There are valid criticisms of evolution

Wichita Eagle ^ | 3/9/2005 | David berlinski

[metacognative]

Opinions

There are valid criticisms of evolution

BY DAVID BERLINSKI

"If scientists do not oppose anti-evolutionism," said Eugenie Scott, the executive director of the National Council on Science Education, "it will reach more people with the mistaken idea that evolution is scientifically weak."

Scott's understanding of "opposition" had nothing to do with reasoned discussion. It had nothing to do with reason at all. Discussing the issue was out of the question. Her advice to her colleagues was considerably more to the point: "Avoid debates."

Everyone else had better shut up.

In this country, at least, no one is ever going to shut up, the more so since the case against Darwin's theory retains an almost lunatic vitality. Consider:

• The suggestion that Darwin's theory of evolution is like theories in the serious sciences -- quantum electrodynamics, say -- is grotesque. Quantum electrodynamics is accurate to 13 unyielding decimal places. Darwin's theory makes no tight quantitative predictions at all.

• Field studies attempting to measure natural selection inevitably report weak-to-nonexistent selection effects.

• Darwin's theory is open at one end, because there is no plausible account for the origins of life.

• The astonishing and irreducible complexity of various cellular structures has not yet successfully been described, let alone explained.

• A great many species enter the fossil record trailing no obvious ancestors, and depart leaving no obvious descendants.

• Where attempts to replicate Darwinian evolution on the computer have been successful, they have not used classical Darwinian principles, and where they have used such principles, they have not been successful.

• Tens of thousands of fruit flies have come and gone in laboratory experiments, and every last one of them has remained a fruit fly to the end, all efforts to see the miracle of speciation unavailing.

• The remarkable similarity in the genome of a great many organisms suggests that there is at bottom only one living system; but how then to account for the astonishing differences between human beings and their near relatives -- differences that remain obvious to anyone who has visited a zoo?

If the differences between organisms are scientifically more interesting than their genomic similarities, of what use is Darwin's theory, since its otherwise mysterious operations take place by genetic variations?

These are hardly trivial questions. Each suggests a dozen others. These are hardly circumstances that do much to support the view that there are "no valid criticisms of Darwin's theory," as so many recent editorials have suggested.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Mongeaux]

"I love the way evolutionist call everyone a strawman. Just look at all the skeletoons, kind of reminds you of strawmen, don't it."

I LIKE this guy! Want a box of merlot? Red wine is good for the Skeletoon...builds bone.

[VadeRetro]

So I guess you'll all be back again dumb as a stump with the same bad pennies on the next thread. After all, you can always find another picture of a scarecrow.

[Oztrich Boy]

the universe does not have an "opposite end"

[balrog666]

The way I understand it, the accepted age of the universe is simply not long enough to provide for the complexity of the life forms we have here to have developed through Darwinian evolution.

Then you simply don't understand it.

[Mongeaux]

the way I understand it the universe was fine until "Sauron of the All-Seeing Eye" had the Dwaves forge the rings of Power. Then they corrupted man and elves until all fell before his evil power.

And it was war!

Hey can I start a creation science program that proves that?

[dirtboy]

That's OK. I'm not sure where I was except it was on I-40.

That's Ozarks. The Ouchitas are in the SW corner of the state and extend into SE Oklahoma.

[dirtboy]

Oh, I get it now..if we're darwinites, we don't have to look at opponents points.

Wrong. But when a premise is so flawed on the surface, I'm not going to waste my time examining it further. I made my case as to why mountain ranges are of different ages, based on physical geology and stratigraphy. Anyone who can begin to claim that the Appalachians, the Rockies, the Himalaya and the Amarillo Moutains are the same age isn't worth the trouble of even reading, based on the most elementary of geological principles.

And I have the same problem with the global warming crowd that I have with the young-earth creationists - they start with a theory and then try to shoehorn the facts into that theory, instead of starting with the facts and then developing a theory that fits the facts.

[Northern Alliance]

The way I understand it, the accepted age of the universe is simply not long enough to provide for the complexity of the life forms we have here to have developed through Darwinian evolution.

