Intelligent Design

[littlebabyjesus]

Yes, but it's a legitimate question to raise in the classroom.

Have any animals followed an evolutionary path which has led along the route of having progressively smaller brains than their predecessors, for example? iirc some species have indeed done so, but the common impression is that today's land animals are generally brainier than those of 200 million years ago.

A more esoteric example: some biologists have wondered out loud whether there has been a tendency for instances of eusociality (i.e. where there are sterile and reproducing 'castes' within a species) to increase in frequency, and whether in principle this might not continue in the future.

Will animals in 200 million years time be generally smarter than animals around today? Maybe not, but these are good questions for the classroom.

These are questions that children may well come up with and need answers, yes. And a teacher could very legitimately provoke the questions to ensure the students are understanding what they are being taught. This is very different from introducing an idea which is not a scientific theory at all.

 

[kyser_soze]

Yes, a little like probability, evolution is very poorly understood by too many people.

It's because of the human need to place a narrative around things - because it's of central importance to our psyches (the creation of a narrative to our lives I mean) it's often hard for peeps to make the leap that the rest of nature does not have to conform to this. Same with quantum physics and plate tectonics - scale and time being the problems with those.

 

[kyser_soze]

Yes, but it's a legitimate question to raise in the classroom.

Have any animals followed an evolutionary path which has led along the route of having progressively smaller brains than their predecessors, for example? iirc some species have indeed done so, but the common impression is that today's land animals are generally brainier than those of 200 million years ago.

A more esoteric example: some biologists have wondered out loud whether there has been a tendency for instances of eusociality (i.e. where there are sterile and reproducing 'castes' within a species) to increase in frequency, and whether in principle this might not continue in the future.

Will animals in 200 million years time be generally smarter than animals around today? Maybe not, but these are good questions for the classroom.

They are, but there's no need to involve ID or religion in the discussion.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

It's because of the human need to place a narrative around things - because it's of central importance to our psyches (the creation of a narrative to our lives I mean) it's often hard for peeps to make the leap that the rest of nature does not have to conform to this. Same with quantum physics and plate tectonics - scale and time being the problems with those.

Time is something we are very bad at understanding. The old cliche, do it for you children and your children's children, is revealing. We find it hard to conceptualise our children's children's children because we rarely live to see them. When we move into the idea of billions of years, and the change that can occur over millions of generations, we flounder.

 

[dash]

Who said anything about involving ID or religion? But they are of oblique relevance. Intelligent Design proponents would probably prefer children not to know the answers to such puzzles as why, say, elephant seals reproduce via a harem system, yet have roughly equal numbers of males and females. In fact, the ID'ers might prefer such puzzles not to be raised at all.

 

[Aldebaran]

Time is something we are very bad at understanding. The old cliche, do it for you children and your children's children, is revealing. We find it hard to conceptualise our children's children's children because we rarely live to see them. When we move into the idea of billions of years, and the change that can occur over millions of generations, we flounder.

Yes or no "living to see them" has no influence on such an ability (to conceptualise). You only need to use your knowlege of the present and some of your imagination.
On a longer term the main problem is the factor "unknown" and hence also of what this unknown can cause or provoke in terms of evolution of the Earth and all its species.
I think on a shorter term then "billions of years" some predictions can be suggested, going on what we see or know today.

I look forward to see " The Theory of the Jesus Horses" and "Dinosaurs on Noah's Arch" being explained in UK science classes.

salaam.

 

[Bernie Gunther]

Who said anything about involving ID or religion? But they are of oblique relevance. Intelligent Design proponents would probably prefer children not to know the answers to such puzzles as why, say, elephant seals reproduce via a harem system, yet have roughly equal numbers of males and females. In fact, the ID'ers might prefer such puzzles not to be raised at all.

Quite.

 

[guinnessdrinker]

Aye, and ID is really nowt but Creationism by the back door.

Only a month or so ago, there was a item on the news (Radio 4, I think) about a group of 'educators' who wanted to introduce Creationism into the teaching of science. I find it disturbing that we should be heading down the same road as the US in this regard.

were they anything to do with that guy that wanted to fund a city academy and hve creationism taught there?

anyway, Poland is going that way. the education minister is apparently a creationist (I got that from Nature, not from some dangerous lefties) and want it taught there. apparently his father, who agrees with him, holds a PhD in tree physiology I don't think he is publishing many papers these days. probably has alzheimer or something.

