Tom Bethell Puts Darwinism on Defense

Human Events ^ | 12.17.05 | Pat Buchanan

[Right Wing Professor]

Chris Mooney's review of Bethell's book is first rate. I especially like the original sub-title of Bethell's book, which they changed at the last minute.

"Liberals have hijacked science for long enough. Now it's our turn."

BWAHAHAHA!

[farmer18th]

Exploration of related species has also made it possible to develop natural products from more accessible relatives of rare species in which natural products have been found, as occurred when the rare and endangered Pacific yew was found to contain a substance (taxol) useful in treating breast cancer.

Forgive me, but there is nothing even remotely "evolutionary" in this description of benefit. It's odd how seamlessly "scientists" have chosen to call what is in fact a very systematic process ("develop from ...accessible") as an "evolutionary" process. If scientists applied the methodology of evolution to their own work, they would attempt to manufacture chaos (itself a contradiction) and wait for the chaos to produce something that is selected. How is "exploration of related species" even close to accidental selection? It is, in fact, the opposite.

I've noticed that evolutionists tend to do a lot of cut and pasting in these dialogues, and I believe this is reflective of the institituion-speak that young scientists are tought to ape. The scholarship doesn't stand on its own, and only a graduate student would claim it.

[tallhappy]

You'll notice the pattern -- argument by spam.

[Cicero]

I don't know ANY professed Darwinists who don't think that life originally came out of the primordial ooze from the chance collocation of molecules. Sure, there are some Catholics, for example, who think that God guided speciation, and put souls into the first human beings, but these are not your hardcore Darwinists.

I have no desire to defend Buchanan, who tends to be an idiot. But he is at least broadly right in saying that Darwinists overwhelmingly claim that organic compounds such as amino acids and so forth came together by chance and from material causes. And he's right if he says they would have a tough time proving it, because that supposition doesn't make sense statistically.

[Dimensio]

I don't know ANY professed Darwinists who don't think that life originally came out of the primordial ooze from the chance collocation of molecules. Sure, there are some Catholics, for example, who think that God guided speciation, and put souls into the first human beings, but these are not your hardcore Darwinists.

Your personal experiences do not change the theory of evolution. The theory of evolution does not and has never included life forming from non-life. A divine agent zap-poofing the first life forms into existence would not, in any way, contradict the theory of evolution. Any criticisms of the theory grounded in abiogenesis are founded in ignorance. Apparently, however, neither you nor Buchanan can actually muster a reasonable countering of the mountains of evidence for the theory of evolution so instead you think it appropriate to distract by knocking down a strawman called "Darwinists".

[Coleus]

most of what I read on these crevo threads leave me to believe that nobody knows too much. Seems everyone is just copying and pasting other web pages and trying to make an argument out of it.

[MRMEAN]

Forgive me, but there is nothing even remotely "evolutionary" in this description of benefit. It's odd how seamlessly "scientists" have chosen to call what is in fact a very systematic process ("develop from ...accessible") as an "evolutionary" process.

I was replying to your post where you claimed:

Think about this for a minute: we're all grateful, I'm sure, for the real scientists--the ones who make medical breakthroughs, the ones who make energy cheap, the ones who render corn and wheat fields hyper-productive. These people, to be redudant, are the real scientists--the ones who produce results, the ones who watch real data, who experiment upon the real world, the ones who apply their genius in a deserving arena. They are the paratroopers of learning.

I posted from an Executive Summary of a document that is itself a high-level overview of the role of evolutionary biology in modern research. The point of the posting is that nine associations of research scientists believe that evolutionary science plays an an important and central role in modern biological research, and has had and will continue to have important practical applications. Where are the associations of your so-called "real scientists," The Institute for Creation Research? The real "real scientists," not the "real scientists" of your fantasy, stated in the document I linked to:

Evolutionary Biology has unequivocally established that all organisms evolved from a common ancestor over the last 3.5 billion years; it has documented many specific events in evolutionary history; and it has developed a well-validated theory of the genetic, developmental, and ecological mechanisms of evolutionary change. The methods, concepts, and perspectives of evolutionary biology have made and will continue to make important contributions to other biological disciplines, such as molecular and developmental biology, physiology, and ecology, as well as to other basic sciences such as psychology, anthropology, and computer science.

