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 ...
I don't know where this thread has been, but similarity of DNA is the least of the evidence demonstrating common ancestry of humans and primates.
One of the more important evidences is tracking "errors" in the genome (such as the "vitamin C" gene problem), and noting that species that are "farther removed" from common ancestors have error patterns that match.
Science understands pretty well how genomes change, and the specific base pair changes between species match what we would expect between species related via evolution.
Just as we can demonstrate with a huge degree of certainty the paternity of a child based on DNA comparisons, we can also track relationships between species. There are many more differences, but genome comparisons are much more detailed than mere pattern matching of dyed DNA strands as is done with human paternity testing.
Rejecting evolution at this point is like rejecting the fact that OJ did it, because you don't believe in DNA tests.
I promise I didn't copy your post #160. Great minds....
Why would nobody in science accept that idea? Is there some reason not to? I agree that it is unprovable but it shows that scientists are starting from some basic presumptions that are not neutral.
You may chose to believe that every raindrop and snowflake is individually directed by a god of rain, but I don't think you will find many supporters in either Christian belief or in science. Your argument leads to "every molecule of the air we breathe is individually determined by a god; every molecule of water we drink being directed. By your argument, there would never be such a thing as chance or randomness. Sorry, you cannot escape by defining randomness out of existence.
Perhaps you are a Calvinist who believes everything is pre-determined by a Great Sky God, and every sperm and raindrop is pre-determined? I think many Popes and Martin Luther would dispute you.
My objection to random chance is that there is no way of supporting the statement. It is just the opinion of scientists that it is true and that things are unguided. What is the evo objection to the idea that it's guided?
Because there is no science that can show such a "supernatural involvement". How would you know if a god changed the experinment or students made a mistake? "God told me so" is not a good explanation in medicine or in criminal courts.
How would you show that a psychic did not change the results? How would you show that pixies and demons did not determine the outcome? There is no limit, once you choose gods and "supernatural" interventions.
s'ok :)
I feel the urge for Diner food. back in a while.
or, not... if I do something smart like gotobed instead of returning to late-night FReeping
Thanks for the ping!
Far be it from me to dispute storks.
http://www.antievolution.org/features/evohumor/storkism.html
Surely we believe in storks bringing babies. Every patriotic American and Christian must accept the obvious evidence.
These combine wonderfully to make life everywhere, from bacteria to fish to mammals via natural processes. There does not seem to be a need to invoke a "supernatural force" to explain what we observe.
It depends what one is observing Thomas.
You look at the world and see -water, carbon-compounds, nitrogen, phosphorus, sulfer, and a sprinkling of iron and other metals.
I look at the world and see these things trying to explain their own existence, absurd as it sounds in this context, but, an absurdity nonetheless that is true.
The dilemna for evolution is explaining something it fails to recognize in principle, and which we all know intuitively to be true: that our condition is profoundly unique, as opposed to any other organism on this planet.
Quoting: "But I think that as long as there are alternative explanations we shouldn't be so dogmatic. After all, wouldn't creatures designed by God have close DNA if they are comparatively similar? "
This raises important questions about "alternative explanations".
Are faeries, psychics, pixies, various demons, jinis, Hindu gods, spirits from numerous Native American traditions, wiccam beliefs, pagan gods, pantheism, denial of material existence in favor of spiritual existence, Nostrodamus, ... are these also "alternative explanations"??
I ask you, where do "alternative explanations" stop?
Teaching every "alternative explanation controversy" that comes along would seem to me to throw children into a whirlpool. There are 630 different creation myths alone. Is every one equal, as you suggest?
I think it's self evident that our condition is unique. What better evidence is there, especially to one who values scientific principles, than direct observation.
That said, I wonder if you would make a similar conclusion, albeit suggestive, if you omitted the word 'seem.'
That said, I'll extend to you the same courtesy. I'm not interested in nonsense, so, I'll be be on my way.
Oh boy.. I been running circles around a bunch trying to insist that corn turning into corn is evidence of speciation.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1577107/posts
I've laughed so hard a few times I thought I'd pee. They live in a bubble and when they come out of it to spew the nonsense, it's a target rich environment. Laughs and absurdity.. God has a sense of humor.
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.