Willful Ignorance of Evolution?

[_marg]

Kevin you might find Jared Diamond's book "The Third Chimpanzee" interesting.

I'll take out some quotes from his book (2006).

p2) Molecular genetic studies over the last half-dozen years have shown that we continue to share over 98% of our genetic program with the other 2 chimps. The overall genetic distance between us and chimps is even smaller that the distance between such closely related bird species as red-eyed and white-eyed vireos.

p2) The few bits of new baggage we acquired - the 2 percent difference between our genes and those of chimps - must have been responsible for all of our seemingly unique properties. We underwent some small changes with big consequences rather quickly and recently in our evolutionary history.

p11) One basic question concerns just how extensive the genetic differences between us and chimps are. That is, do our genes differ by 10, 50 or 99 percent from chimpanzee genes? Merely eyeballing humans and chimps or counting up visible traits wouldn't be any help, because many genetic changes have no visible effects at all, while other changes have sweeping effects. For example, the visible differences between breeds od dogs usch as Great Danes and Pekinese are far greater than those between chimps and us. Yet all dog breeds are interfertile, breed with each other (insorfar as it's mechanically feasible) when given the opportunity, and belong to the same species. To a naïve observer, a glance at Great Danes and Pekinese would have suggested them to be genetically much further apare than chimps are from humans. Those visible differences among dog breeds in size, proportions and hair colr depend on relatively few genes, which have negligible consequences for reproductive biology.

p 12) We'll see that gene differences between us and chimps, although large compared to those among living human pupulations or among breeds of dogs, are still small compared to differences amoung many other familiar pairs of related species. Evidently, changes in only a small percentage of the chimpanzee genetic program had enormous consequences for our behavior.

p 55) It's easy to appreciate how a tiny change in anatomy resulting in capacity for speech would produce a huge change in behavior. With language it takes only a few seconds to communite the messge, "Turn sharp right at the fourth tree and drive the male antelope towards the reddish boulder, where I'll spear it. " Without language, that message could not be communicated at all. Without language, two proto humans could not brainstorm together about how to devise a better tool, or about what a cave painting might mean. Without language even one protohuman would have had difficulty thinking for himself or herself how to devise a better tool.

[_dartagnan]

beastie,

dart's statement in context:

Great beastie, you're doing exactly what marg tried doing in celestial two months ago. You jumped to a conclusion before asking for clarification, and instead of just saying "OK I misread your intentions," (which marg eventually had the integrity to do) you feel the need to recreate what was said to justify a continued misreading.

Yes, you haven't bothered discussing anything of substance in this discussion so I have for the most part ignored you. You're here to derail, nothing more. I already knew that. And now you want to insinuate that I am lying because that is simply the way it has to be.

Sure, dart, sure, you were just talking about the posters on this thread...even as several posters were already making the attempt to give you such an explanation.

Nobody has explained it yet. Do you even know what its is I asked to be explained? Probably not. When I made this statement I was referring to everything I have read over the years on forums. Even Tarski and Trevor like to prop up Genesis as a ridiculous alternative as a way to make their own view sound more plausible. They do this all the flippin time. This is why Dawkins' arguments are weak. He spends just as much time attacking the weakest religious arguments as he does presenting science.

The fact is one can believe in God while accepting evolution and without accepting Genesis as history or accepting God as an anthropomorphic being.

You're trying to rewrite history right on this thread.

No, I simply refuse to abide by your misreading simply because you'd rather not admit the possibility that you are beating a straw man.

You're clearly talking about your "understanding" of evolution.

Only a particular step in the process of evolution; one that has not been sufficiently explained.
If I asked why global warming is taking place, and someone answered, "because it is getting hotter," would you consider that an "explanation"?

Again, this will be the second or third time I have mentioned the fact that Dude said my question needed to be answered by studying Neoteny. Others agreed. So since you think Dawkins has explained this, then please show me which page in Richard Dawkins' "Selfish Gene" this neoteny is explained. While you are at it, please show me which page in Richard Dawkins' "The Blind Watchmaker" this process is explained. And please show me which page in Richard Dawkins' "The God Delusion" this process is explained.

