ISEN-ASTC-L is a service of the Association of Science-Technology Centers
Incorporated, a worldwide network of science museums and related institutions.
*****************************************************************************

"What about the origin of life.  Was there a person present to take a
sample of the primordial soup of where 'science' says life began?  Can
we observe it and do repeated experimental tests on it?  The answer is
no.  I'm sure there are people who are trying to replicate it and
believe they know exactly what was in that soup (if there was a soup)."

-- We may not be able to know exactly what was in the soup but if we can
create a soup with elements we are almost certain were available when the
earth first came to be, and produce organic material, this is strong
evidence in favor of the idea that life could have indeed emerged by natural
processes. But, again, this "origin of life" is not addressed by evolution
through natural selection and the arguments for and against it do not impact
the validity of the theory of evolution. Evolution by natural selection
deals with the biological change of life through time. A theory for the
origin of life would take into account different factors and processes.
Though IDers often refer to the origin of life in their arguments against
evolution, it is an example of their inability to understand the theory of
natural selection and has no place in the "debate."

We have evidence through fossils that there were different species, but
we can not through experimentation prove cause and effect that each
species evolved from the previous.  There must be a leap of faith that
each species lead to another.  Yes they all had the same basic building
blocks, but that does not scientifically prove through experimentation
they had all formed from the same thing like a ladder up to the modern
man.

-- Another common misconception is that evolution has a direction. It
doesn't. Man is not the be all and end all of evolution, however much we may
want to believe so.

-- We have far more evidence with regard to fossils than just "there were
different species." We have indeed shown clear lineages between lifeforms
and are still able to see this today through experimentation on
microorganisms that have a much more rapid lifespan that other animals. We
have traced innumerable patterns among the development of particular
adaptations, have shown the effects of environmental pressures on lifeforms
(geographical isolation, etc.,) have explained the rise and demise of
species through extinction and subsequent niche availability, and so on.
With James Hutton's and Charles Lyell's work on rock stratification, we are
able to build a timeline for the fossils we uncover. To think that all of
the connections we are able to make between fossils and present-day
lifeforms are insignificant this would mean there was no merit to any of the
historical sciences.

-- Fossils, however, are a mere drop in the bucket with regard to the
mountain of evidence we have accumulated in favor of evolution by natural
selection. The most impressive, in my opinion, is our knowledge of genetics
and since Darwin was unaware of this, it is clear that we have developed the
theory by leaps and bounds in the past 200 years.

Just like we can not prove there is a God. The story is told that
the modern man is the “fittest” through natural selection.

-- No, evolutionary theory does not claim that man is the fittest. All life
forms that currently exist are the "fittest" in that they have survived and
been able to pass on their genes. It was Herbert Spencer, a philosopher, who
coined the term "survival of the fittest" and like a lot of the terms and
cliches we humans come up with, it isn't an accurate one and it's caused no
end of grief to science and humanity. I came across an alternative
recently - "survival of the most adequate." The lifeforms who survive are
those who happen to have the adaptations required to deal with changes in
their environment. If you can't cope, you die. The "fittest" is determined
by the particular environment in a particular time and so it could change
significantly. Some of the species who have gone extinct in the past may
have been able to survive in some future environment but unfortunately for
them, it wasn't the particular environment they were faced with at the time
of their demise.

Even with
all our physical and social problems?  These are stories told to try and
make sense of the real physical fossils.

-- They may be "stories" but they are backed by evidence and that's what
science is. Any explanation could be called a story. Tales, fables, myths,
legends, however, would not apply to the explanations provided through
science.

-- The only possible leap of faith that science takes is in believing there
is an objective reality in the first place, and that this objective reality
can be understood. The fact that all humans are able to correlate this
reality, however, could be viewed as evidence. The fact that we are able to
experiment with this reality and make predictions that do end up as the
results of our tests, is further evidence that we are on the right track.

Amanda

***********************************************************************
More information about the Informal Science Education Network and the
Association of Science-Technology Centers may be found at http://www.astc.org.
To remove your e-mail address from the ISEN-ASTC-L list, send the
message  SIGNOFF ISEN-ASTC-L in the BODY of a message to
[log in to unmask]