From my vantage point, I'd say evolution *is* in trouble. Scientists are speaking out more and more about the limitations of the theory. What do you make of these two letters?
----------------
Letters to the Editor
May 25, 2005
Sir, Like many biologists, Richard Dawkins (Weekend Review, May 21) views the theory of intelligent design merely as an attack on evolution when, being essentially identical to the anthropic principle, it has far wider implications. Such ideas should not be dismissed simply because they have been hijacked by creationists. Despite Dawkins’s relentless propaganda, rational criticism of evolution and a distaste for biological reductionism do not equate to religious fundamentalism; bigotry should be resisted from whichever direction it comes.
Yours faithfully,
MILTON WAINWRIGHT, Department of Molecular Biology and Biotechnology, University of Sheffield, Sheffield S10 2TN. May 21.
-----------------------------------
From Professor Andy McIntosh
Sir, By building a straw man of creationists (supposedly) misquoting Darwin and Lewontin, Professor Dawkins labels the lot as “ignorant” and skirts the big issue — there is no hard evidence for molecules-to-man evolution.
Dawkins has long touted stories on how the eye and other organs came into being by supposed slow evolutionary processes, but there is no experimental evidence, even if one did accept the fossils as a record of such changes. Any serious thinker knows that the fossils of the “Cambrian Explosion” period, near the base of the geological column, include some of the most sophisticated eyes ever known to have existed — the compound eyes of trilobites have double calcite lenses, which defeat any slow evolutionary explanation, and, what is more, they have no precursor in the rocks.
The non-evolutionist side of the argument is growing not because of ignorance, but because of the rise of knowledge about the real facts of science without the fairytale additions of evolutionism. A growing number of academics on both sides of the Atlantic are attracted to the straightforward logic of scientific reasoning.
The logical, coded machinery of DNA and the information system it carries shout design to an unprejudiced mind. Dawkins’s defence is based not on scientific facts, but on ideology. Evolutionary thinking is teetering as a way of looking at the evidence, not because of some isolated problems here and there, but because the whole structure is scientifically wrong.
Yours faithfully,
ANDY C. McINTOSH, (Professor of Thermodynamics and Combustion Theory), Energy and Resources Research Institute, Houldsworth Building, University of Leeds, Clarendon Road, Leeds LS2 9JT. May 23.
-----------------
Stremba - literally EVERY DAY I read things from scientists telling me evolution has problems and alone can't account for the incredible complexity and biological systems on Earth and that ID should be given a fair shake. What am I and the general public to think? I mean, if it (evolution) were a SOLID theory, would we even be having this discussion?
Thanks in advance for your comments.
MM
"We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged."
Hmmmm...I see there are quite a few scientists listed who are from Biology departments. Guess they just haven't visited Talkorg. or PH's links enough and don't know any better.
I'm impressed you can see anything from your vantage point. Isn't it dark in there? :-)
And now let's hear from combustion computationalist Dr. McIntosh...
there is no hard evidence for molecules-to-man evolution.
What does Macintosh think we're make of? Quark gluon plasmas? We are made of molecules.
Dawkins has long touted stories on how the eye and other organs came into being by supposed slow evolutionary processes, but there is no experimental evidence, even if one did accept the fossils as a record of such changes.
Well, yes there is. Just a mere hundred miles or so south of Dr. McIntosh, in fact, they're examining the evolution of human visual pigments at a molecular level.
Any serious thinker knows that the fossils of the “Cambrian Explosion” period, near the base of the geological column, include some of the most sophisticated eyes ever known to have existed — the compound eyes of trilobites have double calcite lenses, which defeat any slow evolutionary explanation, and, what is more, they have no precursor in the rocks
Actually, 'any serious thinker' knows trilobite eyes evolved; the earliest lenses being simple prisms; the later ones being more complex; and eventually, some trilobites lost their eyes altogether.
Trilobites appear first in the fossil record in the Cambrian. That does not mean that trilobites first appeared in the Cambrian; it means they first developed fossilizable exoskeletons in the Cambrian. Those exoskeletons were made of what? Calcite! So having evolved an adaptation to deposit calcite on their exterior, how implausible is it they also evolved the ability to deposit tiny calcite crystals over their compound eyes to act as lenses.And remember, we're talking compound eyes here; all the lens does is concentrate light; it is not responsible for creating an image. The compound eye would simply work less efficiently without a lens, but it would still work.
What do you make of these two letters?
If creationists didn't talk nonsense, they'd have nothing at all to say?
Sent to the TImes Online
Lincoln, Nebraska, May 26, 2005.
Sir:
Professor Andy McIntosh, in yesterday's letters, appoints himself arbiter what 'any serious thinker' knows. If he wishes to include himself among that august tribe, he should get his facts straight. While trilobites did indeed first appear in the fossil record at the base of the Cambrian, the first trilobites had simple, holochroal eyes. The complex, double-lensed schizochroal eyes which he claims 'have no precursor in the rocks' are in fact derived from these simpler eyes, and appeared much later, in the Ordovician. A convincing account of their evolution has been given by Levi -Setti (2002).
Yours Faithfully
Gerard S. Harbison, Professor of Chemistry
University of Nebraska at Lincoln
Lincoln, NE 68588-0304
USA.