h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Grmblfngheshdgdfkz.... It's:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/h2g2/guide/A622478

8 and ) gives 8)... Sorry I had no intention to put the 8) there.

HELL

I can really not understand why this article is critcised so heavily. Eg as far as structure and language is concerned I would be very happy if all articles (especially mine ) were that way.

As far as contents is concerned: I'm deeply convinced that the fundamental principles of evolution theory are totally correct, but despite that, I enjoyed the reading. Not because I felt superior, but because I was motivated to ponder some things that hadn't been clear to me before.

One few things must be added to create a balanced interesting entry (especially possible expanations). The God sentence has to be deleted, the title changed, but the biggest part can stay. And one of our experts may be so kind and correct the DNA-RNA section. The basic expression there is really one of the greatest problems of fans of pure evolution like me. Being a pysicist I know that one of 'our' laws even cleary forbids that life comes into existence out of thin air (or thick sludge).

The difficulty is of course that this hihly probably contravenes the author's intention. Really a pity.

You are correct that the article taken in isolation (excluding the evolution==GOD piece) doesn't state a case for creationism. I'm sure most of the critics here

In the case of the Java man fossils, someone mentioned elsewhere that there was a case involving a pig tooth found in North America. Without knowing the exact details, my best guess is that possibly someone found a tooth that they misidentified as being similar to ones found earlier that were associated with hominid fossils in Java. Since the initial Javan find (skullcap and possibly related femur), there have been more complete skulls found, which are clearly hominid, both in general appearance and brain size.

It is certainly true that overenthusiastic extrapolations by paleontologist on flimsy evidence can be misleading. Where the details that findings are based on are made clear, other scientists can make up their own mind how much trust they place in any conclusions drawn from them.

Even more confusing can be excessive speculation on how ancient hominids or other animals actually behaved. I'm sure that many of the people making such claims start off with an emotional idea of how they think things should have been, and then examine what evidence may exist in the light of their preconceptions. Such conclusions should also be interpreted particularly skeptically.

If I am roughly correct with my guess about the pig tooth, it does show the risks of overeagerness, but a bit of bad science on one continent really can't reduce whatever scientific value earlier finds somewhere else posess.
Though the section doesn't exactly *say* it, I'm sure that a reader could take the impression that after much searching, the only allegedly human-related fossil found in Java was a tooth which later turned out to be a pig.

Hey Hell (et al),

I agree about that Goatee (spelling?) article. Absolute rubbish!

I guess I would try to say something about this whole conv, but I haven't actually read the article, so there wouldn't be any point.

Maybe some time soon, coz it was an interesting discussion (even w/out reading the article itself!).

Seeya

Spiff

Okay, everyone. Yes, the title must be changed. I actually intended to write an Antithesis to Evolution, but went off on the wrong track and never looked back. The prebiological evolution segment did contain several gaping errors which I am off to correct right now. Fortunately, my point still stands. Even the tiniest of biological compounds are extremely complex. Java man should have been Australopithecus robustus. As for this being one sided, well, yes it is and that won't change.

My plea here is this:

Don't discredit God because of my shortcomings. If you want to find out about what's wrong with evolution, read Philip Johnson's book Darwin on Trial. He does a much better job than I do.

My thanks to Potholder as he is the only one who has provided scientific evidence in defence of Evolution. He is my most worthy critic.

"one of 'our' laws even cleary forbids that life comes into existence out of thin air"

I would like to know which one. all of the main amino acids used in life are capable of being generated out of pre-life air + lightning, but there are dozens of other ways to make the same stuff.

autocatalytic sets in chemistry can then take you considerably higher up the evolutionary scale until you get to the cell wall.

As regards the article being ok, I agree that as a piece of writing it is ok. but as a critique of evolution, just about every strand of the critique has been criticized for being factually wrong.

The author has said that he intends to keep the article broadly as it is. If most of the totality of errors remain in, I do not see how it could possibly be accepted as part of the edited guide without harming the credibility of the rest of it.

