Posted on 02/12/2006 10:32:27 AM PST by PatrickHenry
MORE THAN A CENTURY and a half since Charles Darwin wrote "On the Origin of Species," evolution remains a controversial concept among much of the population. The situation is quite different in the scientific community, where evolution is almost universally accepted. Still, attacks on the teaching of evolution continue.
The more recent criticism of evolution comes from proponents of intelligent design, a new label for creation "science." They claim ID is a valid scientific alternative to explaining life on Earth and demand it be taught in science classes in our schools along with evolution.
Although intelligent design is cloaked in the language of science and may appear at first glance to be a viable theory, it clearly is not. In fact, intelligent design is neither a theory nor even a testable hypothesis. It is a nonscientific philosophical conjecture that does not belong in any science curriculum in any school.
A theory in the scientific sense is quite different from how the word is often used in conversation.
Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. They are based on extensive data and their predictions are tested and verified time and again.
Biological evolution -- genetic change over time -- is both a theory and a fact, according to paleontologist Stephen Gould. Virtually all biologists consider the existence of evolution to be a fact. It can be demonstrated in the lab and in nature today, and the historical evidence for its occurrence in the past is overwhelming.
However, biologists readily admit that they are less certain of the exact mechanism of evolution; there are several theories of the mechanics of evolution, which are supported by data and are constantly being refined by researchers whose work is subject to peer review.
But there are many established facts concerning evolution, according to R.C. Lewontin, Alexander Agassiz Professor Emeritus of Zoology at Harvard University. He, as do virtually all biological scientists, agree that it is a fact that the Earth with liquid water has been around for more than 3.6 billion years and that cellular life has been around for at least half of that period.
We know for a fact that organized multicellular life is at least 800 million years old and that major life forms now on Earth did not exist in the past.
It is considered a fact by biologists that all living forms today come from previous living forms.
A fact is not the same as absolute certitude, which exists only in defined systems such as mathematics. Scientists consider a "fact" to be something that has been confirmed to such a degree of reliability and logic that it would be absurd to think otherwise.
Denying the facts of evolution is akin to denying that gravity exists. What is debatable, with both evolution and gravity, are the theories of the mechanics of how each operates.
Supporters of intelligent design vehemently disagree, but they do not offer alternative theories or verifiable data. Instead, intelligent design proponents attack evolution with misinformation, half-truths and outright falsehoods.
Intelligent design does not develop hypotheses nor does it test anything. As such, intelligent design is simply a conjecture that does not hold up to scrutiny.
False arguments
Unfortunately, intelligent design has considerable credibility outside the scientific community by making specious claims about evolution. Below are some of the leading charges made by intelligent design and creationist proponents in the past several years.
• Evolution has never been observed: But it has. Biologists define evolution as a change in the gene pool of a population of living organisms over time.
For example, insects develop resistance to pesticides. Bacteria mutate and become resistant to antibiotics. The origin of new species by evolution (speciation) has been observed both in the laboratory and in the wild.
Some intelligent design supporters admit this is true, but falsely say that such changes are not enough to account for the diversity of all living things. Logic and observation show that these small incremental changes are enough to account for evolution.
Even without direct observation, there is a mountain of evidence that confirms the existence of evolution.
Biologists make predictions based on evolution about the fossil record, anatomy, genetic sequences and geographical distribution of species. Such predictions have been verified many times, and the number of observations supporting evolution is overwhelming and growing, especially in the field of genetics.
Biologists have not observed one species of animal or plant changing quickly into a far different one. If they did, it would be evidence against evolution.
• Evolution violates the second law of thermodynamics: It clearly does not. This law of physics states essentially that disorder increases in a closed system. Some intelligent design and creationist proponents say this means that the order required in the evolution of simple life forms to more complex ones cannot take place, at least not on a long-term basis.
What critics of evolution don't say is that the Earth's environment is not a closed system. It absorbs enormous heat energy from the sun, which is all that is required to supply fuel for the evolution of plants and animals.
Order arises from disorder in the physical world as well, in the formation of crystals and weather systems, for example. It is even more prevalent in dynamic living things.
