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 try to answer pings. I normally ignore Evolution threads but yesterday was slow. I've been trying to leave this thread since last night. Most posters have accepted that I have other things to do and quit pinging me. CarolinaGuitarman wouldn't leave me alone. I hope that now he has.
Later
Raelians are advocates of intelligent design. ;)
Now THAT might be enough to change my mind lol
(Good GOD does that woman own a mirror??)
Posters check in, but they can't check out! ;)
Sorry, but when you deny that speciation has been observed, the meaning of the term 'speciation' is obviously relevant. And what it means is that, when the genetic composition of a given population has come to diverge from that of another population so much that gene flow between the populations ceases, speciation is said to have occurred. And this has been observed repeatedly, as the talkorigins article I linked to demonstrates.
Do it with a horsefly and you might have my attention.
I don't know about horseflies, but as someone else pointed out above, speciation has been forced in fruit flies. It also appears to be naturally occurring before our eyes in the tephritid fly Rhagoletis pomonella, which is diversifying into a wide range of hosts (pears, cherries, roses) with different races or subspecies specializing on each. In time these are expected to separate into distinct species, meaning that genes can no longer flow between them. Look it up.
Speciation occurs all the time, but usually on a time scale of thousands or at the very least hundreds of years, which makes it remarkable that there are any known instances of real-time speciation. But there are, as I have shown.
ok...what distinguishes the two? The analogy seems quite strong to me: from one point of view, DNA is just a more complex form of crystal, with a couple of crystal associates, that, when working together, seed self-copies. How is this different in kind from a salt crystal seed providing a surface for recursive crystal growth?
NIV Isaiah 40:25-26
25. "To whom will you compare me? Or who is my equal?" says the Holy One.
26. Lift your eyes and look to the heavens: Who created all these? He who brings out the starry host one by one, and calls them each by name. Because of his great power and mighty strength, not one of them is missing.NIV Isaiah 42:5-7
5. This is what God the LORD says-- he who created the heavens and stretched them out, who spread out the earth and all that comes out of it, who gives breath to its people, and life to those who walk on it:
6. "I, the LORD, have called you in righteousness; I will take hold of your hand. I will keep you and will make you to be a covenant for the people and a light for the Gentiles,
7. to open eyes that are blind, to free captives from prison and to release from the dungeon those who sit in darkness.NIV Isaiah 45:7
I form the light and create darkness, I bring prosperity and create disaster; I, the LORD, do all these things.NIV Ephesians 3:8-9
8. Although I am less than the least of all God's people, this grace was given me: to preach to the Gentiles the unsearchable riches of Christ,
9. and to make plain to everyone the administration of this mystery, which for ages past was kept hidden in God, who created all things.NIV Colossians 1:16
For by him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things were created by him and for him.NIV Revelation 4:9-11
9. Whenever the living creatures give glory, honor and thanks to him who sits on the throne and who lives for ever and ever,
10. the twenty-four elders fall down before him who sits on the throne, and worship him who lives for ever and ever. They lay their crowns before the throne and say:
11. "You are worthy, our Lord and God, to receive glory and honor and power, for you created all things, and by your will they were created and have their being."
NIV Revelation 10:5-6
5. Then the angel I had seen standing on the sea and on the land raised his right hand to heaven.
6. And he swore by him who lives for ever and ever, who created the heavens and all that is in them, the earth and all that is in it, and the sea and all that is in it, and said, "There will be no more delay!
She USED to, but................
Sorry, but when you deny that speciation has been observed, the meaning of the term 'speciation' is obviously relevant.
You guys need to check out #507 & #509
ROTFLMAO!
I guess they have nothing to fear from the light of truth.
'''Sorry, but when you deny that speciation has been observed, the meaning of the term 'speciation' is obviously relevant. '''
Except, I did not mention the word speciation.
I did not suggest that genetic lines of minute life-forms do not diverge with regard to their ability to reproduce. I said none of that.
I said that nobody has demonstrated new species to evolve.
Simply *claiming* a new species has evolved, based upon an arbitrary and self-serving definition of the word "species" is not convincing.
Even with your fruit fly argument, there is no proof that anything other than a different race of fruitfly has been formed. Speculation as to whether such an experiment will result in a new "species" is fruitless.
Like a roach motel or the Hotel California. ; ) It is really frustrating when you answer the same question 5 times to different posters and number 6 chimes in. CarolinaGuitarman was number 6, I was tired and busy. I responded "Dumazz" rather than answer it again. It was wrong to do that and I re answered it this morning but still couldn't leave the insults out. Work has been very busy the past few days and put me in a Jerk mood. I realized that and tried to just leave the thread that had my dander up but no! Some newbie Nov 2004, keeps wanting to fight. We all have good days and bad and when a poster wants to check out, I repsect that.
Boy I need a smoke.
Later
Please excuse my jerkiness on this thread. I was in a mood and should have just stayed away from evolution threads.
Catch you later.
There. I apologized.
Hey, no problem here. I've said some boneheaded things in my time. We all have. As far as flames go, they weren't so bad anyhow. I don't think you really opened up with both barrels. All the same it takes guts to own up to something you said and take it back. Smoke 'em if you got 'em.
I don't know that it is different, dohn. Are you suggesting that DNA and DNA alone is the source of information in self-organizing (living) systems? We were recently pondering that one on the "Monism" thread. But the crickets are really chirping over there, these days. Thanks for writing!
The only game I know is poker. Would that do?
The case of lions/tigers, dogs/wolves, horses/zebras is not problem for evolution. It is what we would expect. Speciation begins when populations quit interbreeding for any reason whatsoever -- geographic barriers, perceived ugliness, whatever. It doesn't mean they are incapable of producing hybrid offspring. They just don't.
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.