Evolution wrong?

[BZ_Zorro]

[ QUOTE ]
I guess one idea might be that creatures could intelligently direct their own evolution by way of mate selection. I don't think that's part of traditional theory and maybe it's crackpot. But who knows what kind of additional mechanisms there might be that we just haven't thought of yet.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sexual selection is a big part of natural selection, and is well established in evolutionary theory. Sorry I don't have links, but I've read about it numerous times. It's definitely not crackpot.

Regarding other methods of selection, I agree. I also think the genome holds surprises that are yet to be discovered, particularly in those genes and processes controlling cell differentiation in the embryo.

[PairTheBoard]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I guess one idea might be that creatures could intelligently direct their own evolution by way of mate selection. I don't think that's part of traditional theory and maybe it's crackpot. But who knows what kind of additional mechanisms there might be that we just haven't thought of yet.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sexual selection is a big part of natural selection, and is well established in evolutionary theory. Sorry I don't have links, but I've read about it numerous times. It's definitely not crackpot.

Regarding other methods of selection, I agree. I also think the genome holds surprises that are yet to be discovered, particularly in those genes and processes controlling cell differentiation in the embryo.

[/ QUOTE ]

cool

PairTheBoard

[ QUOTE ]
If you want a balanced objective view read some good stuff by reputable evolutionists to balance it out.

[/ QUOTE ]

The Blind Watchmaker by Richard Dawkins would serve nicely here.

[MagnoliasFM]

Other books that argue against evolution: "Darwin on Trial" by Philip Johnson, and the "Refuting Evolution" books by Dr. John Sarfati.

[SPhilly]

This I think is the problem in this debate. Both sides often have a misguided understanding of evolution from the bits and pieces learned in highschool/media. Evolution is probably much more complex than most realize. Simple arguments on one side or the other will not suffice.
Are some of Darwin's theories incorrect/incomplete? - Most certainly.
Does that prove evolution does not occur without some intelligent guidance? - Certainly not.
But the debate is interesting.

[Cooker]

One of the world experts on irreducible complexity is on my thesis commitee, so I will give my opinion on the subject. EVERY person that I have ever met that understands irreducible complexity (this is probably a significant fraction of the people that do serious work on the subject) is an atheist, so it boggles my mind that a person that I can safely assume doesn't properly understand it uses it as a key piece of constructing his argument for "intelligent design".

In layman's terms irreducibly complex systems are simply experiments (usually cellular automata thus far, but could be PDEs, biological systems, computer codes, whatever you like) that the most efficient way to accurately predict the outcome is to perform the experiment. This has led to crackpots making all kinds of crazy claims such as the one you see here. It has been shown in several systems that are known to be irreducibly complex that certain bulk properties (through course graining) can be predicted quite accurately and efficiently for long times. Still, even if biological systems are irreducibly complex (which I believe they probably are) doesn't begin to suggest that they must have been magically put together with some desired plan, but acutally just the opposite.

Most people also grossly misunderstand evolution. Evolution is fact plain and simple. Single celled organism slowly got more complex until we have the wide diversity of biological systems we see today. THAT IS NOT A THEORY, IT IS A FACT!! Any theory must agree with that statement to have even the slightest chance to be correct. Darwin's theory is that this process sometimes (italicized for emphasis) occurs through natural selection. It is now fairly well accepted that much (probably more accurately most) of evolution does not occur specifically through this process, but the evolution of the eye and certain other complex adaptations can usually be traced to Darwin's mechanism. For a more full discussion of the current ideas on evolution read Jay Gould, Dawkins, Dennet, and their followers (although I prefer Gould since Dawkins and Dennet seem to put too much weight on adaptation, I think they must not be able to fully come to terms with the complexity and feedback of the fitness landscape). Let me stress, all serious scientists believe the evidence for evolution, it is only the theory of why that is under any kind of debate. Intelligent design as I understand it doesn't agree with the FACTS of evolution, so it is a disproved theory and should be discarded.

[BZ_Zorro]

Well said.

[ QUOTE ]
Let me stress, all serious scientists believe the evidence for evolution, it is only the theory of why that is under any kind of debate

[/ QUOTE ]

Don't you mean how? (best not to leave any wiggle room for the crackpots.) [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

[ QUOTE ]
Are some of Darwin's theories incorrect/incomplete? - Most certainly.
Does that prove evolution does not occur without some intelligent guidance? - Certainly not.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is wishful thinking on the part of creationists. You can't have your cake and eat it too.

[Cooker]

How would have been a better choice of words. I meant why in the sense of the mechanism of evolution, but how better conveys that meaning.

[SPhilly]

Maybe I was not very clear but I was not taking a position one way or the other. Was not trying to have it both ways just stating that there is more to evolution than most people understand and even Darwin's theories were probably incorrect/incomplete in some ways. This does not mean that evolution is completely wrong and intelligent design must be right.