The main point that he claims still stands, the complexity arguament, is one of the clasical arguaments against evolution. It is also based on a faulty assumption.

The complexity arguament states that some named structure is highly improbably. so improbable that if you threw a scrapyard into the air, it would come down as a fully functional 747. While this is true, it ignores the fact that you don't actually get there in one step. you take thousands of minascule steps, some significant, some seemingly insignificant, and some totally irrelevant. some of these steps survive to be built on, until you eventually get the complex structure incrementally.

Also, he has failed to answer the criticism of the genetically blind descendants of the french couple, who demonstrate the mutation, proliferation, and the gradual elimintion of the mutation, thereby demonstrating evolution in action.

Just for the record, your honors...
Post 24: I did not say it's total rubbish.

-------

Josh: Please leave Religion out of this debate. The discussion on this topic will not weaken anyone's faith. It's about a scientific theory and some questions that are (to some extent) not satisfactorily answered.

I think much of the hassle could be defused if you include the answers to the posed questions by evolution theorists.

For instance: Evolution theorists say that blablabla... But eveidence from fossils is missing, even after 150 years of excavations. In a particular case ..... This data seems to stand in strong contrast to the widespread evolution theory. Evolution theorists try to explain this phenomenon by assuming that....

This would add a lot of balance to your article, and still get your point across (unless your intention is to dismiss evolution theory as a - what was it, Hoovooloo? - convenient fiction?)

Anyways, I'm unsubscribing...

HELL

As you requested, Hoovooloo, here is a note in support.
A US congressman named Souder recently read a letter into the Congressional Record in response to a letter from some scientists at Baylor University. Congressman Souder's statement rather more briefly said what Josh the Genius has written. I'm sorry, I have no links. I will go back and find the date if need be.
Part of the congressman's statement was a call for Congress to hold hearings on the topic of 'Intelligent Design versus Blind Evolution'.
As best as I can figure it out without respect to my own feelings, the Congressman and Josh are part of the 'if you believe in an open forum of ideas, then why are you trying so hard to shut me up' school of thinkers.
I do believe that the thesis found in the entry is 'there ARE doubts'.
I believe that thesis is best supported with a well-written expression of those doubts.
I believe that the thesis is weakened by less well-written stabs at scientific evidence for the doubts.
Thus, I believe this entry is better off as a 'Don't Believe Everything You Hear' sort of entry than an 'Everything You Know Is Wrong' sort of entry.
I think it is possible to find a place for this entry in the Guide and acknowledge Josh's usefulness as a Researcher without taking anything from his beliefs.

My apologies Hell, if I misrepresented your views.

Post 20:

"Changing subject: Reality/Fiction/personal opinion. Have you read the entry entitled 'The Goatee - a critique'? (http://www.bbc.co.uk/h2g2/guide/A62247

It is not factual and it has a personal oppinion as a BASIS (The word critique says it all) - Nevertheless the peers thought it was OK to let it go into the edited guide."

-----


I followed the link, read the article, and decided for myself that I thought it was rubbish.

Just for the record.

Spiff

You can't write about fashion without getting some on you.
To be fair, I do believe your comment is a trifle condescending.
As serious as I'm trying to be, that word 'condescending' keeps bringing up an image of a nude on a staircase. I can't get rid of it.

xyroth: It's the II. of thermodynamics. It makes life impossible, not it's existence (including eg the birth of a child), but its _coming into existence_. The loophole is that it's the only law in physics that can be violated. However, it's so intimidatingly strong that life still seems to be a miracle. But you mentioned that already.

I know that I'm defending an article that the author doesn't want to improve as necessary, but be that as it may, you use an improper expression when you say it's 'factually wrong'. I had to think for a couple of seconds to explain the author's problems, they weren't clear to me at once, and although I believe that my solutions are the same as in the textbooks, they remain just plausible -- not more.

The article shows evolution from another -- not extremely original I admit -- point of view. If possible explanations were included, why not. Anyway, it's way too simple to say that it's wrong as a whole.