• There are no transitional fossils: This argument is a flat-out falsehood. Transitional fossils are ones that lie between two lineages with characteristics of both a former and latter lineage. Even though transitional fossils are relatively rare, thousands of them have been found.
There are fossils showing transitions from reptile to mammal, from land animal to whale, the progression of animals leading to the modern horse, and from early apes to humans.
• Theory says that evolution proceeds by random chance: This is an example of a half-truth perpetuated by intelligent design and creation supporters.
Chance is an important element of evolution, but it is not the only thing involved.
This argument ignores other forces such as natural selection, which weeds out dysfunctional species, and is the opposite of chance.
Chance takes place in genetic mutations, which provide the raw material of evolutionary change, which is then modified and refined by natural selection. But even at the genetic level, mutations occur within the framework of the laws of physics and chemistry.
Opponents of evolution argue that chance, even enhanced by natural selection and the laws of physics, is not enough to account for the complexity of DNA, the basic building blocks of almost all life forms. (RNA is the foundation of some microbes). However, there literally were oceans of organic molecules that had hundreds of millions of years to interact to form the first self-replicating molecules that make life possible.
Irreducible complexity
The attack on evolution that intelligent design proponents use most often today is one based on "irreducible complexity." This has become the foundation of their attempts to cast doubt on evolution.
They argue that certain components of living organisms are so complex that they could not have evolved through natural processes without the direct intervention of an intelligent designer.
Michael Behe, a leading proponent of intelligent design, defined irreducibly complex as "a system composed of several well-matched, interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, wherein the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning."
In other words, irreducible complexity refers to an organism that does something (a function) in such a way that a portion of the organism that performs the function (a system) has no more parts than are absolutely necessary.
The argument made is that the entire system with all its parts, such as an enzyme used in digestion or a flagellum used to propel a bacterium (an example Behe favors in his defense of irreducible complexity), would have to come into being at one time -- a virtual impossibility.
If one of the parts were missing, Behe argues, the system would not be able to function, and thus a simpler, earlier evolving system could not exist.
It is not as easy as it may appear at first glance to define irreducible complexity because there is not a good definition of what a part is. Is it a particular type of tissue, a cell, or segment of DNA? Behe is not clear. But even if he were able to define a true IC system, his argument would fail.
There are several ways an irreducible complexity system could evolve. An early version could have more parts than necessary for a particular function. The individual parts could evolve. Most likely, an earlier version of the system could have had a different function.
This is observed in nature. For example, take the tail-like flagellum of a bacteria, which Behe says supports irreducible complexity. It is used for functions other than motion. A flagellum can be used to attach a bacteria to a cell or to detect a food source.
Thus, a precursor to a more complex flagellum could have had a useful, but different, function with fewer parts. Its function would have changed as the system evolved.
Simply put, the irreducibly complex system argument doesn't work. Most, if not all, of the irreducible complexity systems mentioned by intelligent design adherents are not truly IC. Even if they were, they clearly could have evolved. That is the consensus of almost all biological scientists.
Intelligent design is not science
The theory of evolution and common descent were once controversial in scientific circles. This is no longer the case.
Debates continue about how various aspects of evolution work. However, evolution and common descent are considered fact by the scientific community.
Scientific creationism, or intelligent design, is not science. Believers of intelligent design do not base their objections on scientific reasoning or data.
Instead, it appears that their ideas are based on religious dogma. They create straw men like irreducible complexity or lack of transitional fossils, and shoot them down. They fabricate data, quote scientists out of context and appeal to emotions.
Intelligent design disciples do not conduct scientific experiments, nor do they seek publication in peer-reviewed scientific journals.
Still, they have had an impact far beyond the merits of their arguments.
One of their most persuasive arguments is an appeal to fair play, pleading to present both sides of the argument. The answer is no. They do not present a valid scientific argument.
Within the scientific community, there is virtually no acceptance of intelligent design. It has no more place in a biology class than astrology in an astronomy class or alchemy in a chemistry class.
Pathetic try at humor, but as bad as it was, it is still better than your losing argument. The point you missed, is that you substituted "have not" for "did not". The search was officially ended. "Did not" was perfectly valid, yet you did a "Clintonian squirm" and then proceeded to describe my rhetoric that way.
