Poker Alice
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.
You haven't established that. You'd like to.
Humans have variation in their group, Chimps have variation, Orangs have variation, etc. Each is still what it is within the variation available via genetics. If you want to categorize above that level, it changes nothing. You still are held to a burden of proof which thus far you've not met.
Continue... lol
Because that's what it's all about, what people expect - not what scientists mean by "speciation" or anything, just what John Q. Public "expects". So if Mr. Public "expects" speciation to mean a fish can magically transform into a chocolate cake with pink frosting, you darn well better produce such a thing mister, or "speciation" doesn't really exist.
Well, your choice. You're losing culturally and complaining about not getting your message out as a group. Whatever point you wish to make about ID doesn't change that.
Much better than what I was thinking.
A complete and utter falsehood which means the author is mis-informed or a liar.
Nope, it's accurate. If you believe otherwise, a) you're wrong, and b) you're obviously not very familiar with the scientific community. I am, and can state with assurance that the author's comment is right on the money.
Note: He's talking about "intelligent design" as an alleged theory or field of science, not about the notion that a deity may have been intelligently involved in the formation of the Universe in some way. The former is indeed almost universally rejected as pseudoscience by the scientific community. The latter is quite popular, but that's not the subject of the author's essay.
As I pointed out in a prior post, they're unable to recognize their own incompetence on the subject, and in fact mistake it for superiority.
I think you're exactly right, with this one. There is an element of pride that, in the fact of his objective ignorance, is both fascinating and repulsive.
Sorry, don't really have time for you atheists. Didn't read your stupid post Ich.
It's a Not a loss for the numbers of variation, it would be a fulfillment of the available genetic pool of diversity. The animal wouldn't exist if the genetics did not allow for it.
But when the genetics are expressed to a degree that leaves the animal incapable of interbreeding with some other breeds, it's a loss on the dna front for that breed. You're problem is that it is still a dog. If it then grew wings or something like that, you would have a speciation event when an obvious dog became an obvious non-dog.
The point I've made repeatedly is what's on display here.
You can't show something turning into something else; so, in absence of that, you want to pass off micro-evolution as macro-evolution. The reason there are different terms is that they are different things. Micro works within a species (generically Corn), Macro works to leap the species bounds into another species.
Corn becoming variant corn is micro - variation of given population. It is not macro - becoming something more or different than corn. You guys aren't stupid nor are we. And we are not missing the intellectual dishonesty you present to try and overcome your own bunk. Corn is Corn is Corn. When it becomes something other than corn, you got your macro. Till then, you're shovelling smoke hoping someone will buy it.
When did PatrickHenry claim to be an atheist? When did Ichneumon claim to be an atheist?
Google "corn species" and get back to us -- if what you say is true, there are a vast number of "morons" in the scientific and agricultural communities.
More likely, though, you're the one being an idiot.
Variation within the pre-existing genetics isn't speciation - it is merely variation.
Here's what you're missing, moron -- it's not "within the pre-existing genetics". It's a *different* set of genetics.
And when isolation produces something that can't interbreed, that's a loss, not a gain.
Wrong again, but then we're used to you just making stuff up and posting it as if it were true.
But, then you know that.
No, I don't "know" your falsehood. I try not to contaminate my brain with such utter bulls**t.
And you baselessly presume I'm an atheist why, exactly?
Didn't read your stupid post Ich.
Then how did you conclude it was "stupid"? Oh, right, because you rely on your wild presumptions instead of bothering to actually *read* something before passing judgment on it.
"A closed mind gathers no thought".
Enjoy your Morton's Demon.
Why isn't Senator Santorum out there taking advantage of this winning cultural trend, rather than saying ID doesn't belong in the classroom?
and complaining about not getting your message out as a group.
Perhaps the scientists' message is being heard more than they think, given the stomping the Dover school board ID'ers took in Bush country.
Damn! Back to the Sand Box.
Dogs and wolves. Wolves are dogs. Splain yourself. Right - can't. Next inanity.
As for "corn" being a species or not.. Corn is being used as a generic for a species just as "Dog" is here. And you're not too stupid to see that. An irish setter would be a "Dog" breed and popcorn would be a "Corn" breed. Quite simple. But there seems to be a reason that you don't want people to see that simple relationship. Too bad.
Corn is corn. When it becomes something not-corn you got macro (species). Until then it's micro (breed).
I know "Damn those folks for injecting clarity".
Wrong. You're just *totally* ignorant of biology, aren't you? Not that this stops you from "lecturing" on it...
The animal wouldn't exist if the genetics did not allow for it.
Wrong *again*. Do the genetics "allow for" mutations?
But when the genetics are expressed to a degree that leaves the animal incapable of interbreeding with some other breeds, it's a loss on the dna front for that breed.
You've never actually read any research articles on speciation, have you? Your vast ignorance is obvious -- you keep making cocksure pronouncements which are totally contrary to fact.
You're problem is that it is still a dog.
But it is no longer a wolf, from which it speciated thousands of years ago.
The point I've made repeatedly is what's on display here.
Your vast and arrogant ignorance.
You can't show something turning into something else;
We already have, in both large and small ways, both directly and via vast amounts of interlocking, indepedently cross-validating lines of evidence and research. You just keep denying that you've seen the vast evidence, so that you can maintain your ignorance. Have fun with that. But don't try to "teach" your kind of belligerent and proud anti-knowledge crap and virulent disinformation in schools, we don't appreciate you lying to defenseless kids just because *you* can't face reality.
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.