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.

[biblewonk]

You missed the point. There is no life form smaller than the bacterium in question but they are extremely extrememly extremely... complex and if you try and simplify them, they are nothing, nadda zip. Just like a mouse trap minus any one component.

[general_re]

Trouble is, those extra items don't just drop off of non-complex things.

That's what mutation does - it causes things to change. It was a skateboard, but now the code that makes wheels is non-functional or absent because of some mutation. Or it was a plank of wood, but now it has code to produce crude wheels - it goes both ways equally well. The question then is, is the plank of wood fit on its own merits, not based on the fact that it's not a skateboard. The fact that it doesn't roll is irrelevant to whether it's functional, because rolling isn't the be-all and end-all of functionality - it's merely one function in a very, very large sea of possibilities.

[ColdSteelTalon]

"As an icon of antievolution, the flagellum has fallen," says Prof. Miller, a practicing Catholic. "If bits and pieces of a machine are useful for different functions, it means that natural selection could indeed produce elements of a biochemical machine for different purposes."

Note that he uses the word "could"...

Always look for the words "could", "perhaps"... Its a dead giveaway that means NOT PROVEN.

[Ophiucus]

Why in the world are there different types of flagella?

Why do different fish have different fins? Why do alligators, birds, horses, and people have different legs yet worms and slugs have none?

Or think of it this way - come up with two numbers when added together equal twelve.

Sometimes different demands produce different responses and sometimes there is more than one way to solve the problem.

[Dimensio]

So, did the woodpecker evolve all 3 at the same time? What are the chances? Which came last, the tongue, the beak, or (the "logical" choice) the shock-absorbing skull? Once all 3 pieces were in place, how and when did it evolve the instinct to feed the way it does?

Well, here's one explanation.

[Ophiucus]

You missed the point. There is no life form smaller than the bacterium in question but they are extremely extrememly extremely... complex and if you try and simplify them, they are nothing, nadda zip. Just like a mouse trap minus any one component.

So if you break it - it's broken?

I thought the point being made was that a mousetrap has a certain complexity and if missing a part, will not work. Following point then being that there can't be a simpler, earlier mousetrap of less parts because it won't work.

[Dimensio]

Always look for the words "could", "perhaps"... Its a dead giveaway that means NOT PROVEN.

Yeah, funny that. Evolution, being theory, can't be proven, so no intellectually honest scientist will claim that it has been proven. No theory in science can ever be proven. That's just how science works.

[AndrewC]

The fact that it doesn't roll is irrelevant to whether it's functional, because rolling isn't the be-all and end-all of functionality - it's merely one function in a very, very large sea of possibilities.

Most of which drive to extinction.

[longshadow]

A clarification: when "RadioAstronomer" said "indeed it is" he was referring to the fact that the moon is receding, NOT that it would leave earth orbit.

The moon gains orbital angular momentum at the expense of the earth's rotational angular momentum; the result is the moon gets farther away, and the earth's spin slows down. I'm sure RA will explain the details when he gets back online later today.....

[betty boop]

Interesting - you used "evolution"....I suppose we can also say that God has "evolved" as well...from the worship of gods of fire, war, etc....

I don't think we can say that, Raven, unless you imagine (after Feuerbach and Marx) that God is only a construct or projection of the human imagination; i.e., a comforting fiction. If we want to speak of fiction here, we need to explain the persistence and universality of this particular fiction. For the earliest clear signs of religious imagination date back some forty-two millennia; e.g., the Lascaux cave paintings in the French Pyrenees.... plus we would have to account for the sheer universality of religious belief and experience ever since.

I imagine that it makes no sense at all to apply "evolution" -- a temporal process -- to a Being Who is not in time (i.e., God is eternal).

What I think we can say, however, is the way human beings symbolize God "evolves"....

[Alamo-Girl]

Indeed. All excellent points! Thank you so much for the ping!

[newgeezer]

Well, here's one explanation.

Not really. All it does is point out where some creationists allegedly misstated the physiology of the woodpecker's tongue.

I'm still left wondering how many long- or short-beaked birds with mismatched tongues died in the act of repeatedly bashing their beaks into tree trunks -- it must still happen every day -- before they evolved that shock-absorbing skull.

[Dimensio]

I'm still left wondering how many long- or short-beaked birds with mismatched tongues died in the act of repeatedly bashing their beaks into tree trunks -- it must still happen every day -- before they evolved that shock-absorbing skull.

Or, their descendents didn't "bash" their heads into trees so rapidly because they didn't have skulls that absorbed the shock as well; instead, they would tap at the trees as best their physiology would allow. Over time, the ones that were able to handle stronger and stronger blows against the tree because of slightly better skulls were able to surivive and reproduce, passing the trait to their offspring.

[Elsie]

Now, if we go to your ludicrous extreme of "literally covered with all kinds of INEFFECTUAL 'features,'"

 

Oh?? Why is it ludicrous?? Why is it extreme??

 

 

I guess you'd have to have some data to base that assumption upon...

 

like, in each generation, what is the rate of changes to non-changes...

and, once you have THIS data, what are the...

 

   a. percent of 'survival enhancing changes'...

   b. percent of 'survival neutral changes'...

   c. percent of 'survival reducing changes'...

 

...do you??

[Ophiucus]

Yeah, funny that. Evolution, being theory, can't be proven, so no intellectually honest scientist will claim that it has been proven. No theory in science can ever be proven. That's just how science works.

I was wondering how long it would take until someone brought that up.

A hypothesis is that which can not be proven, only disproven not a theory.

According to the National Academy of Sciences (NAS), a scientific theory is "a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses."

A law is a generalization about nature such as the Law of Gravity. No amount of proof or validity can turn a theory into a law. Theories are specific.

Furthermore:

In addition to the theory of evolution, meaning the idea of descent with modification, one may also speak of the fact of evolution. The NAS defines a fact as "an observation that has been repeatedly confirmed and for all practical purposes is accepted as 'true.'"Scientific American

Theories can and are proven. They are then used to predict and explain.

[Dimensio]

Theories can and are proven. They are then used to predict and explain.

Not exactly. Theories are not proven. The "fact" of evolution is not quite the same as the theory of evolution.

[Elsie]

That is Silly.

 

Just WHY is it silly?

 

Is the rate not constant?

 

---

(I may not get to check FR this evening, YValentinianY requirements, you know......)

 

 

 

 

[Elsie]

Over time, the ones that were able to handle stronger and stronger blows against the tree because of slightly better skulls were able to surivive and reproduce, passing the trait to their offspring.

Kinda explains where we Conservatives come from..........

[newgeezer]

Your theory gives a whole, new meaning to that term, "bird-brained." :-)

[general_re]

Most of which drive to extinction.

Physical death is more or less an inevitable part of physical life. Dying is how your great-grandparents made way for you.