YES, EVOLUTION STILL HAS UNANSWERED QUESTIONS; THAT'S HOW SCIENCE IS

WSJ ^ | June 3, 2005 | Sharon Begley

[MRMEAN]

Compared with fields like genetics and neuroscience and cosmology, botany comes up a bit short in the charisma department. But when scientists announced last week that they had figured out how plants grow, one had to take note, not only because of the cleverness required to crack a puzzle that dates to 1885, but because of what it says about controversy and certainty in science -- and about the evolution debate.

In 1885, scientists discovered a plant-growth hormone and called it auxin. Ever since, its mechanism of action had been a black box, with scientists divided into warring camps about precisely how the hormone works. Then last week, in a study in Nature, biologist Mark Estelle of Indiana University, Bloomington, and colleagues reported that auxin links up with a plant protein called TIR1, and together the pair binds to a third protein that silences growth-promoting genes. The auxin acts like a homing beacon for enzymes that munch on the silencer. Result: The enzymes devour the silencer, allowing growth genes to turn on.

Yet biology classes don't mention the Auxin Wars. Again and again, impressionable young people are told that auxin promotes plant growth, when the reality is more complex and there has been raging controversy over how it does so.

Which brings us to evolution. Advocates of teaching creationism (or its twin, intelligent design) have adopted the slogan, "Teach the controversy." That sounds eminently sensible. But it is disingenuous. For as the auxin saga shows, virtually no area of science is free of doubt or debate or gaps in understanding.

[Ichneumon]

What has always confused me about evolution is the evolutionary jumps.

"Jumps" are relative. Things that look "quick" on a geologic time scale are slow and gradual on a human time scale.

Homo erectus were roaming the earth for over 1.5 million years and had a larger brain capcity then early humans (over 1000cc). However, a few humans show up 40,000 years ago and they completely disappear off the face of the earth. Not one pocket survives.

Short form (which necessarily oversimplifies many details), they became us. They didn't "disappear", they changed. Or more accurately, their descendants did. The fact that the original H. Erectus "disappeared" is due to the obvious fact that they each died after a 20-50 lifespan.

But this happens during every evolutionary jump for every species.

No, actually, it doesn't. In many cases the ancestral species continues to live alongside of a "daughter" species.

One freak (there is no spontanous freak growth) is born and breeds his/her traits into the old species, the new superior species wipes out every single pocket of the old (impossible to imagine) species, no matter if they are in a secluded pocket on the other side of the world. The old species just disappears, even though they survived millions of years until a freak was born.

Wow, so many inaccuracies and misconceptions, so little time...

No, evolution does not proceed via the production of "one freak". Subpopulations change as a whole via the accumulation and exchange of numerous new alleles.

No, the new subspecies does not necessarily "wipe out" the parent species.

Yes, geographically isolated sibling species can and do often continue to thrive without interference from their sibling offshoots. This is how you get entire "families" of species, for example a zillion varieties of different finches.

Even species which do go extinct seldom do so "suddenly" in real terms -- there may be periods of a million or more years of overlap before an "improved" variety entirely supplants an older one.

[marktwain]

Thanks for taking the time. It gets tiresome after a while, doesn't it?

[Ichneumon]

How about filling in a few holes in Intelligent Design? Who was the designer or designers to begin with?

I'd appreciate it if the people who try to "explain" things by mumbling "intelligent design" would actually get around to trying to, you know, EXPLAIN anything. "Intelligent design" is not an explanation, it's a cop-out. An actual explanation would look something like, "an intelligent designer of such-and-such specific properties, methods, and motivations designed life using these specific methods and tools, and built them in such-and-such a manner, using [fill in the blank] scaffolding and materials and processes, which it acquired from [thus and so], and set [lists of all specific prototypes and numbers] in place [here and here] at [these particular times] containing [these alleles] and achieved viable ecosystems using [type, place, and number of ecotypes], and then [did or did not] manage the subsequent evolution of the biosphere in [this manner]."

And yes, evolutionary biology *does* provide that level of detail. Thousands of volumes of journals have been filled with the results of such findings.

Before someone asks, no, saying that [insert deity here] created man by "breathing" life into "clay" doesn't even begin to actually explain anything, until you can manage to elucidate the specific processes and materials involved in such "breath", how the "clay" was configured in order to achieve the results, and so on. "God did it" is not actually any kind of explanation, it's a vague description at best.

While biology doesn't have all the answers either, I think that most folks would be absolutely astounded and overwhelmed if they were to be shown how much *has* actually been determined, and how quickly evidence is clearing the clouds in the remaining gaps in our knowledge. Even the earliest steps towards the origin of life itself has had an explosion of productive research in the past ten years, as advances in multiple fields of science have come together to allow new breakthroughs.

[Ichneumon]

[It is not merely that the theory of evolution has unanswered questions, it has a LOT of unanswered questions. Plus a plethora of unasked questions.]

In the context of debate, what is the difference between unanswered and unasked questions? In fact, what does "unasked" mean?

Unanswered questions are the questions we have thought to ask, and have not yet fully answered.

Unasked questions are those things which remain so unknown that we don't even know they're there yet, and thus can't even begin to formulate questions about, much less find answers to.

For an example of the latter category, consider quantum physics in 1875...

[BushCountry]

Short form (which necessarily oversimplifies many details), they became us. They didn't "disappear", they changed. Or more accurately, their descendants did. The fact that the original H. Erectus "disappeared" is due to the obvious fact that they each died after a 20-50 lifespan.

Wrong, H. Erectus were a completely different sub-species (different branch of the tree) Homo ergaster. There was no cross breeding of the branches.

They disappeared becuase their life span was 20-50 years? They survived for almost two million years with this lifespan, what changed when a small pocket of humans showed up 40,000 years ago?

Also, we are not talking about small traits being breed into a species over time, but evolutionary jumps! We are disagreeing over the science of evolutionary jumps, where one species turns into a completely different species in a relativily short period of time (yes, 40,000 years of human existance is a pimple in time). Your argument is confused and interwoven.

[Non-Sequitur]

From what I've seen of Intelligent Design Theory, it consists of trying to poke holes in Evolutionary Theory, apparently on the assumption that if Evolution can't be proven then Intelligent Design is true by default. That doesn't work.

[Uncle Fud]

BTTT

[WillMalven]

I have yet to have had any Creationist or ID advocate answer this question,

"If only evolution is taught in public school, who is harmed?"

I believe in ID because I believe in God. I was taught evolution from grammar school through post grad. and raised by Christians who were schooled in evolution and one of whom has a degree in Geology.

I assume that all of these Creationism believers also received this same standard education containing evolution.
It didn't seem to have affected their beliefs.

[js1138]

Your version of evolution has never been part of science. Darwin spent a good deal of his life arguing against your characterization of evolution.

[CarrotAndStick]

I saw a programme on National Geograhic about the faking of fossils by Chinese fossil-auctioneers. Apparently, they combined separate layers of one fossil to generate that fake "fossil" of the trans-species.

Anyway I have this theory for the lack of transitional fossils. Just like how a boat is most vulnerable during its journey in water, and not when it is anchored on the shore, probably, in the same way, transitional stages of life-forms too were similarly vulnerable(they will be eaten by other creatures to the point that nothing remains to become fossils). I mean, a fish with weak fins and poorly formed limbs must have been far more vulnerable than either a fish with proper fins, or a land creature with proper limbs.

I believe transitional stage fossils will be found one day, but they are far more infrequent in occurrence for this reason. What do you think?

[BushCountry]

Haa, haa... A lot of Darwin's 150 year old facts have been proven false. Evolutionist are nuts if they are still basing their belief systems on facts derived 150 years ago. You see, science evoles.

http://www.mnh.si.edu/anthro/humanorigins/ha/a_tree.html

The different branches I mentioned in my response were from the latest science evolutionary site.

[BillCompton]

For me, this argument is a matter of humility. Modern science does not seem to have a mechanism in place to distinguish between what we really understand, and what we are really just trying to figure out. We are experts in Newtonian physics. We are beginners in genetics. Objectively, we understand so little about the interactions between genes and biology, that perhaps we are not ready to raise a flag of truth and defend that hill to our deaths. But, that is what the evolutionists do. We don't even understand the way the life works that is all around us. How can we "know" what can happen to it over vast time periods? I understand that ID is not really a proper theory, but aren't there fields of scientific discover where we don't really know enough to speak intelligently? Who can tell us that this area or that of science is the phrenology of our time?

Science is not about truth per se. It was about what we can objectively theorize about truth. We know that we don't understand how gravity fits into physics. We know that all our formulae that don't have a gravity component are wrong. As a practical matter, we ignore this because the equations seem to be useful. But don't we know they don't contain "the" truth? And can we be certain that the part we know we are missing might not be important? Evolution theory needs a healthy dose of humility. It is just possible we are at the caveman throwing rocks at the moon stage of this field of study. No one ever said all science would be easy to understand.

[TalBlack]

It is a wonderful thing to be so full of yourself and self satisfied that your argument be a catalog of the intellectual short-comings you deride--and you never know it. A perfect example: """ID won't take its adherents within a thousand miles of the metaphysical concepts they're shooting for. It's based on an old analogy: the world is like a design, therefore it had a designer. The more complex a design, the more designers it tends to have (to say nothing of the craftsmen who put it together).Is ID being arbitrary--and a tad simplistic--in inferring only one?"""

You throw out an "old analogy" that, as far as I can tell, you made up when you wrote that sentence. It is a straw-man that you knock the hell out of and without which you have no argument,and in any event, the age of which isn't relevant. God's saying "I Am" as well as "I Am The Alpha and Omega" comes before any theory of ID. (As do all of God's pronouncements) This tends to shape the ID theory.

You throw out another made up thing as law: ""The more complex a design, the more designers it tends to have (to say nothing of the craftsmen who put it together)."""

Huh!!!? Upon what understanding do you assert this rule? Your understanding of The nature of God? Your 'reasonings' assume an understanding of God, His intent and His purpose and His power. God, to my knowledge, has never revealed any of these things. I believe He is there but His world and it's purpose is a dark and bloody mystery to me. As for His power; how the hell does one even BEGIN to gauge or quantify it?

You then, again, assert an understanding beyond any human's ken as well as throwing out the oldest bugaboo in the God-isn't-real book when you point out the Evil out there: """" You judge a designer by what he designs. Take a good look at this slaughterhouse! The natural world contains good, bad, and ugly. The best we can conclude is that the designer is indifferent--or very moody.""" ONE:If you are judging God you have the equation reversed. TWO:If people are slaughtering other people why is THAT evil DIFINITIVE of God's design (and fundamental intelligence or even existence)If I am NOT slaughtering other people?

Your conclusions are your own. They are not however arguments. Asserting things you believe as the basis of understanding ISN'T even remotely scientific or reasonable. Religious faith at least orbits an independent center, ie; The word of God. Your faith orbits the self, and as such is untenable.

[sandydipper]

Creation is a crutch for folks who hope (believe) that the school bully will be punished in the "here after" and that since they were meek and pure they'll be rewarded.

It ain't so.

[js1138]

Teach the truth that is all I ask.

If I give you a list of a hundred creationist websites that have posted fabricate Wald quotes, will you take the trouble to ask them to remove their lies.

By they, you are mostly wrong about the Chinese fossils. National Geographic published an article before having some fossils examined by experts. National Geo is not a scientific journal.

No peer-reviewed journal was taken in by the fakes, and since that fiasco, many more have been found under the supervision of scientists. Even the "fake" ones were real fossils glued together.

[js1138]

I mean, a fish with weak fins and poorly formed limbs must have been far more vulnerable than either a fish with proper fins, or a land creature with proper limbs.

And yet creatures matching your description are alive today, and competing very well, thank you.

[PetroniusMaximus]

***ID won't take its adherents within a thousand miles of the metaphysical concepts they're shooting for. It's based on an old analogy: the world is like a design, therefore it had a designer. Some (very serious) problems:***

The argument is found in the Bible.

"For every house is builded by some man; but he that built all things is God." - Heb 2

[js1138]

[Blzbba]

""God did it" is not actually any kind of explanation, it's a vague description at best. "


Exactly. Nor is it at ALL considered 'science'.

[js1138]

iv) Family Clariidae: Walking catfish: All members of the family.

The family Clariidae includes about a hundred different species. All are scaleless fish with four pair of barbles. They are able to breathe air by means of a labyrenthic organ arising from the gill arches. Some of the fish “walk” from one water body to another during wet seasons using their pectoral fins. Others species burrow. The family includes the following genus: channallabes, clariallabes, clarias, dinotopterus, dolichallabes, gymnallabes, heterobranchus, horaglanis, and vegitglanis. Most of the walking catfish are in the genus clarias.

Clarias batrachus have become well established in Florida, and have been found in Nevada. They have a strong potential to be a pest due to their ability to migrate across land, and the fact that they devour almost anything in sight. They first came into the U.S. for sale in the aquarium-fish trade in the mid 1960's. They have a tolerance to a wide range of temperatures, and have been found in intracoastal waterways with salinities of 18ppt.