Freepmail.
Brave Sir Robin ran away.
Bravely ran away, away!
When danger reared its ugly head,
He bravely turned his tail and fled.
Yes, brave Sir Robin turned about
And gallantly he chickened out.
Bravely taking to his feet
He beat a very brave retreat,
Bravest of the brave, Sir Robin!
If one is in conversation or debate with a liar, how is that irrelevant? How, if this is a point of fact, is it an ad hominem?
Clearly, your example is an ad hominem; the part that was an insult and patently untrue.
OTOH, calling someone FRED, is irreleventnt, unless it is to prove that the person is a male, a male named FRED, or something else germane to the topic at hand.
[Ichneumon:] This is a blatant lie.
[Californiajones:] Please. friend, check the dictionary definition of "lie" again before you open the door.
I'm familiar with the meaning of the word. The claim as written is still a blatant lie, whether it's your own or whether you're innocently repeating someone else's.
If you hadn't included the word "attempts", I would have described it merely as wrong, or at least a matter of differing conclusion based perhaps on different initial premises.
But with the inclusion of the word "attempts", it moves it into the realm of a blatant falsehood. Since theories themselves do not "attempt" anything -- they have no intentionality -- the use of the word "attempts" quite clearly tries to impute a motive to the originator or maintainers of the theory, an agenda for which they employ the theory. And this accusation is quite simply false. It's a slanderous falsehood. It is a lie.
And looking at the replies you received, I now note that I am hardly alone in arriving at that conclusion.
Perhaps you were just expressing yourself extraordinarily poorly (and all I can go on is what you actually post), but the statement *as written* is a blatant falsehood, one that the originator either had to know was false (if he had actually looked into the matter), or was putting forth in the knowledge that he had not bothered to verify its truth before presenting it as such.
It is also a common slander from anti-evolutionists, reinforcing the likelihood that it was intended in the way it appears.
Demonstrate the power of the "scientific" process of which you call "Evolution" and then we will all be impressed.
No problem,
See also:
The Origins of Order: Self Organization and Selection in Evolution. By Stuart Kauffman, S. A. (1993) Oxford University Press, NY, ISBN: 0195079515.Compositional genomes: Prebiotic information transfer in mutually catalytic noncovalent assemblies
Eigen M, and Schuster P, The hypercycle. A principle of natural self-organization. Springer-Verlag, isbn 3-540-09293, 1979
The origin of genetic information: viruses as models
Compositional genomes: prebiotic information transfer in mutually catalytic noncovalent assemblies
Stadler PF, Dynamics of autocatalytic reaction networks. IV: Inhomogeneous replicator networks. Biosystems, 26: 1-19, 1991
Lee DH, Severin K, and Ghadri MR. Autocatalytic networks: the transition from molecular self-replication to molecular ecosystems. Curr Opinion Chem Biol, 1, 491-496, 1997
Lee DH, Severin K, Yokobayashi Y, and Ghadiri MR, Emergence of symbiosis in peptide self-replication through a hypercyclic network. Nature, 390: 591-4, 1997
Apolipoprotein AI Mutations and Information
Creationist Claim CB102: Mutations are random noise; they do not add information.
Evolution of biological information
Evolution of biological complexity
Evolution and Information: The Nylon Bug
Examples of Beneficial Mutations and Natural Selection
Gene duplications in evolution of archaeal family B DNA polymerases
Koch, AL: Evolution of antibiotic resistance gene function. Microbiol Rev 1981, 45:355378.
Selection in the evolution of gene duplications
Velkov, VV: Gene amplification in prokaryotic and eukaryotic systems. Genetika 1982, 18:529543.
Romero, D & Palacios, R: Gene amplification and genomic plasticity in prokaryotes. Annu Rev Genet 1997, 31:91111.
Stark, GR & Wahl, GM: Gene amplification. Annu Rev Biochem 1984, 53:447491.
Reinbothe, S, Ortel, B, & Parthier, B: Overproduction by gene amplification of the multifunctional arom protein confers glyphosate tolerance to a plastid-free mutant of Euglena gracilis. Mol Gen Genet 1993, 239:416424.
