe what I find to the best of my ability without bias or the interjection of religion.  My personal life is something different.

Well, I haven't been here for quite a while, but I received an e-mail alert, so I thought I would stop by. Since the blog was about evolution I thought you might enjoy a Creationist viewpoint. If nothing else just to stimulate the thought process. If you would rather I didn't respond I will oblige. I have to say I believe that the questions themselves are very legitimate, in a purely logical, and scientific way. ...but, whatever.

For my closing argument let me clarify. I would not expect fossils for every stage, but 1st life would have had no predator. Chemicals had come together to form a reproducing image of themselves. (That of course, to me is a stretch) It would be safe to assume that having free reign on earth they would have had to reach great numbers before the invisible hand of evolution deemed it necessary for them to mutate and evolve. Such numbers should have made a fossil record abundant.

I can not say that I completely understand the gravity analogy, how it applies to evolution. I have not studied gravity but I thought it always worked. Every time I jump, I end up coming down. Oh well... I am sure if we debate that, you will win, so I'll leave it alone.

I still think that the question of how a species of any sort could evolve into another species is a legitimate unanswered question.

I have read some of the theories of how evolution gets around the the laws of entropy. They seem to me to be convoluted at best. I think this also, is another legitimate question.

I don't claim to know the time line for earth history. I do think it is truly a fraud; that for generations we have been told that soft tissue could not exist in any fossil even a million years old, then when soft tissue is found paleontologists will not even look at their conclusions. (This is another bone I have to pick- a lot of results seem to be skewed because of fear of loosing funding).

Lastly, I do not believe I have a negative approach to knowledge. I will readily admit though, that I come to the table as a skeptic. I am a Christian and it would not be honest to say that it did not affect my approach or my opinions, just as you are an atheist; so when you see things you align them at first glance with what you believe to be true. This is not altogether a rejection of knowledge. It is just different angles to approach the issue.

In your answer just say that you would rather I did not comment any more, and I will not.

Sincerely, Tom Alford

Hank's picture
I am a Christian and it would not be honest to say that it did not affect my approach or my opinions, just as you are an atheist

Of course it does, because you make flawed assumptions, including my atheism or the atheism of anyone here.  I know there are atheists, because they say so, but you are so biased you believe anyone who believes in science must be one.

Mathematically you are unwilling to believe life could evolve but you are completely willing to believe a divine hand has created, and continues to actively create, life that is 99% failures and those failures die without ever reproducing because they are not fit enough to survive. 
when you see things you align them at first glance with what you believe to be true. This is not altogether a rejection of knowledge. It is just different angles to approach the issue.  

Using the word belief at all is a rejection of knowledge because science is not about belief.  Gravity does not care if you believe in it and that goes for all science.  You may also not believe in the science that created medicine or agriculture but saying belief cures cancer or feeds people is in defiance of the 'purely logical' stance you claim in paragraph one.

Gerhard Adam's picture
I would not expect fossils for every stage, but 1st life would have had
no predator. Chemicals had come together to form a reproducing image of
themselves. (That of course, to me is a stretch) It would be safe to
assume that having free reign on earth they would have had to reach
great numbers before the invisible hand of evolution deemed it
necessary for them to mutate and evolve. Such numbers should have made
a fossil record abundant.

That statement makes no sense, since it should be obvious that single celled organisms don't make good fossils.  I don't know why you think predation has anything to do with anything.  Also your comment that evolution "deemed" anything necessary suggests that you're inventing a purpose where none exists.
I have read some of the theories of how evolution gets around the the
laws of entropy. They seem to me to be convoluted at best. I think this
also, is another legitimate question.

There's nothing convoluted about it.  Since the earth (and the biosphere) aren't isolated systems, there is no "law of entropy".
I do think it is truly a fraud; that for generations we have been told
that soft tissue could not exist in any fossil even a million years
old, then when soft tissue is found paleontologists will not even look
at their conclusions. (This is another bone I have to pick- a lot of
results seem to be skewed because of fear of loosing funding).

