Bluejay

Hi, JLF. I'm not a professor: I'm a graduate student. I have published work in the biological sciences and have given a dozen presentations at professional meetings around the country and in Europe. I missed the discussion you alluded to, and am not clear on what the point was that you think you made convincingly. Do you argue that Mormons are discriminated against, or that they are not? Can you (or somebody) provide me a link to the discussion so I can get the background? My personal experience is that nobody seems to care that I'm Mormon, but I'm still only a relative novice in the community, so time will tell, I suppose. Being a Mormon hasn't offended anybody yet.

Hi, Tyler. Unfortunately, the evolutionary transition from ape to human is probably the evolutionary transition with the most and best evidence in support of it, so, strictly speaking, it's less rational to deny human evolution than it is to deny, say, grasshopper evolution (for which there is decidedly less evidence). As an example of this, you can compare the brain size of a chimpanzee, with the brain size of the intermediaries, and the brain size of a human, and you see a remarkably smooth line delimiting the transition from one to the next. So, while I agree that humans are certainly more intelligent than chimpanzees, the distinction would not seem so clear if all those intermediate forms had survived to the present day. ----- This is a very common sentiment. The common response is a parody of it: "The fact that milk fits perfectly into the shape of the jug it's poured into is amazing." What else could it do but fit? You certainly wouldn't expect to see animals living where they couldn't survive, would you? So, why is it a particularly amazing thing that things exist where they are able to exist? And, why would this suggest that the world was perfectly created for life? Why could it not also suggest that life is perfectly adapted to the world?

Hi, Dieublanc. The poor echidnas always get overlooked by people enthusiastically hyping up the platypus.

Hello, everyone. Edited to Add Note: I didn't intend for this to be posted as a reply to Faithless---I just hit the wrong button. Sorry There was some discussion on this thread about the scientific terms "law" and "theory," and this is a topic that is particularly confused, because the distinction is actually philosophical, rather than scientific, and scientists are not usually formally trained in philosophy. So, naturally, you hear all kinds of ideas about what a theory and a law are, even from practicing scientists, e.g. "laws are theories with mathematical formulas attached to them," and "theories and laws are the same thing" and "theories grow up to become laws once they've gathered enough supporting evidence." In case you couldn't tell, I'm about to argue that none of the above stuff is correct. The two terms actually come from two different traditions within science. Back in Newton's day, science was purely phenomenological or descriptive: i.e., science described patterns in natural phenomena. From this practice came the concept of a "law," which is a pattern that has been observed so consistently that it might as well be regarded as a fact. Thus, we have the Law of Gravity. But, by Darwin's time, in the 1800's, science had become more mechanistic: i.e., scientists were no longer keen on merely describing patterns they observed in nature, but were more interested in discovering what causes the patterns. From this practice came the concept of a "hypothesis," which is a causal/mechanistic explanation for why a particular phenomenon is observed to follow a specific pattern; and "theory," which is a hypothesis that has been supported by a great deal of evidence. Thus, we have the Theory of Evolution. So, we have the Law of Gravity, which describes the direction, velocity and acceleration in which things on Earth move. But, as to what causes things to move in the given direction, velocity and acceleration is still, to some degree, an open question. The most successful theory to explain this pattern is space-time curvature, which I am not qualified to even attempt to explain, so I'll refrain. So, these ideas that theories can "grow up" to become laws are not correct: theories will always be theories, and laws will always be laws; if anything, a law would grow up to become a theory (though this is also inaccurate). And, these ideas that theories and laws are the same thing are also incorrect: they come from different logical and philosophical approaches to studying the world. And, these ideas that laws are just theories with mathematical constructs are also incorrect, because laws do not provide a mechanistic explanation for patterns, while theories do.

Hi, Riverogue. Don't get hung up on this. Logic can only work with what you put into it. All it means for X to be logical is that X is the conclusion when you start with certain premises and apply some reasoning to them. So, even things that don't match reality can be considered logically valid, because there's no rule about what can and can't be used for starting premises (e.g., given certain starting premises, I can logically conclude that all crows are bright yellow, for instance). ----- If you're worrying about whether or not you've put enough thought into it, let me just say this: No, you haven't put enough thought into it. But then, nobody else ever has, and nobody ever will. You're not going to find the solution to quandaries that philosophers have been drooling over for centuries in any timeframe that will be reasonable or useful for you. All you can really do is make whatever decisions you can based on whatever information you have available to you, and leave room to adjust your decision if and when that information gets updated. As to how you do that... I don't know. But, then, neither does anyone else, so don't get hung up on that part, either.

Hey, that sounds fun! Unfortunately, I'm a graduate student with two articles, two presentations and a proposal to write this month, two (maybe three) experiments planned for this winter, a huge 20-year-old data set to sort and analyze before next field season, field work to plan for next year, and my second child due at the beginning of next month. Not to mention the fact that I have been trying to write a novel since I was 17, and haven't been able to finish it in the 11 intervening years, despite having had a very good, detailed outline. Yeah, I doubt I'll be able to do it. Sigh.

