"Most of the ancestors of birds from the age of dinosaurs are members of groups that died out and left no modern descendants. But Gansus led to modern birds, so it's a link between primitive birds and those we see today," Lamanna, a co-leader of the research team, said in a telephone interview. Previously there was a gap between ancient and modern species of birds, and "Gansus fits perfectly into this gap," added Jerald D. Harris of Dixie State College in Utah.In the "Evolution 101" class I gave last April, a two-evening talk to the layperson about evolution, I emphasized that we should stop using phrases like "missing link" because of the misconceptions it engenders. Notice the two quotes above: Lamanna simply says "it's a link", not a "missing link": good for him. Harris says, "There was a gap between ancient and modern species ...". If might have been better (and I am not faulting Harris, because I know that newspaper reporters respond best to brevity) if he had said "there was a gap in our knowledge of ancient and modern species ..." This would have made it clear that what is in doubt about this or any other evolutionary problem is the details about what happened, not whether evolution happened.
A comment on the <i>Gansus</i> find
An AP story this morning discusses a new fossil find in China of an early bird, Gansus, from about 100 million years ago. The headline reads "Bird fossils in China called a missing link in evolution."
Now this is a neat find, and I urge you to read the story, but I'd like to discuss the headline as an example of the way the popular press mischaracterizes science sometimes, and adds to public misconceptions about evolution.
For example, a fairly typical response has occurred over at Uncommon Descent, where one of Dembski's blogging group writes, "I guess I just don't get it. Why has the missing link in bird evolution just been found, when I have been assured for years that there is overwhelming evidence in the fossil record that the enigma of bird evolution was already solved?"
One of the problems with press stories about science is that most of the time they add a "hook" about the significance of the story that is misleading in some way. In particular, the phrase "missing link" implies the mistaken idea that certain kinds of creatures have some special transitional status. But that is not true. Every fossil find is a link between earlier and later creatures, and they are all missing until they are found. The phrase "missing link" implies, especially to that part of the public that has doubts about evolution, that somehow the particular find in question is of a special creature whose existence somehow now "proves evolution."
This is exceedingly simplistic: no one in science has ever claimed that "the enigma of bird evolution", or any other aspect of evolution, has been "solved"; nor does anyone in science believe that any one find will "prove" evolution. The fact that evolution has occurred has been established by the accumulation of many, many thousands of pieces of individual evidence, of which this find is just one more.
One of the significant things here, is that Gansus, like the earlier find this year of Tiktaalik roseae, was found at the time and in the place that we would have expected, based on what we know already about bird evolution. In that sense it is a piece of the puzzle that fits in the right place: it is not a "rabbit in the Cambrian."
Notice what the article says,
67 Comments
steve s · 16 June 2006
The creationists find that missing link terminology especially confusing.
Gerard Harbison · 16 June 2006
A couple of notes.
First, this find beautifully corroborates Feduccia's prediction that the common ancestor to modern birds is likely a transitional shorebird. Gansus was known from a hindlimb since 1981, and the limb morphology suggested a shorebird, but this is still corroboration. Feduccia's in a small minority on the bird/dinosaur link, but on much of the rest, his Origin and Evolution of Birds is invaluable.
Second, Creation-Evolution headlines' article on this find is particular execrable. They call Gansus a 'duck'; they claim the find is a 'known species appearing much earlier than already thought' (Gansus has always been assigned to the Early Cretaceous), and they mock the idea that birds survived the KT extinction (most of them did not; the enanthornithines did not, and there was a major genetic bottleneck in the ornithurines). A shorebird, able to travel to find food, living largely off shoreline detritus and small shoreline scavengers, likely in the tropics, would be exactly the kind of species one would expect to survive a major catastrophe.
dre · 16 June 2006
this is tangential, and i know i should know, but who is "DT" that is moderating uncommon discount, and how long has he (she?) been making playground threats to posters? "Wanna see me turn YOU into a missing link?" my goodness...
bsb · 16 June 2006
What is ancestral about Gansus? What about Gansus isn't modern? This is simply an old skeleton from an extinct species that is no different from the birds we see today. This "modern" bird is exactly what creationists would expect because from our perspective, all animal families were complete from the beginning (eg. Cambrian Explosion, modern forms in ancient layers).
steve s · 16 June 2006
Me, I was just surprised to see that FoxNews had a science section. Believe it or not, for years they were the only major news org without one. Anyway, you can see where some of the confusion creeps in. Gil and FoxNews refer to it as 'the' missing link, while the scientists are quoted saying it's 'a' missing link.
steve s · 16 June 2006
stevaroni · 16 June 2006
You have to be philosophical about all this "missing link" stuff.
The subtleties of "We found this new fossil, C and it fits neatly between A and B, but it's interesting because we expected more of X than Y" don't make for a good headline.
Years ago, our opponents discovered the seductive appeal of the simple, easy to explain, answer. So as long as news items have to be simplified into a 200 word blurb, I'm happier with "Link found", a positive statement, than "Scientists puzzled about Y, expected X" which is far more technically interesting, but makes it sound like the new evidence is somehow problematic.
This year has brought a bumper crop of well-publicized new finds, and if the casual reading public wants to go no deeper than "missing links piling up", I'm OK with that.
Jeffery Keown · 16 June 2006
Modern forms in ancient layers? Which forms, please.
k.e. · 16 June 2006
Only slightly OT
Retired professor tracks down rodent thought to be extinct
2hulls · 16 June 2006
steve s - "Other people on that site have no degrees, or degrees in law, engineering, or some other non-science field."
C'mon, steve - engineering a non-science field? Why did I study all that thermo, chemistry, physics, etc.? Dern - I could've been drinking more beer!
As an engineer lurker on this site since the Kitzmiller decision, who considers himself pretty well versed in general science topics and especially in the science roots of engineering, I'll accept an apology. No, I'm not a "scientist", and certainly not a biologist, but you should be comforted in knowing that good engineers out here rely on our understanding of science every minute of every day.
Otherwise, keep up the good work.
Dave
fnxtr · 16 June 2006
steve s · 16 June 2006
some engineers are scientists. No argument there. But there is a big difference between a science degree like chemistry, biology, or physics, and an engineering degree. I know lots of engineers from college--at one point I had three engineer roommates--and they're not scientists.
Glen Davidson · 16 June 2006
Thomas R. Holtz, Jr. · 16 June 2006
As for the use of "modern" in the context of the press releases/news reports: the authors were trying to avoid the (admittedly complex) taxonomic terminology of paleornithology. Gansus is, based on phylogenetic analysis of the new data, the oldest recovered member of Ornithurae (the clade containing all living birds [Neornithes], Ichthyornis, and Hesperornithiformes. Ornithurae and closely related taxa (together, the Ornithuromorpha) represent one of the speciose branches of post-Jurassic birds; the other being the Enantiornithes ("opposite birds"). Enantiornithes seem to have been the more common of the two lineages during the Cretaceous (especially among land birds).
It retains some features present in extinct Cretaceous birds that are lacking in modern birds (e.g., it has non-heterocoelous presacral vertebrae), but in general has many derived features. However, the Cretaceous toothed bird Ichthyornis shares even more derived features with Neornithes (the clade of all living birds) than does Gansus.
steve s · 16 June 2006
George · 16 June 2006
Jack Krebs · 16 June 2006
I want to support 2hullis here. It's a mistake to draw a firm line between scientists and engineers (or doctors - another related profession.) Engineers of whatever type have to learn a lot of science. I'm sure the extent to which someone absorbs the big picture and appreciates the subtler elements of gaining scientific knowledge varies by person, but I think that is true of scientists also.
