Rebutting Darwinists: (Survey shows 2/3 of Scientists Believe in God)

Worldnetdaily.com ^ | 04/15/2006 | Ted Byfield

[SirLinksalot]

Rebutting Darwinists

Posted: April 15, 2006 1:00 a.m. Eastern

© 2006 WorldNetDaily.com

I suggested here last week that the established authorities of every age act consistently. They become vigilantly militant against non-conforming dissidents who challenge their assumptions.

Thus when the dissident Galileo challenged the assumptions of the 17th century papacy, it shut him up. Now when the advocates of "intelligent design" challenge the scientific establishment's assumptions about "natural selection," it moves aggressively to shut them up. So the I.D. people have this in common with Galileo.

I received a dozen letters on this, three in mild agreement, the rest in scorn and outrage. This calls for a response.

Where, one reader demanded, did I get the information that 10 percent of scientists accept intelligent design? I got it from a National Post (newspaper) article published two years ago, which said that 90 percent of the members of the National Academy of Science "consider themselves atheists." Since if you're not an atheist, you allow for the possibility of a Mind or Intelligence behind nature, this puts 10 percent in the I.D. camp.

I could have gone further. A survey last year by Rice University, financed by the Templeton Foundation, found that about two-thirds of scientists believed in God. A poll published by Gallup in 1997 asked: Do you believe that "man has developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God guided this process, including man's creation?" – essentially the I.D. position. Just under 40 percent of scientists said yes. So perhaps my 10 percent was far too low.

Two readers called my attention to a discovery last week on an Arctic island of something which may be the fossil remains of the mysteriously missing "transitional species." Or then maybe it isn't transitional. Maybe it's a hitherto undetected species on its own.

But the very exuberance with which such a discovery is announced argues the I.D. case. If Darwin was right, and the change from one species to another through natural selection occurred constantly in millions of instances over millions of years, then the fossil record should be teaming with transitional species. It isn't. That's why even one possibility, after many years of searching, becomes front-page news.

Another letter complains that I.D. cannot be advanced as even a theory unless evidence of the nature of this "Divine" element is presented. But the evidence is in nature itself. The single cell shows such extraordinary complexity that to suggest it came about by sheer accident taxes credulity. If you see a footprint in the sand, that surely evidences human activity. The demand – "Yes, but whose footprint is it?"– does not disqualify the contention that somebody was there. "Nope," says the establishment, "not until you can tell us who it was will we let you raise this question in schools."

Another reader argues that Galileo stood for freedom of inquiry, whereas I.D. advocates want to suppress inquiry. This writer apparently did not notice what caused me to write the column. It was the rejection by a government agency for a $40,000 grant to a McGill University anti-I.D. lobby to suppress the presentation and discussion of I.D. theory in the Canadian schools. Suppressing discussion is an odd way of encouraging "freedom of inquiry." Anyway, the I.D. movement doesn't want to suppress evolution. It merely wants it presented as a theory, alongside the I.D. theory.

Why, asked another reader, did I not identify the gutsy woman who stated the reason for the rejection, bringing upon herself the scorn of scientific authority. That's fair. Her name is Janet Halliwell, a chemist and executive vice president of the Social Science and Humanities Research Council. She said that evolution is a theory, not a fact, and the McGill application offered no evidence to support it.

The McGill applicant was furious. Evolution, he said, needs no evidence. It's fact. Apparently Harvard University doesn't quite agree with him. The Boston Globe reports that Harvard has begun an expensive project to discover how life emerged from the chemical soup of early earth. In the 150 years since Darwin, says the Globe, "scientists cannot explain how the process began."

The most sensible letter came from a research scientist. "I think that the current paradigm of evolution by natural selection acting on random variation will change," he writes. "I think that evidence will accumulate to suggest that much of the genetic variation leading to the evolution of life on earth was not random, but was generated by biochemical processes that exhibit intelligent behavior."

Then he urges me not to disclose his identity. Saying this publicly would threaten his getting tenure, he fears. Galileo would understand.

[bobdsmith]

Perhaps you could reference where those calculations can be found in a succinct format

The mutation rate I used was from the figure you quoted of "one mutation per locus per 10^5 to 10^6 gametes". The figure for the number of genes in a typical mammal I used the number of genes in humans. I believe it is somewhere in the tens of thousands.

I must point out that your process has neglected to consider the negative probabilities of a changing natural selection pressures. As this is a well known phenomenon, it must be accounted for.

