Evolution: The Scientific Evidence

[ewmayer]

Nice recent New Yorker article, titled "Darwin's Delay":

One reason Darwin spent so long getting ready to write his masterpiece without getting it written was that he knew what it would mean for faith and life, and, as Janet Browne’s now standard biography [Vol. 1, Vol. 2] makes plain, he was frightened about being attacked by the powerful and the bigoted. Darwin was not a brave man—had the Inquisition been in place in Britain, he never would have published—but he wasn’t a humble man or a cautious thinker, either. He sensed that his account would end any intellectually credible idea of divine creation, and he wanted to break belief without harming the believer, particularly his wife, Emma, whom he loved devotedly and with whom he had shared, before he sat down to write, a private tragedy that seemed tolerable to her only through faith. The problem he faced was also a rhetorical one: how to say something that had never been said before in a way that made it sound like something everybody had always known—how to make an idea potentially scary and subversive sound as sane and straightforward as he believed it to be.

[Jwb52z]

Well, if this article is to be believed, at least we know he cared about how his work would impact other people. I wonder if scientists have become so sure of themselves that they have stopped caring how it will affect anyone's life in general now? I haven't heard any reports of another development in science, except the atomic bomb and genetic engineering and cloning, that was worried about by scienctists themselves before it was published.

[philmoore]

I think most scientists are concerned about the social impact of their work, and in fact, this often influences the choice of what field they decide to pursue. Innate curiosity is certainly a driving force of motivation to many scientists, but people also want to work on something of value, either to society in general, as in the case of much research in medicine, biology, technology, and the environment, or to the way we look at our place in the cosmos, which probably motivates much research in astronomy and theoretical physics. I'm curious, why do you think that most scientists do not care about the impact of their research?

[cheesehead]

Originally Posted by Jwb52z

I wonder if scientists have become so sure of themselves that they have stopped caring how it will affect anyone's life in general now?

Well, there certainly are many people who are _not_ scientists who are excessively sure of themselves. Some make their living in the field of religion, among many other fields. :-)

I haven't heard any reports of another development in science, except the atomic bomb and genetic engineering and cloning, that was worried about by scienctists themselves before it was published.

Well, you won't hear any such report if, upon worrying, the scientists decided the effects would be too negative to allow mentioning (and, perhaps, completing) the development to anyone else, will you?

There _is_ at least one other example, though: nanotechnology (although some might consider this more in the province of engineering than of science). There's been considerable discussion about setting up safeguards to prevent nanotech devices from causing great harm. (Nanotech theoretically could have the ability to wipe out all life on Earth, not to mention lesser nastinesses.)

- - -

Originally Posted by philmoore

why do you think that most scientists do not care about the impact of their research?

Jwb52z didn't say that most scientists do not care about the impact of their research, but only wondered about the possibility.

- - -

... which reminds me that I'm way overdue with the response I promised Jwb52z several weeks ago.

[cheesehead]

Jwb52z,

First, as to just myself: I've had no problem discerning goals or purposes in life.

From an early age, I was fascinated with the ways that people can understand the universe. I thought I could add to that understanding when I grew up. So I've always had the goals of learning about nature, and of sharing what I learned with everyone else. (In particular, I wanted to be an astronomer.)

Later, after I discovered that I had emotional problems that interfered with my ability to reach my goals, I added the goal of solving my own emotional problems so.

During my bouts of severe depression, my altered-by-depression biochemistry biased me to consider my own life was worthless. Fortunately I got professional treatment earlier, when my symptoms first started interfering with my college classwork but weren't yet severe. I learned right away that my depressive feelings of worthlessness were not the result of rational consideration of all relevant facts, but were, instead, the result of the abnormal biochemistry of the brain that occurs during clinical depression. So even during my worst depression, I always thought, "These negative feelings are 'artificial' rather than real, in the sense that my medical condition of depression is abnormally biasing me toward the negative. I have to remember not to act on thoughts of self-harm, no matter what, but continue to struggle back toward normality."

Every time I recovered from severe depression, my feelings of worth of my life returned.

-

Now, as to you:

Let me start by responding line-by-line to your posting.

Originally Posted by Jwb52z

I don't like the idea of a universe or existence without an absolute ultimate goal or point to it. To me, it makes everything a big pile of pointlessness.

Okay, so you're not comfortable without an absolute ultimate goal.

Notice that that is about your feelings: (you wrote "I don't like ..."), not about absolute facts (in which case you might have written "I have objective evidence to prove that ..."). It is not established as a fact whether or not the universe has an absolute ultimate goal. We can only have feelings about this idea.

History shows that people have developed a variety of ideas about the purpose or goal of the universe.
It also shows that no one has ever presented any factual proof of any of these ideas.
Now, some of the people claiming to know the purpose or goal of the universe will object to that statement that there's no factual proof of their idea about the ultimate purpose or goal.
History shows that many people have claimed many things for which they had no factual proof, and furthermore that many of those people will try very, very hard to convince other people to believe their claims.
History shows that many people who are very persuasive have succeeded in convincing other people to believe some statement, with varying degrees of success, even when there is no evidence to prove the truth of the statement.