So I suggest we not throw the baby out with the bath water. I regularly get thanked by people in the engineering and medical fields for defending evolution, not because they use it, are responsible for teaching it, and do anything to contribute origianl knowledge, but just because they support good science and the overall scientific enterprise.
steve s · 16 June 2006
I would definitely call engineering and medicine science related. And some engineers and some doctors are scientists. But I don't think an engineering degree is a science degree. And I consider the number of anti-evolutionists who are engineers and doctors to be evidence for this. But this thread should be about Gansus, so I'm not going to pursue it further.
dre · 16 June 2006
george, thanks for the clarification.
i'm aware of davescot's antics, and i've seen him addressed as "davetard" before. i guess i just never would have thought he'd acknowledge his own ridiculous character or the low regard in which he is held.
now i know.
Glen Davidson · 16 June 2006
Glen Davidson · 16 June 2006
steve s · 16 June 2006
Dembski only drives the Short Bus on the Information Superhighway. Much of the noise is made by the passengers.
2hulls · 16 June 2006
steve s - "I know lots of engineers from college---at one point I had three engineer roommates---and they're not scientists."
In your original statement, you said "non-science" not "non-scientist". I agreed I'm not a scientist. But being put in the same "non-science" category as lawyers was clearly uncalled for and either uninformed or arrogant. Since you had three engineer roomates to inform you, what does that leave? :)
So, no apology?
Otherwise, keep up the good work - and I'll keep up mine. If you knew what it was, you'd thank me for having a science AND engineering education.
Dave
steve s · 16 June 2006
Nothing to apologize for.
GuyeFaux · 16 June 2006
Todd · 16 June 2006
There is a big difference between "using science" and "being a scientist". I have been trained in both science and engineering (in my field people commonly go into both), and in my experience engineering is not science. It uses information gained by science, but it does not use the same processes used by scientists to develop practical applications. Science's goal is to learn about the universe. Engineering's goal is to apply that information to solving problems in human society. Engineers must understand the knowledge gained by science, and they must understand the needs of society, but a detailed understanding of how science gains its information is not really relevant to the engineering field. That is not to denegrate engineering. Ultimately the vast majority of scientific knowledge would be of no consequence without engineering. Engineers are generally the ones who translate scientific discoveries into useful applications. However, due to today's specialization in careers an understanding of how scientific knowledge is obtained is not really relevant to using it effectively for societal gain, thus these aspects seem to be largerly ignored by engineering. That does not mean that engineers can not learn such things on their own, but it is not a standard component of an engineering education as far as I have seen.
And the basic problem is that unless you are going into biomedical engineering/bioengineering, environmental engineering, or agricultural engineering a detailed knowledge of biology and evolution are not very important to an engineer, so they do not seem to be emphasized. That does not mean that no engineer is knowledgeable on biology or evolution, but it is not something you should expect an engineer to know by default (unless they are in a biology-oriented engineering field).
2hulls · 16 June 2006
steve - why are you acting so arrogant? I of course don't know you personally, so I can't conclude you actually are arrogant, but you're not helping your case.
Hey - I'm on your side! I am not a troll or a detractor to the usual good information I've come to enjoy reading on this site. I have increased my knowledge of biology, science, and evolution doing so. I've used information from this site, probably including information directly from you, to counter IDiots' and YEC'ers assertions elsewhere.
You insulted consciencious engineers comparing us to having equivalent (low)science knowledge as lawyers. That is just about as mind boggling as some ID claims and accusations I've heard. Perhaps you know less about what we do and need to know than you think you do.
Please consider embracing your allies rather than alienating them.
Dave
Britton Cole · 16 June 2006
As an engineer, I'd have to agree that most engineers do not think like scientists. Echoing Todd, we know science and we use science, but we don't do anything to discover new knowledge and develop theories. We're problem solvers rather than critical thinkers. In university, we even had a very well-respected hydrology prof who was a Climate Change denier (no Creationists afaik). But do give us some credit; we have boatloads more scientific knowledge than a lawyer or whatever.
Jack Krebs · 16 June 2006
Hmmm - we seem to have lost sight of the original topic here. There have been some good comments made here, and I definitely agree with 2hulls that despite any differences among different fields which investigate and/or use science, it is counter-productive (and wrong) to stereotype any profession and to alienate individuals who support our cause.
