Posted on 08/21/2006 6:57:26 AM PDT by PatrickHenry
Were the Theory of Evolution even remotely like the grotesque caricature presented by various creationist and intelligent design websites, there would be no debate. It is pernicious that one of the most elegant works of science should be so routinely misrepresented. Before one can evaluate a theory's merits, he is obliged to at least understand what it actually does -- and does not -- state. Failing to understand something before attempting debate against it is absolute folly. Therefore, we offer the following:
1. In every generation, some individuals of a species fail to reproduce. Whether due to biological inadequacy or other mishap, their genetic material is dropped from the species' gene pool. Each new generation is the product of only those individuals that reproduce successfully. ("Success" is a relative term; differential success, like failure, can effect the genetic future of a species.)
2. By eliminating the genetic material of unsuccessful individuals and preserving the rest, nature imposes a filter -- successful reproduction -- on the genetic material of all living things. Because each generation is the result of this filter, the "genetic inventory" of each generation always differs from the one before it. Creationists call this "micro evolution." Please note: individuals never change; they either reproduce or they don't. It's the genetic inventory of a species that changes over time.
3. Mutations occur with virtually every act of reproduction. All genetic material, whether mutated or precisely copied, is subject to nature's filter. If a mutation is neutral or beneficial, or maybe not too harmful, it can endure as part of that species' genetic inventory; otherwise it's filtered out. Mutations that were originally neutral may turn out to be useful or harmful due to changing environmental circumstances, and will be filtered accordingly. If useful, a mutated characteristic can become prevalent within a few generations, and may seem to have wondrously appeared in response to an environmental challenge. In reality, a previously irrelevant feature has become advantageous.
4. Severe environmental changes can enhance the filter's effect, by eliminating numerous individuals that have become inadequate, leaving relatively few individuals whose genetic material will determine the species' future. This will cause rapid changes in the species' genetic inventory. Over thousands of generations, the genetic inventory of a species can become so changed that, by comparison with ancestors in the fossil record, we observe that a new species has evolved from the ancestral version. (Creationists call this "macro evolution" and deny that it occurs.) Conversely, during long periods of environmental stability, there may be only "routine" filtering for continued fitness, and no obvious speciation.
5. As successful species multiply and spread out over a large area, groups can become isolated, forming separate breeding populations. Over great periods of time, depending on environmental factors and the occurrence of mutations, a separate group can (if it doesn't go extinct) evolve into a new species; or it can remain relatively unchanged. The result may be a multitude of species (some living, some extinct) that can be traced to their common ancestral group. Over time, each new species can repeat this process, causing increasingly diverse species to radiate from a common origin.
Commentary: From our point of view, the filter (nature's evolution algorithm) can result in an enormous amount of waste. Uncountable legions of creatures are conceived, but never survive long enough to reproduce. What we might regard as good and useful is sometimes filtered out along with the bad. But the rule is not what we might like: "Everything nice will be preserved." Instead, it is strikingly simple -- as natural laws must be -- functioning with inexorable predictability, with no subjective judgments built in. Simply stated, the rule is this: "Only that which successfully breeds can produce players in the next round." Therefore, when the avalanche is falling, there's no soft voice that says: "Oh, this one has such nice genes, let's whisk it out of harm's way." The evolution algorithm is marvelously elegant in its operation -- but it's not what we would expect of an intelligent designer.
She pretty well ruined herself. It was really sad.
But it sold a lot of books, which was presumably her goal.
Of course, in the process, she made conservatives look almost as irrational as liberals.
I know. I bought the book despite Ann's attack on evolution because the rest of the book makes so much sense.
Now, consider just how long, tedious and melancholy would be a catalogue of all the strawmen charges leveled by some the Creationist/ID advocates in this very forum, but which in fact have no place in ToE. I need not offer a comprehensive list (such would be too dreary), but highlight a few salient points which are not (unfounded assertions by its opponents notwithstanding) and never have been part of the Theory of Evolution, to wit:
1. ToE is mute on the subject of the origins of life. That is the domain of abogenesis, which has indeed some fascinating conjectures and hypotheses, but to date no compelling theories of the stature of ToE.
