Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

There are valid criticisms of evolution
Wichita Eagle ^ | 3/9/2005 | David berlinski

Posted on 03/09/2005 1:46:32 PM PST by 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.

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


TOPICS: Philosophy
KEYWORDS: crevolist; darwinism; science
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 341-360361-380381-400 ... 621-634 next last
To: dirtboy

A visit to Canyon de Chelly is interesting too.


361 posted on 03/09/2005 10:02:54 PM PST by Doctor Stochastic (Vegetabilisch = chaotisch is der Charakter der Modernen. - Friedrich Schlegel)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 270 | View Replies]

To: Fish Hunter
You would be correct had you not overlooked the effects of gravity. Small objects, such as comet's tails do accelerate away from the Sun. The Earth doesn't.

Computations in detail.

362 posted on 03/09/2005 10:40:57 PM PST by Doctor Stochastic (Vegetabilisch = chaotisch is der Charakter der Modernen. - Friedrich Schlegel)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 261 | View Replies]

To: Doctor Stochastic
Since I know how much material I am starting with now, I like the idea

But since I have NO IDEA how much I started with when I use an OLD nuclear switch, I choose to trash the old nuclear switch.

Thanks for making my point! That was a great analogy!

The material we use in nuclear switches are materials that we ALREADY KNOW the amount of the ratios we start with because we ourselves created it! , and therefore, the rate of decay can be counted on for over the monthly cycle of usefulness!

That was a great addition to the simple logic that proves Creation! Thanks!

363 posted on 03/10/2005 2:27:23 AM PST by RaceBannon ((Prov 28:1 KJV) The wicked flee when no man pursueth: but the righteous are bold as a lion.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 360 | View Replies]

To: NonLinear

Sorry, I wasn't clear about the better survival.

Unspoken premise was a nutrient rich environment. Thus two cells have a better chance than one of mopping up the local food. It wouldn't have to be much better, just enough so that the two cells have an advantage that outweighs the burden of their greater mass.

One bit of hubris that keeps slipping in is the idea that somehow more complex is better (making us the top of the heap).

Remember, my imaginary chains did not replace the mono-cell critters, they just grew along side them and survived.

As for the eye-spot I posited...that's an oversimplification anyway. Since it was an imaginary sequence, I picked something that would lead in the direction of forming a head, as well as the frying in the sun scenario I presented.

I have a serious love of teaching, with a particular interest in presenting science for non-scientists. I get way more aha! reactions from non-science students "getting it" than ever happens when I'm an ambulatory textbook for grad students. :-)

If you tell me what your biology background is and/or ask other specific questions, I'll be more than happy to answer.


364 posted on 03/10/2005 3:21:16 AM PST by From many - one.
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 236 | View Replies]

To: Williams

RE: your last paragraph

1. the environmental circumstances that existed when life started do not really exist now on the earth.

2. we don't know for an absolutefact that life is not springing up in some form. Two reasons: first: we're not spending billions of dollars looking and, second, there's no reason to assume new living things would differ from the most primitive currently living things in ways we are prepared to identify.


365 posted on 03/10/2005 3:35:03 AM PST by From many - one.
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 267 | View Replies]

To: SiGeek

No, the observed instances of speciation will be anything but dramatic, mostly they will be invisible to all but the specialists.

The overwhelming majority of life forms on the earth are barely knowm even to those specialists.

Do you think you'd recognize a new species of beetle or planarian? I know I wouldn't.


366 posted on 03/10/2005 3:43:45 AM PST by From many - one.
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 276 | View Replies]

To: VadeRetro; Conspiracy Guy
Yep, I'm back and you can call me dumb as a stump, but this stump is smarter than any evolutionist. Would care to know why?

What? You didn't like my scarecrow? I thought you would enjoy a picture you could color with your crayons.

367 posted on 03/10/2005 3:49:26 AM PST by Nightshift (Faith is something everyone has, but the question is: Faith in What?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 222 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic

The fuss is about the word "valid".


368 posted on 03/10/2005 3:51:11 AM PST by From many - one.
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 311 | View Replies]

To: VadeRetro
No. Some of the slime molds in particular demonstrate an ability to live as individual unicellulars for arbitrarily long times. Slime molds. My point is that there's practically every degree of multicellularity out there now. So where am I supposed to imagine the hurdle?

I really don't like arguments of the "Nobody can make me understand how this happens" form. You just don't prove anything this way.


1. Some slimes have the ability to live as either a single cell, or as a colony of cells.
2. In their natural condition they live as colonies.
3. When one cell is separated from the colony, it can live an abitrarily long time.
4. The slimes already have the DNA encodng that allows this to happen.

This is a valid argument that there are now organisms that can NOW live as either single entities, or as groups. It does not serve to explain how this ability may have come about, or why this ability to colonize might be an advantage to the previously single-celled organism.

I do not think my earlier post was of the "'Nobody can make me understand how this happens' form."

You have a theory. I am examining the theory to decide whether I think it is valid. I cannot pretend to be doing a very rigorous testing of the theory at this point, but I am making an honest attempt to examine the premises and test hypotheses in a logical manner. Should the premises appear to hold, and the hypothesis not reduce to absurdities, then the theory would appear to be worth spending additional time upon. Should the theory be built upon faulty premises, and faulty logic, then it is basically junk, and not worth spending any more time upon.

I believe Post 182 provided an excellent framework for examining the plausibility of the mechanism theorized.
369 posted on 03/10/2005 3:52:48 AM PST by NonLinear ("If not instantaneous, then extraordinarily fast" - Galileo re. speed of light. circa 1600)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 282 | View Replies]

To: Conspiracy Guy

Yes they are amusing. I agree, lets not ban them.