 

[Kripcat]

Dear God,
Thanks for intellgently designing my vestigal appendix. I'm so glad that while it is of absolutley no use to me, it's liable to get infected and require the intervention of medical science to prevent my death.

All the best

KBT

Am I the only one who imagined that being read aloud by Ringo Star?

 

[nino_savatte]

were they anything to do with that guy that wanted to fund a city academy and hve creationism taught there?

anyway, Poland is going that way. the education minister is apparently a creationist (I got that from Nature, not from some dangerous lefties) and want it taught there. apparently his father, who agrees with him, holds a PhD in tree physiology I don't think he is publishing many papers these days. probably has alzheimer or something.

Knowing this government, I think it is entirely possible that it's the same bloke. We're heading backwards, not forward. Whatever happened to this "Age of Aquarius"?

 

[Phenotypic Dai]

Hello. This is my first post here.

I've spent many a year drifting from board to board, fighting the good fight for logic, reason and the Darwinian way. A friend of mine highlighted that this thread had sprung up, so I've rushed over here hoping to catch a live creationist or ID'er. Unfortunately, you all seem quite well adjusted, so I'll just go post in the football forum for a while.

 

[nino_savatte]

Hello. This is my first post here.

I've spent many a year drifting from board to board, fighting the good fight for logic, reason and the Darwinian way. A friend of mine highlighted that this thread had sprung up, so I've rushed over here hoping to catch a live creationist or ID'er. Unfortunately, you all seem quite well adjusted, so I'll just go post in the football forum for a while.

The creationists and ID'ers are a little thin on the ground. They do pop up from time to time but I think most realise that they aren't going to win.

 

[Aldebaran]

Unfortunately, you all seem quite well adjusted, so I'll just go post in the football forum for a while.

It depends on what you mean, but in general I wouldn't say of myself that I am "well adjusted".

salaam.

 

[JHE]

Hello. This is my first post here.

I've spent many a year drifting from board to board, fighting the good fight for logic, reason and the Darwinian way. A friend of mine highlighted that this thread had sprung up, so I've rushed over here hoping to catch a live creationist or ID'er.

If you're really looking for a challenge, you could always try having a chat with the Fundy wazzocks at http://icmint.proboards66.com/index.cgi

 

[Bernie Gunther]

Sadly we haven't had a live one here for about two years that I've noticed ...

 

[118118]

Its all gone a bit 1984!

Talk about ideology and controlling the masses... I mean, being able to convince people that the earth is 6000 years old, is pretty scary implememntation of the ideological apparatus.

 

[ZWord]

Salman Rushdie, commenting on the Kansas Board of Education's decision to remove evolution from its school curriculm in favour of 'intelligent design':

This decision just doesn't make sense at all, and certainly suggests that where the Kansas board of Education is concerned, "intelligent design" really is just creationism by the back door.

As far as I can see, what makes sense is to teach the well-documented facts of evolution, and the evidence of the fossil record, and then to point out that there are various theories about why evolution occurred, the most simple of which is the standard darwinian account that it occurred by random accidents, and that in as far as it has directionality the directionality was driven by natural selection within changing environments.

I don't see any good reason other than dogmatism though, to insist that the standard darwinian account is the only theory that can explain the data. To do so seems to me like a simple case of exaggerating what is proved by the data. Philosophically, it seems obvious to me that all that is proved by the fossil record, is that life evolved. It can't prove why life evolved, because that's a different sort of question. The reason why the default position of scientists is the darwinian one is that science has an inbuilt bias towards excluding teleological or mentalist explanations. Nor does the fossil record tell you anything about the origin of DNA, nor can it show why the universe happens to be made out of the type of things that can turn into DNA.

There's a line of thought I came across recently, which I find quite interesting.
I think it's widely accepted that birds evolved from dinosaurs. This gives rise to the question,- why did the dinosaurs grow wings? Apparently there are fossil records of dinosaurs of intermediate size with wings that flap. But these dinosaurs were far too large to ever be able to fly. But nonetheless, for generations and generations they were busily evolving wings to birdlike proportions, and muscles to flap them despite them not having much obvious use. We can guess that the use they made of them was for display, - and that along with the wings there were feathers, which could be patterned into rich tapestries of colour. Perhaps the purpose of the display was to impress an intruder, or to attract a potential mate, - though from the point of view of effectively dealing with the intruders, I do think that a well muscled and clawed arm would be more effective than a flapping wing.