For what it's worth, I'm a tech director and a math teacher - should my thoughts about and support for science be discounted?
So anyway, does anyone have anything to say baout this subject of accurately portraying the significance of new fossil finds to the public?
Glen Davidson · 16 June 2006
2hulls · 16 June 2006
Jack - "does anyone have anything to say baout this subject of accurately portraying the significance of new fossil finds to the public?"
Perhaps the point I've been trying to make actually fits this very topic. Sometimes it seems some folks in the "science" community need a charisma transplant. Too much talking down to outsiders. Perhaps there ought to be some PR folks to help communicate with journalists.
Remember, (trying really hard NOT to stereotype) most journalists became journalists because they didn't like math and science.
Dave
2hulls · 16 June 2006
Glen - "Why so down on the science knowledge of lawyers?"
I guess I'm guilty as charged for doing my share of over generalizing. My apologies to science educated/minded lawyers. Lawyering DOES require - based on my daily interaction with them - a strong, ability in logical thought. Those that also have a science aptitude are that much better off. But unless they also were educated in some science field or field that required a strong science foundation, I have never met one that can compare science-wise to a typical engineer. Which takes me back to my original question to steve.
I think most would agree that engineers typically have and need a stronger science foundation than attorneys do be competent in our work.
OK, I'll stop now.
Dave
GuyeFaux · 16 June 2006
Glen Davidson · 16 June 2006
GuyeFaux · 16 June 2006
AJ Milne · 16 June 2006
Remember, (trying really hard NOT to stereotype) most journalists became journalists because they didn't like math and science...
Speaking as a member of Advocates for People With Biology Degrees Who've Worked as Reporters and Rather Like Math and Who Have Taken Graduate Math Courses to Work in Their Current Rather Math-Intensive Fields (the mighty APWBDWWRRLMWHTGMCWTCRMIF lobby), I'm just gonna say 'Now you've insulted my demographic'.
We'll be petitioning your government about this shortly. All three of us.
Seriously: re reporters, in my experience, it varies. I think a lot of what generates shallow, disinterested he said/she said science coverage too easily highjacked by pseuds like the ID crowd is in the natures and habits of very media (in the technical sense--as in the daily general interest press is a medium, television news is a medium, radio is a medium). Part of that's institutional habit, part of it may be intrinsic to the mechanism of delivery; I suppose that's a larger discussion. But for illustration: a daily reporter who, covering this stuff, stops to think about representing the science really well is gonna have to work twice as hard to make the story crackle, win the editors' approvals. One who sticks in 'missing link' and moves on gets the rubber stamp. Scientifically, it's terrible, lazy, so on. I'd say it is aesthetically, too, but I tend to see those as part of the same thing. From the institutions' perspectives, however, it's 'efficient'. 'Businesslike'. And so on.
No, this isn't good for the public understanding of science, and it speaks poorly of the culture of journalism (and perhaps the culture at large). But I'm just saying: it's quite possible the reporter's scientific understanding is slightly better than gets onto the page. It's partly institutional effects that dumb it down.
Re engineers: I work with a lot of these. Scientific acumen, from my (presumably limited) ability to assay it, is, again, I'd say, all over the map, from the very generally good to the sadly mediocre. There are engineers out there who do a lot of research, in practical terms, and I think have the pure science ethos as pretty intrinsic to what they do: observations first, hypotheses that seek to unify them, experiments built to negate those, refine and repeat and don't ever get more sure of yourself than the error bars warrant. It tends to concern more the behaviour of rather manufactured parts of our world than do the pure sciences, but I think it's fair to say it's still essentially science--a building up of knowledge starting with the presumption there's a lot we don't know and would like to. But yeah, on the flip side, there are people whose careers don't require them to think that way--or who have, rather, pursued careers that don't require this--the ones whose work allows them to apply what they do know rather more repetitively.
Anyway. My five cents.