The Dude is the only person who has even tried really. He said,

The key idea here is that as evironmental and social conditions selected for bigger human brains, which require more time to develop and mature, there was an inevitable co-selection for the juvenile physical characteristics you mentioned.

This sounds like the same "explanation" offered by EA when he brought up "ecological pressures." But none of this has been proved has it? Since evolution is taken for granted and talked about as ascinetific fact through and through, I suspected some scientific evidence for my questions using the scientific method would be in order.

Guess not.

None of this can be tested using the scientific method. If bigger brains means higher intelligence, then elephants must be proving advanced theorems in their heads. If leaving a jungled habitat results in a gradual loss of hair because of more exposure to the sun, then why hasn't that changed the lions? Yes, I have asked these questions before, and no, nobody has answered. Don't pretend they have (you too Moniker). It is as if you want no discussion at all really. You just want me to accept it because you say so, and if I don't like it, well, you got all sorts of rhetorical gizmos and polemical traps up your sleeves - calling me names, insulting my intelligence, gang banging me from all corners, accusing me of dishonesty, etc. The same stuff we find at MADB when someone questions a given doctrine.

That "understanding" includes "nobody has actually explained it."

You're dissecting my phrases to create the picture you want. But it isn't going to happen, not on my watch. Here is the context of this phrase, which you have already provided, yet ignored a third time for convenience:

How does it explain why species X forked at some point in time and one group dropped 90% of its body hair, became physically weaker yet intellectually stronger, whereas the rest became some other variant of primate? What plausible scenario explains how this sort of adaptation took place? I know it is simply taken for granted that it must have happened, but nobody has actually explained it, other than to say that is how it must have happened since the alternative (Genesis) is just a myth.

Again, there has been a hypothetical proposed, but that isn't really an explanation at all. It just appears to be ad hoc in order to fill in a hole. Science cannot tell us exactly how man came to be different from modern apes; we just have to speculate and take it on faith. But you cannot bring yourselves to admit that because it just sounds too religious doesn't it? I noticed none of you have touched the scientific method with a ten foot pole, ever since I brought it up.

by the way, it's not kosher to pull so many citations from one web article without citing it.

You guys can make a big deal of it if you wish, but I know none of you really believe I was trying to pull something clever or dishonest here. We've all demonstrated the ability and willingness to cross reference given citations with online articles. It takes all of two seconds, and I knew perfectly well that is what you would have done for the purposes of complaining about the messenger instead of dealing with the point I was making. You tried to make it out to be worse by suggesting I got them from numerous "praise Jesus" websites, none of which were written by scholars. I got it from a single article written by a credentialed scholar, and I find it hard to believe you didn't realize that upon your first googling attempt.

And yeah, you're right, my plot all along was to derail this thread because, deep down, I "know" evolution is full of baloney

I never said that, but since when are you interested in what I actually say? And I never said evolution was baloney, again, as I have indicated several times that I am actually leaning towards it. None of this registers with you for some reason.
I simply believe there are holes in evolution theory that don't satisfy critical minds like my own. You are trying to fill in the holes with the silly putty of ad hominem and red herrings.

I'm deathly afraid that dart, with all his education on the matter and apolgeticspress at his fingertips, will expose it for the sham it is. Then I'll have to give up my "religion".

Ah, so you lay your cards on the table finally. This is personal for you. Sorry, it isn't for me. I know most of you don't understand the intricate details of evolution theory, you just accept it on faith because that is the consensus. The way you guys react to questions is so telling.

EA,

You deserve to be called out for your firsthand or secondhand dishonesty or incompetence.

How the hell is it "incompetence" for citing comments that prove a point that not all scholars agree with evolution and further proving that it isn't "daft" by default, to remain skeptical? My point still stands whether the details in these comments were scientific or not. My point still stands whether you like it or not. Not, apparently, or else you wouldn't be lowering yourself to this kind of rhetorical strategy.

