Evolution Critics Are Under Fire For Flaws in 'Intelligent Design'

Wall Street Journal ^ | Feb 13, 2004 | SHARON BEGLEY

[The Raven]

Even before Darwin, critics attacked the idea of biological evolution with one or another version of, "Evolve this!"

Whether they invoked a human, an eye, or the whip-like flagella that propel bacteria and sperm, the contention that natural processes of mutation and natural selection cannot explain the complexity of living things has been alive and well for 200 years.

[PatrickHenry]

What an interesting display of abnormal psychology we have here.

Way back in post 185, someone repeated this oldie goldie:

"Evolution is a fairy tale. It takes just as much faith to believe in evolution as it does to believe that God created the world as described in Genesis."

I was going to let it go, but I can't. It's probably futile, but one of the reasons we're here is to bring some scientific enlightenment to the lurkers.

In discussions like this, we should be careful about our terminology, so that we're all using words in the same way. One can "believe" in the existence of the tooth fairy, but one does not -- in the same sense of the word -- "believe" in the existence of his own mother. Belief in the first proposition (tooth fairy) requires faith, which is the belief in something for which there is no evidence or logical proof. The second proposition (mother) is the kind of knowledge which follows from sensory evidence. There is also that kind of knowledge (like the Pythagorean theorem) which follows from logical proof. In either case, that is, belief in things evidenced by sensory evidence or demonstrated by logical proof, there is no need for faith.

In between mother and the Pythagorean theorem are those propositions we provisionally accept (or in common usage "believe"), like relativity and evolution, because they are scientific theories -- logical and falsifiable explanations of the available data (which data is knowledge obtained via sensory evidence).

Too many creationists come into these threads and appear to be clueless about the vital distinctions between reason and faith. There are vitally significant differences between an axiom and an article of dogma, fact and fantasy, hypothesis (or a more general theory) from conjecture. These fundamentals allow us to distinguish reason-based science from faith-based teaching.

Useful website in this context: Do You Believe in Evolution?

[Michael_Michaelangelo]

The only thing in Pieret's paper that has any substance to it is this statement:

In other words, it is not unreasonable to suppose that, even if the flagellum had major portions removed, the basal portion would still be able to operate as the TTSS presently does, leaving it with a function having a distinct evolutionary advantage.

Motile Behavior of Bacteria

At least he gives us something to chew on. (Check out that pic! Looks pretty mechanical, eh?) I would like to see him back-up the statement he made about the basal portion and it's ability to operate as the TTSS presently does.

From Mike Gene's paper:

Now, if someone wants to start this story with "any ol' transporter," I'm afraid that's not good enough. Remember, that we need to explain the origin of the bacterial flagellum (not some "flagellum"). That means we need to account for the flagellum's type III export machinery, which includes flhA, flhB, fliR, fliQ, fliP, fliI, and more. All of the other bacterial transport/secretion systems cited to support the EFM hypothesis merely illustrate that the majority of transport/secretion systems are dead-ends from a flagellar perspective, as none of them have spawned a eubacterial flagellum, despite them all being equally good starting material at this point in the EFM hypothesis.

Evolving the Bacterial Flagellum Through Mutation and Cooption

[Elsie]

1.   However, according to evolutionary theory it is not individual organisms but populations of organisms that evolve.

 

A nice read, but I'll have to object to THIS line.

 

 

How does a POPULATION 'evolve' if the INDIVIDUALS in it do not?

[Michael_Michaelangelo]

Part II

[Michael_Michaelangelo]

Part III

[Elsie]

But some predictions can be made: For example, I predict that our far-future descendants will not have wisdom teeth. This is because, very occasionally, an impacted/infected wisdom tooth is fatal before childbearing years.

Oops!

Then why do we have them NOW???

The SAME assertion holds, does it not?

[AnHoa1967]

How is any of this inconsistent with intelligent design? Begley is trying to make the case that because life on earth is elegantly designed, it was not designed, but rather just evolved.

I know of a gated community that cost big $$ to live there, but its design is hedious!!! Believe me, it was not inteligently designed. My gated community, however, is very nice and its design, award winning. My point? I don't have one. And neither do the folks who waste every Saturday morning wailing away on the evolution topic!!! It just doesn't matter!!

Time for golf!

[Ophiucus]

At what point did Scientific Amercian say that a "fact" was evidence of the existence of a proof?

If the theory is descent with modification and the fact of such descent is observed, indirect evidence is observed, the the theory is validated, yet again. This validation is proof in your vernacular.

[Ophiucus]

I have a bit of a problem with some of the very first things presented in this course.I've highlighted them in blue. br> "Thus, change in the characteristics of species or the types of species on Earth is a fact-- we can observe this."

Many people have a problem with the fact of gravity every time they fall down. We can observe changes in a species. Such a change is the oft used one for class example of the English moth that changed from white to grey during the industrial revolution. A mountain of indirect evidence is available - any natural history museum has this.

Many facts challenge people's prejudices and a person will have problem with that. The fact that the Earth was round caused many problems, too.

""In my opinion, understanding the mechanism is not necessary for accepting an observation as fact."

Do you understand the mechanism of gravity? Could you give a discourse on the interactions of small particles, such as gluons, and the weak and strong atomic forces to illustrate the mechanism of gravity? Most introductory physics teachers probably couldn't.

For many years, we did not understand the mechanism of sight and we still have much to learn, but the observation that sight occurs is a fact.