Aagcobb · 16 June 2006
Pal_sch · 16 June 2006
Well, it seems that some new services can tell the story with style and accuracy at least.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/5085686.stm
Aagcobb · 16 June 2006
fnxtr · 16 June 2006
mike syvanen · 16 June 2006
One of my pet peeves is the vehement objection to the term 'missing link'.
I will grant that there is a certain lack of precision in that term and that it really doesn't have much utility in the scientific literature, but it does communicate a scientific idea that has meaning to the public. The case of Gansus is as good a missing link as any other. In fact it was 'missing' in the sense that in spite of 150 years of scientific fossil collecting, it wasn't found until now. It also fills a gap between Archaeopterex and modern birds. (The other primitive birds from the mid-cretaceous were the so-called opposite birds that apparently went extinct along with the dinosaurs, Gansus has the bone configuration of modern birds). Thus it has linking status.
The only minor problem with the term is that it implies that Gansus lies on a line that leads to modern birds (of course, of course, it could be an extinct side linkage that just shares some traits with modern yada yada yada).
I am not sure why there is such an aversion to the term 'missing link'. This goes back farther than the rise of cladistics which is a taxonomic system that abhors any intermediates. It may be related to nasty and negative propaganda that the creationist leveled against missing links causing more sensitive folks to instinctively shy away. If so, let us not let our enemies define our vocabularly
steve s · 16 June 2006
anonymous · 16 June 2006
AD · 16 June 2006
With regard to the engineering, lawyer, doctor thing, here's the view from someone who works with all three:
1) In all three professions, people are trained to be authorities on the topic they are experts with regard to. This often leads to them being able (deliberately or not) to come across as experts in everything they talk about because of their conduct and bearing.
2) A good number of engineers, doctors, and even lawyers know a large amount about science and understand it very well.
3) A good number do not.
4) Thus, while any member of this group is likely to be able to talk like an authority or plausibly likely to make claims about science, it is entirely possible that they either are or are not actually an authority. The possibility should be entertained and, when appropriate, accepted or dismissed.
Generally, this sort of field overlap is true in many areas. For instance, I'm not a structural engineer, but because of my job, I know quite a bit about structural engineering and have been asked to speak on the basis of expertise with regard to it before.
Hopefully we can let this die now, or have I clouded the argument with clear thought and fact-based reasoning?
Clearly I'd be a piss poor creationist.
'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank · 16 June 2006
'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank · 16 June 2006
Bruce Thompson GQ · 16 June 2006
Kevin from nyc · 16 June 2006
As a PM/BA/SA in Financial Services with a BA in Math I have to say that I've studied plenty about science in the last 25 years even if I'm not a "sceintist"
better to use the generic "some people" are blathering idiots that know nothing about how science works rather than picking on engineers.
Henry J · 17 June 2006
Bruce,
Yeah, but I bet it still tastes like chicken... :)
Henry
Shaffer · 17 June 2006
As an engineer-lurker on PT for quite some time, I feel comfortable to chime in and emphatically support the statement that Engineering is most certainly a non-science field. Engineers make use of science all the time, but that doesn't mean that training in engineering is equivalent to training in science in general.
Yes, I took a ton of science courses in college, but my feeling is that these courses were by and large taught to an audience of technicians that made use of the work of scientists without necessarily teaching how to distinguish between good science and bad science. Highly skilled and generally very intelligent technicians, no doubt, but technicians nonetheless. By and large, the science that I was taught involved taking a set of equations and applying them to word problems of varying complexity. Never once did I truly apply the scientific method in an engineering class.
Example: as an electrical engineering student, I had to take a course in Modern Physics. The physics majors referred to this particular course, derisively, as "Modern Physics for Non-believers," but the reality was, the reverse was true. The course was structured so that it essentially required you to be a "believer" in the sense that, by and large, we took the equations that we were taught as a matter of faith. I learned quite a bit about how to apply E=MC^2, and a great many of its ramifications, but very little about how Einstein applied the scientific method to generate that equation. Engineers (and others, most likely) learn to accept these equations because we can verify them in the lab, and to us, that becomes science. This is probably a contributing factor in why engineers appear to be so over-represented amongst creationists: what we learn to be "scientific" has much less to do with the application of the scientific method and much more to do with learning to verify something in a lab. When it comes to something like common descent, which obviously cannot be directly tested for, it can be quite a stretch, for someone that's been taught this sort of science-as-lab-based-faith, to see it as scientific in the sense that something like gravity is scientific. I myself long questioned the degree to which evolution really counted as a truly scientific theory until I took the time and effort to educate myself on the matter.
I don't see how saying that engineering isn't science is an insult. It doesn't mean that engineers are incapable of doing science or of applying scientific thought any more than pointing out that engineering isn't English implies that all engineers are illiterate.
I don't mean to derail the thread any further with such a long comment, but there are definitely parallels to the topic, because the presentation of science in the media has an effect on the perception of science in the general population, just as the presentation of science in the classes I took affected my perception of science as an engineer. In both cases, being vague and/or sloppy can, I think, be very detrimental, particularly when embroiled in a political fight against people that appear to be trying to re-define the rules of science. It's an uphill battle when so many people don't know the difference between what is and is not a scientific statement.
the pro from dover · 17 June 2006
this is a test
the pro from dover · 17 June 2006
Ignore the test post. As a doctor I'd like to chime in about our science education and its relation to the scientific method. All medical students are expected to know about Osler's principles. Sir William Osler was the founder of the department of Internal Medicine at Johns Hopkins. His priciples dealt with how doctors should treat symptoms. In medicine patients come to you with symptoms. You take a history and perform a physical exam. If this is done correctly it should lead you to a differential diagnosis (a group of possible illnesses that could explain your findings). Using your knowledge you can stratify these possible diagnoses from more to less likely. Then you can use screening tests to rapidly eliminate some of these possibilities and then finally use specific diagnostic tests to come to the right conclusion. Once the diagnosis has been made the illness is treated and the expectation is that the symptoms that brought the patient to you in the fist place will go away. This was opposed to the idea that when patients came to you with symptoms you figured out what medicine/operation will make the symptoms better and not worry about the underlying cause. No matter what field a doctor winds up practicing they all must take clinical courses in internal medicine and they all learn this method.It is a form of theory building and hypothesis testing. Not to be catty but if you end up being a dermatologist you can look at a rash and figure out which potency of stroid cream or ointment will make it go away and as long as you dont miss melanoma or secondary syphilis etc. it may not matter what the etiology is at all, but for an internist such as myself these principles are the bedrock of my work. As I have posted before I know doctors who use these principles all the time yet don't believe in evolution or in the scientific method when it comes to speciation and want your children to be taught intelligent design in your public schools. Go figure. So when President Frist appoints James Dobson to be secretary of HEW don't be surprised.
'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank · 17 June 2006
Why do so many engineers fall all gaga over ID "theory"? Because, I think, each of us tends to picture god in our own image. If cows had a god, it'd be a Super Cow. If ayatollahs (or ayatollah-wanna-be's, like the fundies) have a god, it's a Super Ayatollah. And if design engineers have a god, it's a Super Design Engineer.
k.e. · 17 June 2006
mmmmmmmmmmmmmmm;Duck.
Bruce .....if you ever open a restaurant please let me know.
Kim Boone · 17 June 2006
Does it taste like chicken?
steve s · 17 June 2006
Arden Chatfield · 17 June 2006
k.e. · 17 June 2006
On the engineer bashing:
Yes well thats all very well but god still would have had to have engineers surely now? Great Gatsby .............God would HAVE to have been a great organizer RIGHT?
I mean even if he had gazillions of designers ,all they would have done is hang out with the girls in down in admin making snide remark about how nerdy the big G's techy engineering crew were. Of course SOME would have liked to hop into bed with the big G given the chance. Think of those genes and all the glory not to mention the (guilt)jewels. As an unreconstructed engineer I a apologize.
k.e. · 17 June 2006
Ahhh; A grasshopper enlightenment moment.
let us all rejoice.