You have choices. You can choose to believe in someone else's idea about whether the universe has a goal, or you can develop your own ideas. The former saves time and effort, but you may have to shop around to find one that suits you best. Either may be more comforting than the other, depending on one's personality. Perhaps you'd be most comfortable choosing to accept someone else's idea, perhaps simply staying with the one you already believe.

Evolution isn't about the ultimate goal of the universe. (Those who say it is are probably trying to sell you some other idea.) However, there is vast factual evidence to support the idea of evolution. (If you want to see such evidence for yourself, there are plenty of places where you can -- museums, for instance -- and lots of books explaining it.) This evidence is not simple; it is complicated -- that's why no one put the idea all together until less than two centuries ago.

It seems to me that you can both believe in an absolute ultimate goal of the universe, and accept that evolution is a valid proven scientific theory. (Note: a scientific theory differs from a mathematical theory. Don't confuse the two different meanings of "theory".)

I believe in coincidences in daily life, but not for things that are part of life itself.

Are you referring to any particular coincidences or claimed coincidences in "things that are part of life itself"? If so, which ones?

Why is the idea, for people who believe in macroevolution, that things just happen or that the universe just "became reality" or "started" any easier to accept than it had a purpose and a being started it?

There's an assumption in your question that may not be true.

You ask "why" is some idea easier to accept than some other idea, for a certain group of people, but we first have to examine the question of whether or not it is even true that that group of people does in fact more easily accept the one idea than the other idea.

Do, in fact, people who believe in macroevolution more easily accept the idea that things just happen or that the universe just "became reality" or "started" than the idea that the universe had a purpose and a being started it? In order to answer this, we have to clarify some meanings. What do you mean by "the idea that things just happen"? What do you mean by "the idea that the universe just 'became reality'"? What do you mean by "the idea that the universe just 'started'"?

Your wordings look to me like they may be quoted from something written by a creationist (I've read a lot of writing by creationists).

Since creationist writers usually want you to believe that evolution is not true, what they write about evolution is often slanted against it (such as portraying evolutionists as holding simplistic or ridiculous views). I've seen numerous false or misleading statements about evolution or evolutionists in creationist literature. I recommend that when you want to make declarative statements about evolutionists, you first check with a non-creationist source whether those statements are true. (Or phrase your intended statements as questions.) And the same applies the other way: when one makes statements about creationists, one should first determine, from a source not hostile to creationism, whether those statements are true (or phrase them as questions).

Have you ever read an explanation of evolution that was actually written by an evolutionist (not a creationist who "converted")?

Is it really just a matter of "if I can't see it, I don't want it to be real"? By "see" I mean perceive in any way.

Who told you that anyone's view was "if I can't see it, I don't want it to be real"? Who is supposed to have said or thought this?

It seems to me that people who believe in evolution, most of the time anyway, don't seem to be able to believe anything beyond the human senses unless someone shows them some kind of scientifically supported paper or something like this.

Someone who "believes" (I prefer "accepts" or "understands") in evolution is still a normal human being, still as fully capable of believing something beyond human senses without proof as someone who doesn't "believe" in evolution. Perhaps evolutionists are more commonly aware of ways in which our senses can deceive us in certain situations, and certainly the vast majority of people with scientific training understand and accept evolution.

I guess it's just me because I don't understand requiring proof for everything.

Perhaps your personality is more compatible with accepting things on faith than others' personalities are.

Lots of things can be done without a certain element being required, but sometimes it is anyway.

What are some specific examples of what you mean?

- -

As to your view of the purpose or goals of your life:
What types of things are you good at? Generally, people are happy when they're able to use their best talents productively. What sorts of things do you like to do?

Have you ever read the book "What Color is Your Parachute?" Though it's oriented toward job-hunting and career-choosing (subtitle "A Practical Manual for Job-Hunters and Career"), it also asks questions to help the reader express his own ideas of his mission in life.

[Jwb52z]

Originally Posted by philmoore

I'm curious, why do you think that most scientists do not care about the impact of their research?

I just find it hard to believe that if scientists actually cared as I imagine caring should be that they would actually publish certain discoveries. I mean, just because you find out something is true doesn't mean you have to tell everyone and open a can of worms. I just happen to disagree that certain scientific developments benefitted humanity in the right way because I think we developed them faster than the society itself could handle and use them properly from the outset.

[Jwb52z]

Originally Posted by cheesehead

There _is_ at least one other example, though: nanotechnology (although some might consider this more in the province of engineering than of science). There's been considerable discussion about setting up safeguards to prevent nanotech devices from causing great harm. (Nanotech theoretically could have the ability to wipe out all life on Earth, not to mention lesser nastinesses.)

Oh, I know! A while back I was helping with a DC project on nanotechnology development. Some of the discussions and debates I have been told about that go on in Europe are scary. I just hope it all gets worked out to be able to be well used for medical science before I am really old or dead. The technology is at such a relatively infantile stage though, we can't do a whole lot with it except the possibly dangerous things, if we're not careful.

... which reminds me that I'm way overdue with the response I promised Jwb52z several weeks ago.