[Ophiucus]

It's premise is ALWAYS that there is NO God and order arbitrarily came out of chaos. A sheer impossibility from the standpoint of anyone with a working brain who choses to use it objectively. It's actually humorous ... evolution defies the very laws they worship.

Your assumption and your prejudice. There is no arbitrary sense once we fully understand the principles and the mechanism. But that is science - the use of intelligence to understand, no matter how daunting or improbable the task.

Faith requires the setting aside of mind and relying entirely upon belief, the poetic heart. This is not always a bad thing, in and of itself. Faith allows a man to love his wife and believe that she will be there for him - even though his intelligence is baffled that she's with him in the first place. :-)

BTW - scientists, and those who have a scientific view, do not worship the theories of evolution. It's anathemic to a scientific method. Instead, observation, experimentation, and deduction are used. Not faith and worship. Worship is a slander used by those too prejudiced to consider a view other than their own. In essence, 'my faith states that they are wrong therefor they worship a false god.'

Evolution as a scientific theory explains how a facet of the universe functions. Organisms develop and change as they interact with their environment. How that threatens a particular brand of religion has always baffled me as have the constant stream of attacks.

[Ophiucus]

If Behe can make a mistake about whether something as simple as a *mousetrap* is "irreducibly complex", how can we trust his intuition on the harder stuff, like biological systems?

When it comes to Behe and those who use his "argument," there is another aspect they comepletely ignore - there are biological injectors and flagellum that are simpler, use less parts, than their examples.

[Sofa King]

Ah- so evolution should have produced that specific vegetable feature?

[AndrewC]

Mutations are the a VERY important part of evolution, as is the combination of your gene sets.

True, but that does not negate the fact that my genes are not solely my genes.

[js1138]

I have a bit of a problem with some of the very first things presented in this course.

What specifically is wrong with the highlighted statements. One says that change has been observed. this is a fact. The other statement starsts out with "In my opinion..."

something wrong with a teacher expressing a clearly labeled opinion?

[js1138]

How does a POPULATION 'evolve' if the INDIVIDUALS in it do not?

That's a nonsense question. Individuals do not evolve. Individuals may be different from their parents due to mutations, but they do not evolve.

[Ophiucus]

I don't see how it is considered an attack on free speech to want what has been proven to be blatantly false concepts removed from textbooks
Examples:
Gills on human fetuses: Are you referencing pharyngeal slits or "gill pouches"? Hate to say - but those morphological structures are there. In comparative physiology, the construct becomes gill in an aquatic animal but pharyngeal structures in the land animal. They never function as gills in a human but develop into other structures:
Gill pouches in humans

• The pouches never function as gills.
  
• Gill pouches serve as intermediates in the development of other structures.
  

Derivatives of gill pouches

• 1st pair become Eustachian tubes from throat to middle ear behind eardrum.
  
• 2nd pair of pouches becomes the tonsils.
  
• 3rd pair becomes thymus gland.
  
• 4th pair the parathyraoids (Ca++ levels)
  

Geological column: Any geologists want to take a swipe at this? Drilling, geologic research bring in samples of this non-existant column but I guess they don't really exist. Maybe all those words like Cenozoic, mesozoic, pleistocene, etc. are really too hard to remember so we'll do a bit of cosmic white-out and say they don't exist. Problem solved. Here's a nifty one of northern Ireland. But Ireland might not exist!!!!
Vestigal organs: So, the classic appendix, male mammae, the pelvis and hind limb remnants on snakes, don't exist? Or are you going with the stand that they are there for symmetry or have an "unexplained" function? leftover legs on whales: So the skeletons just have...what? An extra bone in the wrong place? Fossil records refute this.(P. Gingerich et al, "New whale from the Eocene of Pakistan and the origin of cetacean swimming," Nature 368, April 28, 1994, pp. 844-847. and P. Gingerich et al, "Hind Limbs of Eocene Basilosaurus: Evidence of Feet in Whales," Science 249, July 13, 1990, pp. 154-157.)

There are many more such examples but they are in our textbooks even though they were found to be false long ago. The real issue is the stupidity that passes for an education in schools all across America.

Unfortunately, the real issue is that there are aspects of science that disagree with your interpretation of the Bible and what you have been told to believe in your brand of religion.

The creationist crusade is similar to that of the Church during the Dark Ages where anything not directly sanctioned by the Church is heretical. Creationists are attacking education and science to take us back to an era of only God approved knowledge - of course, that mean approved by only their narrow interpretation.

Of course, there is nothing in evolution that precludes the Bible but it seems to challenge the Creationist grasp on the world so they grasp at bizarre challenges to attack this threat on their closed minds.

[Ophiucus]

Evolution is a fairy tale. It takes just as much faith to believe in evolution as it does to believe that God created the world as described in Genesis.

Evolution can be observed - no faith required. "As described by Genesis" - an oral traditions for 3000-4000 years before written down by THREE different traditions in THREE different ways a few thousand years ago and then crammed together in one story with two different versions of creation in the same chapter a thousand years ago - to believe that absolutely literally is definitively faith.

[Ophiucus]

God was engaging in play.

People who don't read Heinlein probably won't find that humorous...made me laugh though. :-)

[js1138]

Pregnant camels ordinarily sit down carefully, perhaps their joints creak.

Might have raised my grade in geo.

[Ophiucus]

Vestigal organs. It's taught that the tailbone is an example of this but if you had it removed you couldn't walk. Sounds as though it serves a purpose to me.

Incorrect. Removal of the coccyx is a surgical procedure required in some instances of injury or disease. The patient is perfectly able to walk afterward however many patients report constant lower back pain after the surgery.