Maybe so.

Hi, Ozzy. I don't know what reason they would have to teach you that: I don't think this has ever been true in scientific lingo. Incidentally, I read the Wikipedia article on "scientific law," and found that whoever wrote the Wiki article thinks a law is something even less spectacular: Keep in mind that this is Wikipedia: it isn’t authoritative. But, I suggest reading the discussion page about that article: you can read a good handful of comments there that will give you an idea about how "law" is used in science, and about the state of the debate on how “law” should be used. I’m just over halfway through a PhD in entomology, but my training and expertise is in arachnology (spiders) and ecology.

Hi, Ozzy. While I applaude your efforts to promote an understanding of science, I'm afraid you've set the bar inappropriately low for what counts as a scientific theory. There are a lot of things that have not been irrevocably falsified, but are not scientific theories (God is one). In reality, it's more than just an explanation that hasn't been rejected: it's an explanation that we can use to make predictions about the outcomes of experiments that we haven't run yet, or that can be used to successfully guide future research. Evolution has succeeded in this quite remarkably. ----- In science, "laws" are not really all that spectacular. In physics, the word "law" is often used for a “theory” that has a mathematical formula attached to it, or to one of several mathematical formulas that comprise an overarching “theory” (thus rendering “law” a subordinate concept to “theory”). In biology (my field of expertise), the word "law" was once popular, but it doesn’t get used much anymore. The term “theory” is used in its place. But, in no science is a “law” actually considered something greater than a “theory.” In fact, if anything, it’s quite the reverse: “laws” are often seen as subordinate components of the greater “theory.” There is no rung on the scientific ladder higher than “theory.”

I'm a little disappointed in this statement, to be honest. I know non-Mormons and non-Christians who would seem to defy the sweeping generalization here. For example, I'm pretty sure Mormons rank rather low on the "eat healthy and take care of your body" curve. Certainly this, alone, suggests that other people at least feel some accountability about some aspects of taking care of their bodies (even those who believe that their bodies evolved naturally). Furthermore, I'm upset about his choice to use "chance" as the descriptor for evolution, when chance is only one part of it.

Hi, FunkyTown. In my last post to you, I said the following:

I want to lodge a general complaint here, and I want to be a bit blunt about it. Several people on this thread are speaking about Darwin as if he is a grand destroyer of souls because of this repugnant and dangerous idea that he came up with. Well, I'm sorry to say that he didn't invent evolution: he discovered it. Actually, he didn't even do that: he discovered natural selection. And, if he hadn't done it, somebody else would have. In fact, somebody else did (Google "Alfred Russell Wallace"). There was a whole community of scientists who had accepted evolution long before Darwin proposed his explanation for how it happened. In fact, there were a long slough of papers in the 1850's from numerous authors that were pointing towards the conclusion of evolution by natural selection, and it just happened that Darwin was the first to voice it directly. If you feel that evolution is to blame for the destruction of many souls, then please at least recognize that Darwin is only the messenger (one of many thousands, actually, including myself), and that your real beef is with the theory and the evidence that supports the theory. {Edited to Add: I intended this to be a direct response to the OP, but I forgot that I was in hybrid mode, viewing a specific post. My apologies for the confusion}

Hi, EandLDOW. Actually, I’m pretty sure it was Darwin himself who did this. The book he published was called “On the Origin of Species by means of Natural Selection.” From the beginning, he theorized that one kind of animal evolved from another. That was the entire point of his research, at least from his perspective. He himself proposed that all animals are descended from a common ancestor. ----- There are two sentences here that I find a bit disturbing, given that they are juxtaposed, one right after the other, in your post: ...and... You seem to simultaneously advocate that science not assume that it knows anything, and that science assume that it knows God made everything. Sadly, these two positions are not compatible with one another. I personally advocate the former. ----- Do you support the free-market concept of economy? If so, you already accept the premise on which science is founded: competition breeds strength. And, regulating competition makes it less capable of breeding strength. A scientific theory must be accurate and useful in order for it to be successful in the scientific community. So, the nastiness of science (which, make no mistake, is real) is essential to the success of science, even if it feels horrible and unfair on its face. My lab door has a saying posted on it: “There are no friends in science.” While it’s not entirely true, the essence is correct. Not true at all. Science is founded on the belief that the natural world behaves in a way that lends itself to empirical study. There is no requirement that “everything came from nothing” (indeed, this isn’t an accurate characterization of what science concludes on the matter, either); and the idea that we think it all happened “through spontaneous accident and random chance” is over the top and inaccurate, as well. And, I would love to see how you calculate the likelihood and possibility of everything coming about by chance. ----- Also, your view on how speciation would have to have gone down are erronaeous. Nothing dramatic need happen. Divergence between two populations can start with small changes, and become completed when such small changes accumulate over time. There is no need for a major change to happen in one single organism that becomes the one single ancestor of an entire species. ----- Again, not so. A new mutation can persist in a population for a long time without causing individuals who have it to become new species. New mutations are accumulating all the time. It’s the sum of all these little changes, not the amount of change that happens at one time, that results in evolution.