The purpose of my comments in this thread was also experimental. I truly wanted to know if anyone here could offer something more scientific than the usual "we came out of the forrests and the apes stayed" hypothetical. But I also wanted to get the reactions of the evolution fanatics when presented with simple questions. The reactions proved the Stein movie is not at all hyperbolic in its representation of the general atheist attitude. Yes, I already know there is no scientific proof for the scenario you think "explains" the divergences in human/ape evolution. Since you guys have been stumbling over yourselves in frustration trying to avoid admitting this simple fact, I'll just got ahead and say what you already know.

Now, if you guys want to discuss why I believe a God exists, then we can do that too.

[_Sethbag]

Why do you believe a God exists?

[_marg]

beastie,

dart's statement in context:

Great beastie, you're doing exactly what marg tried doing in celestial two months ago. You jumped to a conclusion before asking for clarification, and instead of just saying "OK I misread your intentions," (which marg eventually had the integrity to do) you feel the need to recreate what was said to justify a continued misreading.

What on earth are you yaking about? I'm sorry to interject but if you didn't mention my name in a derogatory manner I wouldn't be motivated to say anything. Seriously what are you yaking about?

Look Dart have the integrity to not bring up previous threads and posts, unless you are going to or willing to quote and explain. Ok?

[_EAllusion]

Sweet. I thought you abandoned this thread, so I left your quote-mining alone.

You deserve to be called out for your firsthand or secondhand dishonesty or incompetence.

How the hell is it "incompetence" for citing comments that prove a point that not all scholars agree with evolution and further proving that it isn't "daft" by default, to remain skeptical? My point still stands whether the details in these comments were scientific or not. My point still stands whether you like it or not. Not, apparently, or else you wouldn't be lowering yourself to this kind of rhetorical strategy.

Only you produced out of context quotes to argue points they do not support. You quoted Orgel to argue he thinks "belief that life could have originated by complex chemical reactions" is "nothing more than wishful thinking."First, this isn't about evolutionary theory; it's about abiogenesis. Second, Orgel was arguing precisely the opposite of your representation. This is either a function of incompetance or dishonesty Kevin. Hence my comment. We all know you are just passing this on second-hand, but I like to leave open the possibility that you actually read the papers being quoted even though its painfully obvious you have not.

[_dartagnan]

Only you produced out of context quotes to argue points they do not support.

That is where you are wrong. I didn't "argue" for those points whatsoever and I only provided the context needed to prove my point, which you continue to dodge. I even said that if they are wrong, then so be it. But apparently you didn't like that; it wasn't pugnacious enough for your taste. You prefer to use this for whatever rhetorical advantage you think you can milk it for, by insisting I am incompetent or dishonest, neither of which logically follow.

It really is beside the point whether these men were wrong in the citations. I provided those citations to make the point that (for the fourth time now!) there are credentialed scientists out there who must be equally "daft" for questioning certain aspects of evolution theory. Try seeing this from my perspective:

Schmo: You question X because you are daft!

Dart: Dr. Blow must be daft too, because he questioned X when he said, "X is problematic because ABC = 123."

EA: You are either an idiot or a liar dart, because ABC doesn't = 123, which was proved in journal Z written in 1964! Did you read that dart? Didn't think so!

Dart: Maybe it doesn't = 123, but my point is there are those who question X who are clearly qualified to do so.

EA: You're still incompetent or dishonest.

Dart: Whatever you need to believe to help you get through this.

Now if you want to pull a beastie and attribute to me intentions that never were, then at least do us the kindness of coming to grips with the statement I made immediately following these quotations:

"So it is silly to say anyone who suggests there are problems, is daft. There are plenty of highly intelligent and well qualified people who believe there are problems with evolution theory. "

THAT WAS MY POINT. I wasn't subtle or cryptic about it. I made it perfectly obvious.

This is what I actually said. I didn't offer any commentary "arguing" for the points presented by those I quoted. This should have proved what my point really was, but I guess I underestimated the straw man tendency here.

