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.
I'd like to see anyone create gravity. It would be especially interesting to see a lying creationist create a little gravity.
What's that verse about bearing false witness?
It sure didn't require any intelligence to come to that ignorant conclusion!
""Origin of the Species" is the title of Charles Darwin's book."
No, it isn't. :)
" Origin means how something originates.
Meaning how something comes to be.
Meaning how it all started.
Meaning Evolution has to do with how things began."
Nope. It's not about the origins of life. It specifically says there is no answer to that question. If you had actually READ the book, you would know this. Next you want to trash a book, actually reading it might help. :)
" Meaning Evolution bumps up against God as Prime Mover, God as Creator or even God as Personal Intercessor.
Meaning Evolution makes an inherent claim against a Designer of the Universe by asserting that man evolved from conscienceless single cell life forms."
Evolution has absolutely nothing to say about whether a God exists. Nor does any other scientific theory.
" It is the inherent assertion of the Origin of the Species that God does not exist. "
Again, read the book next time and get back to us. :)
So for example, you are positing that a deletion at the same exact position in the human, chimp and gorilla L-GLO genes occurred independently of each other?
I wanted you to be aware that deletion events are not uncommon and now have been observed rather routinely.
This pretty much sums it all up. Don;t look at data, don't think., circle wagons, contimue to parrot nonsense polemic about the mythical "LGLO gene".
The mechanism of how an organism deletes a repeat(s) of a DNA segment as described in the paper is irrelevant to the type of mutations found in shared pseudogenes.
Again, typical. Irrelevant? It's the most relevant study to date done to allow an understanding of chromosomal properties over an evolutionary time frame ever.
None of it is irrelevant to such discussions. The note to itchy and scratchy was concerning his spamming of a poor talk origins religious tract concerning repeat elements as an indicator of common descent.
As far as the "LGLO gene" perhaps you could actually describe it -- especialy in terms of the actual name of the gene, and the nature of the morphism in human, gorrilla and chimp.
In other words do something that is rather obviously becoming clear that is anathama to you -- think it through.
Or you could for the 14 thousandth time be one who monotonically repeats the holy writ about "exact same place" etc...
You got 666. Nice going. Always good to have one of our guys occupying the high ground.
Check your calendar.....
Hmmmm...a full moon and Valentines day back to back.
I know you won't understand this, but please read it:
L-Gulono-gamma-lactone oxidase (GULO), which catalyzes the last step of ascorbic acid biosynthesis, is missing in humans. The whole structure of the human gene homologue for this enzyme was disclosed by a computer-assisted search. Only five exons, as compared to 12 exons constituting the functional rat GULO gene, remain in the human genome. A comparison of these exons with those of their functional counterparts in rat showed that there are two single nucleotide deletions, one triple nucleotide deletion, and one single nucleotide insertion in the human sequence. When compared in terms of codons, the human sequence has a deletion of a single amino acid, two stop codons, and two aberrant codons missing one nucleotide besides many amino acid substitutions. A comparison of the remaining human exon sequences with the corresponding sequences of the guinea pig nonfunctional GULO gene revealed that the same substitutions from rats to both species occurred at a large number of nucleotide positions. From analyses of the molecular evolution of Alu sequences in the human GULO gene homologue, it is thought that two Alu sequences were inserted in the vicinity of a presumed position of lost exon 11 during the same period as GULO lost its function. It is predicted that six LINE-1 sequences located in and near the gene homologue were inserted not during that period.
This abstract is even less relevant than the Nature paper.
Here they are comparing the defunct human L-GLO with the functional rat gene. The separation between these two species is substantially larger than between humans and chimps. The chimp, gorilla and orangutan L-GLO most likely has these other genetic lesions as well.
The interesting aspect of L-GLO is not that mutations accumulate to non-expressed genes (a very mundane observation), but that after the split of the great apes from the rest of the mammalian lineage, you see a new mutation: the single nucleotide deletion present in only humans, chimps and gorillas.
If you read the paper, you would realize they were only looking at the pattern duplicated DNA segments. The study is comprehensive in this respect, but only in this respect.
In other words do something that is rather obviously becoming clear that is anathama to you -- think it through.
Take your own advice ace. Up until now you have been searching pubmed for "L-GLO" or "deletion" and just cutting and pasting the abstracts without any clue as to what the papers are actually showing.
Ph.D. in Biophysics, Harvard, 1984. You've challenged my credentials, it's now incumbent on you to post yours. Put up or shut up.
Well, not "exactly" your point. Your point was: "Every article I have read is based on silly conclusions like 'Gee, it's hot here in Miami...'"
And yes, there is a discrepancy between satellite data and surface data. As stated:
"Surface thermometer measurements indicate that the temperature of the Earth is warming at an average rate close to +0.20 deg. C/decade since 1979, while the satellite data shows a warming trend of about half of this."
And as also stated:
"Independently produced data sets that describe the four-dimensional temperature structure from the surface through the lower stratosphere provide different temperature trends. These differences are seen in varying degrees in comparisons of separate in situ (surface and weather balloon) data sets, in comparisons of separate space-based data sets, and in comparisons of individual data sets drawn from the different observational platforms and different trend analysis teams."
Despite concerted efforts to reconcile this conflicting data, you breezily conclude that: "scientists of all sorts, including at NASA, are using 'global warming models' to try to suggest there is actually global warming in an attempt to get that all important grant study money."
And then you make the remarkable statement that: "Any idiot can fudge numbers to make them say what they need them to say."
Unlike, say, any idiot who (1) ignores the actual meteorological data, (2) derisively dismisses efforts to reconcile that data, (3) presumes without a whit of evidence that scientists working on the issue are doing so in bad faith, (4) and makes embarrassingly uninformed and juvenile cracks like "every article I have read is based on silly conclusions like 'Gee, it's hot here in Miami," and "any idiot can fudge numbers to make them say what they need them to say."
That's not what Behe said. What he said was that at the time, astrology could be considered a science because it was an attempt to explain the world. He was speaking of the philosophy of science, which is basically nothing more than a system of inquiry designed to explain the world around us, so by that definition, yes, astrology was science.
Unfortunately, Behe gave his critics the sound bite they were looking for, and they've been using it ever since.
Not precisely. You see, Malaysian politics does not seek to explain the functioning of American presidential elections, yet science seeks to explain ALL aspects under God's purview, including the human soul. There is NO field where science does not say: I can explain that, God; you are not needed here.
the only thing missing was "Barry White" songs in the background.....
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.