"I do not think evolution is supremely important because it is my specialty. On the contrary, it is my specialty because I think it is supremely important." - /George Gaylord Simpson/
JJ Le Roux ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Department for Tropical Plant and Soil Sciences University of Hawai'i at Manoa Hawai'i tel (808) 956 0781 fax (808) 956 3894 http://www.ctahr.hawaii.edu/rubinoffd/jaco.htm ----- Original Message ----- From: Robert Hamilton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Monday, August 27, 2007 5:06 am Subject: Re: why scientists believe in evolution To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU > The answer is much simpler. The Theory of Evolution explains those > data.No other theory does. Someone wants to propose another theory > to explain > those data, I'd be all ears, but my ears are closed the "theories" > thatare nothing more than criticisms of other theories. > > Rob Hamilton > > "So easy it seemed once found, which yet > unfound most would have thought impossible" > > John Milton > ________________________________________ > > Robert G. Hamilton > Department of Biological Sciences > Mississippi College > P.O. Box 4045 > 200 South Capitol Street > Clinton, MS 39058 > Phone: (601) 925-3872 > FAX (601) 925-3978 > > >>> Russell Burke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 8/27/2007 8:09 AM >>> > Carissa: > you've got quite a collection of concerns about evolution here, and > you're asking a lot of readers to go thru them all and teach you a > basic > course in evolution. too bad you didn't have one already, then it > would > be possible to start this discussion at some point later than where it > was in Darwin's time--we're on to more advanced issues now. that's > right, almost every one of your concerns here was familiar to Darwin > and > he quite nicely rebutted them in his time. sure, he didn't ask about > molecular evolution, but replace the molecular terms in your email > with > parts of the vertebrate eye and he answered it 150 years ago. ID > arguments are so old hat by now that they're pretty boring. sorry if > that's offensive, I don't mean to be. > > except maybe the origin of life question, which is quite separate from > evolution--evolution being change over generations, evolution doesn't > specifically address origin of life. that's a different issue that's > often conflated with evolution. > > you asked why the scientific community is so convinced of > evolution? > I'd say three main reasons. > > 1. there is a gigantic amount of morphological, behavioral, > molecular, > and fossil evidence to support it. pick up any basic text book in > evolution and you'll see what I mean. > > 2. it has another characteristic that scientists like: using the > theory > of evolution, we can and do generate testable hypotheses, and by > testing > them, we practice science. in fact, many thousands of tests of > evolution have been performed, and evolution is holding up quite well. > > 3. it is the only game in town. no other theory of "how the > biological > world got to be this way" has evidence supporting it and generates > testable hypotheses. if you or someone else comes up with an > alternative, you can replace the theory of evolution with your own > ideas > when you produce substantial amounts of data and successfully use it > to > generate and test meaningful hypotheses. > > especially given your background and institutional placement, its > surprising that you haven't made better use of the tremendous > resources > at your disposal to educate yourself on the evidence for evolution, > and > at least bring your education up to current issues. I'll bet the > people > in your lab would be glad to hear your thoughts, and if not, you are > surrounded by resources that can answer your question: "why is the > scientific community so convinced of evolution?" > > RBurke > > >>> Carissa Shipman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 08/26/07 10:08 PM >>> > I am a biology student at Temple University and I have > conducted an NSF funded systematics project for the order > Hymenoptera at the American Museum of Natural History. My > question is why is the scientific community so convinced of > evolution? There are very few publications concerning > evolution at the molecular or biochemical level. Most > scientists are baffled at how such molecular systems such > as blood clotting actual evolved in a step by step manner. > It looks to me like many of the molecular inter workings all > needed to be there simultaneously for the end product to > function properly. The biosynthesis of AMP is just as > baffling. How could that have happened in a step by step > fashion? You can speculate, but no evolutionist has the > answer. So if you can not explain how the most nitty gritty > machines of life "molecules" learned to function in the > intricate ways that they do why are you so certain that > everything evolved? Science is looking at the details. All > science textbooks I have read have relayed very little > evidence of evolution at the molecular level. They just say > it happened. Since Darwinian evolution has published very > few papers concerning molecular evolution it should perish. > Systematics addresses genetic similarities between species, > but it does not address exactly how those genetic > differences and similarities came to be. There maybe fossils > and genes, but you need more than this. I am not convinced > of evolution, but still choose to educate myself in what it > teaches and believes. How do scientists explain how even the > slightest mutation in the human genome is highly detrimental > most of the time? If even the slightest change occurs in our > genome it is oftentimes fatal. Believing that this mechanism > lead to all the species we see today takes a great deal of > faith.For instance if even one step of the blood clotting > process were disturbed the effects would be disastrous. > Also, why does evolution leave out mathematical statistics > of how each mutation arose. TPA a component of blood > clotting has 4 domains. If we attempted to shuffle the genes > for these four domains the odds of getting all four domains > together is 30,000 to the fourth power, and that is just for > TPA! Calculating mutation rates and the odds of getting > certain genes to match up perfectly for the ultimate > function shows us that it takes more faith to believe that > we evolved from primordial slime. The earth has had > thousands of lightning bolts hit it every year and we have > not seen life spawn from molecules. If evolution happened we > would see it reoccuring time and time again from the bottom. > Why have we not seen it, because conditions have not been > perfect? I do not deny adaptation within species, but this > is far different than the assumptions of macro evolution. If > an evolutionist can challenge my arguments I would gladly > like to hear your rebuttal. Publications for molecular > evolution use many words such as "unleashed". How was it > unleashed, what were the step by step mechanisms that you > can say for certain occurred, leaving macro leapages out of > the picture? You see fossils, but you have no detailed > explanations as to how one may have turned into the other at > the molecular level. If you can not explain it at the > molecular level you have nothing to base your assumptions > on. Also all the breeds of dogs are very different from one > another and some of their skeletal structures look > unrelated. The different types of dogs that you see arrived > through intelligent interaction, not evolutionary processes. > Change occurs in nature to a limited extent. That is all. > Sincerely, Carissa Shipman >