Really EA, you haven't even addressed the fact that the scientific method has been abandoned by evolution fanatics. I've thrown you a line but you refuse to bite. You're still trying to score easy points by focusing on the "quote mining," which was something in response to a pithy comment by schmo. It wasn't aimed for you or tarski or silenkid or anyone else who has actually tried to engage the discussion with substance. It was to show schmo that this is not going to boil down to a matter of super inteligent evolutionists vs. science hating morons. This is how McGrath said Dawkins liked to always portray the situation whenever anyone dares question any given aspect o evolution theory.

I had to take leave from message boards because of work. I wasn't abandoning this thread. I'm still busy this week so it will probably be the end of the week before I start another thread answering Sethbag's question regarding reasons to believe in the existence of a God.

[_The Dude]

Again, this will be the second or third time I have mentioned the fact that Dude said my question needed to be answered by studying Neoteny. Others agreed. So since you think Dawkins has explained this, then please show me which page in Richard Dawkins' "Selfish Gene" this neoteny is explained. While you are at it, please show me which page in Richard Dawkins' "The Blind Watchmaker" this process is explained. And please show me which page in Richard Dawkins' "The God Delusion" this process is explained.

The Dude is the only person who has even tried really. He said,

The key idea here is that as evironmental and social conditions selected for bigger human brains, which require more time to develop and mature, there was an inevitable co-selection for the juvenile physical characteristics you mentioned.

This sounds like the same "explanation" offered by EA when he brought up "ecological pressures." But none of this has been proved has it? Since evolution is taken for granted and talked about as ascinetific fact through and through, I suspected some scientific evidence for my questions using the scientific method would be in order.

Guess not.

Kevin, you asked for: "a plausible explanation" for why humans lost ape-like features. Neoteny is certainly a plausible mechanism, and best of all, it unites all the feature changes you asked about with a single concept: change in the timing of development. That could be the result of changing the regulation of one or two genes! In terms of parsimony, this is a whole a lot better than piecemeal environmental pressures selecting each feature independently.

No, there isn't scientific proof that neoteny explains the changes you asked about, but you already knew there wasn't proof on this matter when you asked for "a plausible explanation". Riiight? You are moving the goal posts.

Is there an alternative explanation? If not evolution and plausibly neoteny, then what is your answer? Note: I am not asking for proof of any kind, just "a plausible explanation" like neoteny but different somehow. Use your imagination if necessary.

I don't recall Dawkins saying much about neoteny but Stephen Jay Gould did in his book "Ontogeny and Phylogeny". For example, these excerpts:

Humans and chimps are almost identical in structural genes, yet differ markedly in form and behavior. This paradox can be resolved by invoking a small genetic difference with profound effects---alterations in the regulatory system that slow down the general rate of development in humans. Heterochronic changes are regulatory changes; they require only an alteration in the timing of features already present. If the frequency of heterochronic change were known, it would provide a good estimate for the importance of regulation as an evolutionary agent (Gould, S.J. (1977) Ontegeny and Phylogeny. Cambridge: Belknap Press. p. 9)

To support the argument that we evolved by retaining juvenile features of our ancestors, Bolk provided lists of similarities between adult humans and juvenile apes: "Our essential somatic properties, i.e. those which distinguish the human body form from that of other Primates, have all one feature in common, viz they are fetal conditions that have become permanent. What is a transitional stage in the ontogensis of other Primates has become a terminal stage in man" (1926a, p. 468). In his most extensive work Bolk (1926c, p. 6) provided an abbreviated list in the following order:
1. Our "flat faced" orthognathy (a phenomenon of complex cause related both to facial reduction and to the retention of juvenile flexure, reflected, for example, in the failure of the sphenoethmoidal angle to open out during ontogeny).
2. Reduction of lack of body hair.
3. Loss of pigmentation in skin, eyes, and hair (Bolk argues that black peoples are born with relatively light skin, while ancestral primates are as dark at birth as ever).
4. The form of the external ear.
5. The epicanthic (or Mongolian) eyefold.
6. The central position of the foramen magnum (it migrates backward during the ontogeny of primates).
7. High relative brain weight.
8. Persistence of the cranial sutures to an advanced age.
9. The labia majora of women.
10. The structure of the hand and foot.
11. The form of the pelvis.
12. The ventrally directed position of the sexual canal in women.
13. Certain variations of the tooth row and cranial sutures.
To this basic list, Bolk added many additional features; other compendia are presented by Montagu (1962), de Beer (1948, 1958), and Keith (1949). The following items follow Montagu's order (pp. 326-327) with some deletions and additions:
14. Absence of brow ridges.
15. Absence of cranial crests.
16. Thinness of skull bones.
17. Position of orbits under cranial cavity.
18. Brachycephaly.
19. Small teeth.
20. Late eruption of teeth.
21. No rotation of the big toe.
22. Prolonged period of infantile dependency.
23. Prolonged period of growth.
24. Long life span.
25. Large body size (related by Bolk, 1926c, p. 39, to retardation of ossification and retention of fetal growth rates).

