Evolutionary Analysis by Freeman and Herron is a good
introductory textbook that will explain many of your
questions about the validity of the theory of
evolution. It is easy to read and interesting and
should provide a basis for further exploring any other
questions you have.
Christie
Forest Resources and Conservation
University of Florida
--- Johannes J L Roux [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
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