Then you simply don't understand it.

Very possible. So explain where you feel Quantum Reality fits in,or perhaps Stephen Hawking doesn't understand it either?

[balrog666]

Hey can I start a creation science program that proves that?

You just did, by ID/IOT (Intelligent Design/Intelligent Origin Theory) standards.

[metacognative]

Now there you go again...confusing them with facts after their minds wer made up. Watch out, they will haul off and call you a NAME!

[balrog666]

Very possible. So explain where you feel Quantum Reality fits in,or perhaps Stephen Hawking doesn't understand it either?

Ask the Invisible, Pink Unicorn.

[Mongeaux]

"Hey can I start a creation science program that proves that?

You just did, by ID/IOT (Intelligent Design/Intelligent Origin Theory) standards."

KEWL! Does that make me a Professor too? Hope so - I'm getting tired of making boilers at the factory. I'll keep my grad Students buisy, I'm out of firewood.

[dirtboy]

After all, you weren't there, and there is no absolute method of measuring age of rocks,

There is, by gauging various rates of radioactive decay. Try again.

[shubi]

We have seen hundreds of instances of speciation, which is the scientific definition of macroevolution. We can infer thousands of instances from the fossils and DNA analysis of present forms.

Btw, micro and macro are the same process. Creationist crapsites lie about definitions.

Try not to post nonsense and I will treat you with more respect. Until you can get over the use on creationist sillyscience, you will have a rough time with me.

[shubi]

I will go in with you. We can make millions of creationist scams just like Ken Ham.

[NonLinear]

There are simple, non-obligate colonials today. Volvox. Slime molds. They can live separately or form colonies. They can survive disassembly. Even sponges can do that. Where are you imagining the difficulty?

Heck, you started life as a unicellular. Then you were a simple colony of related cells. Then your cells started to differentiate ...

You cannot use the adaptivity of a multi-cellular organism, or the growth of a complex organism from the egg and sperm that already have the DNA coding to grow into a complex organism to explain how a single-celled organism creates an advantage by accidently sticking to its neighbor.

The slimes and sponges are multi-cellular creatures that can survive being split. They then reproduce, essentially repairing the damage from being torn apart. They also already have the DNA coding to perform this function. This is not the same as transitioning from a single cell, mutating, joining to another cell, and then realizing some advantage that makes this pair more resiliant than the single celled predecessors.

Post 182, however, does not beg the question in providing an answer. It deserves some follow-up.

I'm ok with the alternate hypothesis that the cell did not stick to a neighbor, but instead split into two cells that stuck together. Eliminates one of the two random factors that were required with my scenario. From many - one has some good points, providing a mechanism to provide a chain of cells. We do need to inspect the claim that the chain of cells absorbs nutrition more efficiently, but he's got a good start. We should postpone the light-sensitive part for a later mutation, however. This chain needs to survive, and thrive to get there.

[xzins]

ID is not doomed to fail. I'd say the opposite. ID is always going to be there. It is the description of orderliness inherent in life, and that nothing can really account for that orderliness except a designer. It's basis is in mathematics and observation.

There is a conflict between evolution and God. Even for catholic Christians, any evolution that posits the naturalistic development of mind/spirit in man is in great conflict.

I personally think that all evolution must logically boil down to that conclusion, but there are still some holdouts who don't think so, so I'll give them the benefit of the doubt.

[RaceBannon]

Actually, you are gauging by various amounts of radioactivity which you claim has remained constant over millions of years with nothing effecting it...

That is a delusion, let alone an illusion

[Mongeaux]

"Try not to post nonsense and I will treat you with more respect. Until you can get over the use on creationist sillyscience, you will have a rough time with me."

Yeah and me too! I'm a Professor of Hobbitt Creationism. Us intellectuals don't respond well to hooey and flapdoodle. Balderdash works sometimes, at faculty meetings...

[dirtboy]

Actually, you are gauging by various amounts of radioactivity which you claim has remained constant over millions of years with nothing effecting it...That is a delusion, let alone an illusion

Theories of radioactive decay are well-proven. Try again.