These lists from Bolk and Montagu display the extreme variation in type and importance of the basic data presented by leading supporters of human neoteny. (Gould, S.J. (1977) Ontogeny and Phylogeny, Cambridge: Belknap Press. p. 357)

Neoteny is an old idea. Gould is just one place to start, in case you are seriously interested in this concept (a slim, but definite, possibility).

[_beastie]

That is where you are wrong. I didn't "argue" for those points whatsoever and I only provided the context needed to prove my point, which you continue to dodge. I even said that if they are wrong, then so be it. But apparently you didn't like that; it wasn't pugnacious enough for your taste. You prefer to use this for whatever rhetorical advantage you think you can milk it for, by insisting I am incompetent or dishonest, neither of which logically follow.

It really is beside the point whether these men were wrong in the citations. I provided those citations to make the point that (for the fourth time now!) there are credentialed scientists out there who must be equally "daft" for questioning certain aspects of evolution theory. Try seeing this from my perspective:

Kevin,

EA's point is that the scientists you cited in your second hand quote-mining do NOT question certain aspect of evolution theory as you are suggesting.

[_Chap]

MODS:

A dialog between dartagnan and the Dude in which the latter tries to educate the former in the biological technicalities of evolution no doubt has a certain curiosity value (and of course The Dude's posts are always interesting to read).

But apart from the fact that the two participants are both exmormons, it seems to have nothing whatsoever to do with Mormonism. Dartagnan makes no criticisms of evolutionary theory from an LDS point of view, and of course the Dude says nothing at all about LDS matters.

Shouldn't any continuation of this thread go into the off-topic forum?

Similarly, if we are to debate why dartagnan believes in a deity, I submit that past experience of his very lengthy postings on this topic shows that it has just about no relevance to LDS matters, apart from the fact that LDS believe in a deity of sorts too. But so do Jehovah's witnesses and neopagans. Unless there is to be an LDS link that is other than purely biographical in relation to the main poster, I submit that this is off-topic too.

[_beastie]

Kevin,

I'm not going to reargue most of these points with you. I feel I have adequately demonstrated, by your own words, that you were making sweeping generalizations about a topic you are apparently ill-informed to make.

But I do have to respond to one thing:

I said:

I'm deathly afraid that dart, with all his education on the matter and apolgeticspress at his fingertips, will expose it for the sham it is. Then I'll have to give up my "religion".

dart replied:

Ah, so you lay your cards on the table finally. This is personal for you. Sorry, it isn't for me. I know most of you don't understand the intricate details of evolution theory, you just accept it on faith because that is the consensus. The way you guys react to questions is so telling.

LOL! Are you really this humor-impaired? My statement was made tongue-in-cheek, and was simply a way of teasing you for your silliness on this thread, wherein you repeatedly assert, as you have here, that belief in evolution constitutes some sort of "religion".

But I don't mind that you didn't get it, because I always enjoy when believers try to be dismissive of science by dressing it up as a religion, at the same time they try to bestow credibility on religious claims by dressing them up as science. I enjoy it because believers are actually telling us who "won" the argument (science or religion) without even realizing they have done so.