Let's say for the sake of argument then that the point of large flapping wings with feathers was as a mating display. This then gives rise to the question, but why should these particular dinosaurs find that they were most inclined to mate with dinosaurs with large flapping wings, - why did dinosaurs find large, useless flapping wings sexually attractive? And this is a bit of a mystery, - but then the nature of sexual attraction has always been a bit of a mystery, and yet clearly, it's a driving force in evolution, - look at the peacock -

I think possibly this set of questions might help answer other questions about the evolutionary purpose of conscious minds. If you don't in advance take the dogmatic position of excluding teleological or mentalist explanations- then it's possible to advance the theory that dinosaurs evolved wings because the universal consciousness wanted them to evolve into birds, and that the universal consciousness was able to influence their evolution, because the dinosaurs, having minds that partook of the universal consciousness started to find dinosaurs with beautifully coloured feathered wings, the larger the better, -more attractive than dinosaurs without.

This may sound bizarre, - and of course it's all speculation, - but does anyone have a better one for why dinosaurs should have evolved wings when there was no immediate survival benefit in the wings, other than that the wings evolved as a mating display and that those with better wings were favoured more than those with worse wings. And if you accept the mating display explanation, then, - why? Why were dinosaurs with good wings more attractive than those with less good wings. ?

 

[kyser_soze]

Its all gone a bit 1984!

Talk about ideology and controlling the masses... I mean, being able to convince people that the earth is 6000 years old, is pretty scary implememntation of the ideological apparatus.

Well since that basic idea has been around for about 3500 years and been in and out of fashion ever since hardly a huge leap to think that some people who follow that faith would continue to believe it is there?

 

[stdPikachu]

does anyone have a better one for why dinosaurs should have evolved wings when there was no immediate survival benefit in the wings

Tree-climbing theropods using proto-wings (i.e. little more than exta skin [there's a proper scientific term for that I must look up]) in order to extend the distance they can fall out of a tree? From then on it's a short step to gliding, and certain other evolutionary pressures (e.g. also having to use the proto-wings to lunge for prey) may have led to the development of the convoluted bone structures (e.g. wishbones) needed to produce winged flight.

Feathers are another story; however, it's known that they started off as merely a hollow extrusion from the skin - something of a cross between a hair and one of the hollow bones already present in the therapoda. It's possible they may have evolved due to some therapods being warm blooded, but we don't know for sure.

 

[118118]

Well since that basic idea has been around for about 3500 years and been in and out of fashion ever since hardly a huge leap to think that some people who follow that faith would continue to believe it is there?

It clearly is

 

[118118]

I mean the argument from design probably used to work. E.g.

 

[dash]

It can't prove why life evolved, because that's a different sort of question. [. . .] Nor does the fossil record tell you anything about the origin of DNA, nor can it show why the universe happens to be made out of the type of things that can turn into DNA.

Strictly speaking evolutionary biology is concerned with explaining the diversity of life rather than the plain existence of it. After all, Darwin wrote 'The Origin of Species', not 'The Origin of Life'.

The reason why the default position of scientists is the darwinian one is that science has an inbuilt bias towards excluding teleological or mentalist explanations.

They seem to have been doing okay working along those lines. Some very prominent evolutionary biologists in the early half of the 20th century sought to reconcile their religious beliefs with evolutionary science by positing teleological processes. R A Fisher, for example, was a committed Anglican who saw evolution as reducing entropy in the universe, in accordance with divine will. But this had no obvious reflection in the nuts-and-bolts of his theoretical and mathematical work.

This gives rise to the question,- why did the dinosaurs grow wings? Apparently there are fossil records of dinosaurs of intermediate size with wings that flap. But these dinosaurs were far too large to ever be able to fly.

Not much to add to what stdPikachu has said, other than that dinosaurs which evolved further into the gliding mode of making a living could no doubt be progressively able to avoid the aggravation existing at ground level. This means they can get away with lighter, frailer bodies, which in turn makes sustained powered flight more feasible. Several animals which are around today in a variety of vertebrate classes show there are niches still for those who can glide.

