Darwin's Troublesome Theory
|
|
|
|
|
|
Darwin's Troublesome Theory
When Charles Darwin published "On the Origin of Species" in 1859, it raised some troubling questions that challenged religious and social conventions. If humans and animals share a common ancestor, what does that say about us? Is morality inherent in humans, or is it a social construct? What is our place in the world? We talk with Southern Oregon University philosophy professor Prakash Chenjeri and biology professor Charles Welden about where evolutionary science stands today, and the social, moral and religious consequences of Darwin's theory.
|
|
8 COMMENTS SO FAR
|
February 9, 2009
10:02 AM
|
Rycke Brown said:
I should have gone with my first comment: that the reason that evolution is so controversial is that the public schools exist, and they teach it in preference to other religous dogma. People wouldn't care what scientists believe about the origin of our species or our world if their tax money wasn't being taken to pay for the teaching of things they don't believe. Evolutionary science would just be another point of view, another religion, with no more power than any other--except that it is so useful.
|
 (0)  (1)
|
|
February 9, 2009
10:47 AM
|
Rycke Brown said:
Morality arises from man's nature as man, but it is not determined by genes: it is mostly cultural, learned, which is why there are so many criminals and bad governments out there.
Being moral, loving your neighbor, is also the smart thing to do, which is why it persists, and why so many criminals are so obviously stupid. Even when it seems clever, immorality is always stupid, short-term thinking.
Look at Bernie Madoff. He thought he was clever for a long time, and everybody loved him. But his house of cards fell down, and now nobody likes Bernie, and he's going to prison.
|
(0) (0)
|
|
February 9, 2009
10:49 AM
|
Rycke Brown said:
As I was saying on the show, animals are products of both nature and nurture; the more intelligent they are, the more they depend on culture to pass on pro-survival behaviors.
This can be seen as low down the scale as birds. Chickens know what to eat when they hatch; they are totally creatures of instinct. Turkeys are thought to be stupid because they don't know what to eat; they have to be taught by their mother or the farmer.
Eurasian wolves are dangerous to men, because of the history of the continent: with men closely associated with herd animals, their favorite prey; and mass warfare with thousands of bodies strewn across the country side, food for wolves, who increased during periods of war, and became a problem when that supply of bodies was stopped.
In North America, wolves are not dangerous to men, because their history didn't include herdsmen and mass warfare. Indians quickly buried or elevated their dead. Man was just another predator, not to be unnecessarily messed with, until white men with guns arrived, and men became even more dangerous to mess with, regardless of tasty sheep and cattle.
This is not to say that Western wolves are more moral than Eastern: morality is intraspecies, and I'm sure that Eurasian wolves love their packmates as much as North American. But, as men are just as dangerous to wolves in both hemispheres, Western wolves' culture is smarter, and no doubt Eastern wolves' cultures are getting smarter as the more stupid-acting wolves are killed off.
|
(0) (0)
|
|
February 9, 2009
1:38 PM
|
jrussell said:
Wonderful program. Thank-you so much. I am a lifelong fan of Charles Darwin and think that the evolution of organisms by the process of natural selection is, how can I put it, divine???
My question is why is it so hard for people to come to grips with the concept of time? Why should it be hard to grasp that an organism might have taken hundreds of thousands of years to reach its present state? Why is it so hard to conceive that we (as well as every species on this planet) are a work in progress or unprogress as the case may be? In the discussion of the nature of the hypothesis, theory and law the point that I wished to make is that the scientific community may well understand that the evoulution of our species is unfinished and there are still many things we do not know. That is why I am happy to call Darwin's theory a theory still.
About morality. I tend to agree with Charles Weldon when he states that some organisms act within a "code of ethics" or a social construct which can be explained naturally. I also think I understand that Prakash Chengeri says the problem may arise when we ask this question outside of the concept of a natural system explained empirically. Is it because humans would like to think of themselves as the only ethical being, or maybe that morality is a divine gift? I would like to remind people that humans also kill other humans and justify their own ends. Hardly a rightous moral construct.
Thanks for the forum,
Joey Russell
|
(0) (0)
|
|
February 10, 2009
3:58 PM
|
Coffeeblack said:
It is distressing that the "scientist" in discussing evolution had to resort to a TOTALLY RELIGIOUS arguement!!
|
(0) (0)
|
|
February 10, 2009
3:58 PM
|
Coffeeblack said:
It is distressing that the "scientist" in discussing evolution had to resort to a TOTALLY RELIGIOUS arguement!!
|
(0) (0)
|
|
February 10, 2009
4:10 PM
|
Coffeeblack said:
(those two partial posts, above, were accidental - - too bad there isn't an 'edit' function. Apologies.)
~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~
It is distressing that the "scientist" in discussing evolution had to resort to a TOTALLY RELIGIOUS arguement!!
When confronted with the paradox of the Giraffe's Neck his response as to whether it had occured due to evolution was: "Obviously it did"
Ha! It is ANYTHING BUT obvious!! For a scientist to merely ASSERT that it is "obvious" is every bit as valid as "because I said so" - - or, for that matter, "because the Bible says so."