370 posted on 03/10/2005 4:00:36 AM PST by Nightshift (Faith is something everyone has, but the question is: Faith in What?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 250 | View Replies]

To: From many - one.

Hey, I appreciate it. It is hard to come into the middle of an apparently long and heated debate and try to make sense of the whole thing. The passions seem to run pretty high on all sides.

I've had some biology, probably not enough. I could probably draw a cell and only leave out a few critical items, and certainly misspell nearly every structure. I perhaps could still draw a paramecium after all these years (though I likely did not spell it correctly either). I know the major organ functions. I have a loose idea of genetics in the college freshman sense. I have a decent working knowledge of chemistry, logic, math, statistics. I have a decent feel for sugars, cellulose, and carbohydrates. I would assume amino acids must have a nitrogen group in there somewhere. Proteins, I am guessing, would be built of various combinations of amino acides, but I've never really had a need to check out their structure.

I can probably keep you alive for a while if you've been injured, but am not the guy to supply a differential diagnosis for a rash & tremor combination. I would be a good guy to call if you need someone to derive the quadratic equation on the back of a cocktail napkin, or give you a moderate game of chess.

So, in reading this over, I can be classified as a rank amateur in the field of biology, perhaps two steps above "find the cat in this picture"!


371 posted on 03/10/2005 4:09:58 AM PST by NonLinear ("If not instantaneous, then extraordinarily fast" - Galileo re. speed of light. circa 1600)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 364 | View Replies]

To: From many - one.

Forgot to mention:
Nice job on your answer! It was very helpful.
I'm with you on the "imaginary chains did not replace the mono-cell critters, they just grew along side them and survived" part.


372 posted on 03/10/2005 4:14:40 AM PST by NonLinear ("If not instantaneous, then extraordinarily fast" - Galileo re. speed of light. circa 1600)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 364 | View Replies]

To: Doctor Stochastic
Hi Doc,

Thanks for the insight. Using "your" own numbers. I subtracted the acceleration of gravity (5.92E-3 from the acceleration of the sunlight 6.79E-3 to yield a net positive outward acceleration of 8.7E-4 m/s^2. This makes sense because if it was not true then solar sails would not work and comet tails would not point away from the sun, agreed.

OK, put that acceleration into Newton's constant acceleration equation, x = x0 + v0*t + 0.5*a*t^2, with x=0 and v0=0 and t=1 billion years. You get an outward orbital change of 4.3E29 meters! Your number ends up bigger than mine :)

Argue with me all you want, but the FACTS are:

1 - The Earth orbits around the sun in a vacuum. Orbital mechanics tells us its orbit is constant WITHOUT any external force being applied to it.
2 - Light emitted from the Sun produces an outward force. Comet tails pointing away from the sun and solar sails attest to this.
3 - A billion years is a lot of seconds, then you gotta square it to make it bigger.
4 - Whatever acceleration number you use, will give you a massive change in orbit over a billion years, because a billion years is a lllloooonnnngggg time.

There is no way the Earth's orbit has been constant for a BILLION years because whatever kinetic energy it had at time 0 will increase over time as it absorbs light energy in 1 direction (outward). The solar system is not static because the fusion furnace of the sun is slowly pushing everything away from it. The fact that we do NOT see everything spiraling away from the sun at a high velocity is PROOF that the solar system is not even millions of years old.

F H
373 posted on 03/10/2005 4:22:09 AM PST by Fish Hunter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 362 | View Replies]

To: Conspiracy Guy
Ask them to give you a carbon date on a rock.

You can't carbon date rocks.

374 posted on 03/10/2005 4:26:28 AM PST by Junior (FABRICATI DIEM, PVNC)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 250 | View Replies]

To: Mongeaux

Good luck on the coats. I have a mayonaise crop.


375 posted on 03/10/2005 4:37:14 AM PST by Conspiracy Guy (Reading is fundamental. Comprehension is optional.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 256 | View Replies]

To: CarolinaGuitarman

I believe in Natural Selection and Adaptation. Evolution fails on its face due to a lack of a beginning. You have to have an organism to allow NS. Scientists know the elements of life yet they can not create a single cell organism. What I have asked all you Evolution is real jerks is "Why can science not produce life?" You all resort to inferring I am some cave dweller rather than answering a simple question. Because you do not know the answer and I do.

Hope you slept well.

Later


376 posted on 03/10/2005 4:42:52 AM PST by Conspiracy Guy (Reading is fundamental. Comprehension is optional.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 110 | View Replies]

To: CarolinaGuitarman

I was in a rush. Answered.


377 posted on 03/10/2005 4:43:20 AM PST by Conspiracy Guy (Reading is fundamental. Comprehension is optional.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 281 | View Replies]

To: Nightshift

I liked the scarecrow.


378 posted on 03/10/2005 4:48:31 AM PST by Conspiracy Guy (Reading is fundamental. Comprehension is optional.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 367 | View Replies]

To: Nightshift

Evolution even as a theory has more holes than my old gym socks. As a fact it is without any substance. They talk Natural Selection, (which is fact) but avoid the origin of life. Why do they avoid origin? We know why and they do too.


379 posted on 03/10/2005 4:52:38 AM PST by Conspiracy Guy (Reading is fundamental. Comprehension is optional.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 370 | View Replies]

To: Junior

Precisely.


380 posted on 03/10/2005 4:54:44 AM PST by Conspiracy Guy (Reading is fundamental. Comprehension is optional.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 374 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 341-360361-380381-400 ... 621-634 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson