Who SAID that mutations don't function??
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.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The origin of life is a side issue that I always bring up because it makes pro evolutionist mad as heck. Point out where I said it was part of evolution while at the same time saying ID is bunk. Have I said God did it? Where did I say it. I am a Christian but I haven't used that on this thread other than to defend when one poster that my God must be small. I replied "My God is huge". I am an engineer and not a fundamentalist. My faith makes you mad too.
Now go bother someone else, you're a nuisance and I'm bored with you. If that isn't clear just try not to ping me. You are dull and repetitive and I don't care about what you think of me. Ping me again and there will be consequenses.
Just like blanket statements.......
Guess so.
BTW. I read all of Darwins stuff 30 years ago. I do not study it at all now. So I assume these pro evies are talking current theory and that is what causes my rift.
He is not trying to make an argument, or defend a thesis, he is only trying to flame. He repeatedly has said that the fact we can't fully explain the origins of life is an argument against evolution. I point this out and he says I made it up. Then he threatens me with *consequences* if I answer him again. The man is not stable and is a waste of time trying to deal with. There are other more rational people in this thread who have shown some courtesy at least.
I respectfully beg to differ. A randomly diffused suspension, no matter what view you have of complexity, ie, whatever meaning you assign to the locations or state of the matter in question, there is going to be more information being transmitted by a salt crystal than by a suspension of NaCl. Said which, is incapable to containing or transmitting information, because there is not way to differentiate states of it. A totally randomized system, from an information theory point of view, has NO information to transmit. it must be capable of at least zero/one states--like a doped silicon wafer, just to pick a nonrandom example.
Consider??????
No, no it doesn't. The modern synthesis theory of evolution (comprised of Darwin's theory of natural selection, Mendel's theory of inheritance, and theories of molecular biology that have come about since the discovery and description of the DNA molecule in the 1950s by Watson, Crick, and others) does not adrress the question of the origin of life. It attempts to explain the variety of life we now see as well as forensic evidence of extinct lifeforms, but does not attempt to answer where life came from in the first place. I don't see why you would suggest that this makes me angry. I will say that it is frustrating sometimes to have to answer the same misconception over and over again.
My faith makes you mad too.
Really, how?
Now go bother someone else, you're a nuisance and I'm bored with you. If that isn't clear just try not to ping me. You are dull and repetitive and I don't care about what you think of me. Ping me again and there will be consequenses.
LOL
Yes, consider. Taxonomy is largely arbitrary. Life is really a spread spectrum, but people are natural organizers and like to put things into categories.
AHhhh...!
This is the SAME question that was asked of me, almost audibly, 40 some years ago....
How so? does this mean you were inclined to agree with Darwin 30 years ago? Current biological theories, observations, and experiments don't strike me as refuting Darwin's original contentions to any significant extent.
Isn't this where we get CALVINASAURUS from?
Ah, but zee mathematicians aren't tenured Darwin-approvedbiologistes!!! What could zey possibly know?
Do you alway respond to replies to other postrers as if it was written to you. I have asked that poster to leave me out of the conversation 5 or 6 times now.
Tell me what we're disagreeing about here, dohn? I was comparing self-ordering systems (e.g., salt crystals) with self-organizing (i.e., living) systems. I wasn't comparing salt crystals with salt in suspension. But I agree with you, the crystals would contain more information than salt in suspended form and for the reason you give: while salt crystal carry less information than, say, a living cell, random systems have no information to convey at all.
Thank you so much for writing, dohn!
I agreed that organisms adapt to changing environment or they die out. That was the end of my agreement with Darwin then, and with the Pro Evies today.
If you want out of the discussion, why post?
Feel free to think in terms of checkers, go, or any game you wish. Consider the case where the program starts with knowing only what legal moves are and what winning and losing are. Any tactics and strategy are the result of learning.
Better watch out, there might be *consequences*. He might even call you a dummazz lol
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.