For real "real scientists" this is the reality that informs their work.

A "practical" application of evolutionary biology is cited in Relevance of evolutionary biology to the national research agenda document I lined to:

3. Pest management

Plant pests, chiefly insects and fungi, take an enormous economic toll in crop losses and control measures annually. Evolutionary biology bears on this problem in many ways. Quite aside from the dangers to public health and the environment resulting from excessive use of chemical pesticides, more than 500 species of insects (including crop pests, pests of stored grains, and disease vectors) have evolved resistance to one or more insecticides in the last 40 years, and some are resistant to all known insecticides. The evolution of pesticide resistance has added $1.4 billion to the annual cost of crop and forest product protection in the United States (47). Agricultural entomologists trained in evolutionary genetics (31,53) are contributing to efforts to delay or prevent the evolution of resistance, such as rotational use of different control measures and judicious combination of chemical with nonchemical controls. Two nonchemical methods have profited greatly from evolutionary knowledge and theory: use of natural enemies and resistance breeding.

Natural enemies, such as insects that are specialized predators or parasites of pest species, are often sought in the pest's region of origin. So the first question is, where does the pest come from? Finding the answer requires entomologists trained in evolutionary systematics, who may be able to identify the pest using a taxonomy based on evolutionary principles. If the pest is an unknown species, the best clue to its region of origin is the distribution of related species—which can be determined by using evolutionary taxonomy. The search for natural enemies uses the same principles. Once potential enemies such as parasites have been found, it is critical to distinguish among closely related, very similar species, for some may attack the pest and others may attack only its relatives. If an enemy is approved for introduction, large numbers must be bred for release. At this stage, the application of evolutionary genetics is crucial in order to prevent the parasite stock from becoming inbred or unconsciously selected for characteristics that could impair its effectiveness.

Another major pest management strategy is to select for resistance in crop plants by screening for genes that provide resistance in the laboratory or in field plots, and then crossing those genes into crop strains with other desirable characteristics. Knowing the genetic basis of resistance is important because some kinds of resistance are short-lived. A pest may adapt to a resistant crop strain as readily as it adapts to chemical insecticides. For example, at least six major genes for resistance to the Hessian fly have been successively bred into wheat. In each case, within a few years of widespread planting of the new strain, the fly overcame the resistance: for every resistance mutation in the plant, a corresponding mutation in the fly nullified its effect. Entomologists and plant breeders trained in evolutionary biology are working on methods of engineering multiple resistance to lengthen the effective life of new resistant cultivars.

How are your "real scientists" who do not use evolutionary ideas dealing with the evolution of agricultural pests who evolve (heredity, variation by mutation, natural selection)resistance to chemical and genetic defenses?

If scientists applied the methodology of evolution to their own work, they would attempt to manufacture chaos (itself a contradiction) and wait for the chaos to produce something that is selected. How is "exploration of related species" even close to accidental selection? It is, in fact, the opposite.

Scientific research is indeed not "accidental selection." As for the connection between "chaos theory" (also called "Complexity Theory") I'm not an expert, but evolutionary theory, in the form of genetic algorithms have made a contribution. Oh, and the ToE does not posit "accidental selection," it uses natural selection, which, like the artificial selection of a breeder, is the opposite of "accidental."

I've noticed that evolutionists tend to do a lot of cut and pasting in these dialogues,...

I won't speak for anyone else...but I've come to the conclusion from experience that the Creationist side on these threads won't bother to follow and read links. A link is easy to ignore, and to pretend doesn't exist. Example, on 12/17 Full Court made a claim with regard to science teaching texts, including one by the National Association of Science (NSA), I reviewed the NSA text and could not verify Full Court's claim, and provided Full Court a link and asked him/her/it to back up the claim, or withdraw it. I reiterated my demand at least once on the thread. Full Court simply ignored my request.

Perhaps you, farmer16th, would have hit the link, read the text, and responded...if so am I not apologizing...but asking your understanding...that my posting practices on these threads is undergoing an "evolution" (of a not-exactly-Darwinian sort)...and I wanted to make sure that it was absolutely understood that "real scientists" supported both the theoretical and practical value of evolutionary biology.

[Sun]

A friendly tip.

Your posts would more likely be read if they were a little shorter.

