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

I do not pretend to be an expert in biology, I'm a sophomore in high school, for Zarquon's sake. I wrote this simply because no one else would. This article does not disprove evolution. That was not my point. My objective was simply to raise questions about it. There were several gaping errors which I have corrected. Several other facts have been pointed out as wrong, but I have double checked everything and I stand by all the information in the article.

The article has been revised a great deal, and I have taken much of the advise given. You may want to read it again before offering any other tips. I want to thank everyone for their help, even the ones who totally humilated me.

Hi Josh,

The article has been improved a lot, but in my opinion it still needs a lot of work.

I am referring more specifically to some of the "facts that have been pointed out as wrong". I am a biologist and I have never meant to trample on your faith, I am just questioning the things you claim as facts based upon my knowledge and understanding of evolution. If you felt humilated, I am sorry. I did not mean to be so aggresive.

Could I please ask where "you double-checked everything"? What are your sources? I ask because I am curious to see why the 'facts' I have learned from university and current scientific journals seem to contradict your 'facts' in such a dramatic manner.


Ste

I think that this article still needs lots of work. there have been some quite detailed criticism of the factual comments in here, and rather than answering them, the author seems to be saying "I checked with MY sources, who like it, so there!".

While this might not be the author's intention, it does show the likelyhood that the author will not deal with most of the detailed criticism, and thus should increase the likelyhood that this entry should not stand any chance of getting into the edited guide.

A pity realy, as he has a good idea from which to improve. there are undoubtedly problems with the theory, all theories have problems, which is what leads to better theories. This article doesn't mention any problems which have not been covered in detail here and elsewhere and refuted. All ofthe examples are years out of date. try and find some modern ones.

I hope the next try is done better.

I'd just like to express my support to Josh for expressing an unpopular viewpoint, and subjecting his work to Peer Review, which he knew would be, for the most part, very negative.

Congratulations Josh, for rolling with the punches, for not being unduly discouraged, and for continuing to revise and improve your well-written Entry.

It is excellent to criticize widely accepted theories. Such activity is a large part of the impetus for scientific progress.

I disagree that the Entry should be retitled 'A Creationist's Viewpoint'. I think something along the lines of 'Gaps in the Theory of Evolution' or 'Criticisms of Biological Evolution' would be great.

I'd also like to recommend the books 'Origin of the Species' and 'Descent of Man' by Charles Darwin. Whether or not you agree with anything the man says, he was an uncommonly keen observer and a very capable writer. His prose is a pleasure to read, for anyone who is a fan of God's handiwork.

Hang in there, Josh!

-GTBacchus, who evolved from naturally occurring organic compounds

'Gaps in the theory of evolution' would be fine if the gaps weren't then filled with unprovable Creationist glue.
Look, scientists are not one big clique - they operate much in the same way that researchers do - put something forward, and then their peers commend it or rip it apart or suggest modifications. They don't all believe in one thing - there are Catholic physicists for goodness sakes. You can't dismiss science by lumping all scientists together and then trashing their efforts by disproving some evidence for one theory.

Zinjanthropus - try putting 'Java Man' into a search engine. Robustus was on a different continent.

You say you are not an expert in biology, and yet you have the audacity to rubbish the finding's of such experts.

Evolution isn't perfect - if you need to track a system that big it's going to take time, especially as the majority of it is reverse engineering.
You wan't a good example of evolution? Well, you nurtured this little piece of writing on your hard-drive, then released it into the outside environment (the web), where it's now undergoing a phase of rapid refinement which may enable it to survive.

How can you have checked your facts and not changed them?
The difference between a Creationist and an evolutionist is that the latter may be willing to change their minds when fresh evidence appears.

Highy entertaining tone here.

Frogbit: "You say you are not an expert in biology, and yet you have the audacity to rubbish the finding's of such experts."

NO biologist will ever come here and write an entry from Josh's viewpoint. AND: Can you tell me where in the law-books of h2g2 the passage can be found where 'only experts are allowed to have the audacity to write entries on the subject of their expertise'? What should we do next? Send in a copy of our PhD diplomas, to make sure we are experts? Please calm down Frogbit! I understand that you are BLEEPED off because you (as a biologist) probably know much more about biology than Josh does. (I don't think we spend - hard - years studying something, just to be proved wrong by someone else who even states he's not an expert, and based on errant data.) But that's no basis to criticise him in such a way.

To all:

I am not saying that I think this entry should go into the edited guide. It's just the tone of some posts that gets me disgusted.

It has been pointed out that the questions Josh poses in his entry are outdated and based on errent data. That's enough reason not to recommend it for inclusion in the edited guide.

Nevertheless the topic is interesting. If there are any questions that are not satisfactorily answered by the evolution theory, then I think they should be included into the edited guide.

Suggestion: Tell Josh where to look for correct data instead of butchering his entry for the n-th time. Help him write this entry. We would all profit more if it were in the edited guide (after proper researching) than totally out of it.

OH! And please for those that think this entry is about creationist propaganda. Do the following: 1- Read the entry with attention. 2- Tell me please where the reference to creationism is.

Stay calm and factual!

HELL

Darwin was not a Darwinist. I agree with the above. You should seek out the man's books.
When I was kid I thought adults knew what they were doing.
For the last twenty years they've been proving me wrong.
When you've used all your ammunition, throwing your brass at the other side is a bit futile. Reload.
It is okay to question things, as long as you wait for an answer.
If you keep asking,"Why? Why?", but refuse to listen to the answer, then there is no quest for the truth but a battle for stubbornness.
As for your age, it is irrelevant. When you entered this forum, you did so on an equal footing with anyone who owns a computer and speaks English. To find yourself faced with a realistic approach to your views and to protest,"But, I'm only a sophomore in high school," is cheating.
When Martyrdom is begged for, it becomes suicide.