Gottesman, MM, Hrycyna, CA, Schoenlein, PV, Germann, UA, & Pastan, I: Genetic analysis of the multidrug transporter. Annu Rev Genet 1995, 29:607649.
Schwab, M: Oncogene amplification in solid tumors. Semin Cancer Biol 1999, 9:319325.
Widholm, JM, Chinnala, AR, Ryu, JH, Song, HS, Eggett, T, & Brotherton, JE: Glyphosate selection of gene amplification in suspension cultures of three plant species. Physiol Plant 2001, 112:540545.
Otto, E, Young, JE, & Maroni, G: Structure and expression of a tandem duplication of the Drosophila metallothionein gene. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 1986, 83:60256029.
Maroni, G, Wise, J, Young, JE, & Otto, E: Metallothionein gene duplications and metal tolerance in natural populations of Drosophila melanogaster. Genetics 1987, 117:739744.
Kondratyeva, TF, Muntyan, LN, & Karvaiko, GI: Zinc-resistant and arsenic-resistant strains of Thiobacillus ferrooxidans have increased copy numbers of chromosomal resistance genes. Microbiology 1995, 141:11571162.
Tohoyama, H, Shiraishi, E, Amano, S, Inouhe, M, Joho, M, & Murayama, T: Amplification of a gene for metallothionein by tandem repeat in a strain of cadmium-resistant yeast cells. FEMS Microbiol Lett 1996, 136:269273.
Sonti, RV & Roth, JR: Role of gene duplications in the adaptation of Salmonella typhimurium to growth on limiting carbon sources. Genetics 1989, 123:1928.
Brown, CJ, Todd, KM, & Rosenzweig, RF: Multiple duplications of yeast hexose transport genes in response to selection in a glucose-limited environment. Mol Biol Evol 1998, 15:931942.
Hastings, PJ, Bull, HJ, Klump, JR, & Rosenberg, SM: Adaptive amplification: an inducible chromosomal instability mechanism. Cell 2000, 103:723731.
Tabashnik, BE: Implications of gene amplification for evolution and management of insecticide resistance. J Econ Entomol 1990, 83:11701176.
Lenormand, T, Guillemaud, T, Bourguet, D, & Raymond, M: Appearance and sweep of a gene duplication: adaptive response and potential for new functions in the mosquito Culex pipiens. Evolution 1998, 52:17051712.
Guillemaud, T, Raymond, M, Tsagkarakou, A, Bernard, C, Rochard, P, & Pasteur, N: Quantitative variation and selection of esterase gene amplification in Culex pipiens. Heredity 1999, 83:8799.
Until Evolutionists can create something out of nothing, their "science" means nothing.
Wow, what an enormously vapid and idiotic assertion. Let's try that in other contexts, where it's equally (in)valid, and see how dumb it sounds, shall we?
Until meteorologists can create something out of nothing, their "science" means nothing.Nope, still sounds really stupid, and transparently false.Until automotive engineers can create something out of nothing, their "science" means nothing.
Until rocket scientists can create something out of nothing, their "science" means nothing.
Until civil engineers can create something out of nothing, their "science" means nothing.
Until can create something out of nothing, their "science" means nothing.
Until radiologists can create something out of nothing, their "science" means nothing.
Until agronomists can create something out of nothing, their "science" means nothing.
Until endocrinologists can create something out of nothing, their "science" means nothing.
Until vulcanologists can create something out of nothing, their "science" means nothing.
Until botanists can create something out of nothing, their "science" means nothing.
