Posted on 10/20/2005 6:39:01 AM PDT by PatrickHenry
Intelligent design and evolution proponents agree that a test on bacterial flagellum could show if it was or wasn't able to evolve, which could provide evidence to support intelligent design.
But neither side wants to test it.
The test calls for a scientist to place a bacterial species lacking a flagellum under selective pressure and let it grow for 10,000 generations — roughly two years — to see if a flagellum or an equally complex system would be produced, according to testimony on Wednesday. A flagellum is a whip-like structure that can propel the bacteria.
Michael Behe, biochemistry professor at Lehigh University, testified in U.S. Middle District Court that he didn't know of anyone who had tested bacterial flagellum that way, including himself.
During cross examination by plaintiffs' attorney Eric Rothschild, Behe said he hadn't completed the test because he has better ways to spend his time. He also said he already knows intelligent design is science.
"It's well-tested from the inductive arguments," Behe said. "When we have found a purposeful arrangement of parts, we have always found this as designed."
Outside court, Dover school board members Alan Bonsell and Sheila Harkins said if anyone should perform the test, it should be the evolutionists.
"Somebody could do that if they wanted to," Harkins said. "If somebody believes intelligent design is not science, certainly they have a means to prove it's not."
Eugenie Scott, executive director of the National Center for Science Education, said scientists — who widely accept evolution as the cornerstone of modern biology — aren't going to take two years on an expensive test to disprove something they don't consider science.
They wouldn't bother, she said.
"This is not the first time creationists have tried to get scientists to do their work for them," Scott said.
This time around, even if the flagellum grew, Scott speculated that intelligent design proponents would say the test refuted the design of bacterial flagellum, not intelligent design.
They could still point toward design of the immune system and blood-clotting cascade as evidence, Scott said.
Behe has testified that if evolutionists ran the test and it didn't work, they would provide a reason such as they didn't have the right bacteria, selective pressure or length of time.
Evolution is harder to falsify than intelligent design, Behe said. He describes intelligent design as a fully testable, falsifiable scientific theory.
The design, he testified, is inferred from the purposeful arrangement of parts. During his time on the stand, he also testified about the concept of irreducible complexity, which means organisms are too complex to have evolved by natural selection or genetic mutation, so multiple systems had to arise simultaneously.
Scott said scientists couldn't disprove the purposeful arrangement of parts because too much could qualify. Anything outside of purposely arranged partswould be in state of chaos, she said.
The purposeful arrangements of parts is quickly taking over as the essence of intelligent design from the idea of irreducible complexity, Scott said.
Bonsell and Harkins believe intelligent design qualifies as a testable and falsifiable scientific theory, and Bonsell said he was ready for it to be put to the test.
"I'm all for scientific discovery and doing scientific experiments," Bonsell said. "They're the ones that are not."
Something like this?
An excerpt:
Lizard experiment suggests rapid evolution
An experiment with lizards in the Caribbean has demonstrated that evolution moves in predictable ways and can occur so rapidly that changes emerge in as little as a decade.
The experiment bears on two theories of evolution, that of punctuated equilibrium and that of gradualism. Gradualism states that evolution is a relatively slow, constant process, producing changes over millions of years.
Punctuated equilibrium states that environmental constraints hold species remain unchanged for millions of years, which then undergo rapid evolution when environmental changes demand it. The results of the experiment suggest that there are no constraints, and no difference between gradual and rapid evolution.
The experiment involved the introduction of one species of lizard to fourteen small, lizard-free Caribbean island near the Exumas in the Bahamas. The lizards were left for fourteen years. The original intent of the experiment was to study extinction. The experiment, started by Thomas Schoener of the University of California at Davis, would have provided scientists with important information as they observed the extinction of the introduced lizards. Unfortunately, the lizards adapted to their new environments, and the focus of the experiment changed to study this rapid evolution.
There's more, but that sounds like what you want to do. There's no mention of trying to cross-breed the current populations, but taking this all the way to speciation would probably take more than a few human lifetimes...
The experiment...would have provided scientists with important information as they observed the extinction of the introduced lizards. Unfortunately, the lizards adapted to their new environments, and the focus of the experiment changed to study this rapid evolution.
How does this experiment demonstrate that evolution moves in predictable ways, if the results of the experiment contradict the prediction.
This is not the whole article, and the initial prediction (that the lizards would not survive) was wrong. The article goes on to describe how they adapted to the new conditions by evolving in predictable ways.
I read the entire article, and I'm less than impressed. Here's the problem: The organisms would already be showing a trend toward beneficial mutation, before any new prediction was posited, and absent new conditions.
That's not a foundation for credible data, let alone science, although I'm sure some here would disagree.
...If anything, it shows that evolutionary scientists move in predictable ways.
What sort of experiment would you propose?
Actually, your reference doesn't address the key point of his question, to wit:
"I'm talking about a test where changes are observed and recorded in two different populations due to environmental differences, such that the two populations become divergent to the point that two species can't breed anymore after some time. A test like this would be repeatable
What sort of experiment would you propose?
One that addresses the question of course.
The "island" experiment has been performed by nature many times with exactly the results ("that the two populations become divergent to the point that two species can't breed anymore") that you mention. Humans have not observed and recorded those experiments because they take place across geologic time. The results are not difficult to find.
The "island" experiment has been performed by nature many times with exactly the results ("that the two populations become divergent to the point that two species can't breed anymore") that you mention. Humans have not observed and recorded those experiments because they take place across geologic time. The results are not difficult to find.
If you think of it, this is almost indistinguishable from a theist saying that God created everything, and although humans have never observed creation or likewise recorded it, it is not difficult to see the results of such creation all around you. I say almost indistinguishable, because the only thing that separates your statement from theirs, is that you believe you can, in principle reproduce it...and this amounts to you harboring one more assumption than they do.
You can trot out all the scientific evidence you want, but until the tenets of your theory are induced and observed, with repetition, and the results of which are available to present upon demand, then all you have are correlations, that in principle, are no different, than any correlations the theist may make.
As someone has already pointed out (albeit not on this thread) don't forget what that Ph in Ph.D. stands for.
This is simply a mindset that I do not have. I don't object to your holding it, however.
I say almost indistinguishable, because the only thing that separates your statement from theirs, is that you believe you can, in principle reproduce it...and this amounts to you harboring one more assumption than they do.
They assume God, I posit natural processes.
You can trot out all the scientific evidence you want, but until the tenets of your theory are induced and observed, with repetition, and the results of which are available to present upon demand, then all you have are correlations, that in principle, are no different, than any correlations the theist may make.
Biological evolution by means of natural selection will never be demonstrated to your satisfaction, I agree.
As someone has already pointed out (albeit not on this thread) don't forget what that Ph in Ph.D. stands for.
Dr. Behe holds a Ph.D. It is the abbreviation of the Latin "Philosophiæ". Or did you have something else in mind?
***Yawn*** same old crap, new day.
Nope. Not the REAL second law of thermodynamics, which states that the entropy of a closed system always increases. It poses no problem at all for evolution because the earth is not a closed system.
If the flood killed 90% of all species, then the Bible is wrong. The Bible says that Noah was ordered to take two of each kind of animal aboard the ark, not that he was to choose 10% of the living creatures and save 2 of each of them.
Just show me the millions of transitional forms in the fossil record. Evolution doesn't require a missing "link", it would require millions and would require the infamous spontaneous generation (aka chemical evolution) to get everything started in the first place.
A partial list of vertebrate transitional fossils
There are indeed thousands of "transitional" forms. I don't know why you would expect millions. Fossilization is a very scant process. Incidentally, fossil evidence is only one of the many lines of evidence confirming evolution, the other lines being mainly biogeography, zoological morphology and genetics.
...and would require the infamous spontaneous generation (aka chemical evolution) to get everything started in the first place.
Tell me, what does the transition from one life form to another have to do with the original source of life? Not really much of anything. We know a lot about evolution, but very little about the origin of life. Evolutionary biology stands strong with or without abiogenesis. That does not mean that abiogenesis has not been studied. Investigating the unknown is what science is all about, not saying "God diddit, that's good enough for me." Some of us are interested in how God has gone about creating us, and He has left us a decent track record in nature to put some of this mystery together.
If I remember correctly, He left His Word, the Holy Scriptures, not a "decent track record."
Hebrews 11:6 says, "Without faith, it is impossible to please God."
Romans 1:18- 25 "For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse, because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened. Professing to be wise, they became fools, and changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like corruptible man—and birds and four-footed animals and creeping things. Therefore God also gave them up to uncleanness, in the lusts of their hearts, to dishonor their bodies among themselves, who exchanged the truth of God for the lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen.
The natural world is also a revelation from God. God often told messages in parables. If "tree of life" and "tree of knowledge" and a talking snake don't scream out "parable" to you, I'm not sure what to say.
The Bible is a great moral and spiritual guide. But if you try to use the Bible as a science book, which is not its intention, you'll have about as much luck as if you try to use it as a phone book.
According to what I have read, the second law of thermodynamics is true in both an open and closed system.
Then what you have read is incorrect. The second law applies only to closed systems. Any energy flow into or out of a system can result in an entropy increase for that system. Otherwise, how would snowflakes form? Define your system as a collection of water vapor molecules. How then could that system undergo an entropy decrease that would be associated with the change from vapor to crystalline state. This is an entropy decrease since the positions of the molecules are well-defined in the crystal but essentially random in the vapor state. The only way this can occur is via a net entropy increase in the system + surroundings. This is accomplished by the release of heat from the molecules when the vapor-crystal transition occurs. Therefore, the change from water vapor to snowflakes can only occur because the water vapor molecules form an OPEN system.
I do to. But part of the difficulty is that this argument involves another concerning the constitutionality of speech in public education over disputed limits. Neutrality says that the limits are absolute. That is a hoax.
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.