This may sound bizarre, - and of course it's all speculation, - but does anyone have a better one for why dinosaurs should have evolved wings when there was no immediate survival benefit in the wings, other than that the wings evolved as a mating display and that those with better wings were favoured more than those with worse wings.

Sexual selection for features by which potential mates advertise fitness was overlooked for some decades after Darwin originally proposed it, but has undergone a great revival in interest. There are different approaches in sexual selection theory, but broadly the two main ones propose the selection of costly 'handicapping' features (eg big antlers, possibly some forms of altruistic behaviour), and the selection of features which make the presence or absence of parasites more noticeable (eg brightly-coloured plumage or skin patches).

 

[Jonti]

Big tails and feathered arms (where the feathers can be used as air brakes) help a running bipedal animal do tight turns at high speed.

I'd guess, when it comes to survival, that could be pretty damned useful ...

 

[laptop]

why life evolved

I find the following answer entirely sufficient:

Because everything that is not forbidden is compulsory.

Given enough time - and there's been a lot of it - something complicated like life can't not happen.

because that's a different sort of question.

Only to those who start with an answer involving some kind of sky-pixie, and those too lazy to think about the implications and workings of "everything that is not forbidden is compulsory" over very long periods of time.

 

[axon]

It can't prove why life evolved, because that's a different sort of question. <snip>
why did the dinosaurs grow wings? <snip>
why should these particular dinosaurs find that they were most inclined to mate with dinosaurs with large flapping wings <snip>
why did dinosaurs find large, useless flapping wings sexually attractive?

Here's the problem, "Why?" isn't part of science. You can ask how, when, what, and where but why automatically assumes some purpose. And there is certainly no purpose in evolution. It just happens, organisms reproduce, the offspring aren't all identical, some live to reproduce lots more organisms, some don't.

If you don't in advance take the dogmatic position of excluding teleological or mentalist explanations- then it's possible to advance the theory that dinosaurs evolved wings because the universal consciousness wanted them to evolve into birds, and that the universal consciousness was able to influence their evolution, because the dinosaurs, having minds that partook of the universal consciousness started to find dinosaurs with beautifully coloured feathered wings, the larger the better, -more attractive than dinosaurs without.

But this idea is generally placed on the back burner as there is no evidence for a universal consciousness, the fact that stuff exists is not positive evidence for the existence of universal consciousness.

 

[ZWord]

I find the following answer entirely sufficient:

Because everything that is not forbidden is compulsory.

Given enough time - and there's been a lot of it - something complicated like life can't not happen.



Only to those who start with an answer involving some kind of sky-pixie, and those too lazy to think about the implications and workings of "everything that is not forbidden is compulsory" over very long periods of time.

This is an interesting notion.

You would need an awful lot of knowledge to be quite certain that a universal consciousness is Forbidden, or that intelligent mutation was Forbidden, or even to be completely certain that causes must temporarlly precede their consequences.

Coming from a species that is well-known for its intellectual conceit, and convictions that it knows it all, plus its habits of being proved wrong again and again, you would perhaps do well to amend your faith to

Everything not forbidden is compulsory.
I do not know everything.
I am a being whose knowledge is limited.
I do not know what is Forbidden (as in impossible)
I cannot in principle be certain about what is Foribidden.
I should assume that it is possible that nothing is forbidden, unless it involves a logical contradiction, - and even then I should be cautious.
I should assume that everything imaginable is compulsory.

 

[Fruitloop]

It's very human-centric to assume universal consciousness I think. Why would the universe want to be like us?

 

[Jonti]

Good point. Speaking as part of the universe, I wish to make it clear that I don't want to be like us either.

 

[kyser_soze]

Be a bit fucking tedious if we ever got out there and found loads of aliens who thought the same way as we do.

Slightly worrying as well if some of them were way up on the technology curve...Outside Context Problem anyone?

 

[ZWord]

It's very human-centric to assume universal consciousness I think. Why would the universe want to be like us?

In respect of us being aspects of the universal consciousness, maybe the universe doesn't have any choice, - (except destroying us?)

I think it's very * some word similar to human-centric* to assume that consciousness can only exist in biological organisms.