You're reading too much into the "soft tissue" information.  There's potentially some "soft tissue" preserved inside the bone, although it isn't certain whether anything useful can be extracted from examining it.  However, you should have known that even Mammoths have been found with skin, so I don't know why you suggest that there were no circumstances whereby soft tissue could have been preserved. 

In the end, the point is that religion has no business pretending to be science. 

Gerhard,
Soft tissue that I was referring to was found in T-Rex which was roaming the earth in the Jurassic period. Supposedly from about 210 million years ago, lasting for 70 million years. Mammoth finds are measured in the 10's of thousands of years.

I disagree, the law of entropy does rule even on earth. Sunlight does not equal the dissolution of this very basic principle.

Gerhard Adam's picture
Tom,

Your argument about soft tissue is meaningless since it clearly indicates the preservation of tissue well beyond normal decomposition.  Therefore if it is viable for 10,000 years, it could be viable significantly longer (assuming that any of the T-rex tissue is actually capable of extracting anything that is truly organic).

You also need to read up on entropy since biological organisms represent negative entropy and so the "law" as you're referencing it, does not apply.

Dear Jeff.

You miss my point.I just want to use rain as a proof that GOD exist.Just take a bit of your time and run through all the weather forcast.They are not 100 % correct and they never get it right because rain,stom ,hurricane are from GOD.

Why,with so advance technology that we have in America,Europe,Japan or anywhere in the world,they cannot fortell calamaties cause by thunderstorm,Hurricane or heavy rain(flood) as recenly happen in Taiwan.,accurately.

Take you time Jeff ,analyse what I said.

You ask me why God send the rain or why God craeted rains.My answer is for the benefit of his creatures be it trees,animals and human.

It not a simple process as what you think.Why some place we have rain,some place we have heavy rain and some place we have draught.Some place in Afrika,people pray for the rain to come and some place in China people angry with rain because of flooding and damaging their vegetation.

I did not ask you why God makes rain.

I asked you why you are not curious to know -how- God makes rain, and do not seem to be interested in finding out.
The question really has nothing to do with rain at all, the question is whether or not you have any intellectual curiosity.

I'm setting aside my "atheist presumptions" here. Answer me like you would another Muslim.

Jeff Sherry's picture
John, I find your logic astounding. Weather forecasts are not 100% on target, therefore a deity. I was hoping for something deeper than for the benefit of his creatures.

Do you know anything about the hydrologic cycle or how mountains affect that cycle?

Have you ever seen virga?

I'll stick with the natural processes and sciences until you can show me how precipitation is caused by magic.

Jeff.
You ask me have I ever seen Vigra.Yes.I never use it because of the side effect.I have a better madcine for that.We call it "black stallion".It make of herb and worms you can only find in tropical forest Borneo or Brazil.

Jeff,belief me ,It make you and your wife going crazy all night long,like riding a horse.Want some ,sent me your postal adress.

Jeff Sherry's picture
John, it is nice to see that you have a child like sense of humor in an adult body. Your response just demonstrates you have poor cognitive abilities and your lack of interest in following through on your assertions. Thanks for the vist to the mundane.

Oh jeez, virga = viagra?

I'm dissapointed too.

Dear Steve.
You want to know how GOD make rain.
Before I answer that,we have to agree one thing.Do you belief in GOD.If you dont belief in GOD existance,diffucult for you to understand what I am trying to explain.

I belief my GOD ,Allah is the All knowing Supreme Creator.His Command,when He intendeds a thing,is only that He say to it,"Be- and it is"

"He create man(Adam) from sounding clay like the clay of pottery.He create everytjing in pairs(Man,animal,trees,fruits,).He manages and regulated every affair from heaven to the earth...

Steve.If you are prepare to free your thinking and read Muslim Holy book Quran,you will find a lot of amazing thing which make you wondering Who you are,a small creature,create by \Al mighty GOd with a purpose.You have to find out what are the purposes.This will lead you to a journey to find our what is life all about.

I hope this will answer some of your coriousty.

Gerhard,
Well, I guess we will have to agree to disagree.

Your logic is quite illogical. 100 million years is 10,000 TIMES older, than a 10,000 year old mammoth. I understand, your mind is made up. So, I will leave it at that.

