A valuable summary in the New Scientist magazine (19 April issue) correcting some common misconceptions about evolution. This article, plus more, is included on their website here: http://www.newscientist.com/channel/life/dn13620-evolution-24-myths-and-misconceptions.html and all SF writers should study it in order to avoid errors (possibly I was a bit ambitious with the marsupial saurians in 'Scales'…)

A very brief summary of some examples of misconceptions:

Everything is an adaptation: it isn't true that everything has a purpose, some features of life are just accidental hold-overs from earlier developments, such as the appendix and the male nipple.

Evolution can't be disproved: in theory it could be, but all of the evidence collected so far supports it, and no evidence has been found to disprove it.

Evolution is limitlessly creative: there are limits (at least on Earth) to what has been, and probably can be, developed. Every intermediate stage needs to have had some survival benefit (e.g. primitive forms of eye are still better than nothing in detecting objects).

Natural selection leads to ever greater complexity: it can actually lead to greater simplicity since unnecessary features frequently disappear (e.g. eyeless cave fish).

Evolution produces perfection: "you don't have to be perfectly adapted to survive, you just have to be as well adapted as your competitors". Examples of inefficiencies in human beings are the eyes (birds have much superior vision), the lungs (much of their capacity is wasted because of the two-way air-flow; birds have a much more efficient one-way flow) and so on.

Natural selection is the only means of evolution: random genetic drift has a great influence, with chance often deciding which mutations survive and which don't.

It doesn't matter if people don't grasp evolution: our civilisation is facing many challenges which need some understanding of how science works to appreciate, and make sensible judgements about. "Any modern society which bases major decisions on superstition rather than reality is heading for disaster". Which makes it rather worrying that in a recent survey, when asked "Human beings, as we know them, developed from earlier species of animals: true or false?", only 40% of US citizens polled "true", 39% "false" and 21% "not sure". In contrast the "true" response from most western European countries and lace>Japan lace> was around 75%.

Comment: among those not believing in evolution (according to their public statements) were several of the initial candidates for the nomination for the Presidency of the USA ; a staggering admission of scientific illiteracy, in the same league as admitting that they couldn't read or write. Let's hope that the most powerful and influential nation on Earth ends up with a leader who has a much better grasp of scientific arguments than the present incumbent.

(an extract from my SFF blog)

Tony Williams
Scales (2007), The Foresight War (2004)
Homepage: http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk

Anthony, some good points raised.

I'm one of the 40% of Americans who does believe in evolution (my goodness that percentage seems low! Frightening: are we really a "Huckabee" nation?); however, there is one issue raised by evolution I've never seen adequately answered. Certain complex systems, such as the one bees have to gather pollen and convert it to honey, are made up of various components that all have to work in perfect harmony to be of use. Which would seem to suggest that either the various components of the system would have had to develop all at once together, or else separate components would have had to develop over time, during which time they would serve no purpose until all the other components came "on line." This, it seems to me, is where theistic evolutionists or "intelligent designers" still have soom room to argue: namely, suggesting that there is a purposeful intelligence behind the sweep of evolution, working toward some goal rather than being a random confluence of events. Or perhaps at various stages of evolution a giant black obelisk appeared.  I'm curious what your take is on that?

<mini intrusion - please forgive>

WOW! Simply by doing a check on Bill Ward's name to see when he'd last been on the forum (since I'd felt he and I hadn't communicated in a while), I find his post here and decide to give him a hard time about "digging around Nicholas" So I come to this thread (which otherwise wouldn't have interested me in a million years) and lo and behold! find Frank - who definitely hasn't communicated with me in a looooong while!  So I decided to wave at Frank - Hi Frank !

<intrusion over, you may now proceed with your previously scheduled blathering>

If you follow the link which Firle provided, you will find a number of brief articles listed there which address this issue.

Suffice it to say that critics of evolution have put a lot of effort into finding examples of characteristics which could not have evolved, but have failed so far.

Tony Williams
Scales (2007), The Foresight War (2004)
Homepage: http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk

You must be careful when you dig around Nicholas, though--they still haven't located the bones of Jimmy Hoffa, have they...

