There are valid criticisms of evolution

Wichita Eagle ^ | 3/9/2005 | David berlinski

[metacognative]

Opinions

There are valid criticisms of evolution

BY DAVID BERLINSKI

"If scientists do not oppose anti-evolutionism," said Eugenie Scott, the executive director of the National Council on Science Education, "it will reach more people with the mistaken idea that evolution is scientifically weak."

Scott's understanding of "opposition" had nothing to do with reasoned discussion. It had nothing to do with reason at all. Discussing the issue was out of the question. Her advice to her colleagues was considerably more to the point: "Avoid debates."

Everyone else had better shut up.

In this country, at least, no one is ever going to shut up, the more so since the case against Darwin's theory retains an almost lunatic vitality. Consider:

• The suggestion that Darwin's theory of evolution is like theories in the serious sciences -- quantum electrodynamics, say -- is grotesque. Quantum electrodynamics is accurate to 13 unyielding decimal places. Darwin's theory makes no tight quantitative predictions at all.

• Field studies attempting to measure natural selection inevitably report weak-to-nonexistent selection effects.

• Darwin's theory is open at one end, because there is no plausible account for the origins of life.

• The astonishing and irreducible complexity of various cellular structures has not yet successfully been described, let alone explained.

• A great many species enter the fossil record trailing no obvious ancestors, and depart leaving no obvious descendants.

• Where attempts to replicate Darwinian evolution on the computer have been successful, they have not used classical Darwinian principles, and where they have used such principles, they have not been successful.

• Tens of thousands of fruit flies have come and gone in laboratory experiments, and every last one of them has remained a fruit fly to the end, all efforts to see the miracle of speciation unavailing.

• The remarkable similarity in the genome of a great many organisms suggests that there is at bottom only one living system; but how then to account for the astonishing differences between human beings and their near relatives -- differences that remain obvious to anyone who has visited a zoo?

If the differences between organisms are scientifically more interesting than their genomic similarities, of what use is Darwin's theory, since its otherwise mysterious operations take place by genetic variations?

These are hardly trivial questions. Each suggests a dozen others. These are hardly circumstances that do much to support the view that there are "no valid criticisms of Darwin's theory," as so many recent editorials have suggested.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Blood of Tyrants]

Re: your banter with Mongeaux,

Apparently he has no problem with Judism or Christianity as long as you don't really believe any of it.

[shubi]

"Tens of thousands of fruit flies have come and gone in laboratory experiments, and every last one of them has remained a fruit fly to the end, all efforts to see the miracle of speciation unavailing. "

This is a mindbogglingly stupid statement. LOL

[D Edmund Joaquin]

666's New Year's resolution was to only post when sober, but it's March now

[Mongeaux]

"The chances of 200 amino acids just happening to get together in a way that could be considered life is 1 in 200! (read 200 factoral) and is calculated by multiplying 1 times 2 times 3 ... times 199 times 200. Yse your Windows calculator to verify the result. It is 1 chance in 7.886578e+374 (374 zeros after the decimal). And we know that to form even the most simple lifeform requires a much longer chain of amino acids and protiens. Any mathmetician will tell you that this chance is the equivalent of zero."

How can you argue with that?

You convinced me: the Big Guy sitting in a cloud is a more reasonable explanation for the creation of the Universe than Evolution. The Math proves it!

Gee those ancient tribal nomads sure had it on the ball, huh? They were right and modern science is wrong

[shubi]

There are hundreds of observed speciations. I guess that makes your whole notion about science completely wrong.

Doh!

[Gumption]

Get Drunk or something!

"I have no idea what's going on right now."

[D Edmund Joaquin]

lots of people like that, but it's a classic case of a superiority complex masking their insecurity

[Mongeaux]

"I have no idea what's going on right now."

Me either - have a drink. They're fighting about God or something.

[NonLinear]

.... The universes potential is realized to the most staggeringly minute degrees to sustain life on our planet. We can test the unusuality of these tolerances to exist in our universe.

I give more credence to that anthropomorphic Creator thingy.

You have to be a little bit careful with that one. You can say, "Isn't is amazing that we are just far away enough from the sun, with just the right amount of oxygen, nitrogen, carbon dioxide, water, and carbon-based stuff to sustain life?"

While the mirror of that argument is that "Of course there is just the right amount of oxygen, nitrogen, carbon dioxide, water, and carbon-based stuff to sustain life because life evolved to exist optimally in the conditions that were present."

Of course, then we need to test that hypothesis by trying to locate life elsewhere that has optimally adapted to those alternate conditions.

I am a believer in that anthropomorphic Creator thingy, also. I take it on faith that He believes in me...

I want to look honestly at this issue. Maybe I am naive, but I have no problem at this time believing in a Creator that builds in mechanisms to make living things change, adapt, and change some more. I believe He sent his Son to earth to become a man, and be sacrificed to atone for all of us sinners.

I would be nice to examine the hypotheses, theories, evidence and logic to see if there is some conclusion, or if it is only competing articles of faith.

[Blood of Tyrants]

So instead I should believe that human beings came from dirt and rocks and mud and water and air? Should I also expect a tornado in a junkyard to produce a box full of Swiss watches and a brand new Porsche Boxter?

Let me guess, you buy lottery tickets twice a week and are honestly surprised when you don't win.

[Blood of Tyrants]

P.S. He is not "the Big Guy". He is God. The entity who created everything yet he still would like YOU to come and talk to Him.

[shubi]

What a bunch of flapdoodle! LOL

[Mongeaux]

"So instead I should believe that human beings came from dirt and rocks and mud and water and air?"

Sure, why not? Add sunlight and that stuff produces wheat from which we make bread which we feed our kids so they grow. It's the circle of life - didn't you see "the Lion King"?

[shubi]

"What you are ignorant of is that science has NOT found a mechanism for evolution"

Science has found several mechanisms that drive evolution. Natural selection is the main one.

[shubi]

"Genetic drift combined with random mutation leading to evolution is a theory, not a demonstarted mechanism for evolution."

Genetic drift is a mechanism of evolution, described in the Theory of Evolution. A theory in science is a description of principles explaining an observed phenomenon.

Evolution is a fact and the theory of evolution explains that fact.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-fact.html

[shubi]

Evolution isn't random. Try to use references other than creationist crapsites so you will learn real stuff instead of made up nonsense.

[Blood of Tyrants]

Why not? Because living things do not come from non-living things no matter how long you wait.

[shubi]

Or Volvox

[Mongeaux]

"Genetic drift is a mechanism of evolution, described in the Theory of Evolution. A theory in science is a description of principles explaining an observed phenomenon.

Evolution is a fact and the theory of evolution explains that fact. "

You betcha Shubi! Keep trying, but I think when given the choice between comforting supersitions and the unnerving truth, some people will opt for the former. But you're doing great...got me convinced!

You know That Merlot that comes in the Box isn't bad at all.

[Mongeaux]

"Why not? Because living things do not come from non-living things no matter how long you wait."

You have obviously never shared a kitchen with three other guys. Leave non-living matter in the fridge long enough and then look at it: see how your theory holds up.