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.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm sorry, but I respecfully disagree, and on both counts.
Intelligent design is not a scienfitic theory. It is a conjecture. It offers no experiments to be performed to test its validity. Rather, it is only a reactionary attempt to discredit evolutionary theory.
Furthermore, it always begs the question of the Creator. It states that natural processes are insufficient to explain the variety of life we observe, and suggests there is a guiding intelligence. But who might this intelligence be? The Raelians?
You really have trouble responding to people's arguments don't you? If there were too many big words I can use little ones for you.
You haven't dismissed any of my points, you only changed the subject and issued personal insults.
Complexity increases in a program that learns to play a game like chess or checkers.
You asume you have made a point. I said earlier that I will not debate balderdash and I meant it.
Now I'll be a clear as I can and I'll type slow so you can read it. You are dismissed.
Mango?
So you are unconvinced by fossils of evolution?
I did make points, you just couldn't answer them. You still haven't, and it is clear you are not willing to ever do so. Your only answer was to call people jerks and dummazz. You cannot accept the FACT that evolution is not and has not ever been about the origins of life on earth. You willfully ignore this fact and say that because we can't fully explain the origin of life, evolution is wrong. When pressed time and time again with the FACT that evolution only describes adaptation through time of, and not life's origins, you willfully ignore that and continue ad nauseum with *It doesn't explain life's origins...blah blah...* The theory of relativity does not describe the origins of life on earth too, I guess that it's bunk as well. Nevermind it was never intended to describe it. It's hard to belive you are as stupid as your argument makes you appear. Maybe I am wrong about that; your petty insults and non-responses leave me with the conclusion that maybe you really are that dumb.
You can change the argument, but you cannot and have not answered it. So far you have not come close to dismissing my points. Balderdash indeed.
Do you think it increases complexity (or reduces randomness) when salt in solution precipitates into salt crystals? How about when super-saturated cloudless skies precipitate thunderclouds?
However, they comprise an incomplete collection of evidence until tested against a mathematical model which can account for the rise of autonomy, semiosis and complexity in biological life. Herky-jerky gaps in fanning the stickmen, to use your metaphor.
Several models have been brought to the table. Darwin's is not good enough because he relies on "randomness" which is a mathematical concept not supported in the evidence. The punctuated equilibrium model is not well grounded in complexity theory (length of time v. length of description models). The von Neumann challenge (self-organizing complexity) is better but untested.
However, none of these (nor any others known to me) address the rise of semiosis or autonomy. Rocha, Kauffman and a few others have published in that area though, so perhaps a better model will be forthcoming.
Well, perhaps I can help you out then,
1. Natural Selection has been proven on a limited scale within a species, but not the leap evolutionist proclaim.
Nothing will ever be proved in a natural science, variation and natural selection is a very viable explanation for what we see, just as gravitational effects at a distance are a good explanation for what we see distant galaxies doing, even though there are huge gravity gaps in our knowledge of what happens between galaxies.
Then I asked simply if creation is a myth and intelligent design is bunk, (evolutionist claim both to be BS)
That is not correct. Either could be true, in the light of science--that does not qualify them as scientific theories. It doesn't make them true or false, it just doesn't make them the business of science.
, how did life originate?
No one knows. However, that has little relevance to the question of how successfully evolutionary theory accounts for the evidence we can presently adduce.
dohn, I think these are instances of self-ordering systems (e.g., like Bernard cells), not self-organizing systems (e.g., living systems). In the instances you describe, we are seeing increased ordering, which reduces randomness; but ordering processes seem to run in the opposite direction from processes that increase complexity. It has been observed that "ordering" is not particularly useful in living systems for the reason that "ordered" systems have comparatively low information content: there's a lot of informational redundancy in a repeating pattern, for instance.
Is a program that learns to play a game, such as checkers or chess, self ordering or self organizing?
Again, you bring up the origin of life as if this has anything to do with evolution. IT HAS NOTHING AT ALL TO DO WITH THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION. You want it to, because you see an unresolved scientific question (life's origins) and you say *Ah hah! They can't answer this yet, so we will say God did it*. That this issue has nothing at all to do with how those original organisms have changed and adapted over the last 4 billion years is besides the point to you.
There is plenty of evidence of common descent among organisms, from shared genetic markers to fossil finds. There is no reason to think that there is a limit to how much a population can change gentically; there is no wall saying that beyond this point genetic change is not possible. If natural selection works at all, there is no reason beyond prejudice to believe it won't continue altering species into something different. We have been observing most organisms for far too short a period of time to even expect speciation to be observed.
Ya got me there, js1138! I'd have to think about that. Of course, probably the fact that I don't know chess would present a serious difficulty in any such undertaking.
Well, than your argument is with them, not with biological science, which makes no such over-reaching claims.
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.