Thanks for the further info, Frank, Bill, and Anthony. The links provided by Firle give access to more fleshed-out details and examples, but I think your summary, Mr. Ward, was succinct and enlightening. I like the description of the "supports knocked away."

I now think the argument can be made that evolution is a self-contained system that does not require outside manipulation; it is self-sufficient to explain all the diversity of life.

I do, however, still hold out for a Prime Mover. Evolution explains the development and progression of life, but does not answer the Big Question of why there is such a thing as Life in the first place. However, as any good scientist will tell you, such a question is really outside science's purview: such questions fall into the realms of Philosophy and Theology. And that would be a whole different topic...

Frank, I have no problem with most of what you posted, though I do take issue with the very last statement. To be precise, thinking like a Creationist is to think that a specific Judaical, patriarchal god created the world in six literal, twenty-four-hour days.

"You could say that it seems like the universe wants to go in this direction, that indeed it may not be able to avoid it": one could more accurately say that this would be thinking like a Platonist. It is not far from what Einstein intimated, as have many other intelligent people throughout history.

What is so surprising to many, what is essentially the great question at the heart of the universe, is how life violates the basic Law of Entropy: things tend to break down and move from order to chaos. The fact that we are using our complex, highly evolved brains to type these posts to each other right now defies the Law of Entropy. Some of us regard this with awe and wonder.

Some of the posts around here could serve as proof that if there is a God, It is insane!

No, I think I was just trying to get at what Einstein expressed better:

"The most beautiful thing we can experience is the mysterious.
It is the source of all true art and all science.  He to whom
this emotion is a stranger, who can no longer pause to wonder
and stand rapt in awe, is as good as dead: his eyes are closed."

It's not so much that it's been disproved as it has been proven to be inaccurate. The definitions of entropy have altered significantly over the years.

It's biggest hurdle comes from particle physics. If entropy, as generally understood, were accurate, then destroying milimicro particles in particle accelerators would result in almost no mass and certainly no discernable, or at least far simpler, particles of mass. Instead the parts recombine to form other particles, often of higher complexity. Entropy should ensure that there is merely energy dissipating throughout the tube of the accelerator, and yet the mass and energy do not move toward equalization - they clump.

Mathematically, entropy is a stand-in guess that means nothing in reality.

As far as cosmology, entropy does not apply because there is no observable limit to the universe; indeed, there is only evidence that it is expanding. Meanwhile, more matter and energy keeps showing up that has no scientific explanation.

As far as entropy being at the heart of physics . . . it is part of the second law of thermodynamics, which is a theory that suffered quite a bit from Einstein's work as well as that of a great many others throughout the 20th century.

While this is an enticing argument, one has to look closer to see that it's just not true. Basically, the "ordering of shattered subatomic particles" increases overall entropy in a system by making room for randomness. Basically, it's confining "order" in as small a space as possible. Check out the following article for a less concise explanation:

http://www.elsie.brandeis.edu/pub/news.pdf

Saying "entropy has been disproved" is like saying that you've invented a perpetual motion machine. Neither is possible under our current understanding of physics.

And what exactly is an intellectual bully???

That's not hypocrisy. That's social responsibility. It was with great restraint that I kept it halfway reasonable here in the public forum.

Your attacking me with it here shows you to be rather weak and socially inept in my opinion. Especially when your only private reply was to say that you narked on me to the administrators. I deliberately addressed it in private to keep from making a big public spectacle of it.

Unfortunately, Jordan, your inadequacies and immaturity have brought it to the forefront.

And, I am not painting myself as any sort of victim. I merely point out that your own behavior is antagonistic and socially reprehensible. And I freely admit that this is my biased and subjective opinion.

Nah. You don't get to stab at me from the shadows and then cry foul when I call you out about it.

When you said "Your attacking me with it", you were painting yourself as the victim. And far be it for me to indulge in a little pop psychology, but you might want to look up Narcissistic Personality Disorder and then do a little soul searching.

