"Credit must be given to observation rather than theories, and to theories only insofar as they are confirmed by the observed facts."
Aristotle
|
||
|
|
"Credit must be given to observation rather than theories, and to theories only insofar as they are confirmed by the observed facts." Aristotle |
|
| About • Correspondence • The Solar System • Biology • General • Philosophy • Geology • Earth Science | ||
Answers to General Questions
1 •
2 •
3 •
4
How can evolution of universe/life be explained in view of the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics?
Sverker Johansson:
Neither cosmological nor biological evolution over time contradicts either law. The total entropy increases in both cases, and the total energy is unchanged.
If evolution is true, why is it wrong to look on some races as inferior?
Mark Isaak:
Creationist Claim CA005
Steven J:
There are several different answers to this question, with "in point of fact, the human species isn't divided into true races" probably deserving a place among them.
If evolution is true, then "races" necessarily vary among themselves in traits, with variation within "races" exceeding variation between them. Evolutionary theory emphasizes the ubiquity and importance of such variation, which is, after all, what natural selection works on. There are no traits that essentially define any particular "race," and there are no traits one which one could base a claim for the superiority of one "race" over others which is possessed by all members of one race and no members of others. Even if members of one "race" tended, on average, to possess some ability to a greater extent than members of other "races," it would be fallacious to assume that all members of that "race" and no members of other "races" possessed the desired trait to the desired degree.
Oddly, the creationist idea of curses on specific lineages is conducive to the idea that all members of some "race" are equally "cursed," regardless of identifiable variations among them. Indeed, the idea (e.g. the "curse of Ham") has been repeatedly used as a justification for treating some races as inferior, and is much better for that purpose than claims about genetic variation between groups.
Now, buried in this question is presumably a confusion between "fitness" (the ability to leave descendants in a given environment) and "superiority" (in some sense of having greater absolute, global value). Evolutionary theory does not deal in "superiority." Nor is "survival of the fittest" or "the struggle for survival" supposed to be some sort of ethical rule, any more than the laws of chemistry or physics. The idea that evolutionary theory teaches that different "races" ought to struggle for supremacy is based on multiple misreadings of evolutionary theory. Of course, many early evolutionists did express racist sentiments, and the idea that "evolutionism" is a religion with its own holy texts probably contributed to the idea that these statements somehow formed part of evolutionary theory, even if no one ever bothered to demonstrate how they followed logically from the ideas of common descent or adaption through differential survival of variant offspring.
Still, one occasionally finds among creationists the complaint that evolutionary theory teaches that humans are no more valuable or better than, say, pigs or rats. I do not recall ever reading a creationist who made both claims -- that evolution teaches, e.g. that white people are superior to blacks, but not to banana slugs -- but at least proponents of the two arguments could be asked to argue with each other until they figured out which of the two positions they actually thought followed from evolutionary theory.
Dave Empey:
If a hen and a half can lay an egg and a half in a day in a half, how many pancakes would it take to shingle a doghouse?
Why do scientists on Nature shows so often feel compelled to use the word 'designed' when talking about a particular animal's features?
You cannot watch a 'scientific' show for very long without hearing a phrase similar to "The Horned Shark has teeth designed for cracking shells", or "Nature has designed these animals to blend in perfectly with their surroundings".
Mark Isaak:
Creationist Claim CI410
Sverker Johansson:
Because humans have a tendency to over-attribute design.
Also because it is commonly used among biologists as short-hand for "the result of a long process in which those sharks whose teeth happened to be better for cracking shells got more offspring, after many generations ending up with teeth that are very good indeed for cracking shells, as good as designed teeth would be".
How does one explain Symbiosis?
This close ecological relationship between the individuals of two (or more) different species are especially difficult to explain when both species benefit.
Sverker Johansson:
Symbiosis is by definition beneficial to both parties involved. If only one benefits at the expense of the other, then it's parasitism.
But neither is problematic to explain in an evolutionary framework. Why should it be? Imagine a hundred million years ago, when the first real flowers evolved. Some insects fed on these flowers. One byproduct was that the insects accidentally carried pollen from one flower to another. The plants benefited from having their pollen carried around, so those plants with flowers that attracted more insects, got more offspring. This caused flowers to evolve features that attracted insects, pretty petals to make them easy to find, and nectar to make it profitable for insects to find them. As for insects, flowers were a good food source, and those insects that were good at finding flowers had more offspring than those that didn't. Where is the problem?
John Harshman: [responding to Sverker Johansson]
Actually, although definitions may differ, parasitism is usually considered a form of symbiosis. Symbiosis is usually defined as any close relationship between species, without regard to benefit. If one party benefits and the other loses, that's parasitism. If both parties benefit, that's mutualism. There are names for the other 7 possibilities too.
They seem to ask a lot of questions that are no problem. I wish they had explained why they thought they were problems. Then we'd have a better idea what they think they are talking about.