Posted on 03/09/2005 1:46:32 PM PST by 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.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A visit to Canyon de Chelly is interesting too.
Sorry, I wasn't clear about the better survival.
Unspoken premise was a nutrient rich environment. Thus two cells have a better chance than one of mopping up the local food. It wouldn't have to be much better, just enough so that the two cells have an advantage that outweighs the burden of their greater mass.
One bit of hubris that keeps slipping in is the idea that somehow more complex is better (making us the top of the heap).
Remember, my imaginary chains did not replace the mono-cell critters, they just grew along side them and survived.
As for the eye-spot I posited...that's an oversimplification anyway. Since it was an imaginary sequence, I picked something that would lead in the direction of forming a head, as well as the frying in the sun scenario I presented.
I have a serious love of teaching, with a particular interest in presenting science for non-scientists. I get way more aha! reactions from non-science students "getting it" than ever happens when I'm an ambulatory textbook for grad students. :-)
If you tell me what your biology background is and/or ask other specific questions, I'll be more than happy to answer.
RE: your last paragraph
1. the environmental circumstances that existed when life started do not really exist now on the earth.
2. we don't know for an absolutefact that life is not springing up in some form. Two reasons: first: we're not spending billions of dollars looking and, second, there's no reason to assume new living things would differ from the most primitive currently living things in ways we are prepared to identify.
No, the observed instances of speciation will be anything but dramatic, mostly they will be invisible to all but the specialists.
The overwhelming majority of life forms on the earth are barely knowm even to those specialists.
Do you think you'd recognize a new species of beetle or planarian? I know I wouldn't.
What? You didn't like my scarecrow? I thought you would enjoy a picture you could color with your crayons.
The fuss is about the word "valid".
Yes they are amusing. I agree, lets not ban them.
Hey, I appreciate it. It is hard to come into the middle of an apparently long and heated debate and try to make sense of the whole thing. The passions seem to run pretty high on all sides.
I've had some biology, probably not enough. I could probably draw a cell and only leave out a few critical items, and certainly misspell nearly every structure. I perhaps could still draw a paramecium after all these years (though I likely did not spell it correctly either). I know the major organ functions. I have a loose idea of genetics in the college freshman sense. I have a decent working knowledge of chemistry, logic, math, statistics. I have a decent feel for sugars, cellulose, and carbohydrates. I would assume amino acids must have a nitrogen group in there somewhere. Proteins, I am guessing, would be built of various combinations of amino acides, but I've never really had a need to check out their structure.
I can probably keep you alive for a while if you've been injured, but am not the guy to supply a differential diagnosis for a rash & tremor combination. I would be a good guy to call if you need someone to derive the quadratic equation on the back of a cocktail napkin, or give you a moderate game of chess.
So, in reading this over, I can be classified as a rank amateur in the field of biology, perhaps two steps above "find the cat in this picture"!
Forgot to mention:
Nice job on your answer! It was very helpful.
I'm with you on the "imaginary chains did not replace the mono-cell critters, they just grew along side them and survived" part.
You can't carbon date rocks.
Good luck on the coats. I have a mayonaise crop.
I believe in Natural Selection and Adaptation. Evolution fails on its face due to a lack of a beginning. You have to have an organism to allow NS. Scientists know the elements of life yet they can not create a single cell organism. What I have asked all you Evolution is real jerks is "Why can science not produce life?" You all resort to inferring I am some cave dweller rather than answering a simple question. Because you do not know the answer and I do.
Hope you slept well.
Later
I was in a rush. Answered.
I liked the scarecrow.
Evolution even as a theory has more holes than my old gym socks. As a fact it is without any substance. They talk Natural Selection, (which is fact) but avoid the origin of life. Why do they avoid origin? We know why and they do too.
Precisely.
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.