Steve s you have woken up to the fact that all gods are projections....Alleluia
Bruce Thompson GQ · 17 June 2006
'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank · 17 June 2006
sanjait · 17 June 2006
I have a quick question that someone here may be able to answer. Is there any comprehensive website or database that tracks fossil finds in a way that crossreferences them to the putative tree of life? If so, where can I find it?
If not, I think such a website would be a valuable tool for both educating the general public and as a quick reference for all students of evolutionary biology.
The way I envision it, it begins with a phylogenetic supertree, based only on known shared genes among all organisms (for simplicity's sake, ignoring for a moment lateral gene transfers). This could be and has been relatively easily generated by utlizing known sequences in the database, and could be expanded and refined automatically when new sequences and organisms are discovered.
Graphically, this would be overlaid on top of a timeline. This would not be an automated process, but rather a rough one, with both molecular clocks and fossil evidence being utilized to place the tree branching points at the appropriate location along the time axis.
From that, the branching points and links between them would be the major points of interest, with a hyperlink leading to a file for each point and branch. For each known fossil find then, we would attempt to fit them onto our projected tree. Of course, some fossils would clearly be terminal branches, and would require the creation of a new file. Each file could contain any sorts of information on the organism, including descriptions, pictures, and explanation of the reasoning for it's placement, fun facts, acknowledgment of controversial elements, relevant literature references, etc.
Of course, this last step would be enormously labor intensive. I imagine it being set up as a sort of wiki, where various users could enter information on different known points as they learn about or discover them. Access would have to be managed by someone and limited to known scientists, to prevent vandalism by ID/Creationists. The end product however, should be an ever-expanding database accessible to all that shows what we know about evolution and how we know it, and what still is left to be learned.
So again, my questions are; has anyone done anything like this? And if not, would someone, please? The closest thing I've found is the tree of life project ( http://tolweb.org/tree/ ), but I imagine something a bit rougher, with a greater emphasis on the branching points and links than the end points. I think if there was a good reference to where a lay person could easily find which links are "missing" and which ones have been found, that would help people to understand how in fact we know that evolution is real.
David B. Benson · 17 June 2006
Engineers, doctors, lawyers, etc. and science --- Well yes, unless they attend a university that has general education requirements which include a semester of biology. That won't be much, but at least they'll be exposed to the theory of biological evolution and some of the supporting evidence...
Bruce Thompson GQ · 17 June 2006
To conclude:
Unlike ID, my hypothetical
1. Used observations to make predictions.
2. Suggested research to differentiate between competing hypotheses.
3. Reported failed experiments.
4. Suggested alternative methodologies to gather additional data.
Although preliminary, I suggest I've accomplished more biology than ID theorists have in the past decade.
As a final note, no one suggested the obvious extension to my work, an important area of research that should be considered in light of leftovers, DUCK SOUP or, if your prefer the original.
Delta Pi Gamma (Scientia et Fermentum)
peter · 21 June 2006
One doesn't necessarily have to be formally trained in a scientific discipline to have a good understanding of the various fields. Knowledge can come from personal interest and private study - from having a brain and a mind of one's own.
In any case, most people accept evolution as fact without an intensive understanding of the biology, physics and chemistry at play. Even on a strictly observational and intuitive level, evolution makes more sense than any creationist ID mumbo jumbo.
Peter
PS: The Missing Links were a great band!!
peter · 21 June 2006
One doesn't necessarily have to be formally trained in a scientific discipline to have a good understanding of the various fields. Knowledge can come from personal interest and private study - from having a brain and a mind of one's own.
In any case, most people accept evolution as fact without an intensive understanding of the biology, physics and chemistry at play. Even on a strictly observational and intuitive level, evolution clearly makes more sense than any creation-science-YEC-ID mumbo jumbo.
Peter
PS: The Missing Links were a great band!!
Sir_Toejam · 21 June 2006