2. ToE is entirely mute on the subject of the existence or nature of any diety or dieties. Scientists who affirm ToE (which is to say, the absolute majority, particularly in the life sciences) include adherents of every major religion and every shade of agnosticism in addition to those who hold no belief in a supernatural diety.
3. ToE is entirely mute on all subjects of morality, it does not provide nor purport to provide any foundation or justification for any human behaviour, not because it is 'evil' or even 'morally neutral,' but because morality is not a subject of science. Scientists, like everyone else, seek their moral codes and spiritual guidance outside the domain of science.
LS, good to see you made it back ok. We were delayed on the leg to the UK--14 hours stuck in Santa Domingo!
But it was worth it, wonderful trip, wonderful event!
Your list is a good one. Here is a more complete catalogue: An Index to Creationist Claims. From Talk.Origins.
And let us not forget: Evolution Troll's Toolkit.
I have never seen an ID'er attempt such a thing. I do not believe such a thing could be done.
Anyone care to take on the challenge?
I doubt it. ID theory says that an intelligent designer, at some undesignated time, for purposes unknown, intentionally did ... something. Exactly what he did is unknown, and how he did it is unknown. Nor is it known where he did this thing that he did, or how long it took him to do it. Whether he worked alone or in teams is unknown. Further, it is unknown if he only had to do this thing once, or if several subsequent interventions were required. The identity of the designer is unknown. His nature is unknown. His origin is unknown. His design methods are unknown. His present location is unknown. Whether the designer still exists is also unknown.
Nevertheless, the Discovery Institute's definition is this:
The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection. [Emphasis added by me.]
Source: Top Questions
[Generally when we discuss 'mutations' we include anything that can happen during meiosis including indels, transposons, simple replications, polyploidy and reversals as well as such things as ERVs. There is no effective difference in one change in the genome from another as far as evolution is concerned. All that is important is that there is a source of variation in available alleles.]
That was exactly the intent of my use of the word "mutations" and I unfortunately assumed it was a given.
To all of us (evos) it is a given.
And are there any instances of observed speciation (minus polyploidy and/or hybridization...certainly not in fruit flies, primrose, finches, maize, antibiotic resistant bacteria and etc.)?
What you have is a "mutation in the information structure" at most, but not mutations in the genes themselves. They turn out to be quite hardy critters where the most numerous sort of mutation is a flipflopping of basepairs where the change has no effect whatsoever on the ability of the gene to produce a given protein, which is all that counts when it comes to genes.
But it was worth it, wonderful trip, wonderful event!
At least you made it back in one piece.
Other than an overly inquisitive Official from the Interior Ministry in Quito we encountered at the airport, and who couldn't fathom why anyone would attend a Science Conference/Social event at our destination, the return trip was uneventful.
Yes, in fact I was thinking I should've mentioned that in the editing sessions, plus the fact that natural selection is less powerful in small populations than it is in large ones, which lets those neutral or slightly-harmful alleles stick around longer in the small, breakaway populations, giving them more chances to combine & find novel uses than when they show up in the large, successful, wide-ranging populations.
These two processes are very important in explaining why we see relatively few fossils that in retrospect are understood as transitionals.
But then the stewardesses on the home flight came around with the champagne to celebrate our passing over the Equator, and I forgot all about it...
Creationists don't need 5. I saw one guy nail it in two:
1) Bible
2) Read Bible
I wish that I'd kept the link. He posted it just seconds after somebody (CarolinaGuitarman, maybe?) said almost the exact same thing in jest. Funniest thing I've ever seen on a crevo thread. ;-)
That was a pretty accurate summary of creationism. But I'd add a third point:
3) Don't read anything else.
What, that old thing? I only wear that when I'm NOT trying to impress anybody!
Wrong in the very first statement. Only genetic material unique to that individual(mutated genetic stuff only) disappears from the gene pool. After all, the non-reproducing individual got his/her/its genetic material from his/her/its parents. No "self-respecting" Darwinian posits the theory that genetic material is miracled into an individual.(just practicing the art of Darwinian mind-reading/speaking for others)
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.
