Yeah, I didn't mean trust in their accuracy as much in their follow through. The trust you thought i meant is more on par with religious dogma and faith. I trust hawking.to follow up on his theories and not just say "I said so it is so".

Gotcha Draug.

The process of evolution is a fact in the same way that objects fall to the earth is a fact. The theory of why and how can be debated but not the actual process. Selective breeding produces radical changes in animals. The natural environment provides selection. These are facts that can't be disputed. Even the (slightly) more intelligent creationists don't argue against evolution but prefer to talk about micro vs. macro evolution. In short, while some might debate the theory - whether or not God guides evolution and maybe even whether or not humans are the product of evolution - the process of evolution is an established fact.

Somebody is going to have to explain microbial resistance to anti-biotics if evolution via natural selection is just a wild guess. I guess the whole practice of medicine is just a wild guess.

I have heard of peppered moths and think evolution is the best explanation for that (and many other things observable in nature). However, I have nagging doubts about whether 1.5 billion years is long enough to account for the trillions and trillions of genetic changes that have occurred from the first multicellular organisms to life as we know it today in all its complexity.

Is this a reasonable doubt, or am I completely crazy as far as Respectable Scientific Orthodoxy is concerned?

@SunZi - "Selective breeding produces radical changes in animals." Selective breeding produces different *breeds* of animals, but has yet to produce a different *species* of animal. If they're genetically close enough that they can reproduce then they're the same species.

You have to be careful with that definition though - there's a species of Gull that is found all over the western seaboard of Europe, Iceland and down the Eastern seaboard of the United States. Occasionally a storm will carry a bird from the US to Iceland or from Iceland to Europe and that bird will be able to breed successfully with the local population. However, if a bird is carried across the Atlantic from the US directly to Europe it wont be able to breed with the European birds because it's genes are too different. There is too much genetic drift between the different groups because there isn't enough exchange of genetic material. This is due to the US<-->Iceland<-->Europe gaps.

Oh, and when I was at school in the UK <mumble> years ago we weren't taught creationism in science classes, but we did have RE (Religious Education) classes too.

Even though it was a state school, morning Assembly was treated as a Christian event - none Christian kids had to stand outside the main hall and not take part.

You crazy Brits and your no first amendment. :-)

On the teaching of biology -

On the Black Peppered Moth:
The most famous example is the increase in the black form of the wings in the peppered moth that has occurred in England since the mid-nineteenth century. The explanation offered and repeatedly appearing in textbooks (although since called into question because of faulty methodology) was that the moths rested on tree trunks where they were at risk of being eaten by birds. Before the spread of heavy industry the tree trunks were covered with lichens whose speckled appearance was matched closely by the “peppered” appearance of the moth’s wings, so the camouflaged moths were only occasionally attacked. With the air pollution caused by heavy industry, the lichens were killed, so the moths were easily visible on the naked dark bark and were heavily preyed upon. A mutation to black wings appeared and was strongly favored by natural selection since the black-winged forms were now once again camouflaged.

There is little doubt that this example, widely taught in lectures and textbooks, had a powerful influence in convincing evolutionary biologists who came into the field from their prior interest in natural history that one could tell the causal story of natural selection. One unfortunate feature of this case is that the caterpillars of the dark-winged forms also have a slightly higher survival rate than those of the speckled-wing form, even though they are not black, so something more is going on, but this fact is not part of the curriculum.
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2010/may/27/not-so-natural-selection/?pagination=false

And then of course there are Hekel's drawings

Oh for christ's sake. Yes, Black peppered moths and Hekel's drawings are the only evidence ever presented for evolution ever. *sarcasm* It's not like there's mounds and mounds of evidence elsewhere for evolution. No you've wheeled out these two rusty evolution "hoaxes" (which are less suspect than you make them sound) and even though evolutionary theory has survived them in the past, this time you mentioning them totally dismantles it forever.
Ugh. Seriously fulhamish. Get with the fucking program.

'Furthermore, creationism is not allowed to be presented as an 'alternative' to evolution in a science class.' - why would it be? Science class should be about teaching science, no? This makes perfect sense...

'Oh no, you hear all about how religion acts as friction against our progress. But that's in History, English, and Law related courses. Science just sticks to the facts, just like it should.'

Yeah, my expierence of the history of science was that it is almost entirely fabricated, they makr up a very simple narrative to bring the student on a journey of understanding; that lies about how the original scientists came to some conclusion so you can see the logic of the conclusion yourself... I think that is an interesting teaching method, mostly because i can't see it being usefull elsewhere...

"Selective breeding produces radical changes in animals. The natural environment provides selection. These are facts that can't be disputed." - that is natural selection, but sexual selection provides HUGE selection pressure - natural selection would not explain peacock tail feathers or duck penises. There is a lot more going on.

Then you get competetive pressure between predator and prey... Which is probably a specific form of natural selection but including an evolving environment... Basically it's not as simple as you may have been lead to believe (though simple is a great place to start)

"However, I have nagging doubts about whether 1.5 billion years is long enough to account for the trillions and trillions of genetic changes..."

That's an interesting one, i would point out that recent advances in our undersanding of genetics have drastically changed reasonable answers to this question.

There is a toolbox of genes which control development (shape and where to put things) which lead to an experiment where they added genes from a mouse to the back legs of a fly embryo, to get the fly to grow an extra eye... And what did this do? It activated the mechanism in the fly for eye production (which produces fly eyes not mouse eyes)

Very cool stuff on networks and how relatively minor genetic changes can lead to dramatically different animals.

Differing dog breeds have been shown to have genetic differences relating to a gene for insulin-like growth factor - not surprisingly big dogs and small dogs are genetically similar... And the difference between 'breed' and 'species' is one of varying shades of grey not black&white... Some dog breeds find it physically impossible to breed with each other (due to size differences), and thus by some definitions are different species, yet artificial insemination may still be used to produce offspring. Or instead of just size there may be sexual selection going on, where the female dog chooses to mate only with big strong dogs rather than stupid toy dogs... (but with humans involved we really can't do the same analysis one might expect from 'nature')

"In fact, if anything, there are no "facts" in science."

And i would agree with you if we were having this conversation in a scientific context - but the use of the words 'fact', 'theory' in english holds a different meaning to the use of the words 'theory', 'hypothesis' in a scientific context...

Lots of science literacy is hindered by the complexity of the use of language combined with a lack of focus on comprehension or reading scientific literature...

Lot's of people had text books at school with the black peppered moth story and Hekels drawings given as a promonant irrefutable proof of evolution, I know I did and I guess others might have to.

It turns out that both ''had their problems''. Now do we just ignore this and say heck the theorey stands anyway, or do we investigate the issues and use this to understand the theory better, be that in a supportive way or otherwise? The former is the approach of the consrvative with a small ''c'' idealogue with an investment in the belief system of evolutionism, while the latter is that of someone striving for the truth. Call the latter person a skeptic or a contrarian, it matters not, for he is the guy doing and attempting to understand the science.

I'll ignore the fact that this thread digressed from my original intention, but I'm hardly surprised. This discussion is better anyway.

I think its worth noting that we see evolution happening on a daily basis. Bacteria and viruses are constantly evolving to deal with the massive doses of antibiotics and vaccinations thrown at them during each cold and flu season. The flu virus, in particular, is especially adept at evolving, taking new and more potent forms each year; hence, the need for a flu vaccine each winter to fight these newly evolved strains.

I never mentioned competition between disease and the immune system as an evolutionary pressure... Like the hunter-prey dynamic, HIV is a nice virus which tries to avoid killing it's host, but it also tries to avoid being killed by our immune system, which leaves humans immuno-suppressed. (except the tiny fraction of people who develop resistance) black death in europe left some genetic marks on the population aswell...

The micro vs macro are nuts; apparently the first 'land-lizards' walked more like modern-day seals than modern-day lizzards. (recent study shows) which is another mistake in a lot of texts... But 'intermediary forms' are something you would expect to see by looking around - the are between their ancestors and their descendants - so long as the environment hasn't changed too much...

Mud-fish which flop around on soggy land (as an intermediary between dry land and the sea) must be something like that...

And i'm pretty sure dolphins/whales have bone structures more similar to mammals than to fish (even though externally the look a good bit like fish)... What was the original point?

"Lot's of people had text books at school with the black peppered moth story and Hekels drawings given as a promonant irrefutable proof of evolution, I know I did and I guess others might have to."

No. The moth story was given as an example of how natural selection occurs. As it turns out it might not have been the best example, but that's all it was, an illustration. It was never irrefutable proof of natural selection.
fullhamish, all you are doing is attacking the example, and not the guts of the argument. If you want to convince peope that natural selection is wrong, you need to find away to undermine its general principles. Otherwise it just sounds like you are personally incredulous but with no particular reason.

@ spyman let me state clearly that natural selection by inheritance is by far the best explantion we have to explain the diversity of life on Earth. Of course that says absolutely nothing about the possibility, or otherwise, of the divine hand in the matter (see Francis Collins).
However -
1) The extension of the hypothesis into all sorts of other areas (economics, sociology, eugenics, psychology, memes etc.) is often very problematical and certainly usually non-falsfiable. It always ignores the rate limiting step, which is the actual genetic mutatuion giving rise to the adaptation (call this reductionism if you choose). It is this I describe as evolutionism
2) By bringing to the fore issues such as the black peppered moth and the Hekel drawings we understand the theory better. Let's state it loud and clear Hekel was a fraud and the human embryo does not go through a selection of the ''lower'' species on its developmental journey. This is what my generation were taught and it is wrong.

Now if you perceive everything I say as an attack on your belief system then its up to you. I prefer to call it skeptism or, if you insist, contrarian. It is the product of thinking about the subject rather than seizing on the paradigm as an alternative all embracing belief system

So you agree with natural selection now? I thought you favoured intelligent design.
I don't really understand the point you are making about the moths then. What does it have to do with natural selection being used to explain economics (and other fields).
It's fine with me if you are a skeptic, but I don't really have a clear sense of what you are saying. I thought I did, but I am confused now.

@Tolstoy - It is in fact 3.8b years. In addition, a bacterium can split every 20 minutes, allowing 2^26280 bacteria from the original (117 followed by 7909 zeroes).

Lot's of people had text books at school with the black peppered moth story and Hekels drawings given as a promonant irrefutable proof of evolution, I know I did and I guess others might have to. - So what? Seriously, why does this matter even remotely? If these were like, a major cornerstone of evolutionary theory you might have a point, but the fact is, this is like minor trivia at best. You're making such a big deal out of these things because it supports your preconceived point of view. Let's say I concede the point about these two things and assume they were completely made up and total lies without even the tiniest bit of validity. Let's move on from them, you've won your point, no one will ever mention peppered moths and Hekel ever again. Now, why don't you try engaging with the rest of the entire body of evolutionary theory. There's a lot of it, so I'll wait.

Oh, you're a skeptic eh? Just asking questions, not trying to promote any point of view huh? Just examining the subject, you don't have a horse in this race to back, nope totally neutral outlook. Bullshit.

@ spyman I can do no better than repeat what I have already written. Please reread the post in its entirity.

@Mafia I do not believe I have been rude to you. It is a pity that you feel the need to be rude to me. Maybe your emotions get the better of you?

A bit like all those molecules whizzing this way and that in your water droplet banging into one another and not getting anywhere. :-)

'the actual genetic mutatuion giving rise to the adaptation (call this reductionism if you choose). '

interestingly there is more than JUST genetic mutations at work.

There was a famine in holland (or denmark, i can't recall which) in 1944, largely due to the war and Nazi occupation. Fetuses who were in their second/third trimester that winter are far more likely to suffer from diabetes.

An epi-genectic factor set during development, caused by a lack of nutrients in their environment (the womb of women living through the famine) sets them to store up sugars in fat cells in the body at every opportunity and use less when possible. This tends to produce susceptibility to diabetes.

Just to point out, our genes can code for many different behaviours (in this case behaviour at a cellular level) and it's not just as simple as genetic changes.

Some epi-genetic factors can be passed down from mother to child. (but likely not father) which others depend on developmental environment...

'Let's state it loud and clear Hekel was a fraud and the human embryo does not go through a selection of the ''lower'' species on its developmental journey.'

equally, there are atavistic traits present in embryos, like chickens with teeth - which don't develop into teeth. Mostly because there is some gene which still starts the development of teeth, and later in development another gene switch it off. (and some people want to turn chickens into dinosaurs... http://blog.ted.com/2011/06/07/building-a-dinosaur-from-a-chicken-jack-horner-on-ted/
oh and see: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9sjwlxQ_6LI )

so while some things weren't 100% correct, and some scientists even perpetuated fraud, there is still some very interesting stuff which is true and interesting...

Epi-genetics is like a modern version of Larmarkism with a chemcial basis.
Heckel may have been a fraud who made up drawings to support his theory (which i've heard recently) but there was some basis for him to have the theory to begin with...

The question can still be raised, why do chickens have genes to produce teeth if they didn't evolve from dinosaurs???

Some intriguing research in epigenetics in19th century Swedish men found that men who endured famine in their lifetime had grandchildren (not children) who had statistically significantly lower rates of cardiovascular disease. The research also fond that Swedish men who had grown up during periods of food surplus had grandchildren with higher rates of diabetes. These transgenerational adaptations were passed along without detectable changes in the DNA.

@ fulhamish - I'm so tired of your "I'm going to debate in a misleading, dishonest way, completely ignoring the points my opponents make, but I'll stay polite" and then when other people get annoyed at my smugness, my sanctimoniousness and my just straight up dishonesty, I'll accuse them of being emotional, crap. You're being very annoying, and very obtuse, and not actually responding to any of the points brought against you. And it's not like you only do that in this debate. You do this all the time. Being polite doesn't mean you aren't being frustrating or annoying or that other people are unjustified in calling you out when you get up to your usual tricks.

@ mafia
I have got no intention of getting into a slanging match with you. You are not in the least interested in listening to what I have to say so why comment on it.
Just one thing I resent being called a liar. We might have a difference of opinion and you might think that you are right and I am wrong, but saying that I lie is a step too far.

@ful - Mafia didn't call you a liar. You are either unable to comprehend English or intentionally being obtuse. He said your * debatetechnique* was misleading and dishonest, not that you lied. Stealing isn't lying but both ar dishonest. Many things one can do are dishonest without being lying (or stealing or murder or garft or corruption or...) Your dishonesty is in avoiding the points made by others and trying to stear the discussion away form that which you cannot possibly defend so as to avoid trying to maintain an untennable position.

Try reading for content instead of skimming for buzzwords to use against a person next time.