Concerning the revised article :

i) Australopithecus Africanus literally means Southern Ape (African)
Java man is referred to as Homo Erectus (Upright Man), and used to be known as Pithecanthropus Erectus (Upright Ape-Man).
Good Australopithecine skulls have been found (in Africa)
The paragraph still risks giving the impression that people searching for human ancestors have between them found nothing but one misidentified tooth. Criticisms of excessive speculation made on on minimal fossil evidence are well worth making, but the paragraph needs rewriting to avoid erroneous conclusions being drawn from it.

((Slightly off-topic) Further to a comment I made elsewhere ealier. More research indicates that the Femur found near the first (and worst) Javan skull fossil was of a modern human and hence unrelated, but that this correction hasn't yet percolated to all research sources)

ii) I'm still unsure of the meaning of the Dawkins/Finch paragraph. If there was an increase in average beak size as a result of a prolonged reduction in rainfall, then I can't see how a reversion to the pre-drought sizes after the rainfall pattern went back to normal would contradict evolution. In fact, that's *exactly* what you'd predict.
The talkorigins site mentions research in 1977 on Galapagos finch beak sizes - selection was driven by the changing size of available seeds, resulting in larger-beaked birds of a certain species doing better than smaller-beaked birds of the same species, and so the average beak size of birds of the next generation had was larger than that of the (whole) previous generation (including the smaller beaked birds who fared less well). Assuming that after the rainfall normalised the availability of smaller seeds increased, the relative selective pressure would be reduced/reversed, and the next beak sizes of the next generation would be nmore similar to the pre-drought population.


iii) The peacock's tail is *not* harmful to the peacock if the increased chance that a more decorated male has of mating more than compensates for the inreased risk of predation a more noticable male will suffer.
For species where males compete with each other for sexual access to a large number of females, and play a lesser part (if any) than the females in raising offspring, males are relatively expendable.
It is a fact that in a large number of such species, males are decorated, or carry burdens such as the antlers of stags, and females are drab or otherwise unburdened. This does *not* conflict with evolutionary theory.

iv) The Prebiological Evolution paragraph is unfortunately still there. Such subject matter should only be attempted by someone who understands the mechanisms concerned, and the author does not, nor does he claim to. The question of the origin of life from a chemical mixture may be worth mentioning in this article, but this paragraph is confusing and in scientific error to such a degree that it seems unsalvageble in anything like its current form.

v) The god/natural selection piece exhibits flaws in logic:-
'Insensibly' becomes 'conscious', which is clearly wrong.
'Omnipresent' is true, but meaningless when discussing an inherent property of a system.
'Good and bad' becomes 'good and evil', which is a significant change in meaning.
'omnipotent'/'all powerful' - one of these terms is redundant.

I am afraid that this entry has not improved significantly since I last looked at it, still with the peacocks tail fan as an example of an unexplanable thing, when it has been explained by sexual selection, and also possibly deterrence.

The statement on the eye is still there, with no comment that perhaps only simple light receptive cells are needed, to provide a proto-eye that can have other refinements built on.

Evolution as god is still there despite people's comments on them.

Also, there are comments on the time taken for a mutation to envelop a population being 100,000. Even if this is true, it is not neccesarily true that only one mutation could be involved at a time. One mutations would not wait for another to envelop the population before happening.

Also, there is a contradiction when talking about the bird: "If even the slightest major mutation occurs, a bird becomes incapable of flight". A slight mutation cannot, by definition be major. But if you mean slight then you may well be wrong, I don't know.

If you mean major then major mutations are, I would imagine, incredibly rare. In these instances the creature would probably not be able to survive, so those genes will not be passed on, so would be selected out of the gene pool.

I'd like to propose that this Entry be moved from Peer Review to the Writing Workshop.

There seems a general opinion that there is the genesis of a good idea here, and in order to avoid an exodus of useful contributors, who may leave in significant numbers, we should instead try to help Josh(ua?) rather than set ourselves up as judges. Some people have been pretty ruthless in their hackings at this entry, but the idea here is good enough to become part of the chronicles of H2G2. I'd hate to esthermate how difficult it will be, but it's likely to be quite an interesting job.



H.

Seconded.

Is there such a word as 'thirded'?

Well, whatever comes after 'seconded'.

Stay ,
WD

fourthed

While you're all agreeing with me, could somebody take a moment to at least smirk at the joke?

H.

Thanks, Witster!

It *was* mainly intended for Josh, who I'm sure will get it.

H.

Oh. I thought it was a spelling mistake. What do you expect from a fellow with a nickname that sounds like a relief fixture for a vacuum sweeper?

On a more conciliatory note, I think Josh should also read Darwin - his work is available to download free from project Guttenburg.

HELL - I don't remember saying I was a biologist, and I don't think the Phd idea would work. It was a comment aimed at someone who took on some big ideas, and then backed off when the going got rough. It isn't a central tenet of the guide to write about subjects in which you are qualified, but it is recommended that you write what you know about.

It seems to me (and I'm not having a go here Josh) that Josh could bone up on evolution theory a little more, or at least read from more wide-spread sources.
To this end, I won't recommend Darwin after all (but I'll leave the suggestion in just in case). I would however recommend practically anything by Steven J. Gould, who tackles various aspects of evolution mentioned (the evolution of the for instance) in an intriguing and interesting manner.
This subject raises the temperature - it is easy to get into 'and another thing!' mode.
JOSH - challenge is an excellent way of making people question their own knowledge of a subject - you deserve applause for eliciting a fiery response, and stoking the fires of indignation to prevent stagnation.

But, Hoovooloo, what was esthermate all about?

Just more biblical reference? Or some hidden connection? I've just checked out Esther, and I don't reckon there's a connection.

But you never know...



Spiff