I'm not sure if what I have read is a revised version of this entry based on previous comments or not, but what I see is not an all together bad entry...I think that asking people to question their beliefs, whatever they may be, is vital to the process of real intelligence. Except for a few instances of the tone of this entry being a bit harsh and already cited factual errors, I don't see any problem with it at all... Whatever your beliefs are, it is healthy to scrutinize them, otherwise you are just trusting in faith on what someone else has said...it's good to think things out for yourself, then you know WHY you think something is true...

one small point: I was under the impression that current evolutionary theory had it that evolution is not a gradual constant change through random mutation, but that it occurs mostly in times of mass extinction, when the various "niches" are opened up for new species to to fill... the rest of the time things are pretty stagnant...

I have to concur with most of the comments give above, that this is not really suitable for the guide. It is very impartial, and in many places factually inaccurate.

Certainly, comparing natural selection to god is not really a fair comparison. Natural selection is not conscious. It is not omnipresent as such, being only present when there are beings that reproduce with some mutations, and different success in reproduction being associated with different forms. It is not all powerful, being only able to produce changes on existing structure, although over time, these changes can become very large.

It makes no value judgements, good and evil are not relevant to natural selection, which selects on the basis of traits that allow ability to survive, not on the basis of moral worth.

Your comment about the peococks and their fans is wrong. Sexual selection, as has been pointed out, is very important in some cases. If individuals with colourful fans are more likely to mate, they are more likely to pass on their genes, so the genes for this will be likely to spread, whereas the less colourful ones will be likely to fail to get a mate. Natural selection does not case about the species only about individuals, and their genes.

Also, I gather that with the eye, only light sensitive cells are needed to produce a workable eye. This does not mean that other parts may be useful, such as a lens to focus, but a bit of sight is more useful than non at all. Also, the logic of Darwin does not say that "the only solution is to rid oneself of useless traits replacing them with beneficial ones"

Useless traits can be retained, so long as they provide no disadvantage. However, here a proto-eye might provide an advantage, so this would be moot anyway.

Also, the bird is not a good example either. A bird presumedly became adapted for flight after the wing developed. Some have suggested that a wing can help control falling, even if it does not support flight, and that it might also be helpful in regulating heat. Once a bird has a wing, then other adaptions to flight might occur. There will be advantages in being light, and aerodynamic.

It appears that many of my comments have already been made by other people in conversations made about the entry itself. Perhaps you (Josh) could have a look at them, if you haven't already. You do not appear to have, as you do not appear to have responded to any of them.

In his defence, the entry is only a few days old, and I don't *think* Josh was active on h2g2 over the weekend when most of the points were made.

Well, I doubt if he'll be surprised.

I'm going to stick to something I'm reasonably good at- spelling.
'Badlands, a common anscestor to' Ancestor?
'Australopithecus africanus. Scientist have been looking for his remains ever since Darwin' Scientists?
'Does it not also attract predators with it's bright colors?' Try its.
'more comlex than you can imagine.' complex
'mRNA drapes itself along DNA tranlating it's code.' translating, its.
'opportunity offers, at the improement of each organic being in relation to it's organic condition of life.' Improvement? And its. I might not have got all of these, so please try and put it through a spell checker.

Hey Josh. Java man was *Pithecanthropus erectus*, not *Australopithecus robustus*

And the only evidence for Pithecanthropus was certainly not based on the tooth of a pig. A few skulls have been found. You should think before you type, Josh - you seem to believe it's alright to rubbish and ridicule people's life's work because it doesn't tally with your own belief system. Not to mention the obvious lack of research you have put in.

You also wrote;

*Contrary to popular belief, though, this disgruntledment came mostly from geologists, not clergymen. The fossil record back then (and still today) was nearly totally void of transitional species.*

This is wrong. It *was* mostly from clergymen. The idea fired geologists with enthusiasm to find transitional species.

If this goes in, it should be sub-titled 'a creationist viewpoint'.