Shameful performance. Read this, please, if you don't know what I'm talking about:
http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/4827
The giraffe’s neck: icon of evolution or icon of creation?
By Daniel Anderson and Carl Wieland
Published: 5 January 2007 (GMT+10)
The long neck of the giraffe continues to be misrepresented as an icon of evolution. Discover recently alluded to the standard evolutionary explanation for the origin of the giraffe’s neck:
By Darwin’s reasoning, giraffes have long necks because longer-necked giraffes can reach more leaves, thrive, produce more offspring, and so increase the proportion of long-neck giraffes.
Darwin himself wrote ‘… it seems to me almost certain that an ordinary hoofed quadruped might be converted into a giraffe.’2 He speculated that four-legged animals with longer and longer necks would be capable of reaching higher leaves and vegetation. Thus, during droughts, they would be more likely to survive and pass on this characteristic, than those with shorter necks. Over time, a creature that was not a giraffe would evolve into a giraffe with an extraordinarily long neck.
Superficially, it sounds logical. However, as with many evolutionary explanations, the hard scientific data reveals a far different story. The fossil, genetic, physiological, observational and logical evidence actually provides much stronger support for creation, not evolution.
Fossil Evidence
If the giraffe’s neck elongated over long periods of time, then we should see evidence of this in the fossil record, with numerous transitional forms progressively getting longer. However, that is not what the fossil evidence shows. There are short-necked fossil quadrupeds, including some, like the living okapi, which have features in common with giraffes. However, when we see fossils of Giraffa, there are no short, intermediate and long-necked forms, let alone showing a progression. In other words, the fossil record reveals that giraffes have always possessed long necks.
In addition, there are well-preserved giraffe footprints next to the fully human footprints in Laetoli, Tanzania dated at around 3.5 million years old on the evolutionary time scale. The shape and depth of these footprints strongly suggest that these ancient giraffes were virtually identical in height, weight and stride length to those living today.
Genetic and Physiological Evidence
Many are unaware that Darwin’s book actually suggested that use and disuse of body parts was somehow inherited. In other words, giraffes that stretched their necks further were more likely to pass ‘long-neckedness’ on to their offspring. That notion has been thoroughly discredited, of course. Use and disuse does not affect the genetic program that is passed on to offspring.
Today’s ‘neo’-Darwinist believes, instead, that genetic mutations—i.e. accidental copying errors—were responsible for some giraffes having longer necks, which were then selected for, i.e. they were the ones more likely to survive the droughts mentioned earlier. Mutations, such as the one causing achondroplastic dwarfism in humans, can dramatically alter limb proportions.
It is conceivable that a mutation could cause an antelope-like creature to have a slightly longer neck. However, such a mutation would have no effect on the length of the legs. These are under separate genetic control.
Any dramatic mutational increase in neck length would also cause severe health hazards. A multitude of precisely fine-tuned anatomical and physiological mechanisms would have to simultaneously accompany the skeletal changes. Giraffes were created with specialized valves in their neck and head to protect them from massive fluctuations in blood pressure while lifting or lowering their heads. Without these vital supporting structures already in place, the giraffe would rupture blood vessels in the brain or in the retina while lowering its head to drink. As a result, any stepwise evolution of the giraffe neck is physiologically implausible. A giraffe is in any case much more than a long-legged antelope.
Observational and Logical Evidence
If giraffe survival depended on being able to reach higher and higher leaves during a drought, then giraffes would have died out a long time ago with the death of the [shorter] females and young giraffes.
During droughts, water is much more important than food. Animals can survive long periods of time without food, but not without water. A bigger, taller giraffe would require much more water than a smaller, shorter giraffe. Therefore, it is actually more likely that the taller giraffes would die from dehydration. In reality, a creature’s ability to survive droughts and other harsh environmental conditions is determined by a number of other factors besides height and size.
Also, female giraffes can be as much as two feet shorter than male giraffes. In addition, young giraffes are much shorter than fully mature ones. If giraffe survival depended on being able to reach higher and higher leaves during a drought, then giraffes would have died out a long time ago with the death of the females and young giraffes.
Also, giraffes live with shorter tree browsers such as gazelles, impalas, elands and gerenuks. All of these animals have successfully survived periods of drought with much shorter necks.
Icon of Creation
The neck of the giraffe should be considered an icon of creation. The Bible tells us that all land animals (including giraffes) were created fully formed, to reproduce after their own ‘kind’ on day six of creation. Giraffes have always had long necks, and they have always been giraffes.
|
(0) (0)
|
|
May 9, 2010
1:33 PM
|
RichardTurkJr said:
Had Darwin coined the term "Creavolution" there would never have been a debate. Once life is created, it then evolves. For those who need proof, adopt a pollywog and watch it evolve into a frog. Better yet, just go spend a day at a creek or pond where high speed "creavolution" occurs.
|
(0) (0)
|
|
|
|
|
Post your comment
|
You must be a subscriber and logged in to post a comment. Login | Register
|
|
|
|