Negative entropy? OK then, I guess that settles it. (lol)

Anyway, I won't bother you anymore. Hank never did ask me not to post, but it seems that negative entropy is at work here. Unless if you ask for a response, I will leave you to commiserate with those who agree with you, and good ol' John, (not helping much in the logic dept.).

Tom

Gerhard Adam's picture
Obviously you won't look anything up.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negentropy

Hank,

One last note. I apologize for assuming you were an atheist. That was my error. I believe you had mentioned that before. I should have been more careful.

The point was that we all come to the table with some preconceived ideas. No one except perhaps a newborn come to the table with no viewpoint at all. Science does not preclude belief.

Tom

LauraHult's picture
Tom, I see that you have ignored my post.  Ah well, closed minds and all that...

Dear Jeff and steve.

Sorry for the mistake.I was so exciated about a viagra story that make an atheist into god beliving person ,I totally overlook the spelling of vigra.

Dear All scientists.

How do you explain when southern France suffer the worst flood in 50 years.

How do you explain Atlanta suffer the worst flood in history.

Jeff Sherry's picture
I'm not a scientist, but I'll hazard a guess on Atlanta. Gov. Perdue's capital prayer fest was so strong almost 2 years ago, that the prayers were answered with a vengeance...not much of a just in time delivery scenario...

What type of explanation are you expecting? Is it possible that global warming models are living up to variances of weather extremes? 

Hank's picture
More rain?

Gerhard Adam's picture
Sure, Hank... give away the answer :)

Gerhard Adam's picture
How do you explain when southern France suffer the worst flood in 50 years.

What's to explain?  Obviously if it's only the worst in 50 years, then longer ago there may have been worse floods.

Dear Jeff,hank and Gerhard.

Thank you for a short respond.If you are not a scientist then why you call your blog as scientific blogging.The bible call people like you the blind,deaf and dump who try to lead other to batter life.

Gerhard Adam's picture
It's pretty obvious that you didn't want an answer in the first place.  If the point was to setup your response for some biblical explanation, then you need to do better than that.  There's plenty of reasons why people choose to be willfully ignorant, however your entry is one of the more pathetic.

Jeff Sherry's picture

Anonymous, you sound like a baseball officianado.

Is it all the big inning and lead people to be better batters?
Hank had 2 excellent pieces on home runs and pitching that were great reads. 

Although I don't contribute to the knowledge base on Scientific blogging, I do enjoy reading the many articles from scientists and deep thinkers that do.  Part of being human is accumulating knowledge, why be afeared of getting factual knowledge?


When you die, what will you contribute to your deity if you meet him? 
Does your God want poorly educated people in his heaven?



Hank's picture
Anonymous, you sound like a baseball officianado. 
Is it all the big inning and lead people to be better batters?

He's not wrong, if that's so, because God was also a baseball fan.   Have you never read the Book of Genesis?    It starts 

"In the big inning ... "

Gerhard Adam's picture
So THAT's what they mean by the trinity.  Three strikes and you're out.

Dear Jeff,Hank,Gerhard.

After reading all your comment in the scientific blogging,sometime I just wonder what are the purpose of your life.Are you just live to eat ,sleep and play with your dog etc etc.Dont you feel that your live was so hollow and empty.Dont you ever sit down alone in the middle of the night try to think rationally why in the first place GOd craeted me.Look at the sky above you.Look at the moon,the blinking star something I just wonder why I was craeted in this wonderful world,full of glory,happiness and misforutne.

Add a comment

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
  • Allowed HTML tags: <sup> <sub> <a> <em> <strong> <center> <cite> <code> <TH><ul> <ol> <li> <dl> <dt> <dd> <img> <br> <p> <blockquote> <strike> <object> <param> <embed> <del> <pre> <b> <i> <table> <tbody> <div> <tr> <td> <h1> <h2> <h3> <h4> <h5> <h6> <hr> <iframe>
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
CAPTCHA
If you register, you will never be bothered to prove you are human again. And you get a real editor toolbar to use instead of this HTML thing that wards off spam bots.