Hi, Funkytown. As you probably know, I am an evolutionist. I think you’ve made some good points, but I don’t think any one of them is actually a point against evolution. Here’s why: There are three theories that are easily confused with one another, and all are lumped into one thing (called “evolution”) by their detractors. Only one of them actually is evolution, though. The other two are natural history and abiogenesis. Evolution: the mechanism by which changes occur Natural history: the record of the changes that have occurred over time. Abiogenesis: the emergence of the first life form from non-life. The development of life from organic molecules (abiogenesis), while currently hypothesized to have happened via an evolutionary mechanism, is not, strictly, evolution; nor does the Theory of Evolution rely on the emergence of life from organic molecules to be correct. If God created the first cell, it could theoretically still have evolved into all the various forms life today in exactly the way the Modern Synthesis of Evolution hypothesizes that it did. So, objections to Abiogenesis are not actually objections to evolution. They could be seen as an objection to an overall “naturalistic” worldview, but not to evolution itself. ----- I think you’re wrong about this, but the website with a link to my alleged evidence is undergoing maintenance, so I’ll proceed as if you’re correct here. Note that this is a concern with natural history, and not with evolution, anyway. There’s good evidence that the jump from single-celled to multi-celled isn’t a particularly big change, genetically. Here’s a reference (my “link” code didn’t work, and I don’t know how to turn HTML on): Prochnik, S.E., et al. (2010). Genomic Analysis of Organismal Complexity in the Multicellular Green Alga Volvox carteri. Science 329(5988):223-226. ----- If you accept this, it makes me wonder why you don’t accept that millions of years would be enough time to effect even larger changes. Although I suppose you’re right that you can use the word “evolution” to describe any gradual change over time, development (ontogeny) is not evolution in the biological sense. Biological evolution deals with changes to the machinery behind development (which doesn’t really change during the course of an individual’s ontogeny), and only deals with changes between generations (the differences between you and your parents, which, by the way, in humans, research suggests number about 70/individual, one of which impacts a functional, protein-coding gene). The evidence is pretty conclusive that the machinery used for development in different organisms is quite different (and that this pattern follows a nested hierarchy---a genealogical tree, essentially), so it makes little sense to think that what biologists propose (i.e. changes in this machinery) is in anyway analogous to what you describe here (i.e. ontogeny of a single organism over its lifetime without changes to the machinery). ----- Lifespan isn’t the issue. Individual cells do not have the foresight to see even a few minutes in advance, let alone a few years or centuries, so how can you claim that any “decisions” they make are based on an assessment of how many centuries they will live? ----- I haven’t shouted yet (though I acknowledge that it’s hard to convey that fact on the internet), and my passions haven’t gotten involved yet. I am rather concerned, however, that you are attempting to slander evolution by calling it “religion.” My understanding is that religion is something you hold dear. So, I ask, why do you malign it so by using it as an insult?

Hi, Livy. I understand that. But, this is more a commentary on how empirical reasoning works, rather than a statement about what we can do with mtDNA. By Dr Perego's statements, one would have to conclude that empiricism can't answer any questions at all! The original mtDNA isn't required: the tools to form good hypotheses about the original mtDNA already exist, and there is no reason why this information can't be used in the absence of solid knowledge. So far, all the mtDNA in the Americas is consistent with the Beringian hypothesis. All it would take is one sample that is not consistent with a trans-Beringian migration to demonstrate that at least some native Americans are not from Asia. Any Native American haplotype that clusters with Middle Eastern haplotypes in terms of genetics, and shows a divergence time from those Middle Eastern types that is consistent with the Book of Mormon timeline (i.e. ~2600 years) would be strong support for at least some aspects of the Book of Mormon narrative. On the other hand, if no such haplotypes are found, Dr Perego may be right that we'll never be able to prove whether or not the Book of Mormon narrative is correct, but credibility would require us to shrink Book of Mormon geography to ever smaller scales in order to explain why evidence for is it hiding in ever smaller gaps in our knowledge about the ancient peoples of the Americas. The only way that Dr Perego's statement makes sense is under the assumption that no native American mtDNA that clusters with Middle Eastern mtDNA and shows a BoM-plausible divergence time will ever be found. And, even under those conditions, I would certainly consider it sufficient evidence to reject anything but the most limited of Limited Geography Models. ----- Big civilizations tend to leave big marks on their region. If the Lehites were as common as the Book of Mormon narrative makes it seem, the notion that all of their mtDNA has vanished is very hard to swallow. So, at the very least, the current mtDNA data has demonstrated the implausibility of the whole-hemisphere models. Also, mtDNA is never actually lost through female lines when girls are consistently being born. Mutations may alter the mtDNA, but mutations leave hereditary signals that can be traced pretty easily. I just don’t see any reason why Dr Perego feels that mtDNA is doomed to only yield ambiguity on this question.