DSM Criteria > >

A pervasive pattern of grandiosity (in fantasy or behavior), need for admiration, and lack of empathy, beginning by early adulthood and present in a variety of contexts, as indicated by five (or more) of the following:^[1] > >

1. has a grandiose sense of self-importance What gives this impression? The fact that I tend to point out things that seem to me abhorrant? N/A > >
2. is preoccupied with fantasies of unlimited success, power, brilliance, beauty, or ideal love This one is far too generic. Especially in our industry. Perhaps it would be a problem if I believed my own stories to be reality. Questionable at best > >
3. believes that he or she is "special" and unique This is an absurd qualification for a number of reasons. Yes, I believe I am special and unique. I believe the same thing of every sentient being in the universe. No more of myself than others, though somewhat less of particular others . . . N/A > >
4. requires excessive admiration If I required this, I'd have eaten a bullet decades ago. Sure, I would love to be admired. Define 'excessive'. And demonstrate from my own posts in these fora that I seek excessive admiration. N/A > >
5. has a sense of entitlement There are few things in the world that spark my intolerance more than unearned sense of entitlement. I beleive all persons are entitled to respect; and that they are entitled to forfiet that by disrespect to others. Does Not Apply > >
6. is interpersonally exploitative This is the most absurd and offensive accusation I can imagine being leveled against me. I would cite antithetical evidence, but it might be mistaken for grandiosity and glory-seeking. N/A > >
7. lacks empathy  How I wish to GOD and every celestial power in the universe this would afflict me!!!!!!!!!! At the risk of grandiosity, I will say that I have far more empathy than 99.99% of everyone I've ever met. Only one person I know of may have more of it. Off the scale not applicable > >
8. is often envious of others or believes others are envious of him or her Who is it you think I envy? No one. I don't deal in envy. The only persons I know who may envy me are not interested in me personally but in my wife. Envy is even more a waste of energy than rage. Does NOT Apply > >
9. shows arrogant, haughty behaviors or attitudes Well, that's a pretty subjective description. I won't deny arrogance or arrogant attitudes. I am seldom haughty. And my arrogance is not the kind of arrogance that condescends or expresses itself in belittling others. It is simply a very high estimation of my own skills and characteristics. Some might even call it earned confidence. > >

That gives me at best two of nine such behaviors. Diagnosis invalid.

Now, on the matter of the 1998 study by Peter Weiss: it deals with a topic completely different from what I explained earlier. And it seems to me that there is a good posibility of rationalization toward a pet theory involved in the research as well as the article.

Back to the subject of the thread:

Entropy itself has its share of misunderstandings. For one, it is not the movement of order toward chaos. It is the movement of matter and energy toward total stasis. And yet this remains scientifically unproven in regards to cosmology and particle physics. It is currently merely a scientific tool to measure dynamics of energy and matter within a closed system - basically. There are numerous entropic formulae dealing with specific disciplines, including "social entropy".

Social Entropy is actually an interesting subtopic in the discourse of human evolution because it basically predicts that as creative intelligence increases, society's cohesion lessens.

I believe there is further evidence to suggest that entropy is cyclical, just as are all other physical phenomenon. Social structures have a proven history of cycles. So, this brings up in mind the question of our current cycle in the evolution of humankind. Is it time for Rome to burn? Are we a few breaths away from the collapse of civilization as we know it? Are we due to flirt again with extinction on our way to the next step in evolution? Or are we creating the next step in evolution?

EDIT: Because tone doesn't come across in this things: I'm genuinely confused.

For a really fascinating read in relation to evolution, I give my highest recommendation to The Web of Life.

I'd read it again, but I loaned it to my brother . . . And he is currently out of touch. Great book, though. Very fascinating and readable even for us BA unscientific folk.

As a follow-up to my blog post (25 April) about the New Scientist's feature on evolution, another development covered in the magazine (10 May) is the sequencing of the genome of the Australian duck-billed platypus. This has revealed some intriguing information, as might be expected of an animal which combines a bird-like beak with fur, and lays eggs while producing milk for its young. As expected, its genome contains a mixture of mammalian and reptilian features. The sequence for determining sex is more like a bird's than a mammal's, yet the milk-producing genes are similar to humans and cows. The conclusion is that milk-producing evolved before the ability to have live offspring.

Perhaps my marsupial saurians in 'Scales' weren't quite so implausible after all!

(An extract from my SFF blog)

Tony Williams
Scales (2007), The Foresight War (2004)
Homepage: http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk