Posted on 02/13/2006 4:31:16 PM PST by MRMEAN
Biologists are beginning to solve the riddles on which intelligent-design advocates have relied
To advocates of intelligent design, the human sperm's tiny tail bears potent evidence that Charles Darwin was wrong--it is, they say, a molecular machine so complex that only God could have produced it.
But biologists now are starting to piece together how such intricate bits of biochemistry evolved. Although the basic research was not meant as a response to intelligent design, it is unraveling the very riddles that proponents said could not be solved.
In contrast, intelligent design advocates admit they still lack any way of using hard evidence to test their theories, which many biologists find revealing.
The new insights on evolution at its smallest scale were a major yet little-noticed reason why a federal judge late last year struck down a plan in Dover, Pa., that would have put intelligent design in public school classrooms. The findings the judge cited will provide the ultimate test of ideas about the origins of life, more lasting than court rulings or the politics of the moment.
Most scientists have long rejected intelligent design, or ID, on the grounds that it is a religious proposal not grounded in observation. ID adherents say biochemistry actually supports their view. They argue that many tiny mechanisms--the tails of sperm and bacteria, the immune system, blood clotting--are so elaborate they must have been purposely designed.
Yet biologists have made major strides on each of those phenomena since the first ID books were published in the mid-1990s.
Working without the benefit of fossils, experts are using new genome data to study how fish evolved the crucial ability to clot blood. A wave of new research on the evolution of the immune system seemed to stump ID witnesses in the Dover case. And even ...
(Excerpt) Read more at chicagotribune.com ...
oh, I note that you did *not* answer my question, so I shall repeat it, here, in its entirety:
please define what YOU believe "macro-evolution" means.
for example, do you mean one of the following:
1. rise of descendant species morphologically and/or genetically distinctly different from each other and from their common ancestor as a result of accumulation of genetic mutations and selective processes over a protracted period of time (ie: number of serial and parallel replications)
-or-
2. the sudden emergence, within one reproductive cycle, of a descendant species morphologically and/or genetically distinctly different from its direct parent species
-or-
do you mean something else entirely?
Thanks for the list. I've read many of them, believe it or not. I enjoy the back and forth here with you guys, and we sometimes take little shots at one another. I'm guilty of that, though I don't think I've ever truly ridiculed anyone here.
But....I just wish some of you would be willing to accept that many of us just don't find the evidence for evolution to be absolutely conclusive, and that many of us have faith in God and tire of our faith being ridiculed. Point conceded that there are creationists and IDers who ridicule you as well.
Quoting: "I think I made myself clear, apparently you can't read. I don't lean toward ID or creationism. I do lean toward the truth, which hasn't been displayed yet, either by IDers or evos. If you can't handle the fact that I find the lying, cheating, and faking of fossils by evos disgusting, I am sorry. I also find that they [sic] lying, cheating and conjecture that mark Christian theories disgusting. That doesn't mean I "lean" toward any theory, because they are all theories(and not in the scientific sense) and all are full of sh**. Thanks and have a good day"
Hmm: The sound of he who doth protest too much. Much too much. You write as a parody... "I don't really have anything against Jews, Afro-Americans, evos... it's just that they...." and so on.
I don't rule it out, but I don't regard it as some sacrosanct idea that's beyond criticism in the public schools.
All theories: music, religious and scientific have always been up for debate and instruction. The point Evos are pushing: Don't pass off ID as a science class
Nor do I think it's any more unscientific to believe that God exists than that He doesn't.
Well, the world's greatest scientists and theologians agree with you, and as you become wise you may see the relation, if there is one, between science and religion.
I think the problem comes when those who have faith use their belief to put down science, when the two realms are entirely separate.
A good example is the belief in the global flood. OK so far. But to then try to rewrite all of geology, sedimentology, archaeology, radiometric dating and several other sciences based on a religious belief tends to annoy practitioners of those sciences. We can be funny about that kind of thing; you know, spend 30 or 40 years learning a field and then have someone tell you that you don't know anything.
On the other hand religious folks sometimes are annoyed with evolution being taught in science classes, when it contradicts their beliefs. What else would you teach in a science class?
But its late and I haven't shaved. Nite all.
I mean micro-to-man evolution.
Quoting: "I have all the understanding I ever need. ...It is, and proven, mathematically impossible for life to have started on earth... accidentally."
Hmm: My mind is made up, don't confuse me with facts. It is surely neat that you have all the understnding at your age that you will ever need. Sounds unfortunately similar to the faith of suicide bombers.
It is not "proven" and "accidentally" is a strawman. Evolution respects natural laws.
Thank you both.
####On the other hand religious folks sometimes are annoyed with evolution being taught in science classes, when it contradicts their beliefs. What else would you teach in a science class?####
I don't object to evolution being taught in science class. But I don't think it would violate either the rules of science or the U.S. Constitution to allow for the possibility that God has something to do with life on earth. I'm not for dwelling on it, just note it as a possibility. After all, it **IS** a possibility, is it not?
####Well, the world's greatest scientists and theologians agree with you, and as you become wise you may see the relation, if there is one, between science and religion.####
I think you're correct that there is a relation, though hopefully I'm already wise to that! :-)
So you admit that ID is just another in a long line of attempts to prove that God exists. Since all these arguments have failed over the last 1000 years, ID is bound to fail, too.
The funny wrinkle in ID is that they claim to accept multiple god-like entities with beyond-natural-powers. The flying spaghetti monster has been proposed, and ID has no answer!
please elaborate on your answer, and please explicitly address the variants I raised. It is most difficult to hold a profitable conversation wherein one participant refuses to define the terms he uses.
Many transitional species have been preserved as fossils. See the post referenced in Lurking Libertarian's reply to you for many examples.
However, there are other theories of evolution, such as neo-darwinism and punctuated equilibrium that could account for the lack of trans species(although they both have problems also, problems so far unsolved).
Sorry to be blunt but it is obvious, just from this comment, that you have not done the study and reading necessary to legitimately reach your conclusion. You don't even seem to know what "neo-Darwinism" is, and this is very basic stuff!
Neo-Darwinism was simply the reconciliation between classical Darwinism and modern Mendelian genetics that was developed principally in the 1930's and 40's. Contrary to your assumption (I can't imagine where or how you derived it) neo-Darwinism does not differ in any significant way from classical Darwinism regarding expectations about transitional forms.
Punctuated equilibrium does differ from classical Darwinism. (At least it claims to, there being some controversy about that.) However it does NOT explain, nor try to explain, nor presume any need to explain, "the lack" of transitional species. It does claim to explain the relative rarity of transitional species, but not their "lack". It claims they are rare because speciation occurs in isolated populations over geologically brief time spans.
"Geologically brief," however, means on the order of 50,000 years or so. It is relatively rare that fossil bearing sediments are sufficiently fine grained and continuous to resolve events to this sort of time scale.
To get a series of species level transitionals requires that a unique speciation event occurs at a time and place where such sediments are forming, that fossilization occurs, that the sediments are preserved, that they are later exposed, and that a paleontologist finds them. Still the fact is that both authors of the original paper on "Punctuated Equilibria" found, and referenced, ACTUAL EXAMPLES OF SPECIES LEVEL TRANSITIONS that fit the pattern prescribed by their theory. (Caribbean land snails in the case of Gould, and trilobites in the case of Eldridge.)
On the other hand good examples of the contrasting pattern -- "Phyletic gradualism," or geologically gradual changes in species and morphology -- also exist in the fossil record. Most scientists would probably affirm that both type of pattern occurs.
In any case, punc eq only explains the relative rarity of SPECIES LEVEL transitions (the equivalent, lets say, of transforming a wolf into a coyote). It does not in the slightest deny the reality of HIGHER LEVEL transitions (from reptiles to mammals, from dinosaurs to birds, from ape to man, etc) of which we have even more examples, and many absolutely compelling ones. (Again see the Ichneumon post linked above.)
Since these higher level transitions are all antievolutionists really care about any way, it's odd that they cite punctuated equilibria as they do since it doesn't concern such phenomena. In any case it's odd if you presume that antievolution is about actually making a case, instead of merely appearing to do so with misdirection and misrepresentation.
Now, before I am jumped on, I would like to say, I am NOT a Christian, I am not an IDer or a creationists. What I am is a seeker of truth and the theory of evolution is too full of lies to be the truth. That is how I see it.
Similar to my own case years ago. I never thought the TOE was "full of lies," but I did think, after reading some antievolutionary materials, that the creationists might be "on to something." That is I thought they might be asking some of the right questions or raising some points that were telling or otherwise worthy of examination.
Here's what I did, and also my recommendation to you: I took several antievolution books, selected what seemed to me some of the best or most intriguing arguments, and spent available weekends over several months in academic libraries tracing out the references cited back to, and then reading, the original research. (It took some time as it was sometimes necessary to do a fair bit of background reading to understand the terminology and techniques referenced in the original research articles. Also antievolution references were often not direct. They would often cite popular works, or even other antievolutionists. There were often several steps to get back to the relevant original research.)
Much to my amazement (at the time) I found that not a single one of the antievolution arguments I selected had the slightest hint of validity. What I found instead was unexceptioned, systematic and egregious intellectual dishonesty on the part of the antievolutionists.
Your mileage may vary, but try this yourself and see.
Regarding your post #102...I think your points are very well taken...there should be some modicum of respect on these threads for the different sides of the issue...you mention that you tire of having your faith in God ridiculed, as well you should...
I would say tho, that I tire of having my support of evolution, together with my belief in God and the Bible, ridiculed...I tire of being told that I absolutely cannot support evolution and also believe in God and the Bible...I tire of being told that someone elses interpretation of the Bible, is better and more correct than my own...I really tire of being called an 'atheist', because I support evolution...
True, there is namecalling and such on both sides of the arguement....sometimes I guess it could be in what is considered 'good fun'...but other times, its just plain nasty and rotten...
I have had good , civil discussions with IDers, and creationists, who do not call me names, do not presume to tell me I am wrong in the way I read the Bible, do not question my faith, and most of all dont call me an atheist(tho I must admit, most of these conversations take place via FReepmail, because often they get off target from the original gist of the thread)...but those Freepmails are some of the best discussions I have had with creationists/IDers...
And then there are the usual barbs, and namecallings that accomplish nothing at all...I tire of those also...
So, whats one to do...I just try to ignore, the namecalling, and give thoughtful weighty consideration to those viewpoints which are contrary to my own, without dwindling downward into namecalling and insults and ridicule...
Its nice to see someone, from the other side, so to speak, feel, the same way...
I'd still like to see what scientists use to support their contention that the universe WASN'T intelligently designed. They sure seem pretty certain it was that way; there must be some reason for starting with that basic premise that there was no intelligent design behind it all. But I know that all I will get is that I need to provide evidence to support my contention that it was designed while they get to make statements and presume they're true until they're DISPROVED. Seems like a double standard to me. You can't test for lack of design either.
Quoting: The 2nd law says that entropy tends to increase in a closed system. The energy provided by the Sun makes the Earth not a closed system, therefore local decreases in entropy are not a contradiction."
Well stated. There are many equivalent statements of the 2nd law. One is: "Heat does not spontaneously flow from a colder region to a warmer region." In this description, creationists do not find anything to pin their beliefs on. But it is still the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics!
Here's a strange rebuttal for you:
To me God is the God of life, not of the cold and hot rocks in the universe.
How can I assert this?
By answering the question, "What is God?"
God replies, "God is love."
Only life forms appreciate "love."
Therefore, I argue that the universe was here first, we came later and our God, being the God of life, is within each of us.
He Is.
Why would God have any relationship with man if man is just another creature on this planet He watches over?
I don't believe that He does.
If God didn't make the universe? What does He do?
He constitutes the necessary and sufficient conditions for the totality of physical existence to exist: God the Geometer.
How does He survive?
To the extent that He exists, he can't not exist. Either He Is, or He Is Not.
I simply mean that I don't think it can be demonstrated to the point of censoring any other idea that man evolved from micro-organisms, or that such a thing occurred without divine intervention. Do I rule it out 100%? No. Do I object to such an idea being considered? No. Do I object to the ideas being put forth in your previous post being considered, namely...
#####1. rise of descendant species morphologically and/or genetically distinctly different from each other and from their common ancestor as a result of accumulation of genetic mutations and selective processes over a protracted period of time (ie: number of serial and parallel replications)
-or-
2. the sudden emergence, within one reproductive cycle, of a descendant species morphologically and/or genetically distinctly different from its direct parent species#####
No, I don't object. I have no idea whether or not those things are currently defined as macro-evolution or not. I'm not a biologist, or a scientist of any kind.
I just believe that in an area that is so speculative, and so beyond our observation, that we shouldn't slam a gavel down and announce that "x" is the way it is and no other idea shall be considered.
Excellent post and insightful. Thanks.
The flying spaghetti monster was a joke and and created as a mockery of religion and creation which is why it has no credibility. The other beliefs were at least sincere attempts by others to explain the beginning of the world. It's no wrinkle in ID to not answer garbage.
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.