How about this one: Until Jehovists can create something out of nothing, their "religion" means nothing. After all, it's the *theists* who avow that something *was* created out of nothing, and yet they can't demonstrate that this process ever actually can or even did occur. Science, on the other hand, leaves that as an open question -- makes no conclusions about whether such a process was possible or even necessary. Perhaps there always *was* "something" and never "nothing". Or perhaps "something" is, ultimately, nothingness after all:
"There are something like ten million million million million million million million million million million million million million million (1 with eighty [five] zeroes after it) particles in the region of the universe that we can observe. Where did they all come from? The answer is that, in quantum theory, particles can be created out of energy in the form of particle/antiparticle pairs. But that just raises the question of where the energy came from. The answer is that the total energy of the universe is exactly zero. The matter in the universe is made out of positive energy. However, the matter is all attracting itself by gravity. Two pieces of matter that are close to each other have less energy than the same two pieces a long way apart, because you have to expend energy to separate them against the gravitational force that is pulling them together. Thus, in a sense, the gravitational field has negative energy. In the case of a universe that is approximately uniform in space, one can show that this negative gravitational energy exactly cancels the positive energy represented by the matter. So the total energy of the universe is zero."Regardless where "something" may or may not have come from, evolution still *works* and demonstrably has happened and was involved in, at the very least, a great deal of the diversity of modern life. Similarly, meteorology still works no matter how or where the atmosphere may have originated.-- Steven Hawking, 1988, "1988. A Brief History of Time", p. 129
In any case, I *have* made something out of nothing -- I have written many computer programs which in no way existed in any form before I created them from scratch. So perhaps you could lay to rest your goofy "requirement".
But so far, the only human being who demonstrated the power of creation -- i.e. the power over life and death -- was Jesus Christ of Nazareth.
Oh? What's your evidence for this claim? "I have a book that says so and the book says it's accurate on that issue" is circular reasoning. Even by the book's account, you couldn't even demonstrate that he was actually dead and returned from the dead, as opposed to, say, the kind of "presumed dead but later awoke from a comatose state much to everyone's surprise" cases which were actually quite common before the advent of modern medicine and diagnostic tools. For that matter, even today I read about 2-3 similar cases a year, in areas where modern medicine aren't readily available.
And THAT is what this thread is really all about.
For *you* it may be. For *us* it's about trying to get people to stop telling lies about science and the people who practice it or advocate it.
It's the inherent, unspoken argument that stirs people up over Evolution. Sorry.
There are plenty of Christians who have no problem with this alleged "clash" between science and their religion. There's nothing "inherent" in modern biology which fuels such a clash. It's the touchy, defensive beliefs of a *fraction* of all religious people who get their shorts in a knot over scientists daring to (*gasp*) make their findings public and (*horrors*!) teaching science in school.
"Did not" implies they do not exist. "Have not" is more accurate because it states only that they have not been located.
The internet can produce all sorts sensory activities. But, since you appear to be completely unaware of the way English writers and speakers us terms such as "the smell of fear", to describe another, who is in a difficult situation, you must, yet again, react with a juvenile stab at calumny.
No it says everything about you. That was selected only because google had it as the first entry and the example was the only one there. Google "ad hominem" and see for yourself. But you are probably too tied up in searching for some imagined injury to pull you out of the hole you are in. Tough luck.
This is the site google had first.
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/ad-hominem.html
That is deceptive enough to be another lie.
And maybe he's just smarter than you in knowing what nonsense to avoid in argumentation. Misunderestimated..
You are out of your mind. If I did not find the matching sock to a sock, it does not imply that it does not exist. It only implies that I did not find it.
Blame Google, but YOU posted it, Google didn't.
There are non-offensive examples, but you posted that one. I do not believe you found that one offensive.
What is Dover?
And please again all youse Evos out there, I'm not "lying". But bless you anyway.
PERIOD !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Tell me, if you will, if it's a fraction of all religious people, why is it that the numbers aren't different. I mean, CBS's numbers show only 27% believe in Evolution plus God, while 55% believe in God alone. I mean, if you're going to state that, I'd have to say the burden is on you to show it is so because the numbers say you're mistating the facts.
As for whether there is a problem between religion and evolution. Between Christianity and Evolution there is most certainly a problem. And it's no small problem, which is why the numbers look as they do. People who believe a mix fall into a couple of categories not the least of which is that they don't know why they believe what they believe. Some just don't know their scriptures and some don't know fully what evolution says in light of that. And that is where guys like Kent Hovind and Ken Ham make great strides and why evolutionists have nothing but disdain for both.. likening them to the taliban and such.. *snort*.
Whew.
Well, uh, Lord bless you, too.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.