[Dimensio]

Your posts would more likely be read if they were a little shorter.

It's not our fault that creationists are too lazy to read.

[js1138]

But there's absolutely no evedence, and what there is is just too long and complicated -- says Barbie.

[Sun]

Anybody find that missing link yet?? lol

What's the scientific law that says something comes from nothing, or one kind of creature can turn into another kind of creature?

Can anyone answer this without cutting and pasting??

[Dimensio]

What's the scientific law that says something comes from nothing,

Who is saying that something comes from nothing...

Oh, wait, nevermind. You're just lying about evolution. Again.

[farmer18th]

I won't speak for anyone else...but I've come to the conclusion from experience that the Creationist side on these threads won't bother to follow and read links.

I did read the link, but without attempting a book-long refutation, let me say this: the common theme in these defenses of evolutionary theory seems to rest not so much on randomly selected mutation as they do on the advanced knowledge we have of taxonomy.

Here's a sentence you might be able to explain:

Finding the answer requires entomologists trained in evolutionary systematics, who may be able to identify the pest using a taxonomy based on evolutionary principles.

Evolutionary systematics? Don't the terms contradict each other? Is mutation random or is it not? If it is random, how can taxonomies be traced? (It would be like giving directions that read, "follow that path and then take whichever fork in the road is dictated by a coin flip.") If it is not random, there is an order to the process you will have to trace back to some immutable universal law, and then you're going to be on the path to the Creator--to creationism.

[Coyoteman]

I love the way you parody the name-calling and non-arguments of the Darwinians!

Then you can probably explain this handsome young lad away?

---

Fossil: KNM-WT 15000

Site: Nariokotome, West Turkana, Kenya (1)

Discovered By: K. Kimeu, 1984 (1)

Estimated Age of Fossil: 1.6 mya * determined by Stratigraphic, faunal & radiometric data (1, 4)

Species Name: Homo ergaster (1, 7, 8), Homo erectus (3, 4, 7, 10), Homo erectus ergaster (25)

Gender: Male (based on pelvis, browridge) (1, 8, 9)

Cranial Capacity: 880 (909 as adult) cc (1)

Information: Most complete early hominid skeleton (80 bones and skull) (1, 8)

Interpretation: Hairless and dark pigmented body (based on environment, limb proportions) (7, 8, 9). Juvenile (9-12 based on 2nd molar eruption and unfused growth plates) (1, 3, 4, 7, 8). Juvenile (8 years old based on recent studies on tooth development) (27). Incapable of speech (based on narrowing of spinal canal in thoracic region) (1)

Nickname: Turkana Boy (1), Nariokotome Boy

See original source for notes:
Source: http://www.mos.org/evolution/fossils/fossilview.php?fid=38

[Arthur McGowan]

So? What exactly does the existence of this skeleton prove?

[Coyoteman]

So? What exactly does the existence of this skeleton prove?

In your post #10, you accused Darwinists of "non-arguments" so I just provided you with an argument.

What does it prove? It does not "prove" anything, as in science nothing is proved.

But, it is a data point. There is a particular skeletal morphology at a particular time. Join this with thousands of other data points, and you begin to form a picture, much like a moving picture is formed from thousands of individual frames.

So, here is an "argument" for you. Explain it away if you can.

[Arthur McGowan]

I don't need to explain it away, because I don't deny that there has been evolution.

[Arthur McGowan]

Here's my personal position: I take virtually no interest in the debates about evolution, creationism, and "intelligent design," because they are of no theological significance. The evidence for the existence of God is to be found in some very simple metaphysical arguments, not in physics or biology or any other material science. And absolutely nothing in Genesis has anything to do with science. So it just doesn't concern me what bones anybody digs up. None of it has anything to do with religion, except the religion of biblical fundamentalists who look in the Scriptures for things that are not there--such as pre-history, astronomy, biology, and physics. Christianity is based on definite historical assertions--but they are assertions about the Jews and about Jesus--events that occurred within the past 5000 years, not 5 million or 5 billion years ago.

[Coyoteman]

Thank you for the clarification.

All of my posts were in response to your comment in post #10 about the "non-arguments of the Darwinians!" I decided to provide some arguments.

[NapkinUser]

"330....people on the evolution ping list."

Not even half of the DUmmie FUnnies ping list.