Don't worry about it. I had forgotten about it until you said this.

[retina]

Originally Posted by Jwb52z

I just happen to disagree that certain scientific developments benefitted humanity in the right way because I think we developed them faster than the society itself could handle and use them properly from the outset.

Could you please be a little more specific? Your statement is very vague. Give us some details, we want more details. What specific "scientific developments" didn't "benefit humanity in the right way"? Does that mean that some "scientific developments" benefitted humanity in the wrong way? Is it even possible to benefit someone in any way except the right way? Perhaps you use a different meaning of the word "benefit" than most other people. Or maybe you are confusing right from wrong?

[ewmayer]

Interesting news story related to another important way genomes evolve -- via incorporation of retroviral DNA. The coolest aspect of this for me is that it means that genomes contain a fairly complete "fossil record" of their owning species' interaction with various retroviral pathogens throughout its evolutionary history:

Old Viruses Resurrected Through DNA - New York Times

Old Viruses Resurrected Through DNA

By CARL ZIMMER
Published: November 7, 2006

Thanks to advances in DNA technology, scientists can now reconstruct new copies of old viruses. Last year United States government scientists reconstructed the virus that caused the influenza epidemic of 1918. Now a team of French scientists has rebuilt a virus that infected our apelike ancestors several million years ago.

The scientists did not isolate a virus from a fossil. Instead, they examined vestiges of the virus that survive today within the human genome.

About 100,000 segments of human DNA are remarkably similar to retroviruses, a class of viruses that includes HIV. Retroviruses insert a copy of their genes into the genome of their host cell. Scientists estimate that 8 percent of the human genome is made up of this viral DNA, known as human endogenous retroviruses, or HERVs.

“Our genome is filled with retroviruses,” said Dr. Thierry Heidmann, an expert on HERVs at the Gustave Roussy Institute in Villejuif, France. “It’s a hard idea to understand, but they are part of our genome.”

Many HERVs found in the human genome have counterparts in the genomes of other species. They infected our distant ancestors millions of years ago, and were passed down from generation to generation. They also produced new copies that could reinfect egg or sperm cells, adding more HERVs to the genome. Over time HERVs were crippled by mutations. Until now, scientists have never found a HERV that acts like a fully functional virus.

Dr. Heidmann reasoned that disabled HERVs must descend from working ancestors. He and his colleagues compared the DNA of HERVs from a family found only in humans, deducing the ancestor’s genetic makeup from the differences. They built a corresponding piece of DNA and inserted it into human cells. Some of the cells produced new HERVs that could infect other cells.

The scientists named the reconstructed virus Phoenix. The journal Genome Research published the experiment on its Web site last week.

Dr. Heidmann plans to use Phoenix to study the role of HERVs in cancer.

“The procedure is ingenious,” said Robert Belshaw, an expert on HERV evolution at Oxford University, who was not involved in the study. He speculates that some people still carry working versions of Phoenix. “It’s possible it’s also still moving between individuals,” he said.

[Jwb52z]

Originally Posted by retina

Could you please be a little more specific? Your statement is very vague. Give us some details, we want more details. What specific "scientific developments" didn't "benefit humanity in the right way"? Does that mean that some "scientific developments" benefitted humanity in the wrong way? Is it even possible to benefit someone in any way except the right way? Perhaps you use a different meaning of the word "benefit" than most other people. Or maybe you are confusing right from wrong?

Well, I can think of a few technological developments that could have waited, I think, to be announced or released into use until a much later state of societal development. First, the knowledge of harnassing atomic energy. I realize what the historians say about the need for its use because WWII would have gone much worse if the US hadn't used it when we did in the course of things in the war. If we somehow could have kept that knowledge out of the other side's hands and out of general knowledge that it existed back then, it might have gone on to be a much more beneficial thing being developed in secret until society wouldn't be so willing to use it as a weapon, however effective it may have been. That's what I mean by "benefitting humanity in the right way". Winning WWII benefitted humanity, but I wish it could have been done without the bomb. The same technology could have better benefitted humanity at a later stage of development before public release of its existence. Second, in my opinion, things like abortion and stem cell research might benefit humanity in a way, but I don't approve of those benefits, personally. Third, genetic engineering could have been kept mostly hidden from the public until such time as it had been perfected. Society could have waited on it to develop past the point of entertaining the thought of "designer children". I hope those examples are what you asked for then.

[Jwb52z]

Originally Posted by ewmayer

Interesting news story related to another important way genomes evolve -- via incorporation of retroviral DNA. The coolest aspect of this for me is that it means that genomes contain a fairly complete "fossil record" of their owning species' interaction with various retroviral pathogens throughout its evolutionary history:

Old Viruses Resurrected Through DNA - New York Times

Can you, or anyone else here, explain to me why this was even done? I don't understand what it is supposed to accomplish except maybe physical proof of the theory that the retroviruses were there in the past. I find this news rather unnerving because it basically sounds like it means that we owe our current state of being to viruses. I know this will sound stupid, but could this mean that AIDS is just the next, for lack of a better way to say it, evolutionary leap to adding to our genome when humans have been almost the same for a long time?