A changing environment does not affect the number of mutations that occur over time. All I have estimated is the number of mutations within genes that would be expected to occur over 1,000,000 years in a population of 1,000 mammals with a generation time of one year. The value is about 10 million. I do not have the expertise to go further and apply population genetics equations to figure out the proportion of those mutations that would fix. Neither do I know good estimate figures of the proportion of mutation that are harmful, or the proportion that are neutral or beneficial.

Additionally, I must also ask how many mutations are required for one species to “evolve” into another completely different species.

I have no idea how many specific mutations it would take. It would likely be different depending on the species involved. But I do not think the question should be how many mutations leads to speciation. Whether or not a change represents speciation is irrelevant to the probability of it occuring in a given time.

[Fielding]

My apologies. I do not make personal attacks. My remarks are about popular opinion. Popular opinion and science have little in common.

[ml1954]

Since you seem to want to try to construct a mathematical model of evolution to 'test' it....I was wondering what you think of the mathematical models that are being used to support the hypothesis that humans are responsible for global warming....and whether you think the earth's meteorological system (global temperature system?) is a more or less complex system than the earth's biological system.

[PatrickHenry]

Therefore, to calculate the likelihood of enough favorable mutations having occurred in an alternate “gene pool” to qualify as a new species, there must be a definition of the number of mutations

You're trying to invent your own definition of a new species, based on mutation count. All that's really necessary is that the two populations don't breed together. It could be something as simple as females of each group going into heat at different times. Or the populations may have developed slightly different coloration that causes each group to select for that, and to ignore the others. Or a slightly different scent. Speciation can result from trivial changes. At first. Over time, the separate populations will increasingly diverge. One group may remain relatively stable, as you remarked earlier. That can happen in a stable environment where there's little selection pressure.

[Coyoteman]

My apologies. I do not make personal attacks. My remarks are about popular opinion. Popular opinion and science have little in common.

Fair enough!

[balrog666]

Others are supplying you useful information about why your mental model of evolution is wrong but here's another: a species designation is not absolute, uniform, or subject to mathematical exactitude. In fact, most closely related, and soemtimes even far-removed, species can crossbreed at the gamete level and only after some significant embryonic growth is the developing organism subject to a life-threatening error, usually leading to miscarriage.

[Lucky Dog]

Yes, this is an oversimplification on the order of "See Spot run!"

Granted it is a simplification. However, such simplifications are sometimes very useful for clarification.

There is no one "favorable" or "detrimental" in most individuals. There are thousands of benign (here and now), slightly detrimental (here and now), slightly beneficial (here and now), etc. The range is huge. That seems to be the point you are missing.

Thank you for the expansion. However, I wish to understand the process at its basics. To do so, Gaussian distributions can be modeled at their means. For the sake of clarity, those mutations that are only “slightly” detrimental or “slightly” beneficial can be regarded as benign.

The folks with the best overall adaptations for here and now (and here and now is always changing) survive and reproduce a little better than those who do not.

It is this phenomenon that is at the core of the issue. Exactly how much better (quantitatively) is required for the mutations to be accumulated to the point where a new species will emerge?

[PatrickHenry]

Let me restate: Perhaps, then, it is the failure of a species to accumulate the requisite number of favorable mutations to resist the negative changes in natural selection pressure that leads to extinction.

I think you're starting from an incorrect premise. It's simpler than you've stated it. A creature either survives long enough to breed successfully, or it doesn't. If it's well-suited for the environment in which it lives, it's likely to make it. If the pond suddenly dries up, tough luck.

But if the environmental challenge isn't quite so severe, some of that population might be able to survive. They'll pass on their genetic material to the next generation. That's the deal. If the environment changes very gradually, some version of the population might just make it, although each new generation is going to go through the filter of a changing environment.

[bobdsmith]

subjects the origin of life, Global Warming, and quantum physics are encrusted with so much "junk science" that scientific inquiry is hampered.

Quantum physics is considered junk science now? This is just getting ridiculous.

[Coyoteman]

Exactly how much better (quantitatively) is required for the mutations to be accumulated to the point where a new species will emerge?

Theoretical models are nice (I did some for my dissertation), but real-world is the test--does it match the model or not?

Here are a bunch of species (below); these are data points which can't be ignored. Your model must take these into account or it is useless.

You ask how many mutations it takes? As many as it takes. Make your model fit the real world and it has a better chance of being taken seriously.

A model which says "it can't happen" is useless in the face of empirical data that shows that "it did happen."

Figure 1.4.4. Fossil hominid skulls. Some of the figures have been modified for ease of comparison (only left-right mirroring or removal of a jawbone). (Images © 2000 Smithsonian Institution.)

