Icons of Evolution

[2PhiloVoid]

Just so you know, here is a list of Jonathan Wells' Icons of Evolution:

1. Miller-Urey experiment
2. Darwin's tree of life
3. Homology in vertebrate limbs
4. Haeckel's embryos
5. Archaeopteryx
6. Peppered moth
7. Darwin's finches
8. Four-winged fruit flies
9. Fossil horses
10. Hominid evolution

Yes, I've had this book for almost 20 years. What about it? All Wells' collection of objections does is amplify the point that science trades in provisional truths rather than in absolute truths. All real scientists should know this already ....

 

[BCP1928]

Yes, I've had this book for almost 20 years. What about it? All Wells' collection of objections does is amplify the point that science trades in provisional truths rather than in absolute truths. All real scientists should know this already ....

It also serves as an example of the sad state of affairs that when a creationist starts out saying something along the lines of "evolutionary biology requires..." or "the theory of evolution says..." you can bet the ranch that what follows will be a fib.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

It also serves as an example of the sad state of affairs that when a creationist starts out saying something along the lines of "evolutionary biology requires..." or "the theory of evolution says..." you can bet the ranch that what follows will be a fib.

It could be a fib. ... but it can also be that they default to hasty conclusions when they don't understand the epistemological issues being discussed, and at times even disagreed over, within the bastions of the halls of academia.

Wells does make a few good points. But even so, this doesn't mean that citing a few faux-pas within the working assumptions of modern evolutionists, as Wells does, brings the entire edifice of the Theory of Evolution down like a house of cards.

Conversely, this also doesn't mean that a Mormon Moonie with a PhD (like Wells) is necessarily going to be completely rational when looking at the various evidences and their working definitions within the academic handling of the Theory of Evolution. [.... excuse me: I felt the urge to throw in this bit of ad hominem since it seemed like a convenient place to do so ... ]

 

[AV1611VET]

Yes, I've had this book for almost 20 years. What about it? All Wells' collection of objections does is amplify the point that science trades in provisional truths rather than in absolute truths. All real scientists should know this already ....

Do you think any scientist today would read that book -- (or this thread) -- and shake his head and say, "Wow. I can't believe we used to think that stuff. We've come a long way!"

 

[AV1611VET]

It also serves as an example of the sad state of affairs that when a creationist starts out saying something along the lines of "evolutionary biology requires..." or "the theory of evolution says..." you can bet the ranch that what follows will be a fib.

But the $64.00 question is:

Was that "fib" considered true at one time?

Or did the creationist just make it up?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

But the $64.00 question is:

Was that "fib" considered true at one time?

Or did the creationist just make it up?

Can you show that it was considered true at one time?

 

[AV1611VET]

Can you show that it was considered true at one time?

No.

I'll take Wells' word for it.

Those icons had to come from somewhere, and I suspect they were taught in school at one time.

If I'm wrong, then I'm wrong.

But I don't think so.

Oh ... they might be wrong today ... but they're examples [icons] of junk science taught as fact.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

No.

Honest answer.

I'll take Wells' word for it.

Honest answer but supporting a dishonest source is never a good look.

 

[BCP1928]

Do you think any scientist today would read that book -- (or this thread) -- and shake his head and say, "Wow. I can't believe we used to think that stuff. We've come a long way!"

No, he is more likely to shake his head and say, "Wow. We never even thought most of this stuff. The guy is nuts."

 

[BCP1928]

But the $64.00 question is:

Was that "fib" considered true at one time?

Or did the creationist just make it up?

What Wells made up was that those things were considered fundamental truths of evolution that the theory depended on.

 

[AV1611VET]

Honest answer but supporting a dishonest source is never a good look.

So Miller-Urey, for example, never did that experiment?

 

[AV1611VET]

No, he is more likely to shake his head and say, "Wow. We never even thought most of this stuff. The guy is nuts."

Sorry.

I don't believe that.

Did he just make that stuff up?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

So Miller-Urey, for example, never did that experiment?

No, he did it. But what Wells thinks about the experiment and its relevance to evolution is a whole different matter.

 

[BCP1928]

So Miller-Urey, for example, never did that experiment?

Of course they did. But they weren't trying to create life or prove evolution with it.

 

[AV1611VET]

Of course they did. But they weren't trying to create life or prove evolution with it.

This sounds awful close to it:

The Miller–Urey experiment (or Miller experiment) was an experiment in chemical synthesis carried out in 1952 that simulated the conditions thought at the time to be present in the atmosphere of the early, prebiotic Earth. It is seen as one of the first successful experiments demonstrating the synthesis of organic compounds from inorganic constituents in an origin of life scenario.

SOURCE

"Successful experiment ... [of] an origin of life scenario"?

Ya -- I'd say that qualifies as an icon.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Ya -- I'd say that qualifies as an icon.

How and why does it exactly qualify as an 'icon'? You've not explained the how and the why.

 

[BCP1928]

This sounds awful close to it:

The Miller–Urey experiment (or Miller experiment) was an experiment in chemical synthesis carried out in 1952 that simulated the conditions thought at the time to be present in the atmosphere of the early, prebiotic Earth. It is seen as one of the first successful experiments demonstrating the synthesis of organic compounds from inorganic constituents in an origin of life scenario.

SOURCE

"Successful experiment ... [of] an origin of life scenario"?

Ya -- I'd say that qualifies as an icon.

Nope, just an experiment. It was about abiogenesis, anyway, not evolution, and didn't demonstrate anything one way or the other about evolution.

 

[AV1611VET]

How and why does it exactly qualify as an 'icon'? You've not explained the how and the why.

I just gave you a list of Wells' icons.

Take it or leave it for what it's worth.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

I just gave you a list of Wells' icons.

Take it or leave it for what it's worth.

Yes, you have given a list.

But no explanation as to how or why they're icons.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Do you think any scientist today would read that book -- (or this thread) -- and shake his head and say, "Wow. I can't believe we used to think that stuff. We've come a long way!"

No, I don't think many scientists, other than some at the Discovery Institute, would read his book and take away from it more than a passing reminder that they need to make sure not to produce any Harvard level frauds in research.