(A) Pan troglodytes, chimpanzee, modern
(B) Australopithecus africanus, STS 5, 2.6 My
(C) Australopithecus africanus, STS 71, 2.5 My
(D) Homo habilis, KNM-ER 1813, 1.9 My
(E) Homo habilis, OH24, 1.8 My
(F) Homo rudolfensis, KNM-ER 1470, 1.8 My
(G) Homo erectus, Dmanisi cranium D2700, 1.75 My
(H) Homo ergaster (early H. erectus), KNM-ER 3733, 1.75 My
(I) Homo heidelbergensis, "Rhodesia man," 300,000 - 125,000 y
(J) Homo sapiens neanderthalensis, La Ferrassie 1, 70,000 y
(K) Homo sapiens neanderthalensis, La Chappelle-aux-Saints, 60,000 y
(L) Homo sapiens neanderthalensis, Le Moustier, 45,000 y
(M) Homo sapiens sapiens, Cro-Magnon I, 30,000 y
(N) Homo sapiens sapiens, modern

[Kenny Bunkport]

Why not read them and find out for yourself?

[Kenny Bunkport]

Your absurdity is equalled only by your ignorance.

[ml1954]

I take that as a no.

[Right Wing Professor]

I got it from a National Post (newspaper) article published two years ago, which said that 90 percent of the members of the National Academy of Science "consider themselves atheists." Since if you're not an atheist, you allow for the possibility of a Mind or Intelligence behind nature, this puts 10 percent in the I.D. camp.

This could have been much briefer if he'd said "I am a bald faced liar and I made it up."

[edsheppa]

Your biology and your math are both bogus. Just for instance, supposing one mutation per 10^6 loci as you suggest, suppose a population of 10^5 individuals and a genome of 10^5 loci. That gives a total of 10^10 loci for the population. On average then there will be 10^4 mutations introduced into the population every generation.

That's quite a bit of novelty every generation for evolution to work on.

[csense]

But if the environmental challenge isn't quite so severe, some of that population might be able to survive. They'll pass on their genetic material to the next generation. That's the deal. If the environment changes very gradually, some version of the population might just make it, although each new generation is going to go through the filter of a changing environment.

But seasonal differences constitute significant environmental changes in a relatively short period of time. If evolution is true, then our earliest ancestors must have been subjected to such a rapidly changing environment, inferring that such adaptation has been present from the very beginning, and passed on to the subsequent diversity of species. This seems to conflict, or at the very least, fails to support, your proposal above.

What do you think about that?

[Lucky Dog]

was wondering what you think of the mathematical models that are being used to support the hypothesis that humans are responsible for global warming....

These models are generally based upon unproven assumptions.

and whether you think the earth's meteorological system (global temperature system?) is a more or less complex system than the earth's biological system.

The earth's climatological system like the the earth's biological system can be discussed and mathematically modeled in broad terms. Where the current climatological models generally fail is in their predictive capability (both postscriptively and prescriptively).

As an example, proponents of the current climatological models claim to be able to predict a coming catastrophe. However, their models can not even be used to postcriptively predict major, historical, climatological events.

As to modeling the earth's biological system, it can be done in broad terms. If one tries to use such a model to predict exactly when a new species will emerge, it is going to have to incorporate a number of unproven assumptions just like the climatological models currently do.

However, in terms of climatological models one can examine ice cores (from very deep cores) to determine the frequency of past ice ages and determine the statistical likelihood of a correlation with geologic evidence of volcanic activity within certain confidence intervals. Similarly, one can examine the statistical occurrence rate of genetic mutations and the past frequency of occurrence of the emergence of new species and determine the statistical likelihood of a correlation with the mutation rate.

[Coyoteman]

seasonal differences

What population you can imagine that is unable to cope with its own area's seasonal differences?

[Lucky Dog]

A model which says "it can't happen" is useless in the face of empirical data that shows that "it did happen."

There is no quarrel with evidence. It is the explanation for the evidence that is the subject of the model.

[PatrickHenry]

Similarly, one can examine the statistical occurrence rate of genetic mutations and the past frequency of occurrence of the emergence of new species and determine the statistical likelihood of a correlation with the mutation rate.

I don't think such a model could cope with the potential for variation that may already exist within a population. For example, some herd may have a recessive gene for really shaggy hair, but in a mild climate those few who pop up shaggy may not make it. Yet the recessive gene persists. If the climate grows colder, some of the shaggy ones will survive. If the cooling continues, eventually the whole herd will be shaggy. Tough to predict that.

Also, most species go extinct. At least 90%. They just couldn't cope. How do you model to take that into account? Survival is a dicey thing. All we see is the survivors. But most didn't make it.